Remembering Hunter S. Thompson: Gatling guns, loose hogs and

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
rer
Sojourner
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:19 pm

Postby rer » Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:01 pm

And we were both wrong about tanks...

History
Full article: Tank history

The first successful prototype tank to match the modern understanding of this kind of military vehicle was tested for the British Army on September 6, 1915. Although termed "landships" by The Admiralty, to preserve secrecy the initial vehicles were referred to as "water-carriers" which was then shortened to "tanks"

The word "tank" was then used to give the workers the impression they were constructing tracked water containers for the British army in Mesopotamia. It was made the official name on December 24, 1915. Legend has it that after completion the tanks were shipped to France in large wooden crates. For secrecy and not to arouse any curiosity the crates and the tanks themselves were then each labelled with a destination in Russian for Petrograd. In fact the tanks were never shipped in crates: the inscription in Russian was applied on the hull for their transport from the factory to the first training centre at Thetford. This first tank, the Mark I, became operational at the Battle of the Somme on September 15, 1916. Parallel to the British the French developed the Schneider CA1, first used on April 16, 1917. The first successful use of massed tanks in combat occurred at the Battle of Cambrai on November 20, 1917.

Although the tank would eventually make the trench warfare of World War I obsolete, they were not a decisive factor in that war. Initial results with tanks were poor, with the tanks proving to be unreliable, underpowered, under armoured, and incapable of navigating battlefield terrain. Nevertheless, the concept was seen to be sound, and allied tank designs improved during the war. Later tanks were more reliable, had more powerful engines, were capable of withstanding German armour-piercing bullets, and due to a rhomboid shape could navigate large obstacles. Germany also built a few tanks, but did not pursue the concept very far.

Between the two world wars, with the tank concept now established, several nations designed and built tanks. Many sizes of tank were considered, and a lot of development effort went into light tanks that would be useful primarily against infantry. However, with tank-versus-tank engagements now being a major consideration, it became clear that future tanks would need to be heavily armoured and carry large guns. Tank shape, previously guided purely by considerations of obstacle clearance, now became a trade-off, with a low profile desirable for stealth and stability.

Turrets, which had always been considered but were not previously a universal feature on tanks, were recognised as the way forward. It was appreciated that if the tank's gun was to be used to engage armoured targets then it needed to be as large and powerful as possible, making having one large gun with an all-round field of fire vital. Experiments with multiple-turreted vehicles (e.g. the Russian T-35) were quickly abandoned and the last tank design without a single turreted main gun was the American M3 Lee of early- and mid- World War II.

Image
This German photograph from World War I shows a captured British tank. The foremost part of the tracks are high off the ground in order to climb obstacles. The main guns are side-mounted because the tall body and weight considerations make a turret impractical.World War II saw the greatest rate of advances in tank design. Germany initially fielded lightly armoured and lightly armed tanks, such as the Panzer I which was originally intended for training use only. These fast-moving tanks and other armoured vehicles were a critical element of the German Blitzkrieg. Experimentation with tank sizes reached its logical conclusion during the war, with the rather impractical German 188-tonne Maus, of which only two were ever built and never saw combat, and the 1000-tonne Ratte, of which none were ever completed.

It was during this war that tanks were first equipped with radios, vastly improving their command and control. Tanks were adapted to a wide range of military jobs, including mine clearance and engineering tasks. Some of these tank variants live on as other classes of armoured fighting vehicle, no longer called "tanks". All major combatant powers also developed tank destroyers and assault guns - armoured vehicles carrying large calibre guns but often without turrets.

The role of tanks has evolved into a specific niche indicated by the modern term "main battle tank", and wide variations in size are no longer seen. Since World War II, tank design has gone through a series of refinements, rather than any radical changes. Guns have become larger, and targeting has improved to the point where a modern tank essentially never misses at typical engagement ranges. Armour has evolved from steel plate into composite armour, with refinements such as reactive armour, as anti-tank weaponry has evolved. Crew comfort is improved, and the use of video cameras has diminished the need for viewing ports through the armour.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Mar 03, 2005 9:50 pm

Snipers are 16th century specially trained Japanese ninjas.

> If only they were. If only they were. "The rifles used were of huge caliber, but poor accuracy." That's not modern sniper warfare. One shot one kill does not tend to be "mostly unsuccessful." Oh, and about the famous World War I snipers, there aren't any. Most of them died pretty quick, usually to other snipers. The tactics and art of the sniper were just being developed at that point in time. Some snipers were even so bold as to crawl towards enemy trenches, holding a heavy boiler plate in front of them as to get closer to enemy lines. (not exactly brilliant, but it worked at first)

"Between the two world wars, with the tank concept now established, several nations designed and built tanks."

> In case you're wondering, that was the era of trench warfare.


> Something about Airplanes: The first recorded flight by man and machine was by the Orville brothers in 1903 and flew only for two seconds. It was only thirteen-fourteen years later that World War I broke out. Imagine the resources and efforts that must have been undertaken in order to make the aeroplane not only combat effective - but MORE worthy of R&D and investment than other combat items. There's a reason why it was rushed so quickly to the front lines.

*Post Edited, wrong year stated for Wright Brothers flight.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:17 pm

"Btw, "creation" is a word you brought into the argument because you both have been unable to create an intelligent argument."

