# If You Were Transported 300 Years Into The Past With No Clothes Or Anything Else, How Would You Prov



## Chrisinmd (Dec 3, 2020)

If you were transported 300 years into the past with no clothes or any other items, how would you prove that you were from the future?


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> If you were transported 300 years into the past with no clothes or any other items, how would you prove that you were from the future?


i really wouldnt try, they were still burning witches then, time travel would defonely get you burnt

have you been watchibg outlander, as that largely the plot, you describe.

if i was stuck there id use my knoledge of whats to come to get very rich, there a load of gold in California  to go and find for a start, then i might invent the internal combustion engine and planes


----------



## Flying Crane (Dec 3, 2020)

I would probably be a T800 and I would simply take what I needed from anybody that I came across while I searched for John Connor’s mother.  I wouldn’t need to prove anything to anybody.


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> If you were transported 300 years into the past with no clothes or any other items, how would you prove that you were from the future?


I'd show them the time machine.


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'd show them the time machine.


seems as they had just about invented the piano,  im not sure what showing them a time machine would prove, lets face it we dont know what a time machine looks like either, unless its a police box


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 3, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'd show them the time machine.



That would be to easy.  Time machine disappeared after it dropped you off


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 3, 2020)

jobo said:


> if i was stuck there id use my knoledge of whats to come to get very rich, there a load of gold in California  to go and find for a start, then i might invent the internal combustion engine and planes



Yep use the knowledge you know to get rich.  I would have a hard time re inventing air travel or the internal combustion engine though myself.  Dont have those technical skills and I dont think the parts to make it work would have come into existence yet 300 years ago.  I could describe it to them and thats about it!  Hopefully Ben Franklin could figure it out from their! lol


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Yep use the knowledge you know to get rich.  I would have a hard time re inventing air travel or the internal combustion engine though myself.  Dont have those technical skills and I dont think the parts to make it work would have come into existence yet 300 years ago.  I could describe it to them and thats about it!  Hopefully Ben Franklin could figure it out from their! lol


so invent velcro then, every knows how velcro works, or if thats to technical leggo

h3ll just invent the b cle tyre, right after youve invented the bicycle, you know how a bike works, dont you?


----------



## Steve (Dec 3, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Yep use the knowledge you know to get rich.  I would have a hard time re inventing air travel or the internal combustion engine though myself.  Dont have those technical skills and I dont think the parts to make it work would have come into existence yet 300 years ago.  I could describe it to them and thats about it!  Hopefully Ben Franklin could figure it out from their! lol


I'd invent the guillotine and sell it to France.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 3, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> If you were transported 300 years into the past with no clothes or any other items, how would you prove that you were from the future?


ha ha ha..  If I was transported that far back then I would be in trouble.  I probably wouldn't want to prove anything.  1700's is probably not the best time period for me. 

But if I had to be in that position then I'm probably going to screw up the time line.  With all the tings that were wrong during that time period. I would probably start looking to build alliances with anyone who didn't want to put me in chains.  I would probably be 100 percent in self preservation mode..  The Butterfly Effect would be an understatement lol.

I would definitely team up with some skilled tradesmen some how and  some chemists.  I figure  I would want gear up for some upcoming conflicts, wars, and territory battles.  I would have to implement some modern warfare tactics.  I would definitely import and breed lions and tigers, gorillas, maybe a komodo dragon or 2.  If it can kill or eat a man then I'll need it, to help create a natural barrier between east and west.   I'll utilize the desert and plains. Invent some sniping rifles .

Yep.  lots of things would change lol.   And after I stomped on everyone with my new inventions, then it would be known that I was from a different time.  I would definitely up the game on naval ships. and explosives.  That's a done deal.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 3, 2020)

Why would I want to? In 1720, they still burned witches.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 3, 2020)

Dirty Dog said:


> Why would I want to? In 1720, they still burned witches.


Yep and all it takes is for you to create medicine, ice, or 2 can and a string to get a VIP spot on some burning logs logs.  And don't do CPR on anyone. that's game over. lol


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2020)

Steve said:


> I'd invent the guillotine and sell it to France.


not much of a money spinner for the first 70 years,  they didnt introduce it in france till 1792,


----------



## jobo (Dec 3, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yep and all it takes is for you to create medicine, ice, or 2 can and a string to get a VIP spot on some burning logs logs.  And don't do CPR on anyone. that's game over. lol


making ice goes back to biblical times, so it was very old tech even in 1720, i mean making it in a hot desert, not just waitibg for it to freeze on a cold night


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 3, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> ha ha ha..  If I was transported that far back then I would be in trouble.  I probably wouldn't want to prove anything.  1700's is probably not the best time period for me.



Why is 1700's not a good time period for you?  Now that I think about about it anyone not a white male at this time period is pretty much screwed. Even if you are a white male if your gay or mentally ill its game over as well.


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 3, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Yep and all it takes is for you to create medicine, ice, or 2 can and a string to get a VIP spot on some burning logs logs.  And don't do CPR on anyone. that's game over. lol



Yep CPR would be proof your a witch and can bring back the dead.  Certainly being burned at the stake for that!  Or maybe you will be treated as a God!  Could go both ways?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 3, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Why is 1700's not a good time period for you?  Now that I think about about it anyone not a white male at this time period is pretty much screwed. Even if you are a white male if your gay or mentally ill its game over as well.


He's black, and IIRC much taller than the average height back then of 5'4". I get the feeling the settlers might have some trepidation about that.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 3, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Yep CPR would be proof your a witch and can bring back the dead.  Certainly being burned at the stake for that!  Or maybe you will be treated as a God!  Could go both ways?


Being that Humans have proven time and time again they we kill our Saviors doesn't give me great hope in that lol.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 3, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> He's black, and IIRC much taller than the average height back then of 5'4". I get the feeling the settlers might have some trepidation about that.


eah and what's worse is that we have to travel in our birthday suits.

The last thing I really want to do is be naked in the woods and trying to figure  all of the places on my body  these guys are going to be hiding.  I'm thinking those first couple of weeks are going to be really miserable..


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 4, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> He's black, and IIRC much taller than the average height back then of 5'4". I get the feeling the settlers might have some trepidation about that.



Good point.  The question dosent specify the location you are arriving at though.  If its South Carolina yea being a tall black guy may create just a few problems you may not want to deal with!  However if your placed in Nigeria or Kenya you could fare much better.

Make things real interesting you could be dropped somewhere in Asia in 1720.  Not sure how familiar black people would have been to the common Chinese peasant.  Be a good test of your Wing Chun skills! lol


----------



## jobo (Dec 4, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Good point.  The question dosent specify the location you are arriving at though.  If its South Carolina yea being a tall black guy may create just a few problems you may not want to deal with!  However if your placed in Nigeria or Kenya you could fare much better.
> 
> Make things real interesting you could be dropped somewhere in Asia in 1720.  Not sure how familiar black people would have been to the common Chinese peasant.  Be a good test of your Wing Chun skills! lol


maybe if he spoke the language,  which at that time ran into thousands in a country like kenya, that didnt exist, ootherwise your lijely to be killed anyway for being in the wrong place. all places of course being wrong 

languidge generally is a major problem as even english would be mostly unrecognidable to you,  if you dropped into an english speaking country,


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 4, 2020)

You dont, you get locked up for breaking what ever local laws they have on homless people being disorderly or nudity.     Or get shoved in a aslyum.       I dont know anyone who would know 300 years of day to day history EVERYWHERE.   Hell you cant even get detaield hisotry in some places for the 300 year peroid.   Its either not been sudied or left a lot of written records behind.

Or you get killed out right and your head taken, pending where you end up.    Or you get killed by a lion or alegator etc.


Second to that, you couldnt talk to anyone anyway, modern english is nothing like 1700's english, not account diffrent dialects and other langauges.


