Jump to content

Reaperbryan

Don't ask me anything. Tell me something.

Recommended Posts

Henry Usborne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 
Jump to navigationJump to search

Henry Charles Usborne (16 January 1909 – 16 March 1996) was a British Labour Party politician who defected to the Liberals.

Henry Usborne was born in Leamington, Warwickshire, educated at Bradfield College and read Engineering at Cambridge.

At the 1945 general election, He was elected as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Acocks Green. The constituency was then abolished and in 1950 Usborne was elected in the marginal constituency of Birmingham Yardley. He held the seat until the 1959 general election.

According to his obituary in the Times on 19 March 1996, Usborne resigned from the Labour Party in 1962 and joined the Liberals. He urged former colleagues to join Jo Grimond's party as the best hope for defeating the Conservatives. There was a suggestion that Usborne be nominated to stand for the Liberal Party at Cheltenham but he announced that wild horses would not drag him into another Parliamentary contest.

In addition to his work as a constituency MP Henry Usborne was one of the main drivers in the British branch of the World Federalist Movement. In 1947, ahead of the foundation of the United Nations, he co-founded the Parliamentary Group for World Government, which as All Party Parliamentary Group for World Governance (APPGWG) counts today (2008) 167 members and meets regularly to provide a forum for debate on global governance issues in the UK Parliament. In 1951 Henry Usborne set up the One World Trust as an independent educational Charity to provide secretarial support to the Group, promote and disseminate knowledge on world governance. In addition to its ongoing support for the APPGWG the One World Trust conducts independent research into the accountability of global organisations, political engagement of citizens at global level, and international law. He died in Evesham aged 86.

Connecticut Coyotes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Connecticut Coyotes
Established 1995
Folded 1996
Played in Hartford Civic Center
in Hartford, Connecticut
Connecticut Coyotes helmet
Connecticut Coyotes logo
Helmet Logo
League/conference affiliations

Arena Football League (19951996)

 
Team colors Navy, red
         
Personnel
Owner(s) Ben Morris
Scott Gerard
Head coach Lary Kuharich
Team history
  • Connecticut Coyotes (1995–1996)
Championships
League championships (0)
Conference championships (0)
Prior to 2005, the AFL did not have conference championship games
Division championships (0)
Prior to 1992, the AFL did not have divisions
Home arena(s)

The Connecticut Coyotes were an arena football franchise based in Hartford, Connecticut. The Coyotes played in the Eastern Division of the National Conference in the Arena Football League.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/19/2018 at 9:23 PM, Doug Sundseth said:

 

@TGP addressed the first part of this; I'll address the second. :rolleyes:

 

Cotton was independently domesticated in the Americas, Africa, and India. The earliest use seems to have been in India in the 5th Millennium BC and it was cultivated starting about 4000 years ago. It was pretty widely used in Persia, Greece, Egypt, and Arabia. The European idea of sheep in trees can be seen in a 14th century illustration by John Mandeville, which would be well before commerce between the Americas and Europe. It's an interesting question why Europeans might have had such a wrong-headed concept when the cloth was so common around parts of the Mediterranean. I kind of suspect that might have been a sort of European Jackalope "myth".

 

(I often wonder why historians seem to assume that people a thousand years ago had no concept of absurdism. For me, I suspect that they were as capable of making up and discounting ridiculous stories as we are, but perhaps I'm wrong.)

 

Other than that, though, you had it exactly right.

 

::D:

 

I dunno. Folks back then were as happy to prank each other as they are now.  And while we are more knowledgeable than our ancestors, I question whether we're any smarter.

Based on my reading, I'm fairly certain that there were plenty of folks who said, "Oh, wow, another treasure of the Columbian exchange, a bush that grows wool, with no need for them sheep critters!"

...and based on my knowledge of human nature, I'm pretty sure there were some folks who said "Oh, wow, a bush that grows sheeps!"

The fact remains that there are plenty of contemporary illustrations of said sheep bush. The fact also remains that I have no idea whether or not the publishers were thinking, "Wowsers, sheep bushes, this is NEWS!" or "Hee, hee, what a hysterical joke, I bet some rubes out there will believe it." As support for this dichotomy, I offer a third grade class that believes that OneBoot has wings.

20180831_121058.thumb.jpg.faa4ba019118730d9a55fefd74e8625c.jpg.6360b1bfbbaa1798b6de7b8e8b337bb2.jpg

As to the issue of historians not realizing their ancestors had a sense of humor or whimsy? We are in complete agreement. Not EVERYTHING we find at a dig site that has no obvious purpose is a "religious icon." It's been pointed out that our descendants who dig up the remnants of US will probably assume Mattel's Barbie was a goddess. I ain't sure that's wrong at all.