"Came out of"

Yes, I believe your words where "came out of" or a result of...meaning you are implying causation. There is no causation of those techniques. There was only the causation of refinement, not causation of the original ideas. www.dictionary.com is your friend. Sorry, but I'm not sure if you'd know what an intelligent argument looked like if it bent you over a desk, had its way with you, then threw you in an nasty alley afterwards. The simple fact is, you've made equivocation errors, failed to make any of your arguments valid by ways of logic, and failed to keep your retorts relevant to the original argument. I have a meeting with my philosophy professor tomorrow morning. If you really can't take my word for it, I'd be more than happy to print this out and she can tell you the same thing...but then again, what would somebody that has a doctorate in philosophy with a specialization in logic know about an argument? There's a noticable trend here in the forums, teflor. The trend is that many many people disagree with you on virtually everything that you say. This is mainly because what you say doesn't even follow the simple rules of logic and you use virtually every logical fallacy known to man when forming an argument. You use salesman and politician tactics, and those just don't work on the informed. You have an amazing gift for searching google, though, so I guess I have learned a bit of unnecessary history of sniping and how to properly cook in a deep fat fryer...but, other than that, your posts are mainly useless except for good practice when I take symbolic logic next semester. Thanks for that I guess.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:22 pm

Kifle wrote:"You have an amazing gift for searching google, though, so I guess I have learned a bit of unnecessary history of sniping and how to properly cook in a deep fat fryer...but, other than that, your posts are mainly useless except for good practice when I take symbolic logic next semester. Thanks for that I guess.


You're welcome. But here's a suggestion: it's actually your logic that's flawed.

Take it into consideration. Trust me on that one.

These concepts of warfare are indeed "created" from human thought.

The question is what created these thougths.

It's a logical chain, but that's not to say that each link in the chain has the same weight.
rer
Sojourner
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:19 pm

Postby rer » Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:55 pm

Kifle, what really cracks me up is that Teflor thinks that, not only is the dictionary wrong, but that the encyclopedia is wrong as well...

Oh well. The unenlightened can remain so by keeping their blinders on. Of course, in Teflor's case, those seem to be used wrong, so that rather than limiting him to a narrow view of his own points, they limit him from even reading evidence directly quoted and placed in front of him.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Pril » Thu Mar 03, 2005 10:58 pm

rer wrote:
Snipers in history
Even before firearms were available, there have been soldiers, such as archers, specially trained as elite marksmen.

First modern snipers were trained in 16th century Japan as a sub-category of ninja warriors. These were specially trained to cover-up retreating armies. The sniper would lay covered on the ground until a leader of the advancing army came into his firing range. There are several confirmed records of such (mostly unsuccessful) attempts. The rifles used were of huge caliber, but poor accuracy.

France's Louis XIV trained elite riflemen to shoot armored knights. Their gun weighed more than nine kg (20 lb), and were capable of shooting 28 gram (1 oz) lead balls fast enough to kill through plate armor. Some authorities claim that they, alone, made heavy cavalry (knights) obsolete.

Timothy Murphy was a rifleman in Daniel Morgan's Virginia riflemen in 1777. He shot and killed General Simon Fraser of the British army. Murphy was said to have taken the shot at roughly 460m (500 yards), astounding at the time. He was using the renowned Kentucky rifle. The death of General Fraser caused the British advance to falter and the rebels to win the battle.

During the pivotal Battle of Trafalgar, on October 21, 1805, as the British flagship HMS Victory locked masts with the French Redoutable, a sniper's bullet struck Admiral Horatio Nelson in the spine. Nelson was carried below decks and died as the battle that would make him a legend was ending in favour of the British.

In the Napoleonic Wars, the British copied colonial weapons and tactics in a limited number of rifle companies. They dressed (unsportingly) in green to avoid visibility, and were instructed to shoot enemy officers. Rifleman Thomas Plunkett of the 1st Battalion, 95th Rifles is remembered for shooting General Colbert at a range of between 200 and 600 metres during the Peninsula war. He used a Baker rifle.

Colonel Hiram Berdan was the commanding officer of the 1st and 2nd US Sharpshooters. Although snipers were held with low regard by both sides during the American Civil War, under his tutelage, skilled Union marksmen were trained and equipped with the .52 caliber Sharps Rifle. It has been claimed that Berdan's units were responsible for killing more enemy than any other unit in the Union Army.

On May 9, 1864 during the Battle of Spotsylvania Court House, Sgt. Grace of the 4th Georgia Infantry, sniped Major General John Sedgwick at the then incredible distance of 730m (800 yrds), with a British Whiteworth target rifle. The death of Sedgwick, a corps commander, caused administrative delays in the Union's attack, leading to Confederate victory. Before Sedgwick was shot, he was advised by his men to take cover, and his last words were "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance". The popular story that he said "They couldn't hit an elephant at this dist—" happens to be an urban legend – he finished his sentence and was shot a few minutes later.

Simo Häyhä (December 17, 1906 – April 1, 2002) of Finland is regarded as the most effective sniper in the history of warfare. Using a relatively primitive Mosin-Nagant Model 28, Häyhä sniped 542 Soviet Union soldiers in Winter War from November 30, 1939 to March 6, 1940, when he was seriously wounded.

Sulo Kolkka was also a Finnish sniper during the Winter War, who sniped approximately 400 Russians, as well as another 200 with a submachinegun. Due to the superb quality of Finnish snipers, the Russians lost men at a rate of 40:1. At the end of the Winter War a Soviet General is said to have bitterly quipped, "We gained 57,000 km² (22,000 square miles) of territory. Just enough to bury our dead."

Vasily Zaitsev was a Russian sniper who rose to prominence during the Battle of Stalingrad, credited with sniping 242 German soldiers. He became a folk hero for killing the German master sniper instructor Major Thorvald, in an extended sniper-countersniper duel. However, there are debates as to whether Thorvald actually existed, or was the invention of Soviet propaganda writers. Zaitsev was the main subject in the movie Enemy at the Gates, a fictionalized account of sniper-warfare in the Battle of Stalingrad.

Mila Mikhailovna Pavichenko was a female Ukrainian sniper with 309 confirmed kills during World War II.

Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock of the United States Marine Corps sniped 93 North Vietnamese soldiers during the Vietnam war. He is the subject of two biographies, Marine Sniper and Silent Warrior.
Delta Force snipers Gary Gordon and Randy Shughart were both killed in action during the Battle of Mogadishu. It is estimated that together they sniped over 100 Somalis. Both men received the Medal of Honor, posthumously, for their actions.

