Some of us are getting quite advanced in our age,and the march of knowledge has moved on. Many of the things we learned as youngsters aren't no longer thought to be true. Let's divide it into two categories, things that were widely accepted as true (for instance a scientific theory), but have been superseded by new knowledge and things that were known not to be true but your teacher taught it to you anyway.
The obvious one, the head stargazers changed their mind about Pluto being a "planet".
My history teacher suggested that Nixon was behind the JFK and MLK assassinations. I knew he was full of :tinfoil: though.
Number and borders of countries in Eastern Europe. Number of Germanies.
I had one particularly riveting Geography class where we were rigorously tested on the annual production output of various Soviet SSRs in the 70s (we had an older text book).
I'm pretty sure the coal production in Kazakhstan has changed since then.
When I was growing up I was told that men have one less rib than women because of the fact that a rib was taken from Adam to make Eve. So as I got older, I didn't contemplate this so much, but while I didn't believe the religious parts of the story, I figured it was just a religious justification to explain men having one less rib.
Then I got to college, and in a biology class, the professor said, "Can you believe that people were so stupid that the Church taught that men have one less rib than men because of the Adam and Eve story? All you have to do is count ribs and you know men and women have the same number!"
I was instantly really excited--my first assumption was that somehow this bit of knowledge corrected centuries ago kept getting passed down through the generations in my family. But that tempered a bit when on reflection there were doctors and educated people in my family. What probably really happened is my grandfather heard a story like the one of my professor and thought it would be fun to get me to believe something stupid.
At uni, I had a class on audio-visual technology, where I had to learnt by heart a thick dossier on camera, film, TV, audio... tech of the late 1990s. I got an A+. All of that technology is now completely obsolete.
That the Capital of China was 'Peking' and that the Capital of 'Burma' (wherever that is) is 'Rangoon'. Weird.
The ever changing amount of moons some planets have. In 7th grade, Jupiter had 9 moons. Now? A kajillion.
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 01:31:39 PM
At uni, I had a class on audio-visual technology, where I had to learnt by heart a thick dossier on camera, film, TV, audio... tech of the late 1990s. I got an A+. All of that technology is now completely obsolete.
Yeah I used to be a video technician and all of that knowledge is redundant. Maybe the telecine work would be somewhat relevant, but since that was all mastered onto u-matic (?) maybe not.
Oh I guess using a follow-spot hasn't changed, but then again a chimp can do that too.
Maths won't have changed, just the emphasis they place on which parts of the subject to study.
Like Jacob, our geography suffered from somewhat out of date textbooks, though if I was ten years older, we wouldn't have learned about plate-tectonics, as it had only just become an 'established fact' by then.
I guess the two things I learnt that I hope haven't changed, were picking up a lifelong enthusiasm for learning new things and the socialisation, learning to get on with a wide range of other children and people. Both of which, to my mind, are important, but unquantifiable aspects of eduction.
That the CIA overthrew Mossadegh and Allende in coups.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 02:05:29 PM
That the CIA overthrew Mossadegh and Allende in coups.
:lol:
Though seriously the impression I was given was that Allende was overthrown by American spooks wearing sunglasses and tuxedos. Instead it was Chileans...wearing sunglasses. And we may or may not have given them the impression we may not be entirely unhappy if they did so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 02:05:29 PM
That the CIA overthrew Mossadegh and Allende in coups.
When did you learn about the invisible hand being supreme, was it just after puberty?
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 02:09:19 PM
When did you learn about the invisible hand being supreme, was it just after puberty?
I never learned that the invisible hand is supreme.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 02:10:12 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 02:09:19 PM
When did you learn about the invisible hand being supreme, was it just after puberty?
I never learned that the invisible hand is supreme.
You posts here suggest otherwise. :P
It's kinda overpowered to get supremacy AND invisibility. It would be seriously unbalanced to have both.
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 02:10:54 PM
You posts here suggest otherwise. :P
That's because you, like most inhabitants of the political extreme, are a Manichean, and unable to see any issue except in terms of black and white, good and evil.
Eek, we seemed to have somewhat derailed Raz's thread.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 02:14:46 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 02:10:54 PM
You posts here suggest otherwise. :P
That's because you, like most inhabitants of the political extreme, are a Manichean, and unable to see any issue except in terms of black and white, good and evil.
I take it back, I'm not sure you're interested in the good social consequences of individuals 'selfish' actions.
Learning about the USSR compared to the US, in the early '90s, during the geography classes. Geography teacher was also the history teacher as always in France in high school.
I recall a book I was given as a kid contained a large entity dominating a huge chunk of Eurasia called the CIS.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 17, 2015, 02:19:45 PM
Learning about the USSR compared to the US, in the early '90s, during the geography classes. Geography teacher was also the history teacher as always in France in high school.
We must have looked pretty good in that comparison :cool:
:hmm:
There seems to be a discrepancy between thread title and OP. Many of the items noted so far seem to satisfy thread title but not OP as they were once true but are not true anymore and hence not taught whereas OP talks about things that were once taught either because they were then thought to be true / or the result of a teacher perniciously providing false information.
I had a Danish teacher who told me God was real.
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 02:21:56 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 17, 2015, 02:19:45 PM
Learning about the USSR compared to the US, in the early '90s, during the geography classes. Geography teacher was also the history teacher as always in France in high school.
We must have looked pretty good in that comparison :cool:
Geography textbook said the US had really conquered and mastered its space, while the Soviets facing harsher contraints did not manage to do so, or only partially. :)
Quote from: Liep on February 17, 2015, 02:28:05 PM
I had a Danish teacher who told me God was real.
Well it hasn't been disproven :P
On the side of "pernicious misinformation" though I suppose not really pernicious is how in physics & chem they would teach you in intro classes how to calculate various interesting things. When you took later year courses, they would point out how the simple formulas they made you learn don't actually describe the actual phenomena.
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 01:58:41 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 01:31:39 PM
At uni, I had a class on audio-visual technology, where I had to learnt by heart a thick dossier on camera, film, TV, audio... tech of the late 1990s. I got an A+. All of that technology is now completely obsolete.
Yeah I used to be a video technician and all of that knowledge is redundant. Maybe the telecine work would be somewhat relevant,
Blu-rays are still made from telecines. Of course, no digital intermediate in your time.
Quote
but since that was all mastered onto u-matic (?) maybe not.
Obviously not. Except for '70s or '80s sources that need to be archived.
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 02:29:18 PM
On the side of "pernicious misinformation" though I suppose not really pernicious is how in physics & chem they would teach you in intro classes how to calculate various interesting things. When you took later year courses, they would point out how the simple formulas they made you learn don't actually describe the actual phenomena.
Q: How does a physicist milk a cow?
A: Well, first let us consider a spherical cow...
I remember arguing with the sociology teacher that homosexuality was primarily an inborn trait. He told me I was wrong and to shut up. I even sited sources.
I learned in 1987/88 about USSR and GDR in geographcy class.
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 02:24:19 PM
:hmm:
There seems to be a discrepancy between thread title and OP. Many of the items noted so far seem to satisfy thread title but not OP as they were once true but are not true anymore and hence not taught whereas OP talks about things that were once taught either because they were then thought to be true / or the result of a teacher perniciously providing false information.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure the coal production of Kazakhstan is no longer what I was taught it was. In fact, I'm pretty sure it wasn't that, even when I was taught it. But presumably it was true at one point.
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 02:47:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2015, 02:44:30 PM
I remember arguing with the sociology teacher that homosexuality was primarily an inborn trait. He told me I was wrong and to shut up. I even sited sources.
So he was plainly in denial. :)
Just like Antinous.
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 01:31:39 PM
At uni, I had a class on audio-visual technology, where I had to learnt by heart a thick dossier on camera, film, TV, audio... tech of the late 1990s. I got an A+. All of that technology is now completely obsolete.
Years ago when I worked as a consultant, I used to testify in court as an expert on video taped evidence. Who uses VHS technology now, except the occasional inner-city Korean grocer.
All that knowledge, lost like bags of overpriced corn chips in the rain.
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 02:24:19 PM
:hmm:
There seems to be a discrepancy between thread title and OP. Many of the items noted so far seem to satisfy thread title but not OP as they were once true but are not true anymore and hence not taught whereas OP talks about things that were once taught either because they were then thought to be true / or the result of a teacher perniciously providing false information.
Agreed. Most of this is just complaining about bad teachers.
I remember learning that dinosaurs certainly were cold-blooded. Nowadays, that idea is probably the minority opinion.
Christian theology.
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 02:56:46 PM
Christian theology.
Has Christian theology changed a lot since then?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2015, 02:44:30 PM
I remember arguing with the sociology teacher that homosexuality was primarily an inborn trait. He told me I was wrong and to shut up. I even sited sources.
Oh I remember being told in Health class that anal sex was bad as that part of the body was designated as an "out only" area.
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 03:06:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2015, 02:44:30 PM
I remember arguing with the sociology teacher that homosexuality was primarily an inborn trait. He told me I was wrong and to shut up. I even sited sources.
Oh I remember being told in Health class that anal sex was bad as that part of the body was designated as an "out only" area.
They got that part right. :P
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 02:58:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 02:56:46 PM
Christian theology.
Has Christian theology changed a lot since then?
Dunno, but it is still not true. :P
What is also still not true is that you can comprehend simple English. The question isn't "what is not true" but rather "what did you learn as true that is no longer believed to be true?"
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 03:08:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 02:58:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 02:56:46 PM
Christian theology.
Has Christian theology changed a lot since then?
Dunno, but it is still not true. :P
What is also still not true is that you can comprehend simple English. The question isn't "what is not true" but rather "what did you learn as true that is no longer believed to be true?"
I no longer believe it to be true, so it technically fits the description.
Many examples used in the thread so far (such as homosexuality being a disease/not being an inborn trait) are still believed to be true by some people, just as well.
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 02:47:39 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 02:24:19 PM
:hmm:
There seems to be a discrepancy between thread title and OP. Many of the items noted so far seem to satisfy thread title but not OP as they were once true but are not true anymore and hence not taught whereas OP talks about things that were once taught either because they were then thought to be true / or the result of a teacher perniciously providing false information.
Like I said, I'm pretty sure the coal production of Kazakhstan is no longer what I was taught it was. In fact, I'm pretty sure it wasn't that, even when I was taught it. But presumably it was true at one point.
Which is why I would say it meets the thread title but not the OP which seems to be more about things that were taught that we believed to be true but turned out not to be (or were never true but teachers taught them anyway).
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 03:08:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 03:05:32 PM
Quote from: Valmy on February 17, 2015, 02:58:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 17, 2015, 02:56:46 PM
Christian theology.
Has Christian theology changed a lot since then?
Dunno, but it is still not true. :P
What is also still not true is that you can comprehend simple English. The question isn't "what is not true" but rather "what did you learn as true that is no longer believed to be true?"
Read the OP.
Oh well, in that case, it's boring stuff, like Pluto.
We probably got some soft stuff about Soviet Union and the like, but I was 12 when the communism collapsed so we did not really get into any heavy propaganda.
It happens a lot with medical science. On the front end we're told half of what we are taught is going to be shown to be wrong in 10 years. As with Marti, it's boring and/or technical stuff.
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 03:10:05 PM
Which is why I would say it meets the thread title but not the OP which seems to be more about things that were taught that we believed to be true but turned out not to be (or were never true but teachers taught them anyway).
If the Megathread Police have a recruitment drive, you'd be a shoo-in. Your enthusiasm and attention to detail on the OP Squad is exemplary.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2014-12%2F9%2F12%2Ftmp%2Fwebdr01%2Fanigif_mobile_efd2e44cf2137c9a52ac3edc9b4ac594-0.gif&hash=6293747a34c58f786380448f4bfb35a9b5608d92)
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 04:34:29 PM
If the Megathread Police have a recruitment drive, you'd be a shoo-in. Your enthusiasm and attention to detail on the OP Squad is exemplary.
