Page 2 of 3

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:41 pm
by darksun_uk
Image

it is so clunky and heavy why did i buy one of the 19 made ...o how i regret the £1000 expense...lol NOT>>>


Image

the hand forged fittings are so cheap looking....NOT

Image

the hand made scabbard has that made in china look to it NOT


Image

the overall design with the 12th century war sword blade just looks so unweildly and crap....NOT

i can cut with this onehanded.......and im not a 12th century knight..

it weighs the same as a katana...oh and it balances as well as any sword i have held or own including full customs that cost more money...1 year wait and worth it and the money paid + 30% more at least.

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 3:47 pm
by Lexxorcist
Please stop it. I don't want to start liking western swords, i can't afford to! lol ;)

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 7:49 pm
by 2841981
4" fence post :S

what was it 4" X 2" ?

cause i doubt a machete could cut through that in one strike and give a satisfying cut and not some burred break/snap

but then again what would i know, i dont own a sword

nath/2841981

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 9:42 pm
by Oni no Tengu
Not all knights swords were made to the same standards as the ones in the pictures, they look like they have had considerably more work and time spent on them than an original english knights sword.

I've seen an original knights sword, and it was rough as hell compared to those polished and sharpened ones.

A knights sword was not really designed for precision cutting, it was produced in such a way that the weight of it crushed bones, you only have to look at knights armour to see that, heavy helmets with plently of padding inside, chainmail with leather inside and heavy shields.
Also heavy leather gloves often covered with chainmail, the armour was designed to "soak" up blows from heavy fighting implements such as 5 foot swords, maces, morning stars and other such weapons.

Where as the katana was a precision cutting weapon, and the japanese armour reflects that.
It was made of leather, jade, metal plating connected by leather straps etc.
It was designed to Deflect blows away from the armour, so that the sword had little chance of becoming embedded in the armour, which for the sword user could be a fatal happening.

I've also seen knights swords that had been made to very good standards of workmanship, they had been polished and sharpened and looked as good as the ones in those pictures, they had had a lot of time spent on them, But the average battle ready sword, had been roughly forged, probably in haste, roughly sharpened, and was not polished to any degree at all.

Anyway onto the 4 inch post cutting.
I'm not lying, I have no reason to, it is something I have done, only the once, Although I have cut other things , saplings and bamboo and the like that has had a diameter of 2 inches, that was my normal cutting diameter that I used for testing new techniques.

I don't particularly care whether you believe me or not, or whether you think it can't be done with a cheap £50 SS sword.
I'm just saying it can, because I have done it.

But upto that point in time, I had probably trained in some way with my ninja-to for a few hours, every other day for the best part of 7 years.

I'm saying that if you train long enough and hard enough, It can be done.

Believe it or not, on my mothers life it is the truth!

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:07 pm
by sprout
4 inch post is some feat, considering I cant do that in one stroke with a khukri.

Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:31 pm
by darksun_uk
Oni no Tengu wrote:Not all knights swords were made to the same standards as the ones in the pictures,


not all katana either.


Oni no Tengu wrote:they look like they have had considerably more work and time spent on them than an original english knights sword.


for considerable think the best money can buy or as close to it as its possible to get, and i would be interested to know seeeing as the swords i am talking about have been made from historical examples in museums what you are referring to as your idea of an "english knights sword" a class of sword that ranges from a short light riding sword all way to a 2 handed zweihander/claymore etc...


Oni no Tengu wrote:I've seen an original knights sword, and it was rough as hell compared to those polished and sharpened ones.


was this in a stately home by any chance as many display pieces of the type you describe are crude display pieces made in the 17th to 19th centuries.



Oni no Tengu wrote:A knights sword was not really designed for precision cutting, it was produced in such a way that the weight of it crushed bones,


please quote the source of this infomation as it is 100% incorrect. the swords i am talking about while roughly made would conform to historical examples in museams and thus would be sharp and well balanced and in the weight range of any other type of sword katana sabre etc etc etc this is simply a fact of history and human warfare .


i have seen videos of a blunt 15th century style english bastard sword being used to cut rolled soaked straw matts (with wooden cores) cleanly over and over again the sword had an edge but was not sharp i.e. you could rest the edge on your forearm and rub it up and down with no risk of injury the swordsman in the video actually does this during the video to prove the bluntness of the sword, therefore your stament is not only incorrect it defies logic as the skill of the swordman and the mass and edge geometry of the blade is the critical component in cutting flesh like targets something that trancends cultural differences in sword blade styles.

