|
Post by Kilted Cossack on May 6, 2009 13:07:57 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 14:35:37 GMT
I read that, a satire site listed it under "your daily dumb" crime. It's funny though, despite the attention swords and other weapons receive in related stuff, far, far, far more people have accidents and such with farming tools, wood axes and what not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 15:03:35 GMT
I think the statute of limitations may be up on that one.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on May 6, 2009 16:57:12 GMT
I think the statute of limitations may be up on that one. Heh Heh...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 18:02:37 GMT
LOL @ Zan
Too true my man, too true. He would've had to have been a passable swordsman at the least- he cut off ONLY his ear, and not part of his face, neck or shoulder.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 18:30:55 GMT
He would've had to have been a passable swordsman at the least- he cut off ONLY his ear, and not part of his face, neck or shoulder. Either that or a horrible one. I mean, really..it'd be kind of embarrasing intending to strike his head off and just cut his ear off...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 18:32:46 GMT
If he meant to hit his head, he must've meant to cut it in half since he lopped off the ear. Downward stroke, right?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 18:40:00 GMT
LOL @ Zan Too true my man, too true. He would've had to have been a passable swordsman at the least- he cut off ONLY his ear, and not part of his face, neck or shoulder. Hmm...I think Zan was referring to the legal notion that the crime is now "expired" because it's too old and can no longuer be prosecuted. Federico
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 19:32:28 GMT
Apparently historians say Gauguin was quite the accomplished fencer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 6, 2009 22:41:47 GMT
It could have played out several ways. An upward diagonal cut could have cut off the ear if Van Gough turned his head to one side in an attempt to avoid it, or, as you said, it could have been an attempt to cut his head down the middle. Were it a heavy blade it probably would have been a killing blow. Regardless, it was meant to be a joke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2009 19:06:39 GMT
LOL @ Zan Too true my man, too true. He would've had to have been a passable swordsman at the least- he cut off ONLY his ear, and not part of his face, neck or shoulder. Hmm...I think Zan was referring to the legal notion that the crime is now "expired" because it's too old and can no longuer be prosecuted. Federico I am aware of that, hence my comment 'too true...' - the second part of my statement was speaking to Gauguin's swordsmanship.
|
|
|
Post by shadowhowler on May 7, 2009 19:12:43 GMT
Apparently historians say Gauguin was quite the accomplished fencer. Hell yeah... It's pretty tricky to loop off an ear with a rapier or smallsword... ;D
|
|
|
Post by Kilted Cossack on May 7, 2009 19:38:03 GMT
Ah, but ear piercing with a rapier . . . now that's a whole different kettle of fish!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2009 14:36:25 GMT
The best way to remove the ear is to use Mike Tyson LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2009 15:23:02 GMT
I read that, a satire site listed it under "your daily dumb" crime. It's funny though, despite the attention swords and other weapons receive in related stuff, far, far, far more people have accidents and such with farming tools, wood axes and what not. blog.trutv.com/dumb_as_a_blog/2009/05/dumb-trifecta.htmlI was mistaken, it merely referred to a sword accident while mentioning the new theories regarding Van Gogh. Funny that about Vincent Van Gogh (the live guy) though.
|
|