This not being a megathread, or a microthread that should be merged to a megathread, the Megathread Police have no jurisdiction. Rather your comments would make more sense if they referred to the Semantics Police.
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 04:34:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 03:10:05 PM
Which is why I would say it meets the thread title but not the OP which seems to be more about things that were taught that we believed to be true but turned out not to be (or were never true but teachers taught them anyway).
If the Megathread Police have a recruitment drive, you'd be a shoo-in. Your enthusiasm and attention to detail on the OP Squad is exemplary.
Indeed. I don't know why garbo would think it important to note that the thread started as an interesting topic, but turned into a mere list of boring and stupid things people have had to learn because they had bad teachers.
AR's story about Adam's Rib is an example of what the thread should be about. Your story about learning some details about coal production in Kazakhstan is an example of what it should not be about.
Quote from: Fate on February 17, 2015, 03:45:06 PM
It happens a lot with medical science. On the front end we're told half of what we are taught is going to be shown to be wrong in 10 years. As with Marti, it's boring and/or technical stuff.
I'm pretty sure the old food pyramid has become a minority-held opinion at this point.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 17, 2015, 04:56:46 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 17, 2015, 03:45:06 PM
It happens a lot with medical science. On the front end we're told half of what we are taught is going to be shown to be wrong in 10 years. As with Marti, it's boring and/or technical stuff.
I'm pretty sure the old food pyramid has become a minority-held opinion at this point.
A fish, a bird, a reed, a man standing like *this*?
Quote from: Fate on February 17, 2015, 03:45:06 PM
It happens a lot with medical science. On the front end we're told half of what we are taught is going to be shown to be wrong in 10 years. As with Marti, it's boring and/or technical stuff.
Now that I think about it, it happens in law school too.
Just as an example, I went to law school 1997-2000. In 1998 the SCC case out with a trio of cases that completely changed administrative law. So our admin law class in 1998-1999 was taught to us from scratch based on these new cases.
In 2008 though the SCC thought better of it, and completely overhauled admin law again. So everything I learned in class is now completely wrong.
My Spanish language textbook still considered "Galician-Portuguese" to be the same language, and I was told as such by my teachers. It's been centuries since both languages diverged. I've always suspected that, since this was in the late 1980s, it was a remnant of Franco times Spanish cultural imperialism.
That's about the most interesting thing I can come up with that adheres strictly to the OP, sorry.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on February 17, 2015, 04:56:46 PM
I'm pretty sure the old food pyramid has become a minority-held opinion at this point.
Not really. It has been renamed and tweaked, but the concept is still there and considered valid.
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 05:17:11 PM
My Spanish language textbook still considered "Galician-Portuguese" to be the same language, and I was told as such by my teachers. It's been centuries since both languages diverged. I've always suspected that, since this was in the late 1980s, it was a remnant of Franco times Spanish cultural imperialism.
That's about the most interesting thing I can come up with that adheres strictly to the OP, sorry.
You can still find that notion dangling around in philological circles. It has a hard time against the reality down on the ground, but it has some validity up in ivory towers.
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 05:17:11 PM
My Spanish language textbook still considered "Galician-Portuguese" to be the same language, and I was told as such by my teachers. It's been centuries since both languages diverged. I've always suspected that, since this was in the late 1980s, it was a remnant of Franco times Spanish cultural imperialism.
That's about the most interesting thing I can come up with that adheres strictly to the OP, sorry.
I think that "language as politics" is probably going to be fertile grounds for this kind of discussion, and I think that it is fascinating. You probably haven't heard of Ebonics, but some US posters will remember that the US had its own home-grown language-as-politics movement.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 06:08:48 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 05:17:11 PM
My Spanish language textbook still considered "Galician-Portuguese" to be the same language, and I was told as such by my teachers. It's been centuries since both languages diverged. I've always suspected that, since this was in the late 1980s, it was a remnant of Franco times Spanish cultural imperialism.
That's about the most interesting thing I can come up with that adheres strictly to the OP, sorry.
I think that "language as politics" is probably going to be fertile grounds for this kind of discussion, and I think that it is fascinating. You probably haven't heard of Ebonics, but some US posters will remember that the US had its own home-grown language-as-politics movement.
In high school my white teacher asked us to all write a poem in ebonics. As he hadn't err taught us ebonics or even anything about it (and my school didn't have a large population of black people), everyone just wrote like black caricatures. :(
Quote from: Barrister on February 17, 2015, 05:03:06 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 17, 2015, 03:45:06 PM
It happens a lot with medical science. On the front end we're told half of what we are taught is going to be shown to be wrong in 10 years. As with Marti, it's boring and/or technical stuff.
Now that I think about it, it happens in law school too.
Just as an example, I went to law school 1997-2000. In 1998 the SCC case out with a trio of cases that completely changed administrative law. So our admin law class in 1998-1999 was taught to us from scratch based on these new cases.
In 2008 though the SCC thought better of it, and completely overhauled admin law again. So everything I learned in class is now completely wrong.
The list of law school ones is endless - my personal bugbear in law school was the "patent unreasonableness test" in administrative law, which I always thought made no damn sense - eventually, the SC decided that yes, indeed, the "patent unreasonableness test" made no damn sense. :lol:
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 06:11:39 PM
In high school my white teacher asked us to all write a poem in ebonics. As he hadn't err taught us ebonics or even anything about it (and my school didn't have a large population of black people), everyone just wrote like black caricatures. :(
Nobody listened to hip-hop?
Quote from: The Larch on February 17, 2015, 06:08:13 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 05:17:11 PM
My Spanish language textbook still considered "Galician-Portuguese" to be the same language, and I was told as such by my teachers. It's been centuries since both languages diverged. I've always suspected that, since this was in the late 1980s, it was a remnant of Franco times Spanish cultural imperialism.
