fett on 20/4/2007 at 11:49
Quote Posted by Ko0K
Yeah, you mean like some white guy is going to go into Koreatown and start spraying, and the media will pay disproportionate amount of attention to the fact that he is white, right?
(
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18178194/site/newsweek/) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18178194/site/newsweek/
If you mean me, uh...no.
Fingernail on 20/4/2007 at 11:51
1775–1783 was the American Revolutionary War or War of Independence
Tanks didn't really exist until World War I, over 120 years later, although I'll concede that da Vinci designed a prototype "tank" thing and there were probably early experiments.
But jesus, guys, cars didn't exist then, and Stevenson's Rocket wasn't until 1829.
I think you might be thinking of the Civil war, when there were things like train-mounted guns.
N'Al on 20/4/2007 at 12:40
Quote Posted by Fingernail
for a start there were no such things as tanks then.
Way to completely miss the point of my argument.
There's a reason why "pitchforks vs. tanks" is put in inverted commas.
"Lower tech vs. higher tech", then; I thought that was pretty much self-evident.
Fingernail on 20/4/2007 at 12:46
no, I got the point of your argument just fine. I was being flippantly pedantic, and then Mr Mois chimed in and I just felt some people might go away thinking WRONG THINGS about historical military technology.
Although I concede that he may have been being sarcastic, his post had all the tone of a "erm, I think you're wrong actually..."
Moi Dix Mois on 20/4/2007 at 12:46
Quote Posted by Fingernail
1775-1783 was the American Revolutionary War or War of Independence
Tanks didn't really exist until World War I, over 120 years later, although I'll concede that da Vinci designed a prototype "tank" thing and there were probably early experiments.
But jesus, guys, cars didn't exist then, and Stevenson's Rocket wasn't until 1829.
I think you might be thinking of the Civil war, when there were things like train-mounted guns.
Hahaha oh my god.
You're smarter than this, Fingernail.
Fingernail on 20/4/2007 at 12:48
There's a certain level of sarcasm, which by virtue of being unfunny, can often go misread as genuine statement. So I'm sorry if I mistook you for a fool.
Moi Dix Mois on 20/4/2007 at 12:55
Calm down darling, you were only having your leg pulled. Jesus.
N'Al on 20/4/2007 at 13:10
Quote Posted by Fingernail
no, I got the point of your argument just fine. I was being flippantly pedantic,
Ah Christ, sorry. I guess my sarcasm detector's being a bit faulty as well today. :(
And here I was
thinking hoping this would turn into a "my e-penis is bigger than your e-penis" style argument.
Gestalt on 20/4/2007 at 13:19
My understanding was that France supported the American side with arms, money, and other supplies. They were trying to undermine Britain's colonial power, I think? They were probably still kind of pissed off about losing Quebec/New France to the British, too.
steo on 20/4/2007 at 13:34
Yeah, as much as I'm sure a lot of Americans would hate to admit it, the French saved your arse in that war, you would have never done it without them.