The longest-ever confirmed sniper kill was made by Master Cpl. Arron Perry of the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan during combat in 2003. Using a .50-caliber (12.7 mm) MacMillan TAC-50 rifle, Perry shot and killed an Afghan soldier from a distance of 2,430 metres.


Hmm... I dont see ANY WWI snipers in this list from the encyclopedia..


Rer,

The encylopedia is CLEARLY wrong. Please use only sources that are accurate and always correct: ie. Teflor. When you can use correct sources that have no mistakes (again ie. Teflor) then you can quote him and base your arguments on his widespread intelligence. Until you can correctly quote "Teflor's Knowledge Database" please don't cite any more rubbish like encyclopedia's.

Pril
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:16 pm

Actually Rer, all of your sarcasm aside, encyclopedias are generally considered to be poor sources - mostly for lack of expertise and general scope or field. You really should try a military history analysis or novel.

Generally, Rer, your research is substandard most likely due to context and syntax.

A dictionary is not going to be able to tell you what the concept of artificial intelligence is any better than what it will tell you sniper warfare is.

An encyclopedia is a general reference related more to words and phrases than to actually researching any particular topic or theme.

A few sources you might want to actually look into:

(obviously) TC 23-14 The old army sniper training manual, which is generally available to the public.

A lovely and easy to read novel I picked up a while back:
Sniper: The Skills, the Weapons, and the Experiences (Gilbert)

And something on trench warfare... er... Time (the time magazine guys) published a series titled "A Century of Warfare" which covered pretty much the 20th century. It was a great flip through and general reference about the development of warfare throughout the 1900s.

Another source is, curiously enough, the history channel and it's website, historychannel.com. Conveniently, their fact checking more or less insures that all the information you get from them is good enough to trust. They ran a series about snipers and their history a while back.


You'll find they mostly agree that the modern sniper emerged from the trenches of World War I. Try those on for size.
rer
Sojourner
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:19 pm

Postby rer » Thu Mar 03, 2005 11:37 pm

historychannel.com wrote:History.

The sport of small-arms target shooting dates from the invention of the pistol and the rifle in the 16th century. For several centuries the sport was contested only in sporadic impromptu fashion, for the firearms of that period were too undependable and inaccurate to meet the requirements of large-scale, organized competition. Turkey shoots and weekend target-shooting matches were popular among the frontiersmen of colonial America. During the American Revolution and the Civil War rural sharpshooters played a strategic role as snipers. Popular interest in rifle shooting reached new heights after the Civil War, when the sport became a favorite diversion of city dwellers, groups of whom organized weekend target-shooting excursions into the countryside. New advances in the manufacture of weapons and ammunition, meanwhile, resulted in high standards of accuracy and reliability. By 1870 conditions were ripe for organized regional and national competition. A match in Glendale Park, N.Y., in the 1880s attracted more than 600 shooters and 30,000 spectators in just one day.


Looks like the Revolution and the Civil war were the sharpshooter development eras to me...

http://www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl?ID=226139

That link is a HistoryChannel.com article on WWI, and only mentions snipers when talking about Arch Duke Ferdinand...

Hrm... Even your sources aren't helping you out Teflor...
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:42 am

That's because you haven't the intellectual dexterity to wield them.

The history channel is a general resource and is best used as a starting point for research. Unfortunatly, the sniper series they televised isn't covered online - but you can buy the episodes on dvd (which by the way, do confirm what I have been saying, so watch the history channel, they may air the program again soon.)

What you looked upon the history channel was an article about targetshooting, which is only a small part of the modern sniper.

Most texts cite World War I and trench warfare as the advent of the modern sniper - his tactics, equipment, purpose, and overall role in warfare.

What you can do if your library doesn't have them available is look these books up on Amazon. Many of them allow you to browse the table of contents.

Browsing some of the books on snipers Amazon offers, here are a few examples:

Chapter 2
"The Sniper Emerges: 1914-1916"
Sniper (Gilbert)

The Military Sniper Since 1914 (Pegler)

Sniping in France 1914-1918 (Hesketh-Prichard)

German Sniper : 1914-1945 (Senich)

Now I haven't read these, but the time period is quite the trend. I will bring up a few more examples for you as I come across them.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:51 am, edited 2 times in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:11 am

The History Channel did yield some information about tanks, given:

"Use of Tanks.

Other attacks of Allied forces on the western front in 1917 included a battle at Verdun, in which the French succeeded in regaining an additional section of the area they had lost the previous year; and (November 20–December 3) the Battle of Cambrai, during which the British opened the attack with a raid by nearly 400 tanks. This was the first tank raid on such a scale in military history, and, but for lack of reserves, the British might have achieved a breakthrough. As it was, the British drove an 8-km (5-mi) salient into the German lines. German counterattacks, however, compelled the British to yield most of the newly won ground."

Which was really the first use of tanks on a large scale in any conflict worldwide.


And also some about air power:

"THE WAR IN THE AIR

World War I provided a great stimulus to the production and military use of aircraft, including the airplane and airship, or dirigible balloon, and the tethered balloon. Aircraft were used for two principal purposes: observation and bombing. For observation of stationary battlefronts extensive use was made by both belligerents of small tethered balloons; for scouting at sea, dirigible balloons were extensively used, and airplanes were used for scouting coastal waters. In connection with military operations on land, airplanes were used to observe the disposition of the troops and defenses of the enemy and for bombing the enemy’s lines or troops in action. A special feature of the war was the raids conducted by means of dirigibles or airplanes on important enemy centers far removed from the battlefront."


While neither are as clear cut as I wanted them to be, both provide information indicative of the beginnings of their modern conception. Here's a little more:

"World War I.