That's about the most interesting thing I can come up with that adheres strictly to the OP, sorry.
You can still find that notion dangling around in philological circles. It has a hard time against the reality down on the ground, but it has some validity up in ivory towers.
Thing is, Franco was not a pro-Galician language dude so colour me skeptical on this one. Only Castilian existed. Not sure where you get that Francoist vibe :huh: Specially, since the "Galician and Portuguese are (very) different languages" position was something very popular after Franco which led to the imposition of Castilian spelling to Galician, not exactly the best choice given the history of Galician.
As for being the same language, there is still this dialect continuum between Northern Portuguese and Galician. Of course, Lisboete is quite another thing.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 17, 2015, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 17, 2015, 06:08:13 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 05:17:11 PM
My Spanish language textbook still considered "Galician-Portuguese" to be the same language, and I was told as such by my teachers. It's been centuries since both languages diverged. I've always suspected that, since this was in the late 1980s, it was a remnant of Franco times Spanish cultural imperialism.
That's about the most interesting thing I can come up with that adheres strictly to the OP, sorry.
You can still find that notion dangling around in philological circles. It has a hard time against the reality down on the ground, but it has some validity up in ivory towers.
Thing is, Franco was not a pro-Galician language so colour me skeptical on this one. Only Castilian existed. Not sure where you get that Francoist vibe :huh: Specially, since the "Galician and Portuguese are (very) different languages" position was something very popular after Franco which led to the imposition of Castilian spelling to Galician, not exactly the best choice given the history of Galician.
As for being the same language, there is still this dialect continuum between Northern Portuguese and Galician. Of course, Lisboete is quite another thing.
Interesting part of the world, what's it like for cycling?
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 06:47:34 PM
Interesting part of the world, what's it like for cycling?
South of the country is flat, north is hilly and/or mountainous. The beaches in the South have too many Brits holding property, yet who cannot afford a baby sitter.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 17, 2015, 07:01:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 06:47:34 PM
Interesting part of the world, what's it like for cycling?
South of the country is flat, north is hilly and/or mountainous. The beaches in the South have too many Brits holding property, yet who cannot afford a baby sitter.
:D
I know a bit about Portugal in general, I was more interested in that area on the North Portuguese-Spanish borders, looks very interesting on the maps/satellite images.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 04:54:14 PM
AR's story about Adam's Rib is an example of what the thread should be about. Your story about learning some details about coal production in Kazakhstan is an example of what it should not be about.
Luckily you're the boss of no-one on this board :hug:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2015, 04:36:43 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 04:34:29 PM
If the Megathread Police have a recruitment drive, you'd be a shoo-in. Your enthusiasm and attention to detail on the OP Squad is exemplary.
This not being a megathread, or a microthread that should be merged to a megathread, the Megathread Police have no jurisdiction. Rather your comments would make more sense if they referred to the Semantics Police.
I was primarily commenting on his zeal. You are correct that the Megathread Police has no jurisdiction in this case. As for the Semantics Police, you are similarly correct; though I believe that the OP Squad is part of the Semantics Police (unless they've been reorganized again).
That said, perhaps a better bet would be for garbon to join the Federal Bureau of Pointless Nitpickery, as they seem to show up whereever they fucking well please. He'd get to work closely with grumbler, which might be a bonus too depending on perspective.
We had to learn Hong Kong's international ranking in various manufacturing industries. No. 1 is textiles, No. 2 in toy production, etc. Before I even left school, most of the factories left for the mainland.
Grumbler did have one thing right, your example was really dull. Why you brought it up again when I noted that some stories seemed to be only about the thread title - well I guess only you know. :(
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 17, 2015, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 17, 2015, 06:08:13 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 05:17:11 PM
My Spanish language textbook still considered "Galician-Portuguese" to be the same language, and I was told as such by my teachers. It's been centuries since both languages diverged. I've always suspected that, since this was in the late 1980s, it was a remnant of Franco times Spanish cultural imperialism.
That's about the most interesting thing I can come up with that adheres strictly to the OP, sorry.
You can still find that notion dangling around in philological circles. It has a hard time against the reality down on the ground, but it has some validity up in ivory towers.
Thing is, Franco was not a pro-Galician language dude so colour me skeptical on this one. Only Castilian existed. Not sure where you get that Francoist vibe :huh: Specially, since the "Galician and Portuguese are (very) different languages" position was something very popular after Franco which led to the imposition of Castilian spelling to Galician, not exactly the best choice given the history of Galician.
As for being the same language, there is still this dialect continuum between Northern Portuguese and Galician. Of course, Lisboete is quite another thing.
Ask 5 linguists how many living Romance languages there are, and you're likely to get at least 4 different answers. The numbers start at 5 (ARAIK, no one lists less than that--Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, and Romanian) and go up from there. IIRC, the Encyclopedia Britannica says 11, and I've seen some sources that list 20 or more.
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 07:11:07 PM
That said, perhaps a better bet would be for garbon to join the Federal Bureau of Pointless Nitpickery, as they seem to show up whereever they fucking well please. He'd get to work closely with grumbler, which might be a bonus too depending on perspective.
:lol: "Thanks, we'll handle the thread from here. When we need to commandeer your posts, we'll try and let you know."
"dilemna"
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2015, 07:16:07 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 07:11:07 PM
That said, perhaps a better bet would be for garbon to join the Federal Bureau of Pointless Nitpickery, as they seem to show up whereever they fucking well please. He'd get to work closely with grumbler, which might be a bonus too depending on perspective.
:lol: "Thanks, we'll handle the thread from here. When we need to commandeer your posts, we'll try and let you know."
Odd coming from the man who just makes up positions for people.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 17, 2015, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 17, 2015, 06:08:13 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 05:17:11 PM
My Spanish language textbook still considered "Galician-Portuguese" to be the same language, and I was told as such by my teachers. It's been centuries since both languages diverged. I've always suspected that, since this was in the late 1980s, it was a remnant of Franco times Spanish cultural imperialism.
That's about the most interesting thing I can come up with that adheres strictly to the OP, sorry.
You can still find that notion dangling around in philological circles. It has a hard time against the reality down on the ground, but it has some validity up in ivory towers.
Thing is, Franco was not a pro-Galician language dude so colour me skeptical on this one. Only Castilian existed. Not sure where you get that Francoist vibe :huh: Specially, since the "Galician and Portuguese are (very) different languages" position was something very popular after Franco which led to the imposition of Castilian spelling to Galician, not exactly the best choice given the history of Galician.
As for being the same language, there is still this dialect continuum between Northern Portuguese and Galician. Of course, Lisboete is quite another thing.
You don't need to lecture me on stuff about my home region, and it was Cel the one who assumed the Franco link. :P
The linguists that put forward the "Galician and Portuguese are the same language" are bound to be the exact opposite of Franco apologists.
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 07:06:18 PM
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 04:54:14 PM
AR's story about Adam's Rib is an example of what the thread should be about. Your story about learning some details about coal production in Kazakhstan is an example of what it should not be about.
Luckily you're the boss of no-one on this board :hug:
Luckily, I know what both what the word "should" means
and what the word "boss" means. That makes one of us. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 07:15:24 PM
Grumbler did have one thing right, your example was really dull. Why you brought it up again when I noted that some stories seemed to be only about the thread title - well I guess only you know. :(
Well,
two things right; I also said that your argument was a good one. :D
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 07:39:08 PM
Odd coming from the man who just makes up positions for people.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia0.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FdVmCt4CPTvAVa%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=132300121067cfcb4d0d478370ccf19abf50a513)
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 07:48:09 PM
Luckily, I know what both what the word "should" means and what the word "boss" means. That makes one of us. :hug:
Good of you to admit your own ignorance, though somewhat out of character for you :cheers:
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 07:55:47 PM
Good of you to admit your own ignorance, though somewhat out of character for you :cheers:
Ah, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" gambit. Haven't seen that one work since first grade, unfortunately for you. :(
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 07:15:24 PM
Grumbler did have one thing right, your example was really dull. Why you brought it up again when I noted that some stories seemed to be only about the thread title - well I guess only you know. :(
No fucking kidding it was extremely dull. That's why I brought it up. To share the pain, as a means to cope.
Now you know as well :smarty:
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 07:57:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 07:55:47 PM
Good of you to admit your own ignorance, though somewhat out of character for you :cheers:
Ah, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" gambit. Haven't seen that one work since first grade, unfortunately for you. :(
You should pay more attention then, though I suppose living in your own fantasy world feels safer for you :(
I was thinking of excluding things like current events and geography from the this thread. I should have. Obviously we all learned there was a big red country that took of the Northern half a of Eurasia and that this country is not there anymore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 17, 2015, 07:52:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 07:39:08 PM
Odd coming from the man who just makes up positions for people.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia0.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2FdVmCt4CPTvAVa%2Fgiphy.gif&hash=132300121067cfcb4d0d478370ccf19abf50a513)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-ec.buzzfed.com%2Fstatic%2F2015-02%2F2%2F13%2Fimagebuzz%2Fwebdr05%2Fanigif_optimized-22180-1422902911-10.gif&hash=e66b187fce4cd8eb9ffc189ffcea2a1617e7acec)
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 07:49:48 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 07:15:24 PM
Grumbler did have one thing right, your example was really dull. Why you brought it up again when I noted that some stories seemed to be only about the thread title - well I guess only you know. :(
Well, two things right; I also said that your argument was a good one. :D
I don't even know anymore. -_-
:D
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2015, 08:05:53 PM
I was thinking of excluding things like current events and geography from the this thread. I should have. Obviously we all learned there was a big red country that took of the Northern half a of Eurasia and that this country is not there anymore.
Careful, Raz, you might be unceremoniously drafted into the nitpick brigade. Seedy is the chief recruiting officer and Jacob is the USO talent.
oh, and my health teacher told us pre-cum was sperm and warned about the pullout method. :mad:
Quote from: Barrister on February 17, 2015, 05:03:06 PM
In 2008 though the SCC thought better of it, and completely overhauled admin law again. So everything I learned in class is now completely wrong.
I was in the Court of Appeal on the second day of a two day hearing on an administrative law question when Dunsmuir was decided by the SCC - the Court said, Mr. CC I assume you and your friend will want some time to consider your respective positions...
The thing I learned in school that is not true - that Columbus discovered the New World.
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 07:58:51 PM
You should pay more attention then, though I suppose living in your own fantasy world feels safer for you :(
Err... okay...
*backs off slowly*...whatever you say, chief...
*turns and runs*
Best thread ever.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 17, 2015, 08:25:06 PM
The thing I learned in school that is not true - that Columbus discovered the New World.
I didn't learn that (when I was in school, we already knew about Lief Ericson and the gang), but did learn that the reason Columbus had such a hard time getting finances was because he touted the "foolish" belief that the world was round. Heck, that story is still told by some teachers today! I'd say half my world history students are flabbergasted when I tell them the truth.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 09:02:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 17, 2015, 08:25:06 PM
The thing I learned in school that is not true - that Columbus discovered the New World.
I didn't learn that (when I was in school, we already knew about Lief Ericson and the gang), but did learn that the reason Columbus had such a hard time getting finances was because he touted the "foolish" belief that the world was round. Heck, that story is still told by some teachers today! I'd say half my world history students are flabbergasted when I tell them the truth.
I don't know if it is ever taught by teachers (or is just common misinformation) but one that continues to float around is that "Humans only use 10% of our brains."
Quote from: Malthus on February 17, 2015, 06:14:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 17, 2015, 05:03:06 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 17, 2015, 03:45:06 PM
It happens a lot with medical science. On the front end we're told half of what we are taught is going to be shown to be wrong in 10 years. As with Marti, it's boring and/or technical stuff.
Now that I think about it, it happens in law school too.