It's been theorized by modern archaeologists that Stone Age man spent about four hours a day seeing to life's necessities, and pretty much had the rest of the day for free time, religion, art, or creative loafing. Based on what I know of human nature (including my own), I strongly suspect they spent a lot of time thinking of ways to screw around with each other...

Edited by Dr.Bedlam
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Dr.Bedlam said:

...It's been theorized by modern archaeologists that Stone Age man spent about four hours a day seeing to life's necessities, and pretty much had the rest of the day for free time...

 :rolleyes: **

 

These archaeologists should be dropped somewhere on the Yukon/Alaska ***border with naught but Stone Age Gear so that they could personally and more thoroughly test this theory with “field work”.

 

 

 

**I am not disputing that there really are paleo-anthropologists or archaeologists that support this theory.  I can easily believe in their Idiocy. 

***Or some other place equally lacking in modernity. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are societies that currently exist that use Stone Age level technology. If we accept them as representative of a typical stone aged society, they should give us a fair representation of how much time is required to subsist. 

 

Of course, that would be for a given climate and environment. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[MOD] 

This is not directed at any one person, but is a general reminder to all that this is a thread for sharing interesting stuff, not personal attacks or picking at other posters. If you have an issue with something that has been posted, please discusd it privately, or report it if it breaks the forum's rules. 

 

Thank you. 

[/MOD] 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, TGP said:
On 9/21/2018 at 10:13 AM, Dr.Bedlam said:

...It's been theorized by modern archaeologists that Stone Age man spent about four hours a day seeing to life's necessities, and pretty much had the rest of the day for free time...

 :rolleyes: **

 

These archaeologists should be dropped somewhere on the Yukon/Alaska ***border with naught but Stone Age Gear so that they could personally and more thoroughly test this theory with “field work”.

 

 

 

**I am not disputing that there really are paleo-anthropologists or archaeologists that support this theory.  I can easily believe in their Idiocy. 

***Or some other place equally lacking in modernity. 

 

And from my personal real life experience, theoretical times don't match up with reality. A typical day for me is something like this; I have 10 hours to work and wish to accomplish this much. I start and have a unexpected flat tire, 1 hour lost. Get to area where I want to work, cows are out. 2 hours lost. Resolve that issue and the wife needs something, 3 hours lost. At the end of the day I'll have worked longer than the originally planned 10 hours and hopefully accomplished a couple hours towards that goal. Not everyone is as unlucky as I am but it's not really atypical.

  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched the movie Ironclad and as I sometimes do did some research to see how accurate it was historically. Hollywood and facts having a tenuous relationship at best. I've done a bit of reading about King John over the years because he is a direct ancestor and in popular stories regarded as the worst king of England.

 

As everyone who has ever read or watched anything about Robin Hood knows John was a terrible ruler. He was incompetent, dishonest, capricious and cruel therefore all the good and noble lords of England were against him. The truth was a lot more ambiguous and interesting in my opinion. John was a capable administrator and general although maybe not what we'd consider today a decent person. From what I've read that's true of pretty much any medieval noble. He did a lot of things right despite his bad characteristics and a lot of modern english law (influencing american, canadian and other's law even today) was set up by him.

 

As for the siege of Rochester, the basic movie premise is at the start of the First Baron's war rebels against King John seize and hold Rochester castle. The intention was to give their allies time to receive reinforcements from France. Our 6 heroes led by Baron Albany ( should be  William d'Aubigny but that's too french sounding for modern english sensibilities) and a knight Templar named William Marshall convincing the constable Cornhill to give them the castle. With their expanded forces of 20 men they prepared to block John's 1,000 man army from moving past Rochester. John's army made mostly of evil viking mercenaries with latin names like Tiberius :rock: assault the castle but are defeated with heavy losses. The king settles in for a long siege in which our spunky defenders are able to counter his every move while slowly taking heroic losses. They even build a trebuchet out of a chicken coop and use flaming balls of doom to destroy a siege tower. :huh: Eventually due to weakness from the defender's starvation John is able to take the courtyard and continues to besiege the inner keep. While taking the courtyard John's men capture Albany and mutilate him to convince the others to surrender. I'm sure that's a very effective tactic. Surrender to me and I will torture you. Fight and I will do something worse but not sure what. John undermines the keep and using pig fat burns the mine supports to breach a hole. Just before Marshall and a young squire, the final defenders are killed the heroic french (don't hear that in many english films) army rides up and John and his men flee. John contracts dysentary while fleeing and dies so an unstated french noble gains the english crown.

 

The historical record states that there were about 100 defenders including several barons. I never found any reference to the number of attackers. John's army was mostly english (kind of hard to clearly define as so many had french or other ancestry) with some mercenaries from Flanders. No vikings. ::(: Vikings are way cool. :poke: The bailey and outer walls of the castle were taken after about a month of siege. John then started to undermine the inner keep using pig fat to collapse part of the walls. Some defenders were allowed to leave but did have their hands and feet chopped off as a warning to rebels. 5 days later the rest surrendered. The french army never showed up because it was too busy taking castles in another part of England. There was supposed to be a relief force of rebels from London coming to help but John's men blocked and burned bridges in their way so they never arrived either. While John wanted to execute the rebel nobles he was convinced that being merciful and imprisoning them would be more effective in convincing others to stop fighting him. And it had the added bonus of making the others less vindictive if the war went against John and he was captured. The siege of Rochester is considered one of the fastest and hardest fought in English history and is held up as an example of John's ability in that area. He even set up a memorial to the heroic pigs that helped him achieve his victory. Supposedly fact. ::o:

 

John lead his army up and down England generally winning his battles and taking back rebel territory. Just under a year after his success at Rochester John contracted dysentery and died. His closest advisor, William Marshall (real person not William Marshall heroic knight Templar :upside:) rallied the majority of english nobles to the side of John's infant son Henry and drove the french invaders out of England less than a year after John's death.

 

I love movies. I love historical movies. It makes me sad when historical movies have almost nothing to do with the historical facts. I dread the words "based on a true story". By Hollywood standards Alice in Wonderland is probably also based on a true story.

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John definitely has worse press than he deserves, and in the main, I submit that it's the result of the brother who has far better press than he deserves. 

 

Richard was a terrible king, spending all his time on pursuits that really didn't help his kingdom in any way. Crusading in the ME, fighting in France, ... and being captured by the Germans. Had John not chosen to raise a literal king's ransom to redeem Richard, he would probably not have undergone the unrest he suffered later in his reign.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a lot of John's problems were the result of dealing with the mess Richard made of the country. If you dig a bit some historians are pretty critical of Richard.But in the popular view Richard is a great hero and John total scum. Medieval lords were not the nicest people around and things are rarely black and white. I may have mentioned it before but I love teasing my one uncle, "You know the evil king in Robin Hood? He's your grandpa! You know the evil king in Braveheart? He's your grandpa!" :lol:

 

I was watching an episode of Who do you think you are? with Courtney Cox last year. They were talking about her ancestors and the murderous backstabbing going on involving some of the most powerful people in England at that time. Some of the names sounded familiar and I dug out a family history my mom compiled and found out they were all my ancestors as well. And because of nobility being the way they were and it all basically being a family fight me and Courtney are related to both sides of those shenanigans. I'm terrible at remembering dates but I think what was in her episode was involving John's grandkids. I have some serious problems with my family but so far nobody's tried to kill me with a hot poker up the :wow::blink:::o:.

 

Hey I'm related to Courtney Cox! Not very closely though and there's probably about a million or so other people with the same connection. Always liked her.

  • Like 5
  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with how vexed @Zink feels about Hollywoods' cavalier attitude to historic facts, but I still love "Ironclad". I re-watch it regularly for the sheer pleasure of watching Paul Giamatti go completely bananas when Brian Cox suggests being a bit nicer to the peasantry: "I am your King! I AM GOD'S RIGHT HAND!!!" 

 

We all get told that 1066 was the last time England was successfully invaded, but at one level the Barons war is a French invasion, and pretty effective too. (And let's not forget the Dutch take-over in 1688.) Eventually they get seen off by William Marshall, who is a very interesting character. For any one who is interested in his life I would recommend a book called "The Knight Who Saved England" by Richard Brooks. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding a skeleton of this guy and you have your Unicorn Myth right there.

 

 

image.png.75f919becdc0cfbd0c4373718f2e3640.png

Edited by Glitterwolf
  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's has been some discussion here on how this

 

IMG_1869.JPG.71b471d6f41a3e0e3e23ad113370ce48.JPG

 

is a biscuit, but somehow also this

 

IMG_1870.JPG.c497093ef26016c77e668455ad32cd47.JPG

 

is a biscuit. 

 

Well, I learned me a thing, so I'm gonna lay some knowledge on y'all!

 

First of all, "scuit" comes the French word "cuire" which is "bake". So biscuit means "twice baked". That was the name given to this 

 

IMG_1872.thumb.JPG.56301cce45aea228d4dd63874c1b0570.JPG

 

which is generally called hardtack nowadays. Presumably because it's so hard you can use it to tack things to the wall. 

 

Not exactly the fluffy, flakey, buttery wonder in the 2nd picture. 

