Pirate Geek?!? Is this a warez site now?(34 posts)
Either my remembrance of significant holidays is gone, or else I'm just not tuned in to the latest "celebrations" (likely the latter), but I never heard of this. Now I propose we have a ScottW holday marked on the calendar (is that lame, or what).
Well Google changes its start page "Google Logo" quite often to suit the theme of the day, week or season so in my opinion; I think changing the "HTG Logo" in a similar vane is quite Refreshing, Cool and Geeky.....
Rick P. ♥ :)
Indeed, from historic accounts, pirates were a very friendly bunch of folks who even elected the captain of their ships. Their real goal was to make a living, not to harm folks. Any Violence was a by product of resistance to the way they conducted business. If their quarry gave up without a fight, then, for the most part, there was no violence at all.
Rick P. ♥ :)
Rick-Would you want to fight a bunch of phycos armed with cutlasses,truncheons,hooks for hands,black powder pistols to say nothing filthy-lice ridden bodies and rotted teeth at close range?I think the villagers and towns people smelled them coming and ran away!Anyway,"Arr,arr.Avast thar me hardies".
Your understanding and sympathy for the pirate culture is admirable, but I'm not so sure I'd want to be in the middle of that "very friendly bunch of folks", especially if they had a few mugs of rum.
We watched the documentary on the History Channel.
It was really informative concerning life in that era.
I didn't know they elected their Captains and ran some ships like a Democracy.
Also didn't know that some Women were very successful Captains of pirate ships.
The time period between 1500 and 1700 is not really chronicled well in most western history books.
Rick P. ♥ :)
I watched the same documentary. Yes, I was surprised to find out that they "elected" their commander (but that was a prevalent mechanism in those days . . . even militia in the US Civil War did the same thing), and I was also surprised to see in that documentary that some women were prominent "pirates".
Nevertheless, that documentary didn't inspire any "sympathy" for their lifestyle . . . for me anyway.
Yes, it was "democratic" up to a point . . . as long as they were making money (plundering and raiding). But the minute they stopped making money, there was a mutiny and they either threw the incumbent out, or most often murdered him/her and the replacement lasted only as long as they were making money. Then the cycle repeated itself. Hardly a democracy. The only democratic thing about it was that they voted on which site to plunder.
Thanks for backing up my post.
Wasn't defending the lifestyle, just saying "the time period between 1500 and 1700 is not really chronicled well in most western history books".
Like yourself, I like to be educated and informed in all subjects.
One is never too old to learn !!!!
HTG is a great source to learn much about a lot things.
If The Geek hadn't changed the Logo, this conversation would have never come up.
Think about this thread from that view point.
Rick P. ♥ :)
It would certainly eliminate outrageous pay scales for CEO's whose company goes bust . . . Enron and Worldcom come to mind (of course, those guys went to jail, which is almost as good as walking the plank). But in the financial sector, all those companies that made nonsense risks on that subprime crap . . . those CEOs would end up being beheaded instead of walking away with their golden parachutes while the stock holder is left holding the loss. Hey, Rick, whs found a plus to the pirate lifestyle!!
Though I would disagree with whs calling those guys "dummies". With the exception of the guys that got caught (they ARE dummies), the vast majority of them are seasoned scammers that manipulate the financial system.
So the pirate system is most efficient. No money, no reward . . . period!!!
Yes, whs, for some reason the feeling of "power" a politician has makes them do stupid things. I won't mention any names either, but the former governor of New York is a good example.
Yes, but he knew he was functioning in a "prudish" society compared to Europe's societies, so it was, whether anyone's opinion was that he was a good man or not . . . stupid. I can't think of anything off hand, but it would be like a politician in Europe doing something that is frowned on in Europe and is OK in the U.S. "Don't sh** where you eat" I think is the cliche.
Yes, you are right. It was poor judgement under the circumstances. And it does not look like the US is going to overcome this prudish attitude. Just look at some of the most recent candidates - and their relativly high approval rate. From my vantage point, it looks like 19th century - or before that.
19th Century EUROPE I presume you mean. Because in the 19th Century US . . . attitudes were much less "prudish" than they are now. For example, in the US Civil War, hookers followed along with the camps and were considered as "normal" and essential. And while the religious right has always been against that kind of stuff, it wasn't until several decades after the Civil War that this view became widespread and part of the society.
I'm not familiar with that sort of history in Europe, and maybe my presumption that you meant 19th Century Europe is incorrect, but I do know (well . . . I guess it's an opinion more than a fact) that the 19 Century US didn't have the viewpoint toward sex outside of marriage that it has now. Again, there were factions in that time that viewed it as wrong, but I don't think it permeated US Society 'till the 20th Century.
Right, I did mean 19th century Europe. I guess the 2 continents have developed in opposite directions. That is interesting. Maybe because we sent all the bible hardy folk to you. I do not defend the one or the other view. And I was not part of the flower power - was already too old for that then. But what I really hate in some people is the hypocrisy with which they want to tell others what to do. Teach water and drink wine.
This topic has been closed to new replies.