Addendum:   GET DOWN MR PRESIDENT!         (good meme material)


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 4, 2020)

Rat said:


> You dont, you get locked up for breaking what ever local laws they have on homless people being disorderly or nudity.     Or get shoved in a aslyum.
> 
> 
> Second to that, you couldnt talk to anyone anyway, modern english is nothing like 1700's english, not account diffrent dialects and other langauges.



Getting locked up in an aslyum is pretty much the same as a death sentence 300 hundred years ago.  Familiar with the story of reporter Nellie Bly who went undercover into a mental institution in 1887? Im sure the conditions of aslyums were not any better then that 300 years ago in 1720.

Would 1700's english be completly not understandable to a modern Englsih speaker?  Or just difficult to like some one from New York trying to figure out what the hell somewhat from Alabama is saying?


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 5, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Getting locked up in an aslyum is pretty much the same as a death sentence 300 hundred years ago.  Familiar with the story of reporter Nellie Bly who went undercover into a mental institution in 1887? Im sure the conditions of aslyums were not any better then that 300 years ago in 1720.
> 
> Would 1700's english be completly not understandable to a modern Englsih speaker?  Or just difficult to like some one from New York trying to figure out what the hell somewhat from Alabama is saying?



It would pretty much not be legiable, and there were more dialects and regional diffrences back then than now.


----------



## jobo (Dec 5, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Getting locked up in an aslyum is pretty much the same as a death sentence 300 hundred years ago.  Familiar with the story of reporter Nellie Bly who went undercover into a mental institution in 1887? Im sure the conditions of aslyums were not any better then that 300 years ago in 1720.
> 
> Would 1700's english be completly not understandable to a modern Englsih speaker?  Or just difficult to like some one from New York trying to figure out what the hell somewhat from Alabama is saying?


i read an article saying elisabethan english would be completly unrecognizable,  so thats a 100 years before this, thats really virwed as the birth of modern english

official bussness eas conducted in french, english was just what the common people spoke with no dictionary,, no rules of grammer and multiple very distinced accents, people generaly just didnt travel more than a dozen miles from whete they were born, , 

it was 1775 before someone invented the dictionary and there was any agreement at all on what things were called. how they were spelt and how a sentance should be constructed

before that peopke just made up their own words, for table or chair or dog.
that were very regionally dependent

so maybe is the answer, dependent on exactly where you washed up, if it was some where that had a high literacy capability, you might be able to follow a conversation with context out in the sticks, no chance, it would appear as a foreign  language


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 5, 2020)

Rat said:


> It would pretty much not be legiable, and there were more dialects and regional diffrences back then than now.


@Chrisinmd as a warning, since I saw you mark this post as informative. Rat often makes statements that sounds as if he knows what he is talking about, when he's really just making his best guess. The statement I quoted did not sound accurate based on what I remember from my history classes in college, so I did a quick search and found this article which suggests that you wouldn't really have an issue understanding/speaking with the people of the time.


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 5, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> @Chrisinmd as a warning, since I saw you mark this post as informative. Rat often makes statements that sounds as if he knows what he is talking about, when he's really just making his best guess. The statement I quoted did not sound accurate based on what I remember from my history classes in college, so I did a quick search and found this article which suggests that you wouldn't really have an issue understanding/speaking with the people of the time.



Thank you for the info.  I didnt think it sounded right.  I thought it may be a bit difficult to understand them but not nearly impossible as Rat suggested.   Need to vet my sources more closely next time.  Thanks


----------



## jobo (Dec 5, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> @Chrisinmd as a warning, since I saw you mark this post as informative. Rat often makes statements that sounds as if he knows what he is talking about, when he's really just making his best guess. The statement I quoted did not sound accurate based on what I remember from my history classes in college, so I did a quick search and found this article which suggests that you wouldn't really have an issue understanding/speaking with the people of the time.


but rat was fir once correct


----------



## JP3 (Dec 5, 2020)

300 years ago... so 1720?  Colonies in full swing during the South's not so proud heyday in the US.

Side question, do I have the means to "get back" when I want, or am I stuck in 1720 to live there until done?  Probably changes the strategem.

I'm sat here thinking about "get rich" opportunities.... and I can't come up with any, as everything I'm thinking of requires something else that's "not there yet."


----------



## jobo (Dec 5, 2020)

JP3 said:


> 300 years ago... so 1720?  Colonies in full swing during the South's not so proud heyday in the US.
> 
> Side question, do I have the means to "get back" when I want, or am I stuck in 1720 to live there until done?  Probably changes the strategem.
> 
> I'm sat here thinking about "get rich" opportunities.... and I can't come up with any, as everything I'm thinking of requires something else that's "not there yet."


gold, theres lots of gold, just got to sort out the Oregon trail, you know where it is, easy peasy


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 5, 2020)

jobo said:


> gold, theres lots of gold, just got to sort out the Oregon trail, you know where it is, easy peasy



Just avoid Donner Pass in a snowstorm.  Dont want to turn into a cannibal and have to resort to eating your travel buddies!


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 5, 2020)

.


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 5, 2020)

JP3 said:


> 300 years ago... so 1720?  Colonies in full swing during the South's not so proud heyday in the US.
> 
> Side question, do I have the means to "get back" when I want, or am I stuck in 1720 to live there until done?  Probably changes the strategem.
> 
> I'm sat here thinking about "get rich" opportunities.... and I can't come up with any, as everything I'm thinking of requires something else that's "not there yet."



Your stuck in 1720 for the rest of your days alive. So you have to become as successful and happy as you can in those circumstances. But you retain all of your modern day memories and knowledge and that is your advantage.


----------



## jobo (Dec 5, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Just avoid Donner Pass in a snowstorm.  Dont want to turn into a cannibal and have to resort to eating your travel buddies!


thats why they called them donner kebabs


----------



## jobo (Dec 6, 2020)

The Marshall said:


> Apparently, in the UK, there's a stage company that does Shakespeare plays in what's called "Original Pronunciation" or OP for short.
> 
> The sound of OP is described as a cross between modern North American English (American/Canadian) and the Irish accent - or, roughly, how pirates are portrayed as speaking in pirate movies.
> 
> ...


shakespear and his comtempary play rights, more or less invented english as a language,

  a significant number of the words he wrote were just made up on the spot,  then through their popularly spread to a wider populass and for the first time some thing akin to a common language was created,

 this however took many many decades to filter through, particularly to rural places, so Shakespearian language may be undrrstandable to you, just,,,, that however was not the language or the pronunciation  that was common,  its still largely impossible to understand some regional accents even now, when we are all using much the same words

unified language  really didnt happen to the railways took hold and people started to travel further  than you can throw a stone., remmbering that the vast majority were illiterate, so writen language didnt really help its spread

 hell they didnt even have a common clock till it was necersary to co ordinate railway time tables

factories would have their own clock, so that people worked far longer than they were beibg paid for,


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 6, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> @Chrisinmd as a warning, since I saw you mark this post as informative. Rat often makes statements that sounds as if he knows what he is talking about, when he's really just making his best guess. The statement I quoted did not sound accurate based on what I remember from my history classes in college, so I did a quick search and found this article which suggests that you wouldn't really have an issue understanding/speaking with the people of the time.



Ah yes, because chav has been a long standing word in the english vocabulary since william the bastard and has in no way changed its meaning or usage or spelling over the years. 


I highlight my point in stating, i have no idea what people are saying using modern english with a strong diffrent accent to mine (specfically northern) x10 down to a lot of more regional accents than there are now and a less common form of english and tada.    That and spelling was diffrent and illteracy was lower than now.     You might be able to converse with a london nobleman to some degree, but i would be doubtful if you could converse with a Scottish commoner or a farmer from rural england. 