i have cut matts myself with all types of edged weapons no better or worse results where observed in relation to the type of sword or indeed the relative sharpness (after all the sharper the edge the easier it dulls,chips,cracks or otherwise fails especially when armour and battlefield conditions are factored in)


Oni no Tengu wrote: you only have to look at knights armour to see that, heavy helmets with plently of padding inside, chainmail with leather inside and heavy shields.
Also heavy leather gloves often covered with chainmail, the armour was designed to "soak" up blows from heavy fighting implements such as 5 foot swords, maces, morning stars and other such weapons.


ALL armour has an element of shock absorbtion ALL armour.

Oni no Tengu wrote:Where as the katana was a precision cutting weapon, and the japanese armour reflects that.
It was made of leather, jade, metal plating connected by leather straps etc.
It was designed to Deflect blows away from the armour, so that the sword had little chance of becoming embedded in the armour, which for the sword user could be a fatal happening.


no it is armour that was designed with the materiels at hand if plate armour technology had been practical in japan trust me it would have been used as high gothic plate is simply the pinnacle of armour technology verus any impact weapon from any country. the thrusting attack from a european sword would cause problems for japanese armour and the cutting power of the katana would be useless against tempered steel plate armour, which is why spears and lances were mainly used from horseback by the samurai and the knights/men at arms. all armour is effective on some level versus thrusting attacks however the best armour type is plate without question. the modern soldiers equipment body armour etc weighs about the same as a suit of plate however due to the much better weight distribution of a suit of properly fitted plate it is easier to wear for long periods, and actually less restrictive in terms of moving and fighting.




Oni no Tengu wrote:I've also seen knights swords that had been made to very good standards of workmanship, they had been polished and sharpened and looked as good as the ones in those pictures, they had had a lot of time spent on them, But the average battle ready sword, had been roughly forged, probably in haste, roughly sharpened, and was not polished to any degree at all.


sorry mate your going to have to do better than that, most swords in any army would be poorly made but would not have excess (valuable) steel in them and would be light enough to actually fight with :S , what swords have you seen what makers what blade styles etc

kind regards

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:18 am
by Oni no Tengu
Sprout... Despite the Kukri having a weighted edge and you being able to put a lot of force behind a swinging attack, its simply not in the same class as a ninja-to or Katana, Even though the ninja-to only has a straight edge, A lot more force can be put into a swing (much like a golfclub swing). Snce the Ninja regarded the last 2-4 inches of the blade as the best cutting part of the blade, that was the part of the blade I used for all my cutting.

I have noticed in many video's of people doing test cutting, that not a lot of them truely "twist" their hips into the strike, After all many martial artists inlcuding bruce lee have stated that with kicks that is where most of the power comes from, and from experience I would say its the same with sword strikes.

By twisting the hips as you bring the sword down and then pulling the sword towards you as you connect with the target, all of the power is transferred into the cut.
A lot of people say that you should let the sword do the job its designed to do, and just cut, the curve of the katana as it travels in its overhead arc is what cuts deeply into the target, But from my experience, which is 100's of hours of practise, If you can correctly transfer the energy through your hips and into the strike, then a 4 inch post is not even a challenge!

There are even reliable sources in japan that have stated that some katana's have cut through as many as 17 human torso's stacked on top of each other (as this was the preferred testing method for katana cutting in feudal japan).

I've done the practise, and spent 100's of hours perfecting my techniques, whilst I don't proclaim to be an expert, I do have some degree of skill.

17 torso's sounds a bit tougher to cut than one 4 inch post.

onto some answers for questions..

Anyway, I agree not all Katana were made the same too.

Especially the machine made ones manufacturered for War and the individual ones that were "lovingly" forged by master swordsmiths, 2 sides of a coin those were.

The original knights sword that I saw was in the british museum in London, although it did have some corrosion it was still in very good condition, it was about 5 feet long and about half an inch thick, although it looked as if it had had an edge on it at some stage in its life, it was a mass of nicks and burrs, probably battle damage, its was also unpolished.

I don't remember what century it was from.

I have read that swords that were more towards the times of the Crusades do resemble the ones in the pictures, their polish was'nt as good, but they were sharpened and were designed more for cutting than crushing, swords after this period were generally heavier and thicker and more designed for bone crushing blows on enemies wearing thick armour.