Just as an example, I went to law school 1997-2000. In 1998 the SCC case out with a trio of cases that completely changed administrative law. So our admin law class in 1998-1999 was taught to us from scratch based on these new cases.
In 2008 though the SCC thought better of it, and completely overhauled admin law again. So everything I learned in class is now completely wrong.
The list of law school ones is endless - my personal bugbear in law school was the "patent unreasonableness test" in administrative law, which I always thought made no damn sense - eventually, the SC decided that yes, indeed, the "patent unreasonableness test" made no damn sense. :lol:
The difference between Pushpanathan and Dunsmuir is my example - you'll have to find your own. :contract:
Wait what? I was supposed to learn stuff in school?
Sex with a condom is just as good as sex without. That definitely isn't true now. Maybe it was true when I was in high school, but I wouldn't know. :(
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 08:13:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 17, 2015, 08:05:53 PM
I was thinking of excluding things like current events and geography from the this thread. I should have. Obviously we all learned there was a big red country that took of the Northern half a of Eurasia and that this country is not there anymore.
Careful, Raz, you might be unceremoniously drafted into the nitpick brigade. Seedy is the chief recruiting officer and Jacob is the USO talent.
Now you're playing "assign positions" game too! :hug:
Quote from: garbon on February 17, 2015, 09:06:30 PM
I don't know if it is ever taught by teachers (or is just common misinformation) but one that continues to float around is that "Humans only use 10% of our brains."
Turns out that's only true for languish posters?
Which 10%? :perv:
Christ, what a trainwreck.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 07:57:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2015, 07:55:47 PM
Good of you to admit your own ignorance, though somewhat out of character for you :cheers:
Ah, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" gambit. Haven't seen that one work since first grade, unfortunately for you. :(
They had rubber when you were in first grade? :huh:
Great. Seedy and garbon are giffing at one another and Grumbler has regressed to the first grade.
Quote from: The Larch on February 17, 2015, 07:44:45 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 17, 2015, 06:45:29 PM
Quote from: The Larch on February 17, 2015, 06:08:13 PM
Quote from: celedhring on February 17, 2015, 05:17:11 PM
My Spanish language textbook still considered "Galician-Portuguese" to be the same language, and I was told as such by my teachers. It's been centuries since both languages diverged. I've always suspected that, since this was in the late 1980s, it was a remnant of Franco times Spanish cultural imperialism.
That's about the most interesting thing I can come up with that adheres strictly to the OP, sorry.
You can still find that notion dangling around in philological circles. It has a hard time against the reality down on the ground, but it has some validity up in ivory towers.
Thing is, Franco was not a pro-Galician language dude so colour me skeptical on this one. Only Castilian existed. Not sure where you get that Francoist vibe :huh: Specially, since the "Galician and Portuguese are (very) different languages" position was something very popular after Franco which led to the imposition of Castilian spelling to Galician, not exactly the best choice given the history of Galician.
As for being the same language, there is still this dialect continuum between Northern Portuguese and Galician. Of course, Lisboete is quite another thing.
You don't need to lecture me on stuff about my home region, and it was Cel the one who assumed the Franco link. :P
The linguists that put forward the "Galician and Portuguese are the same language" are bound to be the exact opposite of Franco apologists.
Fair enough, I just got a "Portugal is just part of Spain" vibe out of it.
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 07:04:56 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 17, 2015, 07:01:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 06:47:34 PM
Interesting part of the world, what's it like for cycling?
South of the country is flat, north is hilly and/or mountainous. The beaches in the South have too many Brits holding property, yet who cannot afford a baby sitter.
:D
I know a bit about Portugal in general, I was more interested in that area on the North Portuguese-Spanish borders, looks very interesting on the maps/satellite images.
A bike ride I did was Bragança-Rio de Onor by following the road to the airfield, then through Varge (a village possible halt for a very hearty meal in a local restaurant), till Rio de Onor a.k.a Rihonor de Castilla (sic) in Castilian. Rio de Onor is an interesting little village, a curiosity for ethnologists with its communal property traditions and near extinct Astur-Leonese dialect, which used to be intersected by the Spanish-Portuguese border which was materialised by a chain in the old days. Before the opening of the paved road, in the '60s, it was quite an off-the-way place. It still is in a way, being located in a middle of a natural park.
Not so much people and obviously not so much traffic, despite being the best way to get to the (future) high speed train station in Puebla de Sanabria/Póvoa de Seabra across the border, through a very narrow local road, and very steep at times in the Spanish side.
https://www.google.fr/maps/dir/Bragan%C3%A7a,+Portugal/Rio+de+Onor,+Bragance,+Portugal/@41.873404,-6.761783,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0xd3a49fd2c3fc247:0xd7369ad50abd191c!2m2!1d-6.756738!2d41.8061131!1m5!1m1!1s0xd3a3ae06ca0b969:0x500ebbde4908a20!2m2!1d-6.6159029!2d41.9404865?hl=fr (https://www.google.fr/maps/dir/Bragan%C3%A7a,+Portugal/Rio+de+Onor,+Bragance,+Portugal/@41.873404,-6.761783,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0xd3a49fd2c3fc247:0xd7369ad50abd191c!2m2!1d-6.756738!2d41.8061131!1m5!1m1!1s0xd3a3ae06ca0b969:0x500ebbde4908a20!2m2!1d-6.6159029!2d41.9404865?hl=fr)
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 18, 2015, 05:30:12 AM
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 07:04:56 PM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 17, 2015, 07:01:16 PM
Quote from: mongers on February 17, 2015, 06:47:34 PM
Interesting part of the world, what's it like for cycling?
South of the country is flat, north is hilly and/or mountainous. The beaches in the South have too many Brits holding property, yet who cannot afford a baby sitter.
:D
I know a bit about Portugal in general, I was more interested in that area on the North Portuguese-Spanish borders, looks very interesting on the maps/satellite images.