But i did a approcximication of the time peroid and estimated it earlier than it actually is, i think Shakspere is coined as making or using at least the basis for modern english(upper) common.   So this is after him, so it wouldnt be as hyperbolic as i made to begin with with talking if you got a nobleman, but you wouldnt see a noble man as you would be killed or locked up in a asylum.    (god help you if you land in japan)


Actually exploring that, i dont know Cockney, i cant understand northern accents and i cant understand west country, i can barely understand the tradtional accent of my county down to it dying and not being exposed to it, i sort of have it light by merits of living there.    You just have to times this by 10 as there were a lot more regional accents back then as there is now.    I will give you a neat trend for the peroid, a D meant ditto, that was how they did ditto historically before we started just putting  a line.   Or a D + the line.   Not much relivence its just a fun little tid bit.


----------



## JowGaWolf (Dec 6, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> @Chrisinmd as a warning, since I saw you mark this post as informative. Rat often makes statements that sounds as if he knows what he is talking about, when he's really just making his best guess. The statement I quoted did not sound accurate based on what I remember from my history classes in college, so I did a quick search and found this article which suggests that you wouldn't really have an issue understanding/speaking with the people of the time.


Thanks for the link and info. I just watched this video from the link.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 12, 2020)

jobo said:


> gold, theres lots of gold, just got to sort out the Oregon trail, you know where it is, easy peasy


If you think getting a jump on the Gold Rush of 1849 would be "easy peasy" a full 130 years before it actually took place, I shudder to think of what you might consider to be "difficult."  Especially considering the Louisiana Purchase didn't take place until 1803.


----------



## jobo (Dec 12, 2020)

JP3 said:


> If you think getting a jump on the Gold Rush of 1849 would be "easy peasy" a full 130 years before it actually took place, I shudder to think of what you might consider to be "difficult."  Especially considering the Louisiana Purchase didn't take place until 1803.


california isnt in Louisiana ,  you could always get there from mexico, lots of people do


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 12, 2020)

JP3 said:


> If you think getting a jump on the Gold Rush of 1849 would be "easy peasy" a full 130 years before it actually took place, I shudder to think of what you might consider to be "difficult."



Interesting thought experiment.  Could I get a "jump" on the gold rush by being transported 130 prior to it?  Not me personally because I would be long dead before the year 1849 arrives.  

My next thought is there anyway I could make the gold rush happen earlier so I could benefit in my lifetime?  I dont think the state of CA was even know to settlers back east until Lewis and Clarks expedition in 1806.  So you arrive in 1720 still 86 years before that even happens.

I guess you could show up in say Boston in 1720 with some gold and tell everyone you found all this gold way out west.  Making it far more likely earlier explorers would travel west. Then you being the first to set up shop when they arrive and sell them the shovels and equiptment to gold mine!  Most likely would be hung as a witch back in Boston before this would work would be my guess! lol

Or maybe you could start a gold rush coming up from Mexico instead.  Start the rumor in Mexico City and cause the gold rush to come from the south and not the east.


----------



## jobo (Dec 13, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Interesting thought experiment.  Could I get a "jump" on the gold rush by being transported 130 prior to it?  Not me personally because I would be long dead before the year 1849 arrives.
> 
> My next thought is there anyway I could make the gold rush happen earlier so I could benefit in my lifetime?  I dont think the state of CA was even know to settlers back east until Lewis and Clarks expedition in 1806.  So you arrive in 1720 still 86 years before that even happens.
> 
> ...


i dont think the idea is to start the gold rush, so much as get thete wholstcthere are still nuggets of gold the size of your hand just lying about in stream beds, get some and get the hell out of there

you could then of course tell people where you got it, if you find a away to monize that or just for a laugh tell them you found it in alaska

if civilisation( sort of) does come to californa,early, do your desendents a favour and buy malabu beach

then once you have seed money, even an elimentary knolledge of the science to come, will allow you to start inventing the future, its not at all hard to invent the steam engine or the phonograph or the telegraph ,hell you could start with the tin can and work yourway up,


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> i dont think the idea is to start the gold rush, so much as get thete wholstcthere are still nuggets of gold the size of your hand just lying about in stream beds, get some and get the hell out of there
> if civilisation( sort of) does come to californa,early, do your desendents a favour and buy malabu beach



Good point I am way over thinking things.  Just go grab the gold myself before anyone else can.  No need to change history buy starting the gold rush earlier.

Then buy up some Califorina Beach real estate.  Or maybe the future Las Vegas strip up in Nevada.


----------



## jobo (Dec 13, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Good point I am way over thinking things.  Just go grab the gold myself before anyone else can.  No need to change history buy starting the gold rush earlier.
> 
> Then buy up some Califorina Beach real estate.  Or maybe the future Las Vegas strip up in Nevada.


you need to catefully consider, they can always move las vagas or silicone valley a few miles over and ut willmake no difference to them, where as Malibu and and Manhattan sort of have the where they are


----------



## jobo (Dec 13, 2020)

the issue of time travel is intresting, there nothing in a the laws of physics that prevent it, or say that time has to travel forwards,  in fact relativity sort of insist that people in different locals exsperiance time differently, so its feasable to have your presnt in someone elses future if only by a few milliseconds or a few thousand years if you set off on a space flight at a high % of the speed if light.

the really perplexing issue, is, if it is possible , can you actually change anything in any meanibgful way? 

at least one theory of physics, has the past the prrsent and future all existing simultaneously,  you cant go back in time and change the future as the future has already happened, its as real as the present, as you cant go back and not change the future, its that parodox that prevents time travel,


----------



## JP3 (Dec 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> california isnt in Louisiana ,  you could always get there from mexico, lots of people do


Now you're just being ridiculous.  I'm pretty sure that's your intention.  Sure thing... no train of course, not even wagon trails west past the Mississippi River (i.e. the Louisiana Purchase bought the States that) area... but there was this little issue of Spain controlling the westernmost areas of North America up into what  would eventually be called British Columbia, ironically.  Go through Mexico?  You probably don't realize... but they weren't really much in the way of fans (sort of with lethal intent) of the Colonists just trekking across "their property.  We didn't even get the western boundary of the Purchase settled with Spain until almost a hundred years After our "let's drop in during Year 1720" example of the OP, when in 1819 we got that done through the Adams–Onís Treaty with Spain.  Another fun fact, and remember... no car, plane, train or even a broken trail headed into the Western Frontier... it's about 2,000+ miles from St. Louis to the area of Oregon now known as Portland... if you came tot he Colonies by boat, and made it to New Orleans, now the distance is about 2,500+ miles.

Sure... I want to sign up for that (not so much). Then, end up in the area of Oregon where the gold rush is going to take place... which would be hostil territory controlled by Spain, who have Always been gentle-hearted, welcoming people...   Nah, I'll skip that.

Wait, I just thought of something... the worm-gear roller gin, used to separate cotton fibers fromt he seeds and husk... showed up in the 16th century... so that tech was "out there."  Not a huge jump to do a slightly different design on that, and not too much machining necessary to  make the jump to something like Eli Whitney's true Cotton Engine (called in brief the Cotton Gin), which he invented in... the 1790's?  Now, THAT is something I could get behind and do I think.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 13, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Your stuck in 1720 for the rest of your days alive. So you have to become as successful and happy as you can in those circumstances. But you retain all of your modern day memories and knowledge and that is your advantage.



Got it. I'll go with my industrial espionage of the Cotton Gin noted above, I think.