The first U.S. military airplane, built by Wilbur and Orville Wright, was tested and accepted in 1909. As the threat of war in Europe grew before 1914, potential German use of zeppelins (see AIRSHIP,) for military purposes led authorities to look seriously at military aviation; early in World War I, Paris and London were first bombed from zeppelins—which were subsequently withdrawn from use because of their extreme vulnerability."
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:21 am

Now here's something I found absolutely ridiculous, but having read it, it's an excellent background about the modern sniper. Also a fun read as most of HowStuffWorks.com's pages tend to be:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/sniper.htm
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 04, 2005 3:41 am

An all important piece of equipment for the modern sniper, the ghille suit. Check out the HowStuffWorks link to see why.

"The first recorded instance of a Ghillie suit in military use was in World War I."
Invisible Advantage Workbook:Ghillie Suit Construction Made Simple (Forbes, Chapter 1)
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:39 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:"You have an amazing gift for searching google, though, so I guess I have learned a bit of unnecessary history of sniping and how to properly cook in a deep fat fryer...but, other than that, your posts are mainly useless except for good practice when I take symbolic logic next semester. Thanks for that I guess.


You're welcome. But here's a suggestion: it's actually your logic that's flawed.

Take it into consideration. Trust me on that one.

These concepts of warfare are indeed "created" from human thought.

The question is what created these thougths.

It's a logical chain, but that's not to say that each link in the chain has the same weight.


It's not my logic, dude, it's fundamental logic. That logic is not wrong, and, since I'm using it, I'm not wrong either. Just admit that your world would come crashing down if people didn't think you where more intelligent and resourceful than you actually are. Maybe since you went through all that wonderful military training, it'd be a bit more embarassing than you can bare to actually not know the history of warfare correctly... I don't know what it is, but you do need to get a grip on the reality of things. The reality is, you made a false statement, you got called out on it, and it has been proven in a variety of ways. Anyway, I've got it printed up to this post, so I'll just get back with you when my professor calls you an idiot too...
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Mar 04, 2005 8:18 am

It's interesting analyzing your posts as the discussion continues - particularly how you abandoned the issue when you couldn't find a way to respond. And don't worry, your singular and weak argument is responded to somewhere below.


With each post you provide

fewer and fewer reasons,
fewer and fewer sources,
fewer and fewer claims & evidence.

While on the other hand, the more I post

the more sources
the more reasons
the more claims & evidence

I have provided for my argument.

Kifle, argument is a combat discipline. You've just been overrun, outnumbered, and outgunned. I would certainly have offered you an honorable retreat, but you've instead decided to turn tail to your like-minded professor who's opinion you could potentially alter or skew in your favor - and probably doesn't know anything about military history as well.

It is for that reason I have decided to snipe at you with this particular post. One shot, one kill, after all.

Now it's true, if I had provided overwhelming evidence up front, documented all sources, established expert opinion in the beginning, (being professional, disciplined, and demanding the most out of my men/arguments), you would have not been able or willing to enter into combat with me.

I began, however, with suggestions and questions. Which was a non-intimidating approach, and you decided that you would be able to enter into combat.

As the battle continued, I went on the attack, throwing as many sources and arguments I had at you in strategic manner, certainly not stopping to slow my attack, breaking the trench you tried to dig by arguing unrelated and ultimately unimportant issues. And it looks like my argument won.



I'll even take the opportunity to re-examine this discussion. Including a strong rebuttal to your singular argument.

The Initial Claim wrote:Some of the developments that came out of trench warfare in Europe are very modern concepts still used today.

- Snipers
- Tanks
- Air Power
- Chemical Warfare


Exploring the evidence given (even some new stuff) for Snipers:

Defining Equipment
Ghillie Suits, Rifle Scopes, and Rifles Capable of Ranged Combat first appeared and were developed during World War I, during the era of trench warfare.

Defining Tactics
Two man shooter/spotter teams first appeared as a Russian development during World War I, typical of modern sniper warfare tactics today. In an event popularized by the movie "Enemy at The Gates," two man sniper team tactics proved superior over lone German countersnipers.

Coincidental Evidence
Rifle Scopes improved spotting, forcing other snipers to learn to conceal themselves and blend into their surrounding environment, lest they be sniped first. This is exemplified with the development of the ghillie suit, first issued by the British and the Germans in World War I.

Improving Accuracy
Early precursors of the modern sniper often used a slight advantage in accurate range in order to harass and befuddle enemy formations. As trenches were being dug across Europe, the distances between them became more and more lengthy, demanding a drastic improvement in ballistic technology. For the FIRST time, extremely accurate rifles were being manufactuered, coupled with accurate, match grade ammunition, and the first production optical rifle scopes.

While the idea of sharpshooting has been around since man threw rocks, the difficulties and hardships of trench warfare necessitated and facilitated the modern sniper, a master of concealment, navigation, technology, subterfuge, and sharpshooting.


Exploring the evidence given for Tanks:

Defining Equipment
Quoting Rer's research, "The first successful prototype tank to match the modern understanding of this kind of military vehicle was tested for the British Army on Septeber 6, 1915." Which was during the trench warfare of World War I.
Quoting Rer's research, "the tank would eventually make the trench warfare of World War I obsolete."

I think that's all that's necessary on tanks. Although the idea of a large protective, mobile object has been around for quite some time, the mechanized tank of modern understanding was indeed a development of World War I - known as the premiere trench warfare war.

Exploring the evidence given (and some new stuff) for Air Power:

Defining Equipment
The first manned flight was in 1903 - and it lasted two seconds on a contraption made from cloth and a structure that could have been broken apart by hand. The first planes in World War I were similar in construction, with limited loiter time and no weapons. By the end of world War I, planes were developed with wooden and sheet metal skins, 300 horse power engines, achieving airspeeds of 124knots or greater, armed with mutiple machine guns, wing mounted bombs and rockets.

