Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:51 am
oh what a shame...your country has been run by dickheads since 1992 
Page 4 of 6
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 6:51 am
LMAO ElfDude that's priceless
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:38 am
Well, I don't know the man personally, so I can't say for sure if he's an ass or not, but he does kick ass at acting.schuette wrote:Sean Connery is an ass!!.........and before you say anything they're are plenty of American's that are asses too.........in fact your country is run by one....
Seriously though, he had always been for Scotish independence, and if I'm not mistaken, turned down knighthood a few times. What made him change?
BTW, there are no American asses....that's the French.
Posted: Fri Jun 11, 2004 7:42 am
I have to admit I was quite shocked when he accepted it as well.........I suppose most ppl sell out........
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 6:29 am
Hey Schu, I think the problem with kilts and By-tor is that it would cost him too much money to buy all the razors he would need to shave his hairy ass, I mean legs, I mean back............... 
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:25 am
That's nothing - England has since the Restoration of the Monarchy, which goes to prove that the French can have a good idea - kick out their monarchy and keep them out.schuette wrote:oh what a shame...your country has been run by dickheads since 1992
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:14 am
A word on kilts...
The Scots were by no means the first to wear them. Indeed, versions of the kilt were worn in ancient times by the Sumerians and Egyptians. I think the Greeks and Romans also used them. The main advantage of them was that it allowed the wearer to adopt a wide legged stance when using a two handed weapon such as a claymore.
In Scotland, the kilt was part of a much larger garment called a plaid, which was worn over the shoulders and body, and doubled up as bedding for when they were on the move, which was most of the time, as mediaeval scots spent a great deal of time killing rival clan members and stealing each others cattle.
And BTW...The Scots kicked ARSE, not ass!
The Scots were by no means the first to wear them. Indeed, versions of the kilt were worn in ancient times by the Sumerians and Egyptians. I think the Greeks and Romans also used them. The main advantage of them was that it allowed the wearer to adopt a wide legged stance when using a two handed weapon such as a claymore.
In Scotland, the kilt was part of a much larger garment called a plaid, which was worn over the shoulders and body, and doubled up as bedding for when they were on the move, which was most of the time, as mediaeval scots spent a great deal of time killing rival clan members and stealing each others cattle.
And BTW...The Scots kicked ARSE, not ass!
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 11:43 am
Bravo. Well said. Couldn't agree more.Fridge wrote: And BTW...The Scots kicked ARSE, not ass!
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 1:23 pm
But y'all still have a funny accent.
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 3:32 pm
You can't fool me! They didn't have claymores in Egypt!Fridge wrote: The main advantage of them was that it allowed the wearer to adopt a wide legged stance when using a two handed weapon such as a claymore.
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 8:54 pm
And the claymore's I used in the military would still fuck you up, no matter how wide your stance was.ElfDude wrote:You can't fool me! They didn't have claymores in Egypt!Fridge wrote: The main advantage of them was that it allowed the wearer to adopt a wide legged stance when using a two handed weapon such as a claymore.
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 9:05 pm
I didn't know you got landmines in the coast guard 
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 6:12 am
och wheest! ....to me arse is what Jim Royale saysFridge wrote:
And BTW...The Scots kicked ARSE, not ass!
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:38 pm
Thats right..ElfDude wrote:You can't fool me! They didn't have claymores in Egypt!Fridge wrote: The main advantage of them was that it allowed the wearer to adopt a wide legged stance when using a two handed weapon such as a claymore.
They used a sort of precursor to the halberd.
Which is a two handed weapon, as is a claymore
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2004 12:40 pm
Your logic is sound, though the technologys about 2000 years or more outby-tor wrote:And the claymore's I used in the military would still fuck you up, no matter how wide your stance was.ElfDude wrote:You can't fool me! They didn't have claymores in Egypt!Fridge wrote: The main advantage of them was that it allowed the wearer to adopt a wide legged stance when using a two handed weapon such as a claymore.