Submitted by: dunno source via Oddly Specific
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
umm… in your rush to be the first… did you know you wrote ‘fist’? Unless thats what you were going for.
Maybe he meant fist-bump to whoever wrote this? I think people are too crass these days, we need to go back to more thought out insults instead of defaulting to “Faggot” or “Retard”
yeah…. that must be what he meant….
He offers an insult, it’s accepted, and then he has to apologise? That’s gratitude for you.
The comments queue in 1839 was much more civilized.
Indeed. I wonder if there was a posting made shortly after this one declaring itself to be first?
I am sure there is a FIRST sign nearby and also a Pedobear sign disapproving the first.
And almost certainly an array of signs saying how it’s not funny at all and doesn’t even meet the criteria of the site on which it was posted.
The following paper, which proposes a theory about why people duel, may shed some light on what is going on here:
I can’t believe that the author of the paper actually pulled a Godwin! (You wanna know who ELSE called duels irrational?)
There’s a story behind this :
What you say!!!!
Argumented, justified, nicely manufactured…Beats all the stupid name-calling on Fox!
liberals never cease to amaze me. How did you even get Fox out of this? Yes we all know fox is the only news station that resorts to name calling like calling people “Teabaggers” or calling Bush a Nazi. Oh wait those weren’t fox. Moron.
They weren’t news reporters either.
He refused to apologize….how horrible! These days he would be declared a terrorist.
Stop it. You’re being such a terrorist right now.
He challenged him to a duel? How awesome. I hope he slapped him in the face with his glove. They used better language in those days too.
Just so anyone after me wondering what “that satisfaction, which as an honorable man, (refusing to apologise,) he was bound to give.” means “he was supposed to accept my challenge to a duel with pistols, but he didn’t.”
That’s so disappointing. I thought we’d discovered some much more scandalous 19th century custom.
Insults were so proper back in the day. Or maybe this was the equivalent of a ‘yo momma’ retort, I’m not really sure.
I wish I had read this before trusting Gen Leigh Read’s “fresh” sandwiches.
Wow, passive aggressive much?
And right under it is written “Nay, thou!”.
That’s awesome. *highfives*
fake. fake fake fake fake fake.
seriously? you all thought people would write in that style over 150 years ago??? epic oddlyspecific common sense fail. get this tea-bag stained piece of paper off already.
That’s really great and all, except that placard does actually exist.
Yeah, you’re right. They didn’t write in that style 150years ago. Here’s what actually was written, that has been photoshopped for the edification of oddlyspecific nerds.
“Gen Leigh Read is a scumbag. He called me a fuckhead, and smacked me in the nose. I offered to kick his nuts off, but he declined the offer. I therefore pronounce him a complete arsehole.
That’s how it was.
Do a little research before you call fake.
@nameless – Not fake. No, not the original sign, but I’ve no doubt such a sign existed. Here’s an actual historical paper on the events:
“not fake… not the original”
Anyway, if you’re gonna call bullshit post a link to prove it… well posting a link to prove the non-existance of something is pretty difficult, but well done for posting a nearly un-related link as “proof”
My favourite thing about that link you posted was that it was from a “trusted archive for scholarship” yet full of grammatical and spelling errors. Not THAT’S entertainment.
“Not THAT’S entertainment.”
Irony, thy name is nameless.
That comment is also ironic.
@nameless. You sir, are an idiot. But I’ll rise to the bait just once.
First, while academic papers are often published chock full of spelling and grammatical errors, I found none in my link.
Second, it seems you’ve never heard of Jstor, which suggests that you don’t know jack shit about academia. That also means you don’t have access to the full article, only to the first page. The article is not “nearly un-related”, it in fact confirms the existence of the placard and quotes from it.
Third, it is clearly a recreation of a placard from 1839. Obviously the actual placard would have long since been destroyed, or at least rendered far less legible than this example. If that’s a fake to you, or you can get that distinction, then I reiterate my first statement: you sir, are an idiot.
And what does this have to do with tea bags?
I’ve no problem whatsoever with this post, in fact I pretty much agree 100% with you, this is just informative: Oftentimes, tea bags are used to stain paper, giving them an “aged” look. Just to clarify. :]
thank you dude that was awesome
I believe Vince was poking fun at you. Ya know, the fact that you were griping about spelling and grammar mistakes, and then in the next sentence made one yourself. If you look back, you typed “Not THAT’S entertainment” when I BELIEVE you meant to say “NOW THAT’S entertainment”. Just sayin’.
“Satisfaction” here actually refers to dueling.
Translate as –
“He didn’t say he’s sorry, and he won’t let me murder him. So he’s a pussy.”
More like “He didn’t say he’s sorry, and he won’t risk injury at my hand”. People rarely died in duels.
Doesn’t make them any less stupid though.
Scoundrel? Scoundrel?! I like the sound of that.
Because public slander over childish arguments is worth preserving for nearly 200 years.
It’s funny. So yeah, it is.
Also it isn’t slander, because it’s an opinion and not a false factual claim.
I think your comment is the best one on here.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Google+ account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Twitter account.
( Log Out /
You are commenting using your Facebook account.
( Log Out /
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.