1824 pts ยท February 13, 2013
It is too far from 100% to be considered historically accurate. I never said it was 0% accurate.
It is not historically accurate, however. I could say it has the historical accuracy of having guns, doesn't make it historically accurate.
I do. Nonetheless, it annoys me when it is said it has "historical accuracy" when it is nowhere near historically accurate in any sense.
That doesn't make it much better. Automatic weapons were nowhere near that common.
Welcome to hyperbole my friend.
Plastics that can be molded after treatment with a heat gun are very popular, easily make armor looking materials that are generally tough.
71,759,402 people could comfortably fit. If they are standing.
This is a well documented psychological effect.
He doesn't move his right hand away.
Democrat != revisionist
That is not the consensus.
It is a wavicle. Particle and wave aren't WRONG, it depends on what it is interacting with, not how you want to think about it.
I dont really see any of the irregularities you are trying to point out, also, you can wrap text to vectors, warp text, etc. pretty easily.
It's semantics, that's the problem. Which by default means it can't really be specific.
Things rust because of bases, (hence the hydroxide) not just water and oxygen. And again, rust is a general term for oxidized metal.
Aluminum oxide is considered rust, zinc oxide, copper oxide, rusting is not specific to iron. Iron rust is specific to iron, but not rusting
It is specific in that it can be defined. Rust is a multitude of things, oxidation layers to a kind of fungus.
Another counterpoint, there are multiple kinds of iron rust alone, so "one formula" is wrong. 2/2
It is not, as a multitude of metals "rust" and form oxidation materials. Rust is not just iron oxide, it is every oxidized metal. 1/2
It is common in all people, but is dealt with by the cells in a variety of methods. Much like cancer. A surplus IS rare, however.
Depends on how you define it, rust is NOT a specific reaction. Oxidization is, and happens constantly within organisms that use oxygen.
Also massive(er) portion intake going to brainpower instead of muscle.
No, I'm saying that it's good enough for a counterpoint. Dont strawman.
Which is fine, it's all anecdotal and it is a counterpoint, purely to show that arrows can pierce the mail.
60 at point blank is not the same as 80 at point blank. And a counterpoint, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fMUx7FvMG0
80+, and as a counterpoint, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fMUx7FvMG0
Not only would longbows have been 80+ lbs, I'd like you to send specifically those videos. Arrows were devastating without a gambeson.
I have seen both. Arrows can still penetrate riveted maille effectively. Depends on bow poundage and arrowhead too.
It is too far from 100% to be considered historically accurate. I never said it was 0% accurate.
It is not historically accurate, however. I could say it has the historical accuracy of having guns, doesn't make it historically accurate.
I do. Nonetheless, it annoys me when it is said it has "historical accuracy" when it is nowhere near historically accurate in any sense.
That doesn't make it much better. Automatic weapons were nowhere near that common.
Welcome to hyperbole my friend.
Plastics that can be molded after treatment with a heat gun are very popular, easily make armor looking materials that are generally tough.
71,759,402 people could comfortably fit. If they are standing.
This is a well documented psychological effect.
He doesn't move his right hand away.
Democrat != revisionist
That is not the consensus.
It is a wavicle. Particle and wave aren't WRONG, it depends on what it is interacting with, not how you want to think about it.
I dont really see any of the irregularities you are trying to point out, also, you can wrap text to vectors, warp text, etc. pretty easily.
It's semantics, that's the problem. Which by default means it can't really be specific.
Things rust because of bases, (hence the hydroxide) not just water and oxygen. And again, rust is a general term for oxidized metal.
Aluminum oxide is considered rust, zinc oxide, copper oxide, rusting is not specific to iron. Iron rust is specific to iron, but not rusting
It is specific in that it can be defined. Rust is a multitude of things, oxidation layers to a kind of fungus.
Another counterpoint, there are multiple kinds of iron rust alone, so "one formula" is wrong. 2/2
It is not, as a multitude of metals "rust" and form oxidation materials. Rust is not just iron oxide, it is every oxidized metal. 1/2
It is common in all people, but is dealt with by the cells in a variety of methods. Much like cancer. A surplus IS rare, however.
Depends on how you define it, rust is NOT a specific reaction. Oxidization is, and happens constantly within organisms that use oxygen.
Also massive(er) portion intake going to brainpower instead of muscle.
No, I'm saying that it's good enough for a counterpoint. Dont strawman.
Which is fine, it's all anecdotal and it is a counterpoint, purely to show that arrows can pierce the mail.
60 at point blank is not the same as 80 at point blank. And a counterpoint, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fMUx7FvMG0
80+, and as a counterpoint, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fMUx7FvMG0
Not only would longbows have been 80+ lbs, I'd like you to send specifically those videos. Arrows were devastating without a gambeson.
I have seen both. Arrows can still penetrate riveted maille effectively. Depends on bow poundage and arrowhead too.