A bike ride I did was Bragança-Rio de Onor by following the road to the airfield, then through Varge (a village possible halt for a very hearty meal in a local restaurant), till Rio de Onor a.k.a Rihonor de Castilla (sic) in Castilian. Rio de Onor is an interesting little village, a curiosity for ethnologists with its communal property traditions and near extinct Astur-Leonese dialect, which used to be intersected by the Spanish-Portuguese border which was materialised by a chain in the old days. Before the opening of the paved road, in the '60s, it was quite an off-the-way place. It still is in a way, being located in a middle of a natural park.
Not so much people and obviously not so much traffic, despite being the best way to get to the (future) high speed train station in Puebla de Sanabria/Póvoa de Seabra across the border, through a very narrow local road, and very steep at times in the Spanish side.
https://www.google.fr/maps/dir/Bragan%C3%A7a,+Portugal/Rio+de+Onor,+Bragance,+Portugal/@41.873404,-6.761783,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0xd3a49fd2c3fc247:0xd7369ad50abd191c!2m2!1d-6.756738!2d41.8061131!1m5!1m1!1s0xd3a3ae06ca0b969:0x500ebbde4908a20!2m2!1d-6.6159029!2d41.9404865?hl=fr (https://www.google.fr/maps/dir/Bragan%C3%A7a,+Portugal/Rio+de+Onor,+Bragance,+Portugal/@41.873404,-6.761783,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m13!4m12!1m5!1m1!1s0xd3a49fd2c3fc247:0xd7369ad50abd191c!2m2!1d-6.756738!2d41.8061131!1m5!1m1!1s0xd3a3ae06ca0b969:0x500ebbde4908a20!2m2!1d-6.6159029!2d41.9404865?hl=fr)
Duque thanks for that, very informative. :cheers:
Quote from: DGuller on February 18, 2015, 03:22:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 07:57:44 PM
Ah, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" gambit. Haven't seen that one work since first grade, unfortunately for you. :(
They had rubber when you were in first grade? :huh:
Yep. I was in a first world country. Unlike some.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 08:17:53 AM
Quote from: DGuller on February 18, 2015, 03:22:34 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 07:57:44 PM
Ah, the old "I'm rubber, you're glue" gambit. Haven't seen that one work since first grade, unfortunately for you. :(
They had rubber when you were in first grade? :huh:
Yep. I was in a first world country. Unlike some.
Touche. :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on February 17, 2015, 10:40:45 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 17, 2015, 06:14:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 17, 2015, 05:03:06 PM
Quote from: Fate on February 17, 2015, 03:45:06 PM
It happens a lot with medical science. On the front end we're told half of what we are taught is going to be shown to be wrong in 10 years. As with Marti, it's boring and/or technical stuff.
Now that I think about it, it happens in law school too.
Just as an example, I went to law school 1997-2000. In 1998 the SCC case out with a trio of cases that completely changed administrative law. So our admin law class in 1998-1999 was taught to us from scratch based on these new cases.
In 2008 though the SCC thought better of it, and completely overhauled admin law again. So everything I learned in class is now completely wrong.
The list of law school ones is endless - my personal bugbear in law school was the "patent unreasonableness test" in administrative law, which I always thought made no damn sense - eventually, the SC decided that yes, indeed, the "patent unreasonableness test" made no damn sense. :lol:
The difference between Pushpanathan and Dunsmuir is my example - you'll have to find your own. :contract:
Alrighty then - how about the recent demise of "fundamental breach" in contract and its effect on exclusiuon clauses? ;)
When I was in law school, there was a lot of time spent on the notion that a "fundamental breach" allowed a court to ignore an exclusion of limitation clause - so the innocent party could sue even if the contract excluded damages, if the other party committed a "fundamenal breach". The SCC has since, in Tercon Contractors, said what generations of students have thought - that this makes no sense and basically allows courts to rewrite contracts as they see fit.
When I was in 8th grade, I learned that my friend Jeff was 13 years old. It is no longer true that he is 13.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:35:02 AM
When I was in 8th grade, I learned that my friend Jeff was 13 years old. It is no longer true that he is 13.
That had to shake your faith in the educational system :console:
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:35:02 AM
When I was in 8th grade, I learned that my friend Jeff was 13 years old. It is no longer true that he is 13.
But presumably it was true at one point.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2015, 09:45:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:35:02 AM
When I was in 8th grade, I learned that my friend Jeff was 13 years old. It is no longer true that he is 13.
But presumably it was true at one point.
So was all the boring shit the Canuck lawyers are babbling about.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:59:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2015, 09:45:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:35:02 AM
When I was in 8th grade, I learned that my friend Jeff was 13 years old. It is no longer true that he is 13.
But presumably it was true at one point.
So was all the boring shit the Canuck lawyers are babbling about.
Perhaps there is some true Platonic form of Law and the Canadian legal system simply serves to inch closer and closer to that Platonic form. :cool:
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2015, 10:03:10 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:59:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2015, 09:45:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:35:02 AM
When I was in 8th grade, I learned that my friend Jeff was 13 years old. It is no longer true that he is 13.
But presumably it was true at one point.
So was all the boring shit the Canuck lawyers are babbling about.
Perhaps there is some true Platonic form of Law and the Canadian legal system simply serves to inch closer and closer to that Platonic form. :cool:
:D
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:59:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2015, 09:45:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:35:02 AM
When I was in 8th grade, I learned that my friend Jeff was 13 years old. It is no longer true that he is 13.
But presumably it was true at one point.
So was all the boring shit the Canuck lawyers are babbling about.
That reminds me, there are a bunch of constitutional issues that have changed since law school. Though it will take some time to remember them all in excrutiating detail.
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2015, 09:02:24 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 17, 2015, 08:25:06 PM
The thing I learned in school that is not true - that Columbus discovered the New World.
I didn't learn that (when I was in school, we already knew about Lief Ericson and the gang), but did learn that the reason Columbus had such a hard time getting finances was because he touted the "foolish" belief that the world was round. Heck, that story is still told by some teachers today! I'd say half my world history students are flabbergasted when I tell them the truth.