Defining Tactics
The first plane shot down was shot down in World War I. So was the first dog fight, the first bombing mission, the first air support mission, and the first strafing run.................

Air Power and Air Combat developed during World War I. It was considered one of the few extensions of force beyond enemy lines. While the argument could be made that this was "timely technology," you can certainly note that after World War I and nearly into World War II, many air forces were using the same planes, their developments stalled. Famous pilots Such as Rittmeister Manfred Albrecht Freiherr von Richthofen (The Red Baron) claimed their name in vicious dogfights over the trenches of World War I.

In a hunger to seek a way to project force over enemy trenches, all nations breathed life into military aviation, indeed developing it from almost nothing into a veritable and critical weapon of modern warfare.

Chemical Warfare was already generally accepted as a development of trench warfare, Despite The Fact That Chemical Warfare had Been Waged In Wars Hundreds and Thousands of Years Earlier in Recorded History, Time and Time Again. But most historians agree that the modern concept of Chemical and Biological Warfare developed out of trench warfare.

Ackowledging Your Singular Argument:

"no causa pro causa, post hoc ergo propter hoc"

For everyone else watching - a quick translation:

You can't show it, it doesn't exist.
You're trying to say an occurance after another occurance is because of that occurance (rather than an actual reason).

These developments did indeed occur during the era of trench warfare. But the reasons why they were developed during trench warfare are apparant:

IN CONCLUSION
Snipers Developed to Effectively Combat Across Parting Trenches
Tanks Developed to Taverse Trenches
Air Power Developed to Attack Far Behind Trenches
Chemical Warfare (Modern) Developed to Reduce the Value of Trenches

All the evidence you'll want you will find above. You'll also find that modern warfare has not changed that much. Snipers are the premiere special forces soldier, tanks are a main battle element, and air power is considered a pinnacle of modern warfare. Chemical warfare is the only item that has undergone a deep and fundamental evolution since trench warfare, mostly that countries have agreed not to use it upon each other. If you need further evidence, or expert opinions, I would recommend picking up a book. You'll find that most historians, military analysts, and experts agree with me. I've already suggested SEVERAL books. If you need further expert opinion, as to the reasons why they developed the way they did, when they did, I can probably dig up an expert. Certainly, let me know if that's something you'd like to see.

By the way, if you're feeling ignored that I didn't address your argument earlier, I remind you there are others in this discussion and I have been addressing them. I left the simplest argument to remain until I answered the legitimate questions posed by Rer.

Now, back to the original argument: General George S. Patton is considered one of the world's most brilliant and successful (keyword: successful) military tacticians in all of history. The controversial figure is also credited with having saved innumerous lives through his critical victories against his enemies, and his continuing and overwhelming assault that sent the opposing force into confusion, demoralization, and ultimately defeat.

He has his record to stand by him - a winning record of a briliant tactician that saved lives by quickly ending the war.

That, Kifle, is reality.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Fri Mar 04, 2005 2:37 pm

I stop posting because it is obviously impossible for you to understand how logic and arguments work. I only address certain issues because it is a waste of my time to keep going back and forth by writing a novel you will never understand only to have you attempt your all-too-familiar psuedo-intellectual replys. It's like arguing with a child; eventually you get to a point where you realize they don't have the capacity to understand what you are trying to tell them, so you just walk away. BTW, for what it's worth, my professor said you where an idiot to -- and that you'd fail her class miserably. I hope you didn't pay too much for that "edumacation".

Also, you don't need to know anything about an argument to combat its validity, but you probably don't know what validity is in logic, do you? So, it really doesn't matter if she knew anything about military advancement or not. Also, what you did right there...poisoning the well, and ad hominem. Why not stop arguing like a child would and come out to face the actual argument with the rest of us. Until you do that, I will say this: You've lost the argument, you need to learn how to admit when you're wrong, and, until you feel like addressing the issue in a formulated, logically valid, and intelligent way, I'm either going to A) keep making you look like a stuborn child, or B) give up entirely and ignore your posts like I usually do.

So, Rer, Pril...how's it feel to be teflored?
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Pril » Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:14 pm

Kifle wrote:So, Rer, Pril...how's it feel to be teflored?


Kifle i believe the term you were looking for is Teflorized, not teflored.

Pril
rer
Sojourner
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 11:19 pm

Postby rer » Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:25 pm

Kifle wrote:I stop posting because it is obviously impossible for you to understand how logic and arguments work. I only address certain issues because it is a waste of my time to keep going back and forth by writing a novel you will never understand only to have you attempt your all-too-familiar psuedo-intellectual replys. It's like arguing with a child; eventually you get to a point where you realize they don't have the capacity to understand what you are trying to tell them, so you just walk away. BTW, for what it's worth, my professor said you where an idiot to -- and that you'd fail her class miserably. I hope you didn't pay too much for that "edumacation".

Also, you don't need to know anything about an argument to combat its validity, but you probably don't know what validity is in logic, do you? So, it really doesn't matter if she knew anything about military advancement or not. Also, what you did right there...poisoning the well, and ad hominem. Why not stop arguing like a child would and come out to face the actual argument with the rest of us. Until you do that, I will say this: You've lost the argument, you need to learn how to admit when you're wrong, and, until you feel like addressing the issue in a formulated, logically valid, and intelligent way, I'm either going to A) keep making you look like a stuborn child, or B) give up entirely and ignore your posts like I usually do.

So, Rer, Pril...how's it feel to be teflored?


I'm giving up on this one also. It's clear that Teflor is selectively using fictional data to support his claims... particularly when I provide evidence from the sources he requested I check supporting my own assertions.

If one does not follow structured logic, then one's argument is rendered useless.

I have a book on Symbolic Logic from when I took the class Teflor. It's something you could use.
Pril
Sojourner
Posts: 1834
Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 5:01 am

Postby Pril » Fri Mar 04, 2005 5:44 pm

Ok gonna try 1 more time....


Guys check the following links out...

