Find the errors and laugh

The fact that he's a moron, doesn't mean anyone else has to be.

The fact that not everyone is a moron is not a license to think we are geniuses either. 

I used him as the clearest case, amongst many. I know a lot of teachers.

He is in error in some areas, I am certain that I am also, are you saying that you never are? 
Humility is a very desirable trait for those who love knowledge and wish to increase thiers, finding fault just for fault findings sake is just ego fluffing. I am certain that almost every person here who has made some egregious error in history knowledge probably knows a snarkload (thats a technical term.    ) more than I in some other area aslo, and if I commented on that area I would look like an idiot.

*shrugs*

brasidus said:

The fact that not everyone is a moron is not a license to think we are geniuses either. 

I used him as the clearest case, amongst many. I know a lot of teachers.

He is in error in some areas, I am certain that I am also, are you saying that you never are? 
Humility is a very desirable trait for those who love knowledge and wish to increase thiers, finding fault just for fault findings sake is just ego fluffing. I am certain that almost every person here who has made some egregious error in history knowledge probably knows a snarkload (thats a technical term.    ) more than I in some other area aslo, and if I commented on that area I would look like an idiot.

*shrugs*

Click to expand...

I totally agree! Go be a moron on your own time

I am sure someone noticed this, but...

Also knights, I believe, did kill dragons back in the early middle ages.  These were dragons left over from the era of the dinosaur.

Click to expand...

I didn't know they had computers in mental hospitals.

He's confusing the large, fire breathing mythical monster with the British euphemism for Mother in Law, that's all.

you sure its mother-in-law and not just mother?

He knows what the individual armor parts are called - not that impressive. By the way, with the breathing holes thing, that sounds pretty damn stupid and/or unlikely to me, although plausible, very slimly. I seriously doubt that the arrows have more of a chance to go through those cross-shaped holes, but I believe what he meant was if the knight hears arrows hitting others, or is hit but only minorly stunned by one, he can do this. Perhaps he would hear arrows hissing by, but only if it was really close, and plus the knight would probably think it was only the wind unless it was a lot of them targeted at only him. However, as I said before, I don't think that's why the breathing holes were made that way, I think it's just aesthetics.

aesthetics doesn't really have much to do with actual combat armor -- effectiveness does.  Ceremonial armor is a different story, but in a real fight youd rather look ugly and be protected than be all ncie and pretty... but dead

Well, yeah, but it's just a few breathing holes, for crying out loud.

Ezias said:

aesthetics doesn't really have much to do with actual combat armor -- effectiveness does.  Ceremonial armor is a different story, but in a real fight youd rather look ugly and be protected than be all ncie and pretty... but dead

Click to expand...

When it comes to knights, appearance was of great importance. It's summed up nicely in a quote provided by Yamamoto Tsunetomo, and whereas it applies to samurai, the knights' line of thinking wasn't much different:

A certain general said, "For soldiers other than officers, if they would test their armour, they should test only the front. Furthermore, while ornamentation on armour is unnecessary, one should be very careful about the appearance of one's helmet. It is something which accompanies one's head to the enemy's camp."

I remember reading somewhere that breathing holes were smaller on one side of the helmet because that was the side where it was more likely to recieve an attack by the couched lance when doing a frontal charge against an enemy knight, at least that was the case in tournaments. Sorry for the crappy english 

Kissaki said:

Ezias said:

aesthetics doesn't really have much to do with actual combat armor -- effectiveness does.  Ceremonial armor is a different story, but in a real fight youd rather look ugly and be protected than be all ncie and pretty... but dead

Click to expand...

When it comes to knights, appearance was of great importance. It's summed up nicely in a quote provided by Yamamoto Tsunetomo, and whereas it applies to samurai, the knights' line of thinking wasn't much different:

A certain general said, "For soldiers other than officers, if they would test their armour, they should test only the front. Furthermore, while ornamentation on armour is unnecessary, one should be very careful about the appearance of one's helmet. It is something which accompanies one's head to the enemy's camp."

Click to expand...

Oh, I know that looks werent totally unimportant or that they were ignored, I'm jsut saying that if one had a choice between extremely ornate, yet essentially ineffective armor, or just nicely decorated but extremely effective armor in a fight, theyd go for the less pretyt but more effective piece.  Unless perhaps youre a general that sits back and runs away as trouble approaches

D'Sparil said:

I remember reading somewhere that breathing holes were smaller on one side of the helmet because that was the side where it was more likely to recieve an attack by the couched lance when doing a frontal charge against an enemy knight, at least that was the case in tournaments. Sorry for the crappy english 

Click to expand...

Don't know what you were reading, but that makes no sense. Also, why does everyone keep apologizing for their crappy English when their English is perfect?

I just wasnt sure if the sentence made sense. About the helmet, the idea was the the side of the helmet with more and bigger breathing holes was weaker.

We are talking MILIMETERS in size difference, here. I don't think it's going to make a difference to a lance.

i think you'd find his bio and reason for pursuing life as a knight interesting... and harmless... and probably constructive...

http://www.knightforhire.com/whyknght.html

looks to me he has been repeating what others told him about the helmet holes... maybe the guy who made it, maybe he heard it wrong. and the fighting dragon opinion isn't new, but has been put foward as a suppostion previously my others long before this guy. additionally, he doesn't put himself out to be a scholar or expert, but indicates he does have a mission... from God.

he writes that he trys to serve God through Jesus Christ, and that he believes that this being a knight is what God wants him to do...

he writes that one of his purposes is to "teach the lessons of chivalry regarding morals, ethics and being a gentleman". no one could say that he isn't attempting a noble purpose, and has the gooombahs to put up a web site about it.

i'd think theres a lot worse out there on the 'net than this guy, when it comes to armor and history.

and... solly for my bad engrish. punk. maw