When we covered this topic in school it was still a controversial issue as to where Vinland was located (or even whether it was a real location). There was a strong theory that it was Newfoundland but we were still taught that Columbus discovered the new world. You are quite right that the other error was that Columbus' problem in getting financial backing was because he supposed the world was round. The Venetians turned him down because they knew the world was round and, more importantly, they knew that Columbus had significantly miscalculated the distance he would have to travel West to get to China. It was just dumb luck he sighted land before he ran out of food and water.
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:59:41 AM
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2015, 09:45:18 AM
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 09:35:02 AM
When I was in 8th grade, I learned that my friend Jeff was 13 years old. It is no longer true that he is 13.
But presumably it was true at one point.
So was all the boring shit the Canuck lawyers are babbling about.
impossible. What exciting issue did I miss?
I guess it depends upon what you mean by 'discovered'. I mean not even Columbus claimed people had never been to the New World before. His discovery was not the only discovery of the New World in history, but it was the most significant one since people walked across the Bering Straight all those Millennia before.
In my high school, our American history teacher was telling us about Charles Lindbergh and his trans-Atlantic flight. Some discussion followed, and she went "Oh, his son died? He was kidnapped? Murdered? Oh dear!" Well, I guess this doesn't qualify, it was more like the stuff that students taught their teacher that was, and still is, true.
Quote from: DGuller on February 18, 2015, 11:50:30 AM
In my high school, our American history teacher was telling us about Charles Lindbergh and his trans-Atlantic flight. Some discussion followed, and she went "Oh, his son died? He was kidnapped? Murdered? Oh dear!" Well, I guess this doesn't qualify, it was more like the stuff that students taught their teacher that was, and still is, true.
Heh, I remember my 11th grade literature teacher insisted
Lord of the Flies took place during WW2, and that I was just being difficult.
I had a teacher who claimed that armadillos were reptiles, and another who told me how brave it was for Mark Twain, as a Southern writer, to condemn slavery in Huck Finn.
I hate documentaries, specially "historical" documentaries.
It is a far more efficient use of my time to actually read a research paper and agree or disagree with its conclusions than waste my time watching a documemtary with a revisionist interpretation of historical facts and a completely retarded re-enactment of what actually happened.
Tip for historical documentary makers: People do not fight with swords to clash one sword with the other, but to stick the other guy with the pointy end of his sword.
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2015, 02:11:43 PM
revisionist interpretation of historical facts
Is there such a thing as a non-revisionist interpretation? I guess only if you are the first historian to ever have an opinion on something.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2015, 11:50:02 AM
I guess it depends upon what you mean by 'discovered'. I mean not even Columbus claimed people had never been to the New World before. His discovery was not the only discovery of the New World in history, but it was the most significant one since people walked across the Bering Straight all those Millennia before.
Its the technological capability to got there and back, allowing for the economical exploit of the discovery.
I can easily see a phoenician or cartaginian vessel being pushed by weather to the Americas, but I can't see it as easily being able to return to Europe. More likely they had to stay and were asimilated by the indians. I mean, native-americans.
Eventually, we shall be able to understand the human genome to the point of identifying all past generations.
Quote from: Valmy on February 18, 2015, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2015, 02:11:43 PM
revisionist interpretation of historical facts
Is there such a thing as a non-revisionist interpretation? I guess only if you are the first historian to ever have an opinion on something.
Valid point.
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2015, 02:11:43 PM
Tip for historical documentary makers: People do not fight with swords to clash one sword with the other, but to stick the other guy with the pointy end of his sword.
Tip for Siege: People who get stabbed while reenacting sword fights for a documentary have costly medical bills.
Besides, sticking the other guy with the pointy end of your sword is generally going to be prioritized below preventing him from sticking you with his sword. So frequent parrying is to be expected.
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2015, 02:11:43 PM
Tip for historical documentary makers: People do not fight with swords to clash one sword with the other, but to stick the other guy with the pointy end of his sword.
Not necessarily. there were 'edge" schools of swordplay as well (cavalry sabers and scimitars being entirely edge-based weapons). Now, I absolutely agree with the contention that too many sword fights in reenactments or historical fiction feature fights in which the two essentially attack each others' sword because it looks more dramatic (see
Game of Thrones for a whole lotta bad sword fights - one point fighter would have wiped out every military person in Westeros, given time), but sword fights weren't all about stabbing, either.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 18, 2015, 12:44:11 PM
I had a teacher who claimed that armadillos were reptiles,
Reminds me of:
http://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1989/11/03
Quote from: grumbler on February 18, 2015, 02:32:14 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 18, 2015, 02:11:43 PM
Tip for historical documentary makers: People do not fight with swords to clash one sword with the other, but to stick the other guy with the pointy end of his sword.
Not necessarily. there were 'edge" schools of swordplay as well (cavalry sabers and scimitars being entirely edge-based weapons). Now, I absolutely agree with the contention that too many sword fights in reenactments or historical fiction feature fights in which the two essentially attack each others' sword because it looks more dramatic (see Game of Thrones for a whole lotta bad sword fights - one point fighter would have wiped out every military person in Westeros, given time), but sword fights weren't all about stabbing, either.
If you see well-versed historical reinactors fighting in full armour, it looks nothing like the movie version - also nothing like what I would have expected.
What it looks like is essentially wrestling, with the sword used sorta like a can-opener. :lol: Basically, the sword is often held half-way up the blade, and the combatants attempt to ram the end into each other's faces, armpits, necks or groins, or catch the other guy around the neck; lots of grappling and levering, with the ultimate aim of jabbing a point somewhere where it will do damage.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html
The edge is, of course, useless against a guy in full armour.
I guess one other thing I was taught is that the universe was this cold, rational place operating according to the rules of reason, and not the maddening abode of eldritch horrors older than the time itself.
Quote from: Martinus on February 20, 2015, 01:34:33 AM
I guess one other thing I was taught is that the universe was this cold, rational place operating according to the rules of reason, and not the maddening abode of eldritch horrors older than the time itself.
The transition to law school can be tough.