L4byr1nth Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 That website is pure comedy gold. Ben. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 If only it was real... I know where I'd be spending my Post-Tour Leave. Seasickness or no seasickness! Seriously though - back in the day, ships would have weapons to try to repel pirates. Even passenger ships/cargo ships if they were sailing through dangerous waters. So why the hell don't these modern ships give the crew a couple of weeks' firearms training and put secure weapons lockers with Armalites and mags in crew-only areas? I know I'd be happier to know that my cruise ship was looking out for my safety. Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 If only it was real... I know where I'd be spending my Post-Tour Leave. Seasickness or no seasickness! Seriously though - back in the day, ships would have weapons to try to repel pirates. Even passenger ships/cargo ships if they were sailing through dangerous waters. So why the hell don't these modern ships give the crew a couple of weeks' firearms training and put secure weapons lockers with Armalites and mags in crew-only areas? I know I'd be happier to know that my cruise ship was looking out for my safety. I reckon they don't have them (any type of firearm to reple intruders), as it would require loads of legal work to sanction. Also, there are a fair few pay phones in huyton. Link to post Share on other sites
L4byr1nth Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 I thought they did have small armouries, but if you're organising a cruise around somewhere like Somalia, you'd think a .50 cal here and there wouldn't go amiss... Ben. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Or a rocket launcher.... Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Or Airwolf, seriously... If you saw Airwolf coming at you for a split second, you'd *suitcase* your self. Then, as you try to fix your accident, you're vapourised by Airwolf's missles. Boom, bye bye pirates. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Airwolf was an awesome show. But leaving aside the whole "supersonic helicopter" concept, they really should have done some research into the missiles they named. The three-barrelled launcher was clearly not big enough to launch at least 95% of the weapons they mentioned on the show... Link to post Share on other sites
Habakure Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 The three-barrelled launcher was clearly not big enough to launch at least 95% of the weapons they mentioned on the show... Dom could make a big missle, fit into a small launcher. He's that good. Link to post Share on other sites
scorch Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 In the original poster for James Bond, Sean Connery was holding an air pistol. This kinda *suitcase* just happens sometimes. Link to post Share on other sites
paranoiddroid Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 you can use an air pistol for assasination work though. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 You can use almost anything for assassination work. Link to post Share on other sites
FireKnife Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 you can use an air pistol for assasination work though. You can use almost anything for assassination work. Including paper, feet, any liquid and organs of the sexual nature 'FireKnife' Link to post Share on other sites
amateurstuntman Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 The interesting thing about the words assassin and assassinate is that you don't have to actually kill your target to be an assassin. An assassin is someone who tries to kill. If your intention was to kill literally everything can be used for assassination work. Also (and in a grammar nazi side quest) it makes the phrase "attempted assassination" that you often hear on the news tautological and retarded. It was an assassination whether the target died or not. Before you all wade in with modern dictionary definitions that is the original meaning which I know has been corrupted by repeated misuse. Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 Unfortunately, trying to cling to the "correct" or original definitions of words is a losing proposition... I know, because I've tried it myself many times... The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that the English language is as pure as a crib-house ######. It not only borrows words from other languages; it has on occasion chased other languages down dark alley-ways, clubbed them unconscious and rifled their pockets for new vocabulary. Oh come on - the "w" word for prostitute is filtered???? Link to post Share on other sites
scorch Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 He actually was holding the air pistol due to time and money constraints. It was all the photographer had on him when he met Sean to do the sample shots, and the sample shots ended up being used as is. Link to post Share on other sites
paranoiddroid Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 isnt the origin of assasin the same root as for hashiash so assasin as the sect of stoned killers? Link to post Share on other sites
Xaccers Posted May 8, 2011 Report Share Posted May 8, 2011 isnt the origin of assasin the same root as for hashiash so assasin as the sect of stoned killers? Possibly, or it could have been Asasiyun and mixed up with hashishin by crusaders. Link to post Share on other sites
Cannonfodder80 Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 isnt the origin of assasin the same root as for hashiash so assasin as the sect of stoned killers? According to The Davinchi Code, yes. However no matter how much "research" Dan Brown does, his books are as historicly accurate as your average story in the Sun so personaly I'd take it with a large pinch of salt Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 Assassination on Wikipedia: The word assassin is derived from the word Hashshashin (Arabic: حشّاشين, ħashshāshīyīn, also Hashishin, Hashashiyyin, or Assassins), and shares its etymological roots with hashish ( /hæˈʃiːʃ/ or /ˈhæʃiːʃ/; from Arabic: حشيش ḥashīsh). It referred to the Nizari branch of the Ismā'īlī Shia founded by the Persian Hassan aṣ-Ṣabbaḥ during the Middle Ages. They were active in the fortress of Alamut in Iran from the 8th to the 14th centuries, and also controlled the castle of Masyaf in Syria. The group killed members of the Muslim Abbasid, Seljuq, and Christian Crusader élite for political and religious reasons. Although it is commonly believed that assassins were under the influence of hashish during their killings or during their indoctrination, there is debate whether these claims have merit. The Hashshashin were eradicated by the Mongol Empire in 1275. The earliest known literary use of the word assassination is in Macbeth by William Shakespeare (1605). Link to post Share on other sites
FireKnife Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 Wikipedia: 'FireKnife' Link to post Share on other sites
Hedganian Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 Oh yes, I'm sure you know far more about all subjects, do you not? Link to post Share on other sites
Cannonfodder80 Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 I think Fireknife is highlighting fact the wikipedia has a reputation for being full of *badger*s so can't really be considered a reliable source of info. Link to post Share on other sites
Cannonfodder80 Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 bloody crappy double posting phone Link to post Share on other sites
mattmanic Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 Some books are wrong too. We should only ever use proven reliable first hand sources of knowledge. OR! Just stop complaining and accept that most of the stuff on Wikipedia is accurate, reliable and it is one of the most useful websites on the Internet. Link to post Share on other sites
Seraphim989 Posted May 9, 2011 Report Share Posted May 9, 2011 Some books are wrong too. We should only ever use proven reliable first hand sources of knowledge. OR! Just stop complaining and accept that most of the stuff on Wikipedia is accurate, reliable and it is one of the most useful websites on the Internet. This. If a wikipedia article is properly cited, and it is very clear when one is not, then it is a completely legitimate source. Whenever I want a quick overview on a subject, I always go to wikipedia. Sure, you can't write a research paper off of what it says, but it is very helpful in pointing you in the right direction, plus you can use the actual sources it cites. And yes, I do believe the term was coined by Shakespeare Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.