Even if Plate mail had been available in Japan at the same time as the Katana was being used by the samurai, It would not have been used.

As I've already stated Samurai armour was designed in such a way as to Deflect blows from the sword, If plate mail had been used there would have been a chance of the katana cutting into the armour and getting stuck, this would obviously be very bad for the wielder since it would then leave them open to attack.

In the book Naked Blade by Toshihiro Obata, he demonstrated the cutting of a katana into various materials, he cut steel nails in half, lead pipes, and also a Helmet made of metal much like the type of helmets worn by the Knights of old england.
The katana did not bend or break and had no discernable damage, no chips, cuts etc.

I'm sure a proper suit of Plate mail would give very good protection against katana cuts though, but this does demonstrate the cutting ability of a katana, even though Obata is obviously an expert with his katana.
So that helps a great deal.

The other good swords I saw were also in the british museum and one which a friend had bought for himself privately.
My friend was part of a Medievel reinactment society and had a great deal of interest in knights swords and had an extensive library of historical reference books.

The sword he had was neither a claymore or bastard sword, as far as I remember,but was several 100 yrs old and had still retained most of its original polish and edge, I've no idea what type of sword it would be correctly called, since I have little interest in old english weaponary.

Each to his own, I guess!

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 1:33 am
by darksun_uk
Oni no Tengu wrote:, swords after this period were generally heavier and thicker and more designed for bone crushing blows on enemies wearing thick armour
.

this is simply not true, if you want to attack armour use a battleaxe(spike) or try halfswording at the joints. no sword was ever designed for attacking armour they can be used for this but it is not a design feature they are designed to cut flesh and soft living bone (like all swords are).

Oni no Tengu wrote:Even if Plate mail had been available in Japan at the same time as the Katana was being used by the samurai, It would not have been used.
.
why ? as it is the best armour.....


Oni no Tengu wrote:As I've already stated Samurai armour was designed in such a way as to Deflect blows from the sword,


gothic plate is the best at that by far. seriously the best in human history bar none.

Oni no Tengu wrote: If plate mail had been used there would have been a chance of the katana cutting into the armour and getting stuck,


100% incorrect, no more so than any other armour but the idea of a sword doing anything other than denting hardened steel armour is just silly.


Oni no Tengu wrote:In the book Naked Blade by Toshihiro Obata, he demonstrated the cutting of a katana into various materials, he cut steel nails in half,


i have a copy of that exact book, he does NOT say hardened steel (as was used for plate armour)


Oni no Tengu wrote: and also a Helmet made of metal much like the type of helmets worn by the Knights of old england.


please re-read the book, helmets of the japanese (feudal period) were soft iron.
helmets of (gothic period) europe were hardend steel.

what would happen if two exactly identical swords edges hit each other with equal force ?

you would get a nick in both swords roughly equal in depth same material=no cut. its that simple.

and anyway batlefield use and test cutting are almost impossible to gauge as accurate comparsions the nature of combat against a moving opponent is simply to dynamic the chances of a cut doing anything other than blunt force damage and/or nicking/bending the plate section are so remote as to be not worth entertaining in a serious disscussion.




Oni no Tengu wrote:The katana did not bend or break and had no discernable damage, no chips, cuts etc.


any sword would cut the same targets as they are all softer than the steel of the sword the test cutting is more a display of the users skill not the sword as above a certain basic level of craftmanship they are all the same for the purposes of tests like the ones we are disscussing,plate armour is as hard and therefore it is only possible to pierce it with a spike or small diameter hammer just as was used in war for that reason....

Oni no Tengu wrote:
I'm sure a proper suit of Plate mail would give very good protection against katana cuts though, but this does demonstrate the cutting ability of a katana, even though Obata is obviously an expert with his katana.
So that helps a great deal.


a suit of plate is impervious to any sword except at the joints where it is possible to insert the tip of the sword, no person can cut hardened steel with hardend steel it is simply impossible.


Oni no Tengu wrote:I've no idea what type of sword it would be correctly called, since I have little interest in old english weaponary.


yet you feel qualified to comment on the relative merits of swords and armour from one culture to another without at least the same level of knowledge about one side compared to the other, i must confess that i find that position speaks volumes about your stated opinions thus far in relation to the subjects i have been highlighting/discussing in my last few posts.