----------



## jobo (Dec 13, 2020)

JP3 said:


> Now you're just being ridiculous.  I'm pretty sure that's your intention.  Sure thing... no train of course, not even wagon trails west past the Mississippi River (i.e. the Louisiana Purchase bought the States that) area... but there was this little issue of Spain controlling the westernmost areas of North America up into what  would eventually be called British Columbia, ironically.  Go through Mexico?  You probably don't realize... but they weren't really much in the way of fans (sort of with lethal intent) of the Colonists just trekking across "their property.  We didn't even get the western boundary of the Purchase settled with Spain until almost a hundred years After our "let's drop in during Year 1720" example of the OP, when in 1819 we got that done through the Adams–Onís Treaty with Spain.  Another fun fact, and remember... no car, plane, train or even a broken trail headed into the Western Frontier... it's about 2,000+ miles from St. Louis to the area of Oregon now known as Portland... if you came tot he Colonies by boat, and made it to New Orleans, now the distance is about 2,500+ miles.
> 
> Sure... I want to sign up for that (not so much). Then, end up in the area of Oregon where the gold rush is going to take place... which would be hostil territory controlled by Spain, who have Always been gentle-hearted, welcoming people...   Nah, I'll skip that.
> 
> Wait, I just thought of something... the worm-gear roller gin, used to separate cotton fibers fromt he seeds and husk... showed up in the 16th century... so that tech was "out there."  Not a huge jump to do a slightly different design on that, and not too much machining necessary to  make the jump to something like Eli Whitney's true Cotton Engine (called in brief the Cotton Gin), which he invented in... the 1790's?  Now, THAT is something I could get behind and do I think.


well thats just a typical defeatest attitude,  of course you could travel  though area controled by other eurooean powers,  we wernt at war with them and its highly unlikely they would even notoce you, with a few thousand of them controlling million  of square miles, if i could travel to spain or france,( and i certainly could) i could also travel to spanish of french territories in the new world,, the europeans had a few thousand years of civilisation behind them, it was only when they left that the place desended into barbarism
( ok the spanish left a little to be desired)

and i dont want to be over picky, what with it being your countries history, but the California  gold rush was in California  not Oregon,  and califoria was controled by no one, with the exception of the native Americans, who clearly werent very intrested in gold and were noted as being amenable,  by the few europeans that got that way out, still shouldnt be that hard to dodge them


----------



## jobo (Dec 13, 2020)

JP3 said:


> Now you're just being ridiculous.  I'm pretty sure that's your intention.  Sure thing... no train of course, not even wagon trails west past the Mississippi River (i.e. the Louisiana Purchase bought the States that) area... but there was this little issue of Spain controlling the westernmost areas of North America up into what  would eventually be called British Columbia, ironically.  Go through Mexico?  You probably don't realize... but they weren't really much in the way of fans (sort of with lethal intent) of the Colonists just trekking across "their property.  We didn't even get the western boundary of the Purchase settled with Spain until almost a hundred years After our "let's drop in during Year 1720" example of the OP, when in 1819 we got that done through the Adams–Onís Treaty with Spain.  Another fun fact, and remember... no car, plane, train or even a broken trail headed into the Western Frontier... it's about 2,000+ miles from St. Louis to the area of Oregon now known as Portland... if you came tot he Colonies by boat, and made it to New Orleans, now the distance is about 2,500+ miles.
> 
> Sure... I want to sign up for that (not so much). Then, end up in the area of Oregon where the gold rush is going to take place... which would be hostil territory controlled by Spain, who have Always been gentle-hearted, welcoming people...   Nah, I'll skip that.
> 
> Wait, I just thought of something... the worm-gear roller gin, used to separate cotton fibers fromt he seeds and husk... showed up in the 16th century... so that tech was "out there."  Not a huge jump to do a slightly different design on that, and not too much machining necessary to  make the jump to something like Eli Whitney's true Cotton Engine (called in brief the Cotton Gin), which he invented in... the 1790's?  Now, THAT is something I could get behind and do I think.


nb, just to point out that under the terms of referance goven by the time travel scenario, there is no rule that you have to start this journey on the east coast, you could just as easily appeared in the close proxims to California,  hell you could put a requestin to be dropped off at cutters mill


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> you need to catefully consider, they can always move las vagas or silicone valley a few miles over and ut willmake no difference to them, where as Malibu and and Manhattan sort of have the where they are



Very good point.  I need to buy property next to a natural earth structure that cant be changed by man.  Next to the coast or some other natural place that cant be changed by man.  The coast of San Diego or on the banks of Lake Tahoe sound awfully nice!


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 13, 2020)

jobo said:


> nb, just to point out that under the terms of referance goven by the time travel scenario, there is no rule that you have to start this journey on the east coast, you could just as easily appeared in the close proxims to California,  hell you could put a requestin to be dropped off at cutters mill



You are correct you could be dropped off anywhere in this scenario.  Could be right smack down in the middle of 1720 Kansas, or 1720 New York or Seattle.


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 13, 2020)

JP3 said:


> but there was this little issue of Spain controlling the westernmost areas of North America up into what  would eventually be called British Columbia, ironically.



Good point.  If I did purchase a bunch of land in 1720 with my gold I found in California how would I retain my property rights through the time until CA becomes a state?  I make the purchase in 1720 from Mexico I am pretty sure the USA will not honor that when they expand west


----------



## jobo (Dec 14, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Good point.  If I did purchase a bunch of land in 1720 with my gold I found in California how would I retain my property rights through the time until CA becomes a state?  I make the purchase in 1720 from Mexico I am pretty sure the USA will not honor that when they expand west


but in 1720 you wouldnt have to buy it, nobody owned it or had laid claim to it, stick a fence round it and its yours 

the issue is maintaining that ownership for the next couple of hundred years.

you have quite enourmass  power to change your future and our past, 

claim the land ( the whole state)on behalf of king george, in return for a bit of shore land no one else wants, then head off the revolution, by either kilking off the leaders or using your knolledge to warn the britisj as to whats going to happen when,  or just go the easy route and kill napoleon 

or anounce your discovery of gold and start the Weston  expansion early, where settlers go, govenment quickly follows, that puts california in the hands of the british and and mexico will never get their hands on it, land right will be quivkly established


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> the issue is maintaining that ownership for the next couple of hundred years.
> 
> or anounce your discovery of gold and start the Weston  expansion early, where settlers go, govenment quickly follows, that puts california in the hands of the british and and mexico will never get their hands on it, land right will be quivkly established



Yea maintaining that ownership for the next couple of hundred years in your family would be the tough part.  Lots can go wrong in that amount if time.  Maybe your kid or grandkid is a loser drug addict or alcoholic and loses the land.  Not to mention all the world events that could force you to lose the land.  Wars, etc

Interesting how history would have changed if Britian had rights to CA instead of Mexico?


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Yea maintaining that ownership for the next couple of hundred years in your family would be the tough part.  Lots can go wrong in that amount if time.  Maybe your kid or grandkid is a loser drug addict or alcoholic and loses the land.  Not to mention all the world events that could force you to lose the land.  Wars, etc
> 
> Interesting how history would have changed if Britian had rights to CA instead of Mexico?


the whole histoory if the world hinges on( a few) events that could easily have gone the other way, but for good luck, bad weather or what have you

brtiain had just fought a 7 year war with france over control of the world, and was in no postion to fund a war agaibst the settlers, in the revolution, 2000 miles away,  so gave it up rather as they had the rest of the world to go at, a decade later and they would have had troop ship swarming accross the atlantic.

the key bit of the revtion that seems to be missing  from american history, is the british had signed a treaty with the native americans not to go further  west , which enraged the population as much as the taxes, to pay of the war debts incurred in getting the eastern seaboard off the french.
as the british unlike the american honour their agreements,, much of america would still be in native hands,  it was less about liberty and more about greedy opportunism


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> i really wouldnt try, they were still burning witches then, time travel would defonely get you burnt
> 
> have you been watchibg outlander, as that largely the plot, you describe.
> 
> if i was stuck there id use my knoledge of whats to come to get very rich, there a load of gold in California  to go and find for a start, then i might invent the internal combustion engine and planes


And maybe give medicine a push forward before I get sick.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2020)

Rat said:


> You dont, you get locked up for breaking what ever local laws they have on homless people being disorderly or nudity.     Or get shoved in a aslyum.       I dont know anyone who would know 300 years of day to day history EVERYWHERE.   Hell you cant even get detaield hisotry in some places for the 300 year peroid.   Its either not been sudied or left a lot of written records behind.
> 
> Or you get killed out right and your head taken, pending where you end up.    Or you get killed by a lion or alegator etc.
> 
> ...