Snipers: (earliest sniper here is 1777)http://www.snipercountry.com/SnipHistory.asp

Tanks: (First tank 1909 designed to deal with machine guns) http://members.fortunecity.com/rwbrown1942/royaltankregiment/id1.html

AirWarfar: (first used in 1915 for bombing)
http://www.first-to-fly.com/History/History%20of%20Airplane/the_great_war.htm

Chemical Warfar (First used in 6th Centure BC)
http://www.nbc-med.org/SiteContent/MedRef/OnlineRef/FieldManuals/medman/History.htm

Pril
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Mar 05, 2005 2:32 am

rer wrote:I'm giving up on this one also. It's clear that Teflor is selectively using fictional data to support his claims... particularly when I provide evidence from the sources he requested I check supporting my own assertions.

If one does not follow structured logic, then one's argument is rendered useless.

I have a book on Symbolic Logic from when I took the class Teflor. It's something you could use.


I challenge your claim that any data I have used is fictional.

The data presented is 100% verifiable, and you are as much a fool as you are a coward to have made this accusation.

You might want to read that book on symbolic logic one more time. Your valid, but immaturly formed argument that sharpshooters developed during the civil war era has very little to do with the birth of the modern sniper during World War I. (funny thing is that they were called 'sharpshooters' because the sharp's rifle, developed _after_ the civil war was preferred for accuracy)

Furthermore, scrutiny of your claims further indicates your ignorant and illogical use of research materials:

Rer wrote:That link is a HistoryChannel.com article on WWI, and only mentions snipers when talking about Arch Duke Ferdinand...

Hrm... Even your sources aren't helping you out Teflor...


The History Channel's article on WWI also does not mention the use of airplanes or chemical warfare in World War I (which had been established earlier in the argument and acknowledged by you).

What you had utterly failed to realize is that the article was a general resource, talking more about the political events, and major movements during the war, rather than what technological and strategic developments came from it.

It's your continuing string of utter failures, Rer, to logically analyze the evidence you have both researched yourself and I have provided for you, that invalidates the arguments you have made, as I have just done above.

It seems like you might need a little bit of brushing up yourself.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Sat Mar 05, 2005 3:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Mar 05, 2005 3:04 am

Kifle wrote:I stop posting because it is obviously impossible for you to understand how logic and arguments work.


Kifle, I continue to post because it is obviously impossible for you to understand how logic and arguments work. If you pursue your education the way you handle being unable to win an argument, you will remain ignorant for life. Try having some backbone, explore new options, challenge your own viewpoints.

Kifle wrote:Also, you don't need to know anything about an argument to combat its validity


Ignorant rebuttal by ignorant you? Yes, when you take my claim and argument and change it and reword it enough to fit into your tiny little box, you can invalidate it in your little world. Try education, Kifle, learn somthing. First, if you're going to argue the development of modern snipers, try knowing something about modern snipers before you open your pie hole. You do not understand an argument when you do not understand what the argument is about. Particularly when you argue a claim you made up by yourself, injecting words like "creation" where words like "development" lay in order to allow your narrow mind and small world to fit over someone else's thoughts. As far as validity goes, I highly suggest you learn what the difference is between "prove" and "persuade", also, learn what "circumstantial evidence" and "reasonable doubt" mean. Find some pratical applications and study its use.

The truth of the matter is that the modern conceptions of snipers, tanks, air power, and chemical warfare were all developments that came from the trench warfare era - and were developed not only during but because of the realities of trench warfare. You will find very little expert opinion that disagrees.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:24 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:I stop posting because it is obviously impossible for you to understand how logic and arguments work.


Kifle, I continue to post because it is obviously impossible for you to understand how logic and arguments work. If you persue your education the way you handle being unable to win an argument, you will remain ignorant for life. Try having some backbone, explore new options, challenge your own viewpoints.

Kifle wrote:Also, you don't need to know anything about an argument to combat its validity


Ignorant rebuttal by ignorant you? Yes, when you take my claim and argument and change it and reword it enough to fit into your tiny little box, you can invalidate it in your little world. Try education, Kifle, learn somthing. First, if you're going to argue the development of modern snipers, try knowing something about modern snipers before you open your pie hole. You do not understand an argument when you do not understand what the argument is about. Particularly when you argue a claim you made up by yourself, injecting words like "creation" where words like "development" lay in order to allow your narrow mind and small world to fit over someone else's thoughts. As far as validity goes, I highly suggest you learn what the difference is between "prove" and "persuade", also, learn what "circumstantial evidence" and "reasonable doubt" mean. Find some pratical applications and study its use.

The truth of the matter is that the modern conceptions of snipers, tanks, air power, and chemical warfare were all developments that came from the trench warfare era - and were developed not only during but because of the realities of trench warfare. You will find very little expert opinion that disagrees.


It is impossible for me to understand how logic and arguments work... it is also impossible for my logic professor to understand how logic and arguments work. That is the most idiotic thing I have read you type in a long time. You're really grasping at thin air, dude. I go to a school that is always honorable mention out of the top 50 schools in the country. At the campus I go to, they have one of the top 5 anthropology departments in the US. The philosophy department constantly has visiting professors, which, I may add, are some of the top philosophers of today. My logic professor has won many grants and awards for her work throughout her years of research and teaching. I guess I'm just going to a bad school that doesn't educate properly, and I study under a professor that doesn't know logic. You're absoultely right. Teflor the mightiest of braniacs knows more about logic than a doctor of logic, he can travel faster than a speeding bullet, he can shoot laser beams from his eyes and spews toxic clouds of ignorance from his mouth. One of the greatest super villians of all time.

You're right though, I guess I'm going to remain ignorant for the rest of my life. I just can't bring myself to challenge my, or acedemia's veiwpoint on logic. I should adopt your veiwpoint because you have revolutionized this area of philosophy. You have the almighty google on your side...what's a Ph.D. compared to google?! I guess I should just quit school now and not persue my edumacation and surf google like the true geniuses of our time...sorry, genius...teflor the great!