Oni no Tengu wrote: had an extensive library of historical reference books.
s!


please read a few before commenting on european weapons and armour. anything buy ewart oakeshott or john clements is a good starting point.


kind regards

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 4:43 am
by Oni no Tengu
God! this is getting boring now!

Anyway.. "designed" for bone crushing blows, Was perhaps the wrong word.

But take for example the heavy knights armour, platemail or chainmail.

If a sword designed primarely for cutting could not penetrate that armour, then why would a thin, light sharpened sword be used at all, if the armour was impervious to any strikes, and only stabbing strikes directed at joins might be successful.

It only makes sense that to try to defeat someone wearing heavy platemail or armour , that you use a huge sword, upwards of 10lb's in weight, that is "designed" for crushing blows, blows that would bend the armour and cause broken bones, trauma or haemoriging.
Or you use a heavy mace or morning star etc.

Again....Plate mail would have been useless in Japan, because it would not have fitted in with the rest of the Samurai's combat art and his other weapons.
Whens the last time you saw someone successfully firing an arrow from a bow accurately whilst wearing plate mail with a helm.

Or performing side kicks or other martial arts moves, or how about a forward or backward roll to escape the blow of a sword...er! never! I think.

Plate mail while a superior armour in terms of strength was simply not flexible enough for the needs of the samurai and his combat arts.

Onto the chances of a katana getting stuck in a suit of platemail.
I'd say the chances would be very high, unless it was deflected or not a very powerful slicing strike.
This is why japanese armour was made of flexible materials, to not only aid movement But to deflect the blows of the katana away from the person wearing the armour.

And were not just talking about hardened steel against hardened steel.

We are talking about a katana that may have been folded 1000's of times and have millions of layers, it is NOT even in the same class as the metal used in platemail or in a Knights sword.

I'm not saying that even the best katana in history was Indestructable, or that its edge was so keen it could slice through metal like a hot knife through butter, But these swords were the epitomy of the swordsmiths art,
Some of them took months to make, they were tried and tested on the battlefield for hundreds of years, And they could slice into metal armour, Maybe not through, But certainly into.

I'm not just pulling stuff outta the air, or talking outta my ass, This is factual info that I have read from books created by Japanese historians.

Anyway to finish off, cos I tire of this discussion, I know very little about english weaponary and armour apart from a few books I have read and some discussions with the friend I mentioned, You do seem to know more, so I'll leave it at that.

But I do know a hell of a lot more about Japanese weapons and the Samurai, And obviously more than you, since you asked why the Japanese did'nt use platemail, when if you knew anything about the samurai and their combat art, then you'd know why they did'nt use it.
As I've mentioned above.

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 12:11 pm
by wtf?
im only half reading this, but im gonna throw my 2 cents in for the sake of the extra info.

japanese armour was a light armour, it wasnt meant to deflect heavy blows or be impervious. those who did wer armour were wealthy samurai. those samurai with their strict code of ethics were not meant (or at least were socialy bound) to not fear death. their armour was to keep them alive as long as possible to get them into striking range with other weapons.

their armour was meant to be light, manuvereable (spelling?), and mostly deflective. and with those design parameters in mind, did the best job on earth. the gothic armour DS is on about is different being thts its a heavy armour, and is meant to be as protective as possible.
japanese armour took this away in favor for more speed, and less weight.

the reason swords were less effective than people imagine, is because contrary to popular belief, the japanese sword wasnt the primary weapon.... they didnt HAVE to be.
while a sword cant penitrate armour effectively, a yari, or 50 arrows falling from the sky were more than enough.... even full plate would have issues with a yari, and certainly with the arrows.

the important thing to remember was that samurai were almost lemmings to a point, and their armour wasnt meant to be an all encompassing shield. it was meant to keep them alive from A to B. at point B, their only concern was dying a good death.

this is all very whimsical and romantic, but socially, it was their place and wether they liked it or not, thats how the nation armed their warriors. and to go against that social norm would be intolerable.
plate was used to an extent... but only on the midsection. and even then rarely.

nopt sure if any of this is relivent, or needed... but its here none-the-less in case its one of the above.

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:00 pm
by darksun_uk
Oni no Tengu wrote:God! this is getting boring now!.


you can thank me later.

Oni no Tengu wrote:Anyway.. "designed" for bone crushing blows, Was perhaps the wrong word.