If you showed up in an English-speaking area, you'd likely be able to get by. You'd sound like a foreigner with bad English until you learned their version, which would be acceptable in some places.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Just avoid Donner Pass in a snowstorm.  Dont want to turn into a cannibal and have to resort to eating your travel buddies!


It's bits of knowledge like that that'd give you a bit of a chance. You'd lack some of the survival skills folks routinely had then, but you'd already know some dangers they didn't.


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> but in 1720 you wouldnt have to buy it, nobody owned it or had laid claim to it, stick a fence round it and its yours
> 
> the issue is maintaining that ownership for the next couple of hundred years.
> 
> ...


I think the Spaniards who owned that land would disagree.


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> but in 1720 you wouldnt have to buy it, nobody owned it or had laid claim to it, stick a fence round it and its yours
> 
> the issue is maintaining that ownership for the next couple of hundred years.
> 
> ...


What?  You guys know that Mexico didn't govern California until sometime in the 19th Century.  I'm digging way back here, but I'm pretty sure Mexico wasn't an independent country until like 1820.  I think you guys mean Spain.

And, if memory serves, Mexico only governed for a decade or so, before California became part of the USA.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> I think the Spaniards who owned that land would disagree.


the spanards didnt own it in 1720, they didnt colonise it to 1769,


----------



## Steve (Dec 16, 2020)

Spaniards were in California as early as the 1500s.


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Steve said:


> Spaniards were in California as early as the 1500s.


yes and they left again, the spanish colonial period started in 1769, that when they turned it into a colony, the clue is in the name


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 16, 2020)

jobo said:


> the spanards didnt own it in 1720, they didnt colonise it to 1769,



So who controlled Califorina in 1720?  I feel a bit guilty asking the guy living in England North American history! lol


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 16, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> It's bits of knowledge like that that'd give you a bit of a chance. You'd lack some of the survival skills folks routinely had then, but you'd already know some dangers they didn't.



Yes the knowledge of future events would help greatly in avoiding mistakes our ancestors made.  But when I change the first event it could change everything there after.  So history may change at that point and I would not benefit from that point on.

Doubt I could do anything to change worldwide events from happening but perhaps on the local level.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 16, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Yes the knowledge of future events would help greatly in avoiding mistakes our ancestors made.  But when I change the first event it could change everything there after.  So history may change at that point and I would not benefit from that point on.
> 
> Doubt I could do anything to change worldwide events from happening but perhaps on the local level.


It's not the specific events that matter, but the lessons you can get from them. It's not about stopping a specific party from getting stranded on Donner passs, but about not being (or having a friend) in a group that gets stuck there


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> So who controlled Califorina in 1720?  I feel a bit guilty asking the guy living in England North American history! lol


no one much, there were a few settlements, mostly spanish, but it wasnt a spanish colony, for another 50 years

spain was a bit of a busted flush by then, it got half of north america given to it in the 1760s, what was to become the Louisiana purchase, and it set of again being colonial.in the 1790 it gave it back to france as far to much trouble, france thought it to much trouble and sold it .
it hung on to California,  but when Mexico  decleared ibdependance they got it.

then the states set of stealibg land from the mexican and they got it


----------



## jobo (Dec 16, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Yes the knowledge of future events would help greatly in avoiding mistakes our ancestors made.  But when I change the first event it could change everything there after.  So history may change at that point and I would not benefit from that point on.
> 
> Doubt I could do anything to change worldwide events from happening but perhaps on the local level.


there are some events that cant be changed, someone will find gold in California,  someone will invent the internal combustion engine and discover penicillin,  all you can do is change the date and the person, to then and you,

some thing seem with hind sight to be inevatable, like the first world war, if you stopped arch duke Ferdinand assassination,  then they would just find something else to fight about a short time later


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 17, 2020)

Nobody expects the Spanish Conqusidors!      Then expects them to leave then come back again several years later!


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Rat said:


> Nobody expects the Spanish Conqusidors!      Then expects them to leave then come back again several years later!


is that a monty python referance?

in the time, no bodyvwas in any particular hurry, it was a very very big world and there was at most 4 nations contestibg ownership of it, and by and large they didnt want land, they wanted resouces they could ship home.

as the european empire's  were mostly comercial empires,  with troops there only to protect comercial investments.

walking in to California with out knowibg there was a fair amount of gold there, they would see a semi aride bit of coast line with no signifact commercial value, and its on the wrong side, meaning fettibbg resouces home was a very long and exspensive operation,

so why set up a commercial hub? and why send troops to gaurd a biit of land the other three nations didnt want anyway

thats largly why the british gave up their bit of america with out to much of a fight, 

they didnt in anyway want the land,  they were resting western expantion by settlers as it had little comberical value to them and spread the troops to thin,

 there was no profit in spendibg milkions in getting it back, particularly when the treaty of paris, restored all comerival operations back to their rightful owners, ie british companies, they just carried on as before only they didnt need to send troops

win win


----------



## Steve (Dec 17, 2020)

Has anyone seen the Ballad of Buster Scruggs?  In particular, there is a segment called All Gold Canyon.  I keep picturing Jobo as the young man who waits for the prospector to do all the work and then shoots him in the back.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> Has anyone seen the Ballad of Buster Scruggs?  In particular, there is a segment called All Gold Canyon.  I keep picturing Jobo as the young man who waits for the prospector to do all the work and then shoots him in the back.



i wouldnt shoot him, unless it was absolutly  necersary , i would if possible pay some one a pitance to do all the work and then make off with the profits, its the american way


----------



## Steve (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> i wouldnt shoot him, unless it was absolutly  necersary , i would if possible pay some one a pitance to do all the work and then make off with the profits, its the american way


You're British, right?  Seems like that would make it the British way.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> You're British, right?  Seems like that would make it the British way.


but im as much american as most americans in 1720,


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> You're British, right?  Seems like that would make it the British way.


and anyway im english, from irish and Welsh desent,

so i got to wondering when the trmerm american first came in to the english language, 1500 and something, but was exclusivly use to refere to the natives, , however in 1648, the term was changed to refere to the inhabatant of the english colonies  as americans, 

it seemed the only qualification  for beibg an american is you lived there, so yes in the conditions of 1720, i would be an american


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> and anyway im english, from irish and Welsh desent,
> 
> so i got to wondering when the trmerm american first came in to the english language, 1500 and something, but was exclusivly use to refere to the natives, , however in 1648, the term was changed to refere to the inhabatant of the english colonies  as americans,
> 
> it seemed the only qualification  for beibg an american is you lived there, so yes in the conditions of 1720, i would be an american


By that logic, if you lived in mexico, you wouldn't be an american citizen unless you started up your own english colony.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> By that logic, if you lived in mexico, you wouldn't be an american citizen unless you started up your own english colony.


well most if the mexico colkinies were spanish, ive no idea what the spanish in mexico were call, probebly just spanish?

how ever your at least partly right, an english man who lived in mexico was probebly still an englishman

the same person who moved to virginia would be an american, you cant of course start your own british colonies,  only the king can do that

nb, the Americans didnt have american citzen ship as there was no such concept, they were british subjects, but just as british subjects in wales have a specific name, so they did in the american colonies


----------



## Steve (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> and anyway im english, from irish and Welsh desent,
> 
> so i got to wondering when the trmerm american first came in to the english language, 1500 and something, but was exclusivly use to refere to the natives, , however in 1648, the term was changed to refere to the inhabatant of the english colonies  as americans,
> 
> it seemed the only qualification  for beibg an american is you lived there, so yes in the conditions of 1720, i would be an american


But you're not an American now, and you're the guy talking about what you would or wouldn't do.  While you could hypothetically become an American if you ever choose to immigrate here, now or in 1720, your behavior and inclinations represent the English way, not the American way, because you are English and not American.


