Setting Tardbrain Al-Gebra Straight on the Crusades

[Al-Gebra]

nice . . . a guy with kevin levrone underwear in a thread that bears my name.

[Deedee]

I thought when you post a comment, it was supposed to be accompanied with a visual.  Just focus on the 6-pack.  You could do worse. 

[Al-Gebra]

I thought when you post a comment, it was supposed to be accompanied with a visual.  Just focus on the 6-pack.  You could do worse. 

I was trying to see how high the blood would rise on him if he were a horse . . .

[Deedee]

Being an equestrienne myself, I could probably give you the answer to that. 

[Deedee]

That sounded bad. I meant literally ride horses. 

[Al-Gebra]

That sounded bad. I meant literally ride horses. 

i was just waiting for Always Sore to find that . . . was expecting something along the lines of "is that what they're calling it these days?"

[Deedee]

Yes, you have to be quick on your toes around here. 

PS. Don't you like the way the creative direction your namesake thread has shaped up? From the crusades, to knickers! 

[Al-Gebra]

Yes, you have to be quick on your toes around here. 

PS. Don't you like the way the creative direction your namesake thread has shaped up? From the crusades, to knickers! 

everything comes down to the knickers . . . it is, as they say, the way of all flesh

[Deedee]

everything comes down to the knickers . . . it is, as they say, the way of all flesh

I thought it all came down to "the heart wants what it wants."  Po-tay-to, po-tah-to I guess. 

[Al-Gebra]

one would hope that the heart wants something more elevated than what is to be found in knickers . . . 

[Hugo Chavez]

Way to admit being wrong about your statements...  Officially it looks like Al-Gebra is standing by the statement that the Civil War was bloodier than the Crusades despited all eye witness accounts.... the most conservative witness still places that one single battle pretty fucking carnage ridden.  Pick which ever account you want... They're all quoted by historians jackass...

[Nordic Superman]

Way to admit being wrong about your statements...  Officially it looks like Al-Gebra is standing by the statement that the Civil War was bloodier than the Crusades despited all eye witness accounts.... the most conservative witness still places that one single battle pretty fucking carnage ridden.  Pick which ever account you want... They're all quoted by historians jackass...

You gotta admit evidence from 1000 years ago isn't as convincing as something as recent as the american civil war...

I find it very hard to believe the casualties were the extreme figures you posted in this thread.

[Al-Gebra]

You gotta admit evidence from 1000 years ago isn't as convincing as something as recent as the american civil war...

I find it very hard to believe the casualties were the extreme figures you posted in this thread.

if you doubt my claim, i'll be happy to tell you why i think the way i do.

[Hugo Chavez]

You gotta admit evidence from 1000 years ago isn't as convincing as something as recent as the American civil war...

I find it very hard to believe the casualties were the extreme figures you posted in this thread.

You find that figure high???  You do know how long the Crusades lasted??? Again... Even with the most conservative eye witness accounts you can't take the span of the Crusades and make the statement that the Civil War was "Bloodier" and that's what Al-gebra did.  We're talking about one battle alone in a campaign that spanned hundreds of years.  At your best case argument, you might try to say they were equal in carnage/bloodiest war but that would even be debateable.  So really there is no doubt that Al-gebra was wrong in that statement.

[Nordic Superman]

The civil war last 4-5 years. Surely it was bloodier in the fact that alot of poeple died in such a short time?

If 400000 die in 4 years, it's bloodier than 400000 dying in 100 years right?

Or am I off point here?

[Hugo Chavez]

The civil war last 4-5 years. Surely it was bloodier in the fact that alot of poeple died in such a short time?

If 400000 die in 4 years, it's bloodier than 400000 dying in 100 years right?

Or am I off point here?

If you read my posts... I already beat you to making that point  which no, is not an acceptable argument against the point made in my original post which was only meant to refute the civil war bloodier than the Crusades.  If it had been put in terms as you and I describe it, I would not have had issue.

http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=92070.msg1328130#msg1328130