But take for example the heavy knights armour, platemail or chainmail.

If a sword designed primarely for cutting could not penetrate that armour, then why would a thin, light sharpened sword be used at all, if the armour was impervious to any strikes, and only stabbing strikes directed at joins might be successful.


put simply the sword (any sword) is very good at hacking up poorly armoured peasents which make up the vast bulk of any army (plus swords are usefull and effective weapons for personal defense) knights would use other weapons to attack an armoured foe only falling back on the sword if they were unhorsed or had no other choice....



Oni no Tengu wrote:It only makes sense that to try to defeat someone wearing heavy platemail or armour , that you use a huge sword, upwards of 10lb's in weight,


no, it makes sense to use a tool designed for the job i.e. massed archers,a spear or polearm, a battle axe/pick a mace etc or if your a mounted knight a lance...




Oni no Tengu wrote:Again....Plate mail would have been useless in Japan, because it would not have fitted in with the rest of the Samurai's combat art and his other weapons.
Whens the last time you saw someone successfully firing an arrow from a bow accurately whilst wearing plate mail with a helm.

Or performing side kicks or other martial arts moves, or how about a forward or backward roll to escape the blow of a sword...er! never! I think.

Plate mail while a superior armour in terms of strength was simply not flexible enough for the needs of the samurai and his combat arts.


see wtf's post above for some of the cutural reasons why not and also it would have been to expensive as good quality carbon steel from the tartara process was used for weapons.


Oni no Tengu wrote:Onto the chances of a katana getting stuck in a suit of platemail.
I'd say the chances would be very high,


stuck in what and how ? explain please, carbon steel hardend to the same degree wont cut into itself thats basic metalurgy.


Oni no Tengu wrote: unless it was deflected or not a very powerful slicing strike.


no, it simply wont happen even more unlikely under battlefield conditions.




Oni no Tengu wrote:And were not just talking about hardened steel against hardened steel.

We are talking about a katana that may have been folded 1000's of times and have millions of layers, it is NOT even in the same class as the metal used in platemail or in a Knights sword.


im sorry mate but thats displays pure ignorance of the facts, carbon steel is carbon steel all folding did/does was remove the impurites from the roughly smelted steel the japanese smiths had to work with the nice hamon and hada are a pleasent by product. history and tradition contiune because of cultural reasons and the swords are lovely and have wonderfull history etc but they are just steel after all, after the mid 9th century the art of pattern welding died out in europe as large amounts of good steel started to be mass produced (certainly when compared to the amounts available to japanese smiths) thus making plate and good quality through tempered swords much more common (though plate was still very expensive)

carbon steel heat treated to the same level is carbon steel folding has nothing to do with the performance on a purely metalurgical level that is fact.




Oni no Tengu wrote:I'm not saying that even the best katana in history was Indestructable, or that its edge was so keen it could slice through metal like a hot knife through butter,


thats good because it makes the journey to reality much shorter.


Oni no Tengu wrote: But these swords were the epitomy of the swordsmiths art,
Some of them took months to make, they were tried and tested on the battlefield for hundreds of years,


like the pattern welded blades in 4th-8th century europe they are mentioned in sagas and many were passed down for generations pattern welded swords are much less likely to "take a set" than an iron sword and as they were made with great care (because the carbon steel on the edge was so expensive) they seemed to last a long time and were looked after and looked upon with awe in there time, many were ultimatley buried with kings.


Oni no Tengu wrote: And they could slice into metal armour, Maybe not through, But certainly into.,


iron yes copper yes but plate armour no, as i said any sword can do those things as the materiel is softer than the swords blade.

in order to prove me wrong you will have to cite a peer reviewed academic study into the relative strengh of two samples of metal one folded one not but both carbon steel with the same level of heat treatment (rockwell hardness etc) no such study exsists as any metalugist will tell you in 2 seconds flat "there is no diffference".


Oni no Tengu wrote:I'm not just pulling stuff outta the air, or talking outta my ass, This is factual info that I have read from books created by Japanese historians.


your posting opinion as fact and not backing it up mate actually reading a bit more about the subject you profess so much expertise on may prove usefull.

Oni no Tengu wrote:I know very little about english weaponary and armour


yeah we can agree on that much at least.


Oni no Tengu wrote:, You do seem to know more, so I'll leave it at that.



yes and i tire of the endless corrections, lol.


