Random trivia

[!--QuoteBegin-StrangerInAStrangeLand+Jul 9 2004, 09:50 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(StrangerInAStrangeLand @ Jul 9 2004, 09:50 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]In 1902 in the French West Indies, a man named Mr. Cyparis was in prison awaiting trial for drunkenness. He was detained longer than was expected, was neglected, and was even left without food or water. However, when he was released, he was grateful to have been put in prison. Why?

The prison was one of the few structures made of stone. When he was in prison, the volcano erupted, destroying everything around. I think he was then the only survivor.[/quote]
Just some infos about that piece.
The eruption happened on 1902 in Saint-Pierre, a town of the french West Indies. It destroyed the entire city and killed nearly 30 000 persons.
Here is a link where you can find everything explained - quick read and in english! (there is also a part in french):
[a href=\'http://www.mount-pelee.com/Ifacts.htm\' target=\'_blank\']Mount Pelée[/a]
 
[!--QuoteBegin-syl+Jul 14 2004, 09:51 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(syl @ Jul 14 2004, 09:51 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] Now we know Iron Duke's opinion. But as the official one is the Vatican's opinion that's why Mormons are not considered Christians. [/quote]
The Vatican's opinion is only official for Catholics.
The rest of us are entitled to use our own brains.

Furthermore, my brother married into a Mormon family, so I have many Mormon in-laws. I can tell you that they consider themselves to be Christians. And I don't see how the Vatican's opinion - or anyone else's - invalidates their own description of their religion. Sure it's weird, but it's still a form of Xianity.
 
[!--QuoteBegin--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--]Now we know Iron Duke's opinion. But as the official one is the Vatican's opinion that's why Mormons are not considered Christians.[/quote]

For a comprehensive response to syl, we need look no further than Monty Python....

Husband: Look at them, bloody Catholics, filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't afford to bloody feed.

Wife: What are we dear?

Husband: Protestant, and fiercely proud of it.

Wife: Hmm. Well, why do they have so many children?

Husband: Because... every time they have sexual intercourse, they have to have a baby.

Wife: But it's the same with us, Harry.

Husband: What do you mean?

Wife: Well, I mean, we've got two children, and we've had sexual intercourse twice.

Husband: That's not the point. We could have it any time we wanted.

Wife:Really?

Husband: Oh, yes, and, what's more, because we don't believe in all that Papist claptrap, we can take precautions.

Wife: What, you mean... lock the door?

Husband: No, no. I mean, because we are members of the Protestant Reformed Church, which successfully challenged the autocratic power of the Papacy in the mid-sixteenth century, we can wear little rubber devices to prevent issue.

Wife:What d'you mean?

Husband: I could, if I wanted, have sexual intercourse with you,...

Wife:Oh, yes, Harry.

Husband: ...and, by wearing a rubber sheath over my old feller, I could insure... that, when I came off, you would not be impregnated.

Wife: Ooh!

Husband: That's what being a Protestant's all about. That's why it's the church for me. That's why it's the church for anyone who respects the individual and the individual's right to decide for him or herself. When Martin Luther nailed his protest up to the church door in fifteen-seventeen, he may not have realised the full significance of what he was doing, but four hundred years later, thanks to him, my dear, I can wear whatever I want on my John Thomas,... [sniff] ...and, Protestantism doesn't stop at the simple condom! Oh, no! I can wear French Ticklers if I want.

Wife: You what?

Husband: French Ticklers. Black Mambos. Crocodile Ribs. Sheaths that are designed not only to protect, but also to enhance the stimulation of sexual congress.

Wife:Have you got one?

Husband: Have I got one? Uh, well, no, but I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'

Wife: Well, why don't you?

Husband: But they-- Well, they cannot, 'cause their church never made the great leap out of the Middle Ages and the domination of alien episcopal supremacy.


Protestants, Coptics, and members of the Orthodox Church might disagree with you about the scope of papal authority, syl!
 
The catholic church is the most hupocriticla institution ever created by amn. END of discossion. [!--emo&:cussing:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/cussing[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'cussing[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--] I myslef am baptised an orthodox, but i'm an atheist,really.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Black Ace+Jul 19 2004, 12:49 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Black Ace @ Jul 19 2004, 12:49 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] The catholic church is the most hupocriticla institution ever created by amn. END of discossion. [!--emo&:cussing:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/cussing[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'cussing[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--] I myslef am baptised an orthodox, but i'm an atheist,really. [/quote]
I agree with SMX that we are all entitled to our own opinion but what I stated is not only the Catholic view but also the Orthodox, Lutheran, Calvinist and every other Major Christian Denomination who are MONOTHEISTIC while Mormons are Polytheistic. I know they consider themselves Christian, I made two mormons cry (no joke) when I confronted them with this.
Now black ace, we are all entitled to our own opinion but back it up with examples or facts, don't insult just to put people down, if someone knows religion in this board is me (anybody can tell you that) and I mean MOST major religions east or west SPECIALLY Christianity specifically Catholic and Orthodox so you better do your homework and think before you say anything stupid like this again.
 
that fuckin crack's me up. *laugh* [!--emo&:lol:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/lol[1].gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'lol[1].gif\' /][!--endemo--]

[attachment deleted by admin]
 
Alright guys...I think we need to just move on from this now. In that spirit, I'm going to pop another question. An open ended one that everyone can contribute to for awhile.

Name some differences between the way the Napoleonic Wars and the Franco-Prussian War were fought. I mean technology and the like...not "Britain chose to not participate in the 1870 version of their favourite pastime - making France surrender"
 
The Napoleonic wars were still pretty much in the tradition of 18th century wars; muskets, battalions, formations, open battlefields. Most of the wars revolved around the battlefields.
The Franco-Prussian War also had open battlefields, but it revolved mainly about sieges (Metz, Paris)
The Franco-Prussian War continued after the French emperor was captured as opposed to the Napoleonic Wars ('tis more a joke). The Third Republic (was it the Third? I know it had a special name, but I forgot it, I'm not good in French names) fought on and even managed to defeat the Germans once

Technologically, the Franco-Prussian War had a few new developments:
-The Germans used rifles (I think they're equal to rifles, they were called Zündnadel guns IIRC)
-The French used Chassepot-guns, which were slightly inferior to the rifles
-The French used gattling guns
-The French used observation balloons
-Both sides used railroads, although the German usage was much better organized

Ideologically, it was different too. It was a political war, not a war of expansion -in the spirit of Clausewitz. The Napoleonic wars were the last wars (in the 19th century) where the aim was territorial expansion. The Germans did annex a part of France, but they thought of this as theirs anyway. The German goal was to unify Germany and make their claim as a great European power. The French officially started the war, but it was really Bismarck who wanted the war; he knowingly provoked France for so long that they would declare war. It was his idea to turn France into an ally afterwards, as he did with Austria in 1866, but he failed there.

Anything I forgot?

BTW, even if it doesn't seem like that now, I'm not even remotely interested in military and weapons. But a mate of mine is.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-LooseCannon+Jul 20 2004, 04:53 PM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(LooseCannon @ Jul 20 2004, 04:53 PM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] An open ended one that everyone can contribute to for awhile.[/quote]
Sure...




Are you kidding !!! [!--emo&:blink:--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/blink.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'blink.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
Well, at least, it was funny... and answered (God be blessed !)
Not really on war things myself...

Next question ?
 
I had already asked this question earlier without receiving an answer:

Evelyn and George never met each other but they carried on writing until late in their lives. It was said that Evelyn loved George, but she was in any event too old for him. George married in 1880. He converted to Catholicism in 1930. During WWII, he served with the Royal Marines and the Royal Horse Guards. Partly in recognition to that, Evelyn's subsequent writing analyzed the character of WWII along with the struggle good and evil.

Evelyn died in 1966 near Taunton in Somerset. She had achieved notoriety for her unconventional lifestyle and views. Her first full-length novel had been published back in 1859. She is buried at Highgate Cemetary. He died at the age of 62 after publishing an autobiography in 1964. He lived a year longer than she did. How can that be so?


Hints:

George wrote Silas Marner. Evelyn wrote Brideshead Revisited in 1945, about 86 years after she had written Adam Bede.

Now give some answers.
 
It's not a word game, it's a very tough question with a very funny and satisfying (and confusing) outcome. I'm not gonna reveal it.
 
[!--QuoteBegin-Perun+Jul 21 2004, 09:33 AM--][div class=\'quotetop\']QUOTE(Perun @ Jul 21 2004, 09:33 AM)[/div][div class=\'quotemain\'][!--QuoteEBegin--] I'm not gonna reveal it. [/quote]
Go for it, Perun. No one else seems to have an answer so far.
 
I know the question and the answer. But since nobody seems to know it...

The basics are that George is a woman and Evelyn is a man. They were both famous authors, but I forgot the names (and all the details). Evelyn loved George in the sense that he loved her literature. The rest is just stating facts.
 
Correct.

George was George Eliot, the authoress who was born as Mary Ann Evans in 1819 who made her pen name to promote her literary career. She died in 1880, the same year she married John Cross.

Evelyn Waugh was born in 1903 and he died in 1966.



Now, a new question [!--emo&:p--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/tongue.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'tongue.gif\' /][!--endemo--] :

King George IV was born in 1763. He reigned as the king of England from 1820 until he died in 1830. While king, he started a new trend in footwear. The boots he wore were different from everyone else's. The innovation concerning his boots was copied and is used today, but was very unusual at the time. What was it?
 
Here are a few clues:

It had nothing to do with buckles, laces, tongues, heels, soles, color, or material. It was much more fundamental.

On a more peculiar note, a not-so-bright relative of mine invented the plastic casing that's on the end os shoe laces and became pretty rich. [!--emo&:D--][img src=\'style_emoticons/[#EMO_DIR#]/biggrin.gif\' border=\'0\' style=\'vertical-align:middle\' alt=\'biggrin.gif\' /][!--endemo--]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top