----------



## Steve (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> well most if the mexico colkinies were spanish, ive no idea what the spanish in mexico were call, probebly just spanish?
> 
> how ever your at least partly right, an english man who lived in mexico was probebly still an englishman
> 
> ...


This lends more weight to the idea that there wasn't an American way at the time, as all Americans were British subjects.  Looping this back to the original point, though I think that you're a shoot em in the back guy, I'm not sure that's British or American.  I think it's just you and those like you, independent of nationality.  Just your nature.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> But you're not an American now, and you're the guy talking about what you would or wouldn't do.  While you could hypothetically become an American if you ever choose to immigrate here, now or in 1720, your behavior and inclinations represent the English way, not the American way, because you are English and not American.


i could ubderstand you getting hot under the collar in the covid thread, its a very emotive subject,  im not sure a history thread warrents the same sort of over the top bbehaviour.

if you want to compare atrocities committed when the british were in charge, compared to the american way when they left, that could be fun


----------



## Steve (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> i could ubderstand you getting hot under the collar in the covid thread, its a very emotive subject,  im not sure a history thread warrents the same sort of over the top bbehaviour.
> 
> if you want to compare atrocities committed when the british were in charge, compared to the american way when they left, that could be fun


Are we getting hot?  I was just having a little fun responding to you the way you respond to others.  I think it's actually pretty promising that you see how dysfunctional it seems.

Just to lift the veil for you, the key is to pick a detail that is irrelevant, nit pick that detail, and then at any point, pick another detail and nit pick that, then later, randomly start gaslighting everyone with a version of the previous exchange on detail number 1 that is entirely divorced from reality, and use that to spin off on a different tangent about a third detail that is said with confidence but may or may not be true.  It's a predictable formula.  Just trying it on for fun.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Steve said:


> Are we getting hot?  I was just having a little fun responding to you the way you respond to others.  I think it's actually pretty promising that you see how dysfunctional it seems.
> 
> Just to lift the veil for you, the key ick a detail that is irrelevant, nit pick that detail, and then at any point, pick another detail and nit pick that, then later, randomly start gaslighting everyone with a version of the previous exchange on detail number 1 that is entirely divorced from reality, and use that to spin off on a different tangent about a third detail that is said with confidence but may or may not be true.  It's a predictable formula.  Just trying it on for fun.




it did seem to be gettibg a bit personal,  you usualy wait till youve lost to do that

im only intrested in a discusion and some banter, if you cant manage that with out getting into petty insults il just ignore you,  its rather your loss


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> it did seem to be gettibg a bit personal,  you usualy wait till youve lost to do that
> 
> im only intrested in a discusion and some banter, if you cant manage that with out getting into petty insults il just ignore you,  its rather your loss


What was the insult? I can understand how being called an englishman instead might be insulting to some, but surely you've embraced that by now?


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> What was the insult? I can understand how being called an englishman instead might be insulting to some, but surely you've embraced that by now?


he said i was the sort of person that shoots people in the back, several times with ibcreasibg malice as i didnt repond the first time, 

its obviously a big thing to him, , he is just carrying  a grudge and trying to pick a fight, its a bit pathetic really


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 17, 2020)

jobo said:


> he said i was the sort of person that shoots people in the back, several times with ibcreasibg malice as i didnt repond the first time,
> 
> its obviously a big thing to him, , he is just carrying  a grudge and trying to pick a fight, its a bit pathetic really


This is what I get for skimming. I thought you had said you'd do that as you'd be an american, and he just said that was a british thing.


----------



## jobo (Dec 17, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> This is what I get for skimming. I thought you had said you'd do that as you'd be an american, and he just said that was a british thing.


i dont care, its just some giy 2000 miles away with a problem, thats the internet for you, seemlingly very few peopke can have a discusion with out gettibg cross,, the problem is, it will escalate  and then the thread will be shut down, and im quite enjoying it

so il just blank him,


----------



## Steve (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> he said i was the sort of person that shoots people in the back, several times with ibcreasibg malice as i didnt repond the first time,
> 
> its obviously a big thing to him, , he is just carrying  a grudge and trying to pick a fight, its a bit pathetic really


aww.  I'm sorry jobo. Poor guy.  Having a rough day.  

Just a movie clip that reminded me of you.

I'm sincerely shocked you're sensitive to a perceived slight considering how offensive you are in most threads.  I am still salty that you casually accused me of cowardice and then called my entire family warmongers.  Sure.  Instead of apologizing, you doubled down.bbto be honest, it's completely changed my opinion of you for the worse.  I have zero respect for you or anything you say.  

But that's not why you reminded me of that movie.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> it did seem to be gettibg a bit personal,  you usualy wait till youve lost to do that
> 
> im only intrested in a discusion and some banter, if you cant manage that with out getting into petty insults il just ignore you,  its rather your loss


I think you just made his point.


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> i dont care, its just some giy 2000 miles away with a problem, thats the internet for you, seemlingly very few peopke can have a discusion with out gettibg cross,, the problem is, it will escalate  and then the thread will be shut down, and im quite enjoying it
> 
> so il just blank him,



Wow never thought my forum question on history would lead to such a heated discussion!  Glad I post questions that lead to such passionate discussions! lol


----------



## Steve (Dec 18, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Wow never thought my forum question on history would lead to such a heated discussion!  Glad I post questions that lead to such passionate discussions! lol


I really didn't think it was getting heated.  Well, there ya go.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 18, 2020)

Rat said:


> Ah yes, because chav has been a long standing word in the english vocabulary since william the bastard and has in no way changed its meaning or usage or spelling over the years.
> 
> 
> I highlight my point in stating, i have no idea what people are saying using modern english with a strong diffrent accent to mine (specfically northern) x10 down to a lot of more regional accents than there are now and a less common form of english and tada.    That and spelling was diffrent and illteracy was lower than now.     You might be able to converse with a london nobleman to some degree, but i would be doubtful if you could converse with a Scottish commoner or a farmer from rural england.
> ...




Actually 'chav' is an old word, it's existed since the 19th century and is mentioned by lexicographer Eric Partidge in his dictionary of 1950, giving its date of origin as c1860. Mostly likely a Romany word.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 18, 2020)

JowGaWolf said:


> Thanks for the link and info. I just watched this video from the link.



Elizabethan English is easy to understand (I've watched the OU programme before) it sounds like an English West Country accent. If you like comedy and Shakespeare see if you can watch 'Upstart Crow'.


----------



## Steve (Dec 18, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Elizabethan English is easy to understand (I've watched the OU programme before) it sounds like an English West Country accent. If you like comedy and Shakespeare see if you can watch 'Upstart Crow'.


Years ago at the university, I read Chaucer in middle English and Beowulf in Old English.  The Canterbury Tales and Troilus and Crysede, if I remember correctly.  I found it was pretty easy to understand when read, but the pronunciation was completely foreign.  Beowulf was more challenging, as I recall.

Edit:  Just to clarify, I never understood why Shakespeare was considered difficult to understand.  We did a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream in the 4th grade.  It's not that different.  While the spelling was all over the place, if you read things phonetically, it was pretty clear what the words were (though the subtext might be a little above a 4th grader's head).  I found even Middle English to be pretty straightforward.  It's that Old  English that got squirrelly.


----------



## JP3 (Dec 18, 2020)

jobo said:


> well thats just a typical defeatest attitude,  of course you could travel  though area controled by other eurooean powers,  we wernt at war with them and its highly unlikely they would even notoce you, with a few thousand of them controlling million  of square miles, if i could travel to spain or france,( and i certainly could) i could also travel to spanish of french territories in the new world,, the europeans had a few thousand years of civilisation behind them, it was only when they left that the place desended into barbarism
> ( ok the spanish left a little to be desired)
> 
> and i dont want to be over picky, what with it being your countries history, but the California  gold rush was in California  not Oregon,  and califoria was controled by no one, with the exception of the native Americans, who clearly werent very intrested in gold and were noted as being amenable,  by the few europeans that got that way out, still shouldnt be that hard to dodge them


You do realize that Oregon is just to the North of California, don't you? The reason folks seemed to like the Oregon Trail, once it was made, as you had a trail wide enough for two wagons to pass each other going the opposite way. Gasp! That's progress.  Then, I suppose if you've already done ~2K or ~2.5K miles, the little shot down to Northern California was no big deal.

I still like my idea of industrial espionage on Eli Whitney.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 19, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> Actually 'chav' is an old word, it's existed since the 19th century and is mentioned by lexicographer Eric Partidge in his dictionary of 1950, giving its date of origin as c1860. Mostly likely a Romany word.



Still doesnt dispute how its meaning has more than likely changed and drastically over that peroid, and the time frame is still 100 years off to the peroid in question.


I wouldnt consider 1800's old, as far as i recall that is literally modern english, or at least the foundations of it, you would be able to talk to somone in 1850 using todays english much easier than somone in 1700.      Better wording may be, 1850's english is last generations, maybe the generation befores english.         Anyway, wording may be off but i belive i relayed my point sufficently.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2020)

Rat said:


> Still doesnt dispute how its meaning has more than likely changed and drastically over that peroid, and the time frame is still 100 years off to the peroid in question.
> 
> 
> I wouldnt consider 1800's old, as far as i recall that is literally modern english, or at least the foundations of it, you would be able to talk to somone in 1850 using todays english much easier than somone in 1700.      Better wording may be, 1850's english is last generations, maybe the generation befores english.         Anyway, wording may be off but i belive i relayed my point sufficently.




As you cannot even write 'modern' English I don't think you can be classed in any way an expert on what English is or isn't. Your opinions are just that, opinions, there's no validity in what you think. I'll take the professor's professional assessment over yours and his rendering of 18th century English was perfectly understandable to me.
If you think the 1850s is the generation before I think your maths skills are as lacking as your English ones. I'm in my sixties, that generation would be my great grandparent's one not the generation before mine. cable
Your opinions fly in the face of all the experts considerable knowledge and study, I'd just give it up if I were you.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2020)

Steve said:


> Years ago at the university, I read Chaucer in middle English and Beowulf in Old English.  The Canterbury Tales and Troilus and Crysede, if I remember correctly.  I found it was pretty easy to understand when read, but the pronunciation was completely foreign.  Beowulf was more challenging, as I recall.
> 
> Edit:  Just to clarify, I never understood why Shakespeare was considered difficult to understand.  We did a production of A Midsummer Night's Dream in the 4th grade.  It's not that different.  While the spelling was all over the place, if you read things phonetically, it was pretty clear what the words were (though the subtext might be a little above a 4th grader's head).  I found even Middle English to be pretty straightforward.  It's that Old  English that got squirrelly.



Old English is very difficult, more like a different language altogether, but like you I've always found Shakespeare easy to understand. If you can find videos of the actor who plays Loki in the Thor films etc, Tom Hiddleston do watch him, he's considered one of the finest Shakespearean actors ever, his Henry V is stunning, especially 'that speech'. I was totally enthralled.


----------



## Deleted member 39746 (Dec 19, 2020)

Tez3 said:


> As you cannot even write 'modern' English I don't think you can be classed in any way an expert on what English is or isn't. Your opinions are just that, opinions, there's no validity in what you think. I'll take the professor's professional assessment over yours and his rendering of 18th century English was perfectly understandable to me.




I wouldnt start with English corrections unless you want a very keen eye addressed to your writings on here, that is just advise.  And that is factually false, as i am typing and English Literature and Lanagauge are sub divided into many sections and the history of the english langauge is completely seperate to your ability to use it.   (as the HISTORICAL STUDY of English, is a hisotrical subject)

And your opinions are just that opinions, that proffesors opinions are just that opinions, i care not for whos word you take over whos, the proffesor is not above critique or review or mistake, and you are not them.       I am also confused as to what proffesor you mean as you cited none for the 18th centuary?  The 1800's is not the 18th centuary.  



Tez3 said:


> If you think the 1850s is the generation before I think your maths skills are as lacking as your English ones. I'm in my sixties, that generation would be my great grandparent's one not the generation before mine. cable



I made no statement to that effect.   My statement on generations is in regards to the English langauge, not human generations.  


Final notes: This reply to mine is meerly pathetic. Your appeal to authorty and attemps to defame my character based on lack of skill fall short as you fail to not have several logcal fallacies and go on a no squitor to my direct reply to you.   You then call the kettle black as you misuse centuaries in the hisotrical classification usage, and display a lack of reading skills. Alongside the potetional lack of grammar in your reply.

Unless you with to argue the point with me, do not bother replying.  I have better things to do than to entertain a strawman and a Adhominen cesspit like the reply above, good day.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 19, 2020)

Rat said:


> I wouldnt start with English corrections unless you want a very keen eye addressed to your writings on here, that is just advise.  And that is factually false, as i am typing and English Literature and Lanagauge are sub divided into many sections and the history of the english langauge is completely seperate to your ability to use it.   (as the HISTORICAL STUDY of English, is a hisotrical subject)
> 
> And your opinions are just that opinions, that proffesors opinions are just that opinions, i care not for whos word you take over whos, the proffesor is not above critique or review or mistake, and you are not them.       I am also confused as to what proffesor you mean as you cited none for the 18th centuary?  The 1800's is not the 18th centuary.
> 
> ...




Thank you for one of the funniest posts on here I've ever read,  you set yourself up as an expert in English and we get this, centaurs and hisotrical potetionals.

Bad spelling, no grammar and the mangling of the English language wouldn't matter as much if we were discussing anything other than the English language!! 

I can see why you don't want to discuss it further lol, and are miffed at being challenged, after all who am I with my O and A levels in English and English Literature plus my 1:1 degree in English  (from a university founded in 1495 lol) to know anything eh.

Oh and I think you mean 'non sequitur' I think a 'no squitor' is someone who doesn't have diarrhoea.


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> the whole histoory if the world hinges on( a few) events that could easily have gone the other way, but for good luck, bad weather or what have you



This is very true.  Lots of random events that could have gone either way changed the world.  

What if President Lincolns bodyguard had not went off and got drunk when he was supposed to be standing guard and instead ended up stopping Lincolns killing?  How much would that have changed the world?

Or if the flight screeners on 9/11 actually done their job and found the boxcutters the terrorists had on them.  No 9/11.

Thousands of examples like these.  A lot of stuff just comes down to random chance and dumb luck


----------



## jobo (Dec 22, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> This is very true.  Lots of random events that could have gone either way changed the world.
> 
> What if President Lincolns bodyguard had not went off and got drunk when he was supposed to be standing guard and instead ended up stopping Lincolns killing?  How much would that have changed the world?
> 
> ...


agree, but then as i said some thinks look inevitable , if not in the specific then in the general,  if wilks booth had failed that night, would he or someone else have suceeded a fortnight later, AL had annoyed an awful lot of people, the presidents security right up to RR left a LoT to be desired, he was first the first of a few.

same with 9,11 the attack was amateur hour, which may be why it succeded, it was so badly planned and executed,  that no stratgist in their right mind would have predicted it, a major terrorist act on america was however odds on, the 7,7 attacks on London conerned blowibg up packed tube trains,  there no way to actually stop that other than intel, so theres a good chance that something a bit like 9,11 would have occured some time later, how much a change of venue would have effected thr big picture out come, is open to debate, clearly the twin towers were on top of the dreadfull death toll, an inconic target, would the invasions,  wars and legal frame work have been greatly different if it had been a more mundane target


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 22, 2020)

jobo said:


> agree, but then as i said some thinks look inevitable , if not in the specific then in the general,  if wilks booth had failed that night, would he or someone else have suceeded a fortnight later, AL had annoyed an awful lot of people, the presidents security right up to RR left a LoT to be desired, he was first the first of a few.
> 
> same with 9,11 the attack was amateur hour, which may be why it succeded, it was so badly planned and executed,  that no stratgist in their right mind would have predicted it, a major terrorist act on america was however odds on, the 7,7 attacks on London conerned blowibg up packed tube trains,  there no way to actually stop that other than intel, so theres a good chance that something a bit like 9,11 would have occured some time later, how much a change of venue would have effected thr big picture out come, is open to debate, clearly the twin towers were on top of the dreadfull death toll, an inconic target, would the invasions,  wars and legal frame work have been greatly different if it had been a more mundane target



Good point they could have just taken Lincoln out the next night a week or month later if it had been stopped that night.  Maybe the failed attempt may have caused them to increase security though and possibly prevented it from happening all together?  Probaly not since Presidents even more then 100 years later were still getting targeted.

Interesting the point you brought up about 9/11 if it was a less iconic target would be have avoiding the invasions and wars in the middle east.  I think it was more the number of people killed then the iconic target.  If they had blew up a shopping mall and killed 3000 people I would think we would still have invaded and went to war.  But maybe the iconic target and spectacular nature of the attack influenced the US response and made it more severe


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Dec 23, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> This is very true.  Lots of random events that could have gone either way changed the world.
> 
> What if President Lincolns bodyguard had not went off and got drunk when he was supposed to be standing guard and instead ended up stopping Lincolns killing?  How much would that have changed the world?
> 
> ...


You have a mistaken notion about the screeners being at fault. Prior to 9/11, it was entirely legal to carry small blades on planes.


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 23, 2020)

gpseymour said:


> You have a mistaken notion about the screeners being at fault. Prior to 9/11, it was entirely legal to carry small blades on planes.


 
Boxcutters Weren't Allowed Pre-9/11 - CBS News

Not sure your 100 percent correct on that.  The article I posted basically says the boxcutters should have been seized by flight screeners.  It was airport policy and in their manual to seize them but boxcutters were not specifically named as an item to be be seized however by the gov.  

So I guess bringing boxcutters were technically legal but against airline policy to allow them


----------



## dvcochran (Dec 23, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Boxcutters Weren't Allowed Pre-9/11 - CBS News
> 
> Not sure your 100 percent correct on that.  The article I posted basically says the boxcutters should have been seized by flight screeners.  It was airport policy and in their manual to seize them but boxcutters were not specifically named as an item to be be seized however by the gov.
> 
> So I guess bringing boxcutters were technically legal but against airline policy to allow them



From the article:
"FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said keeping boxcutters off planes was an industry requirement, not a government order. She said the FAA allowed airline passengers to carry blades less than four inches long before Sept. 11. Government rules now prohibit such items.

Other items allowed into airplane cabins, according to the manual, included baseball bats, darts, knitting needles, pocket utility knifes less than four inches long and scissors."

I carry a pocket knife all day, every day. Pre 9/11, there was no issue with me carrying a pocket knife ever from any airport I  traveled in/out of. That would include every US state but two (Hawaii & Idaho), several places in Canada & Mexico, and even Malaysia. Some smaller airports did not even require you to empty your pockets. Tell them what you had, they would wand you and sometimes give you a quick pat down, and then walk right on through the scanner without stopping. Some places did not even have a scanner. It was very lax by comparison to post 9/11.

Back around 1995 we had built an assembly line in TN and had it transported to Toronto (that would be very difficult these days). A 75ish pound piece of tooling was late being built. I had a "I'll give it a try" moment, sprayed the tool with Sentry tuff coat (which has a very strong odor) put oil dry in the bottom of a wooden box and carried it into the airport with me. Looking back it straight up looked like some kind of bomb or something. Trying not too look like it was too heavy I walked straight on to the plane with the box as a carry on. Stunk up the whole plane, leaked oil dry on the floor at my seat and no one ever said a word. I did get a 'look' from one of the stewards who knew me as a regular. On the way off of the plane I waited to be last and slipped him a tip and apologized for the mess. He chuckled and gave me a smile. The Co-pilot came out (most of the time the doors never closed on short trips back then) and the three of us talked for a few minutes. The Co-pilot said they were wondering what the smell was. I told them what I had done and apologized. I went on my way and that was the end of it. 

Framing it from todays perspective I don't know if I would be out of trouble yet for pulling that stunt.


----------



## Chrisinmd (Dec 23, 2020)

dvcochran said:


> From the article:
> "FAA spokeswoman Laura Brown said keeping boxcutters off planes was an industry requirement, not a government order. She said the FAA allowed airline passengers to carry blades less than four inches long before Sept. 11. Government rules now prohibit such items.
> 
> Other items allowed into airplane cabins, according to the manual, included baseball bats, darts, knitting needles, pocket utility knifes less than four inches long and scissors."
> ...



Yes flight security was a lot more lax pre 9/11.  But I still think the flight screeners shoulder some blame.
First the flight screeners never even found the box cutters on them.  They should not have allowed them to board until they cleared the metal detector. Im not sure where they were hiding them but if they found they concealed in their underwear or something then that should have caused further investigation. If the box cutters were found at the very least it should have raised some red flags why 4 muslim dudes are all carrying box cutters.

So basically what I am saying is if the flight screeners had done anything more then the (bare minimium even by pre 9/11 standards) 9/11 could have been prevented.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Dec 23, 2020)

Chrisinmd said:


> Yes flight security was a lot more lax pre 9/11.  But I still think the flight screeners shoulder some blame.
> First the flight screeners never even found the box cutters on them.  They should not have allowed them to board until they cleared the metal detector. Im not sure where they were hiding them but if they found they concealed in their underwear or something then that should have caused further investigation. If the box cutters were found at the very least it should have raised some red flags why 4 muslim dudes are all carrying box cutters.
> 
> So basically what I am saying is if the flight screeners had done anything more then the (bare minimium even by pre 9/11 standards) 9/11 could have been prevented.


That really wasn't the minimum back then. First-them being Muslim had no real reason to raise suspicion at that time, and domestic terrorism is a thing as well. Second-there are tons of stories of people having various weapons on them-it wasn't a concern since nothing like that had happened to make it a concern. So the bare minimum at that time was really "do you have a passport (if needed), do you have all the papers, do you have any bombs or firearms?"


----------



## jobo (Dec 23, 2020)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> That really wasn't the minimum back then. First-them being Muslim had no real reason to raise suspicion at that time, and domestic terrorism is a thing as well. Second-there are tons of stories of people having various weapons on them-it wasn't a concern since nothing like that had happened to make it a concern. So the bare minimum at that time was really "do you have a passport (if needed), do you have all the papers, do you have any bombs or firearms?"


yra maybe

when i fkew to the,states in 1999,getting on the flight required beibg questioned and profiled, getting out of lax was 10 times as difficult and a long lay over in jfk, was nightmarish, as every time( i frequent) went for a cig, i had to be scanned searched and profiled agaiin, thats about 20 times. in 10 hours

there was no doubt that terrorism was a a major concern prior to 9.11 and that highjackibg an international flight was to put it mildly extremly difficult

then i flew from la to portland, with no secutity checks at all, i mean nothing, i may have had to walk through a scanner, but if i did  i a) dont remmber and b) didnt get stopped for the nice new knife and numerous tools id bought in la that i had in my hand luggage,  in fact omi only had hand luggage  .

thats because the internal flights were being run as a bus service.

so as far as foreseability its clear they didnt forsee the danger to internal flights or if they did concluded it was far to inconvient to sort out, but perhaps they really should have done ir sone something  about it,, n international airports were on high alert, because of the terrorism  threat


----------



## Dirty Dog (Dec 23, 2020)

THREAD LOCKED

Mark A Cochran
@Dirty Dog 
MartialTalk Senior Moderator


----------