 

But back when British colonists were settling into the americas, they no longer had to rely on those crunchy pavers of misery, so they stopped baking their biscuits twice. Add some buttermilk to make it even better (and keep from wasting the milk), and there you have those clouds of floury heaven. 

 

In Britain, though they stopped baking them twice, they forgot to add the buttermilk, leaving them thin and cracker-like. And when cookies were introduced by German and Dutch friends, they apparently decided that they were the same thing as their cracker biscuits, and lumped them in together. 

  • Like 11
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, paintybeard said:

I completely agree with how vexed @Zink feels about Hollywoods' cavalier attitude to historic facts, but I still love "Ironclad". I re-watch it regularly for the sheer pleasure of watching Paul Giamatti go completely bananas when Brian Cox suggests being a bit nicer to the peasantry: "I am your King! I AM GOD'S RIGHT HAND!!!" 

 

We all get told that 1066 was the last time England was successfully invaded, but at one level the Barons war is a French invasion, and pretty effective too. (And let's not forget the Dutch take-over in 1688.) Eventually they get seen off by William Marshall, who is a very interesting character. For any one who is interested in his life I would recommend a book called "The Knight Who Saved England" by Richard Brooks. 

 

I should have mentioned it's actually a decent movie. Just not historically accurate. I loved Braveheart and even after reading about everything wrong in it still enjoy it. I don't know a lot about William Marshall (yet another ancestor) but he sounds like what the ideal knight was supposed to be. 

 

1 hour ago, redambrosia said:

There's has been some discussion here on how this

 

IMG_1869.JPG.71b471d6f41a3e0e3e23ad113370ce48.JPG

 

is a biscuit, but somehow also this

 

IMG_1870.JPG.c497093ef26016c77e668455ad32cd47.JPG

 

is a biscuit. 

 

Well, I learned me a thing, so I'm gonna lay some knowledge on y'all!

 

First of all, "scuit" comes the French word "cuire" which is "bake". So biscuit means "twice baked". That was the name given to this 

 

IMG_1872.thumb.JPG.56301cce45aea228d4dd63874c1b0570.JPG

 

which is generally called hardtack nowadays. Presumably because it's so hard you can use it to tack things to the wall. 

 

Not exactly the fluffy, flakey, buttery wonder in the 2nd picture. 

 

But back when British colonists were settling into the americas, they no longer had to rely on those crunchy pavers of misery, so they stopped baking their biscuits twice. Add some buttermilk to make it even better (and keep from wasting the milk), and there you have those clouds of floury heaven. 

 

In Britain, though they stopped baking them twice, they forgot to add the buttermilk, leaving them thin and cracker-like. And when cookies were introduced by German and Dutch friends, they apparently decided that they were the same thing as their cracker biscuits, and lumped them in together. 

 

Seeing the date on that hardtack made me think of a little museum near here. They had a big chunk of salt pork from the late 19th century in the corner. From what they said it's still in about the same condition as then. Glad I never had to live on those rations.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, redambrosia said:

There's has been some discussion here on how this

 

IMG_1869.JPG.71b471d6f41a3e0e3e23ad113370ce48.JPG

 

is a biscuit, but somehow also this

 

IMG_1870.JPG.c497093ef26016c77e668455ad32cd47.JPG

 

is a biscuit. 

 

Well, I learned me a thing, so I'm gonna lay some knowledge on y'all!

 

First of all, "scuit" comes the French word "cuire" which is "bake". So biscuit means "twice baked". That was the name given to this 

 

IMG_1872.thumb.JPG.56301cce45aea228d4dd63874c1b0570.JPG

 

which is generally called hardtack nowadays. Presumably because it's so hard you can use it to tack things to the wall. 

 

Not exactly the fluffy, flakey, buttery wonder in the 2nd picture. 

 

But back when British colonists were settling into the americas, they no longer had to rely on those crunchy pavers of misery, so they stopped baking their biscuits twice. Add some buttermilk to make it even better (and keep from wasting the milk), and there you have those clouds of floury heaven. 

 

In Britain, though they stopped baking them twice, they forgot to add the buttermilk, leaving them thin and cracker-like. And when cookies were introduced by German and Dutch friends, they apparently decided that they were the same thing as their cracker biscuits, and lumped them in together. 

 

 In Britain we do make the item in your second picture, but we call it a scone.

 

Please don't let us get into the discussion about whether one puts the jam or the clotted cream on first.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, paintybeard said:

 

 In Britain we do make the item in your second picture, but we call it a scone.

 

Please don't let us get into the discussion about whether one puts the jam or the clotted cream on first.

Our scones are similarly fluffy, but sweet and usually filled with berries of some sort. 

 

I've never had clotted cream? Is it like whipped cream?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×