Then could you tell me how in total crime the UK is ranked 6th, with a rate of 85.5517 crimes per 1000 people?Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
Printable View
Then could you tell me how in total crime the UK is ranked 6th, with a rate of 85.5517 crimes per 1000 people?Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
When I was in Japan, every news show had a segment called "Crime and Accidents Around the Nation". One could say it was sensationalism, but with n two or three days they followed up with the opolice catching the perp. Now that is fair and balanced!Quote:
Originally Posted by Lion
Just think how tough it was for those of us that might be twice your age! What with all those gun-totin' westerns all over the place! And a staple at the movies as well!Quote:
Originally Posted by tdav73
That's true, Duncan. But remember, you could always tell the good guys in those movies. They were the ones with the white hats. Nowadays you can't hardly tell the good guys from the bad guys. Some of today's "heroes" are far worse than the worst bad guys faced by Hopalong Cassidy or Sky King!Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Paladin & Zorro wore black hats!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
True, but Paladin was a hired gun. Basically, a bad guy who sometimes did good. And Zorro was a rebel, a traitor to his government. And Don Diego de la Vega, a Spanish nobleman, did wear a white hat. Or at least gray.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Objection! While Paladin advertised himself as a gun for hire, he acted more like a privately hired lawman than a gunslinger. Often going against the wishes of his client as to means and method. In fact it often seemed he was reluctant to pull his gun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I'll take your word for it. I don't remember that much about the show. It wasn't one of my favorites. But does going against the wishes of his client make him a good guy or a bad guy? Certainly it makes him a bad businessman. Or maybe he was just a frustrated politician.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Admittedly this was some time back. I needed to check some details.
- Paladins emblem was the white knight from chess.
- He endeavored to solve situations without the use of violence.
"The show followed the adventures of "Paladin" (no other name is ever given), a gentleman gunfighter (played by Richard Boone on television, and by John Dehner on radio), who preferred to settle problems without violence; yet, when forced to fight, excelled. Paladin lived in the Hotel Carlton in San Francisco, where he dressed in formal attire, ate gourmet food, and attended the opera. In fact, many who met him initially mistook him for a dandy from the East. But when working, he dressed in black, carried a derringer under his belt, used calling cards with a chess knight emblem, and wore a stereotypical western-style black gunbelt with the same chess knight symbol attached to the holster.
The knight symbol is in reference to his name — possibly a nickname or working name — and his occupation as a champion-for-hire (see Paladin). The theme song of the series refers to him as "a knight without armor." In addition, Paladin drew a parallel between his methods and the chess piece's movement: "It's a chess piece, the most versatile on the board. It can move in eight different directions, over obstacles, and it's always unexpected." Paladin's routine switch from the expensive light-colored suit of his genteel urbane persona in San Francisco to his alter ego who wears all-black attire for quests into the lawless and barren Western frontier is also a chess reference.
Paladin was a former Army officer and a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point. He was a polyglot, capable of speaking any foreign tongue required by the plot. He also had a thorough knowledge of ancient history and classical literature, and he exhibited a strong passion for legal principles and the rule of law. Paladin was also a world traveler. His exploits had included an 1857 visit to India, where he had won the respect of the natives as a hunter of man-eating tigers."
A point, maybe important - maybe not, the knight on the business card faced left. Interesting if you know anything of heraldry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I know absolutely nothing of heraldry. What little I was able to find in a short research was confusing and uninformative. I gather that facing left was termed as sinister, an obvious clue, but it depended upon which side of the shield you were on. I have been able to find nothing to explain any other significance of the knight facing left.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
The Knight is facing the sinister side. Don't really matter which side of the shield you are on sinister is the left face of the shield. The right side is called dexter and the left sinister. " * heraldry (in heraldry: The elements and grammar of heraldic design)Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
The terms dexter and sinister mean merely “right” and “left.” A shield is understood to be as if held by a user whom the beholder is facing. Thus the side of the shield facing the beholder’s left is the dexter, or right-hand side, and that opposite it is the sinister, or left-hand side." (Britanica)
Just thought it was interesting
LOL! Yeah, that's about what I got out of my own research. I was assuming that there was some secret meaning behind the Paladin's chess piece facing left to the observer, which would be dexter, and not sinister after all!Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Now I'm REALLY confused!
If it was the helmet and visor of a knight and facing a certian way it may have something to do with the title of the individual as well. If one could view the standard it would certiantly help.
Ask and you shall receive!
Attachment 33349
Thank you so very much kind Sir!
Now lets see....hummm...this doesn't really belong in any lind of traditional familial crests or other formats of offical heraldry from what I can tell....so...analogies in comparrison of it with such would be subjectively spurious imho.
Which way it is facing could mean well, anything really...shrugs.
<<<checks the threads topic real quick.
Having been absent for a little while from the thread I sorta lost track of how this sidebar developed.
In any event, (and this isnt just becuase I like the occasional spanking) I am all for capital punnishment in schools, we can't have enough of it if you ask me.
You're quite welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
LOL! Yeah, that's pretty much the conclusion I'd come to myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
So we can expect to see more teachers getting spanked, now?Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Only when they are "naughty". lol
I got my tail swatted once or twice during my "growing years" it didn't hurt me ( except when I sat down :))
But Today's kids will push the envelope with school, parents,, whatever because they do not fear any reprocussions.
In Madison one 15 yr old is accused of sexual assault,,, 2 13 yr olds are accused of strong arm robbery in school.
These kids think they don't have to worry about punishment because they are under 16. I wonder what they will do when they
are adults? Recently one 18 yr old was arrested for murder, turns out he had been arrested for sexual assault when he was 14.
Go Figure.
The orientation of the card is from the position in which you view it. The Knight is facing left, Left is sinister.
Not only are we teaching the young that it is never their fault, but that there are never any consequences. One of the reasons they do not do well in school! Only one!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealth694
But it's a BIG one!Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
And I think it's more subtle than that. It's not that there are never any consequences, but that the consequences don't apply to them. They are not being taught to accept responsibility for their actions. They are being taught that it's always someone else's fault.
It's a hell of a way to raise a generation.
Not like you to miss something so obvious. "we teaching the young that it is never their fault,"Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Not "WE"! It's THEM. It's always THEM!Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
My own children were taught, by me, to accept responsibility for their own mistakes, and for their own triumphs.
Thats what happens when you remove negative reinforcment from morality and ethics in any human system.
And by system I don't just mean just the educational one, but also the parent/child system.
I agree. It seems the parent/child system in this country is broken, as is the child/school system, and more so for the parent/school system. Too many parents don't want the school disciplining their child, and yet refuse to provide the discipline themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri