User talk:Funkychinaman

Black Dynamite

If you have caps, go for it, man! I don't have the DVD anymore, as I was borrowing it from a friend.-protoAuthor 16:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Amen brother

I read your preference for SA/DA pistols over striker fired and DAO guns. I myself firmly hold this belief and strongly dislike the way most new guns are adopting the striker system, especially in the law enforcement market. Though I have to say I have a far stronger dislike for hammerless revolvers regardless of their superior snag resistance. -Anonymous

Reply

Thanks for responding to my post. With regards to law enforcement sidearms I think agree that liability probably plays a major role in their weapon selection but personally I still don't think that explains their choices. A Glock or similar pistol with a light trigger pull and no manual safety is a Plaxico Burress situation waiting to happen. The New York City Police solution, modifying DAO weapons to have 12 lbs triggers, seems like a real dumb idea as that can't be good for accuracy, something I would like to think police have mastered. The only reason I can think of why Striker guns are good from a liability standpoint is drop safety, but modern hammer guns are just as safe in most real world senerios so I still don't understand the striker craze.

Also, I did screen cap alot of Archer episodes that featured realistic weapons right before I found out that the article already existed and had been deleted. If you wanted to see how good their quality was so as to make a case for an Archer article being allowed I would be happy to post some of my screencaps.

P.S. The Bersa Thunder 380 is an amazing little gun, though you are right .380 ACP is almost impossible to come by recently. Most stores in my area get 2 or 3 boxes a month which quickly get sold for close to double what they used to cost. -Anonymous

Chekhov's Gun

I noticed you're comment about the .25 Chekhov mentioned in Archer. This is a somewhat esoteric joke about a literary technique known as the Chekhov's Gun, which refers to a seemingly minor object mentioned early in a story turning out to have a major impact on the plot later on. Here's a link that explains more about it. [1] Toward the bottom of the page it even specifically mentions the example from Archer. -Anonymous

History

Of the reality shows, things like Pawn Stars and American Pickers make sense as they involve historical artifacts, however, Ax Men, truckers, and that new swamp show don't belong at all. As for Arms and Armor, I've never even heard of that show (probably before my time). What I miss is Conquest, there used to be reruns on History International but they've stopped. -Anonymous

I've never heard of that show either. I think 30 min was too short for Conquest as well. More running time would have made the show alot better. Other improvements would have been to use different people each episode (like Fear Factor or Dog Eat Dog) and change some of the final challenges like those in the Pirate and Ninja episodes which were clearly staged and fairly corny. -Anonymous

The feeling that History has completely abandoned its initial mission statement is very pervasive. TVTropes.com also has several articles that mock the History Channel, though admittedly not in flowchart form. I've always loved Cracked.com, very insightful information presented in their endearing snarky, jackass tone. The worst show imaginable on that list is Ancient Aliens where people who seriously must functionally retarded try to rewrite history in the most asinine way possible (Noah's ark was a DNA Bank, Gold eating aliens founded Babylon, the moon is a hollow space station monitoring earth, and ancient aliens in bronze age India fought wars with atomic bombs). THIS IS NOT HISTORY. Technically neither is Top Shot but as a gun enthusiast I'm willing to look the other way ;). -Anonymous

What I found more interesting than the HD WWII documentaries was a mini-series they did several years ago called WWI in color. It was an actual documentary series with each episode exploring a different topic (trench warfare, the birth of Aerial combat, the eastern front, the war at sea) but augmented the historian and veteran (they actually found a dozen WWI vets) interviews with colorized footage from the front lines. Color footage of WWII may be rare but it's unheard of for WWI. Also, the show didn't entirely rest on the color footage but simply used it to supplement a good documentary. As for a show about horsemanship, it sounds interesting if they could encompass things from the entire history of mounted warfare. Have the contestants use javelins, lances, bows, swords, and guns, from horseback, chariot, camel, possibly even elephant. Unfortunately with the way the history channel has been headed it would probably end up less like Conquest and more like Deadliest Warrior. -Anonymous

I think asking people trained in modern riding styles to ride without stirrups may be asking too much. -Anonymous

Cracked Article

A little while ago you sent me a link to a cracked.com article about the history channel. I just found another article on Cracked I believe is written by Gunmaster45. I found it very amusing and thought you might enjoy it [2]. It lists 10 overrated, impractical guns including a tactical double barrel shotgun. Let me know what you think. -Anonymous

BSG Apollo

Jamie Bamber did use the Colonial pistol. Take a look at the 2nd screenshot under the Colonial handgun entry. --Ben41 04:47, 11 June 2011 (CDT)

Thing is...

...We're not compiling an official Navy listing here, we're just using Lt. as a shorthand for "Lieutenant" in the same way "Mr." is a shorthand for "Mister." It doesn't really matter what service the pretend people are part of, and Jessica Biel and Josh Lucas aren't Lieutenants. I might agree if we were talking about real pilots here, but we're not. Evil Tim 14:38, 8 July 2011 (CDT)

Either is correct, but Lt. is better for readability. "Lt." is always short for lieutenant regardless of what else might be; US Navy lieutenants are officially listed as "LT," but that's just an administrative choice, it doesn't change the entire rest of the English language (any more than Capt. stops being short for "Captain" if you happen to have joined the Army). It's about people understanding what you're using it as a shorthand for, not about using a term that will have the uninitiated wondering what "LT" is an acronym for because there's no full stop after it to say it's an abbreviation. Evil Tim 14:54, 8 July 2011 (CDT)

I don't know, if you're trying to educate people there's no point being correct if nobody understands you're correct; the first time I saw someone allcaps'ing rank names I just thought he was being a moron (in my defence, he was a moron in a multitude of other ways). The proper abbreviation only helps in differentiating ranks if you already know that's what it is; it's a little like "Hg" is only a useful shorthand for "Mercury" if you already know the periodic table well. It's much easier to tell they're Navy airmen by the fact that there's an aircraft carrier in the movie. Anyway, I'm just going to change it to the full word. To show there's no hard feelings, skip to 1:30 to see what it looks like when an M167 VADS is actually firing. I laughed. Evil Tim 00:09, 9 July 2011 (CDT)

Well yeah, but we explain which variant is which. What I mean is that it's useless using a shorthand if it won't help people get it, since the purpose of a shorthand is to say something quickly in a way people can still easily understand. As for a videogame, it's called Ace Combat :D Evil Tim 01:11, 9 July 2011 (CDT)