Sorry again for the ignorant rebuttal from ignorant me. I guess I should try this edumacation thing you speak of...oh wait, you just told me not to a second ago...I'm confused :(

As for your arguments...

1) You never mentioned "MODERN" snipers, or the development of, in your original post. You specifically mentioned that sniping, as a whole, "came out of" trench warefare. You did NOT say, "sniping was refined to a greater extent during WWI than any other time in history". Again, to refute your original argument with validity checks, knowledge of the actual area of history can be extreamly minimal. I don't NEED to google for hours to make my response to you on snipers.

2) Circumstantial evidence is applied in a courtroom, not a classroom of logic. Well, it is to a very very small extent when talking about fallacies of accident and converse accident. Other than that, no, I'm sorry. Reasonable doubt, also a courtroom phrase. In fact, if one has to use "reasonable doubt" to interpret your arguments, you have failed in communicating your point. You take the responsibility for reasonable doubt in an argument, not your audience.

It's nice that you use the word developed...

de·vel·op ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-vlp)
v. de·vel·oped, de·vel·op·ing, de·vel·ops
v. tr.
To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment: an instructor who develops the capabilities of each student.

A. To expand or enlarge: developed a national corporation into a worldwide business.

B. To aid in the growth of; strengthen: exercises that develop muscles.

C. To improve the quality of; refine: develops his recipes to perfection; an extra year of study to develop virtuosic technique.

Yes, it was a refinement of the techniques and tactics...they did not "come out of", they where "refined as a result of". Is English your first language, or do you hail from the land of Retardo and speak Retardish? Learn to communicate, learn logic, learn to loose the ego. You aren't that smart, you aren't always right, and you sure as hell didn't win here today. I guess you're no Patton, eh?
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:27 am

There you go with your little box in your little mind again. Go back and read the original claim, and all following supporting evidence. My opinion given was consistant with the general consensus of expert opinions.

Funny how it is that you cannot use the primary definitions of the words from the dictionary you cited - particularly because they probably support my claim.

You and your little box.

You're not only wrong, you're a moron.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:41 am

Kifle wrote:It is impossible for me to understand how logic and arguments work... it is also impossible for my logic professor to understand how logic and arguments work. That is the most idiotic thing I have read you type in a long time. You're really grasping at thin air, dude.


Kifle, if you're going to talk about thin air, you might want to realize that those were your worthless words I recycled from you.

teflor the ranger wrote:
Kifle wrote:I stop posting because it is obviously impossible for you to understand how logic and arguments work.


Kifle, I continue to post because it is obviously impossible for you to understand how logic and arguments work.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:48 am

Kifle wrote:1) You never mentioned "MODERN" snipers, or the development of, in your original post. You specifically mentioned that sniping, as a whole, "came out of" trench warefare.


"Some of the developments that came out of trench warfare in Europe are very modern concepts still used today."

Nice try with that small box of yours.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Mar 05, 2005 4:56 am

Kifle wrote:2) Circumstantial evidence is applied in a courtroom, not a classroom of logic.


As usual, you've missed the obvious. This isn't a classroom of logic. Logic is too simplistic, and probably appeals to you for that reason. Logic is a concept that is barely harnessed in the simplest mathematical applications, and hardly applies to mature arguments of reason in an open forum debating aspects of human endeavor.

You cannot logically "prove" just about anything. The entire purpose of debate and discussion - indeed the heart of argument is persuasion.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:00 am

Kifle wrote:[You take the responsibility for reasonable doubt in an argument, not your audience.


If you ever took a military history class at your honorable mention community college, and the professor asked you what gave birth to the sniper, I'd be willing to bet you'd say "trench warfare and world war I."
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:02 am

Kifle wrote:I guess you're no Patton, eh?


I may not be, but like him, I won. But I'm worried about why your professor isn't bright enough to tell you where you need some work.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:52 am

teflor the ranger wrote:Ackowledging Your Singular Argument:

"no causa pro causa, post hoc ergo propter hoc"

For everyone else watching - a quick translation:

You can't show it, it doesn't exist.
You're trying to say an occurance after another occurance is because of that occurance (rather than an actual reason).

These developments did indeed occur during the era of trench warfare. But the reasons why they were developed during trench warfare are apparant:



One thing is apparent...you are definately no translater nor are you very good at interpreting things. Google definately failed you this time. Logic courses that are worth anything teach you the fallacies by their latin definition, which is why I stated it the way I did. Good thing you are a master of the oh so simplistic logic... The proper translation of the first part would simply be "false cause". Meaning, you are presuming the reality of a causal connection that does not really exist. In your case, correltion and timeliness != causation. The second part translated means, "after the thing, therefore because of the thing". Basically restating the first part, only it is more limited and better applicable to your fallacy tactic. The fallacy you stated is actually "ad ignorantiam", which is the argument from ignorance. But, hey, logic is so simplistic! I'm sure you'd do great in an actual college logic course.
Again, google is not always your friend. You will get caught if you rely on it too much. You aren't as knowledgeable as you make yourself out to be...stop it.
Last edited by Kifle on Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:41 am

Thanks for the laugh. Keep pretending you're intelligent. You're only fooling yourself. Go sell crazy somewhere else, 'cuz we ain't buyin' none here. I am Teflor, logic is so simplistic, I learned it when I was 2! Next you'll tell me you invented the internet, and Al Gore was just your side kick. What, you want me to answer some logic questions? Ok, hang on, let me check google...