Oni no Tengu wrote:But I do know a hell of a lot more about Japanese weapons and the Samurai, And obviously more than you,.


no really you obvioulsy dont or you would not have posted the stuff you have done.

Oni no Tengu wrote: since you asked why the Japanese did'nt use platemail, when if you knew anything about the samurai and their combat art, then you'd know why they did'nt use it.
As I've mentioned above.


you obviously dont know what a rhetorical question is then,



kind regards

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:45 pm
by HatchA
Oni no Tengu wrote:We are talking about a katana that may have been folded 1000's of times and have millions of layers,



dude..... that statement right there seemed to jump out of the screen at me. I had to read more, so I read Darksun's post covering all the things he was taking issue with. (with good reason, I might add...).

You claim to be so much more knowledgable than DS regarding Japanese swords and armor etc..... You claim NOT to be "pulling this outta the air..." it's all "factual info that I have read from books created by Japanese historians."

Lord knows I hate to point out when someone's telling porkies on here, as any member who knows me will attest to... BUT... you sir, are a FIBBER!!!! A member of the Fibious Maximus Excretus family of the highest order.....

I personally would like to know the names of these books "created" (?) by Japanese historians which tell of swords being folded "thousands of times" and having "millions of layers...." I myself have read several books and chapters within books pertaining to the art of the Japanese sword. I have yet to read anything that describes what you say you have read.

There are basically two methods of forging a Japanese sword. One is to "wrap" a soft steel core (shingane) within a harder steel (hadagane), beat it together, shape it and harden it etc.....

The other way (which I believe you to be referencing) is to make a billet out of multiple pieces of broken up tamahagane (look it up) which are stacked on a small "plate" of high carbon steel previously prepared by the smith, who arranges them according to their carbon content, BY EYE... on this plate. It is then wrapped in rice paper and straw and doused/basted with a clay-water mixture before firing in the forge.

over a period of time, this stack of small pieces is fused/welded together through repeated heating and hammering.

The smith will fold the new billet between 12 and 15 times.... TWELVE AND FIFTEEN TIMES....... which to the untrained mathematician comes nowhere close to even resembling "thousands" of times which you profess to have read.... again I say... name the book please...

If you take a sheet of paper and imagine you can fold it more than 7 or 8 times..... this is what would happen...

1st fold : 2 layers.

2nd fold : 4 layers

3rd fold : 8 layers

4th fold : 16 layers

5th fold : 32 layers.... stay with me, we'll be here a while but I guarantee it's worth it....

6th fold : 64 layers

7th fold : 128 layers

8th fold : 256 layers

9th fold : 512 layers

10th fold : 1024 layers..... still with me? good...

11th fold : 2048 layers

12th fold : 4096 layers

13th fold : 8192 layers

14th fold : 16384 layers

and last but not least.....15th fold : 32768 layers.....

I say "last" because it is generally accepted that folding any more than this will undermine the structure of the metal and basically it becomes "over-worked" and is useless as a sword making material.

I find it interesting that you use the word "created" when referencing your "japanese historians" as it has been pointed out on TV documentaries (one of which I believe was Michael Palin's Around the World in 80 days) that in the Japanese history books that they teach from in school, there is a very different picture painted of what went on throughout the second world war. They have basically decided to use "selective memory" to teach new generations an edited down version of events and such that the Japanese might not be too proud about......

"created" indeed......

That is basically all I'm going to say here because it sums up, for me anyway, that you are indeed pulling these "facts" out of your arse and I have little to no interest in reading any more of them.

I will, however, keep abrest of this thread in the unlikely event that you post up a bibliography from which I may be enlightened from.....

Regards...

HatchA.

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:10 pm
by Hatamoto
*Raucous round of applause for all of that* Dude knows his sh*t, fair play!

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:18 pm
by Lexxorcist
I'm seriously considering using this tactic of making silly statements as a means of aquiring information. Admitting ignorance and asking a question gets you some sound answers, but coming out with rubbish as fact gets you pages of information. :D

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:34 pm
by wtf?
Lexxorcist wrote:I'm seriously considering using this tactic of making silly statements as a means of aquiring information. Admitting ignorance and asking a question gets you some sound answers, but coming out with rubbish as fact gets you pages of information. :D


and bad words coming from my mouth, to my keyboard. dont do it man... it aint worth it.