Seriously though, nobody buys it, man. There's millions of you on the internet. Each on their own little forums attempting to impress people with their google abilities and unecessary flowery vocab. I see it, pril sees it, rer sees it, sarvis sees it, many other people see it. Virtually everybody but you sees it. You disagree with something, only to start an argument, in virtually every thread you've posted in. You do so in hopes that you will get some attention and to show people your "intelligence". Maybe you didn't get hugged enough as a child. Maybe your dad touched you in naughty spots. Hell, maybe you where picked on too much at school... regardless, I think there are much more healthy mediums in which you can satisfy your longing for acceptance and attention. You can deny what you want; you can attempt to flame me in return. The fact is, at the end of the day, I could give two shits less what some random internet punk thinks of my education, lifestyle, and opinions. I have the backing of non-crazy people, my friends, my professors, and rational thought. I take a heafty poo, take a shower, curl up next to my wife and fall soundly asleep. I only wish someday you will be able to say the same. It'd be nice if people keep showing you how you behave and the flaws in your rational, that you'd one day snap out of it. I wish you the best. Pril, Rer, Sarvis (if you haven't shot yourself from utter frustration), he's all yours...

Peace bitches.
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Mar 05, 2005 9:02 am

teflor the ranger wrote:You're trying to say an occurance after another occurance is because of that occurance


Kifle wrote:"after the thing, therefore because of the thing".


Kifle, you're a moron. The two statements are near logical equivilance. Also, a quick search on google produces the exact wording you have given - not mine. I didn't want to have to actually say it, but I have taken a logic course in college. And you're like the kid in the back that just doesn't seem to get it. I've only ever seen you try to use logic to disprove things (unsuccessfully), and I suspect this is because you also lack the capability or intelligence to properly wield logic. Logic is a tool, like a soldier's rifle. You both do not know how to shoot, nor why you are shooting - and that makes you a soldier best left for training or discharge.

Let me try to piece this together for you yet again:
In supporting my argument, I provided an abundance of information as related to the timing of develpments in warfare (while not the only claim I have made, or evidence I have provided). While you claim it is not a logical argument because claiming that "B happens after A must be because of A" is a logical fallacy.

Here are a few talking points:

1) What you do not understand is that evidence that fits this condition is not always a logical fallacy.

2) What you need to learn is that this is suggestion that such an argument has a higher potential to be a logical fallacy. Logic is not black and white, and can only be -at best- suggestive.

3) This type of evidence is called "circumstantial evidence", which is best when presented in an abundance, which reduces reasonable doubt, but I suppose if you took a course on law, you'd realize this.

4) I see no evidence provided in any of your statements of your argument that the argument I have made is a logical fallacy.

In fact, the only logical fallacy I can see here is yours, Kifle. You assume it's a logical fallacy in your mind because it fits your little box. I'm unconvinced and you have provided

zero proof
zero evidence
zero reasons

to back up your personal assumption - which by the way is highly flawed in and of itself and thus irrelevent.

As for your "Thanks for the laugh." post, my only response is, "you're welcome."
Marrus
Sojourner
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:59 pm
Contact:

Postby Marrus » Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:40 pm

No wonder Thompson shot himself.

Christ, what a trainwreck.
Vahok
Sojourner
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 6:01 am
Location: guelph,ontario,canada

Postby Vahok » Sat Mar 05, 2005 6:00 pm

Marrus wrote:No wonder Thompson shot himself.

Christ, what a trainwreck.


ROFL! Finally, something to actually make me laugh instead of weep when I read this thread!

You rock Marrus, thanks for that.
Meatshield
Yasden
Sojourner
Posts: 1597
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Lake Stevens, WA, USA

Postby Yasden » Sun Mar 06, 2005 12:25 am

bahaha, go Feez!
Tasan
Sojourner
Posts: 1710
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Fridley, Mn USA
Contact:

Postby Tasan » Sun Mar 06, 2005 5:35 am

So who's e-penis is bigger?

!!x
Danahg tells you 'yeah, luckily i kept most of it in my mouth and nasal membranes, ugh'

Dlur group-says 'I have a dead horse that I'm dragging down the shaft with my 4 corpses. Anyone want to help me beat it?'

Calladuran: There are other games to play if you want to play with yourself.
Alomlim
Sojourner
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2002 6:01 am

Postby Alomlim » Sun Mar 06, 2005 10:58 pm

#gag Teflor
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:37 pm

I'd gag you Alomlim, but you never even had the basic and simple courage to say what you think as Rer and Kifle have, no matter how incorrect or incomplete.

Your coward's insult is noted, hopefully you'll muster the courage at a later date to attempt to add to intelligent conversation.
Botef
Sojourner
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Eastern Washington
Contact:

Postby Botef » Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:54 pm

In other news, some goofball tried to tell me today that HST might have been whacked by people affiliated with the GOP and other right-wing groups that had it out for thompson.

Total bullshit, but made me laugh my ass off at them all the way out the door.
Kifle
Sojourner
Posts: 3830
Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2002 6:01 am
Location: Huntington, IN USA
Contact:

Postby Kifle » Tue Mar 08, 2005 5:01 am

Botef wrote:In other news, some goofball tried to tell me today that HST might have been whacked by people affiliated with the GOP and other right-wing groups that had it out for thompson.

Total bullshit, but made me laugh my ass off at them all the way out the door.


It was Colonel Mustard in the library with the revolver...
Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Teflor "You can beat a tank with a shovel!!1!1!!one!!1!uno!!"
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Mar 08, 2005 10:20 pm

You know, the GOP isn't above assassination. *dramatically suspicious music!*
Crumar
Sojourner
Posts: 247
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Canada

Postby Crumar » Thu Mar 24, 2005 7:29 am

Haven't really read any of his work, because I heard he sucked who knows I may pick up something and take a look.
Click on the links below and vote for this mud!

Top Mud Sites: http://www.topmudsites.com/cgi-bin/topm ... gi?id=shev
The Mud Connector: http://www.mudconnect.com/cgi-bin/vote_ ... ner's+Home
MudMagic (aka Kyndig): http://www.mudmagic.com/listings/game/609

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests