BBC Ignorance test

[BruceVC]

FIVE CHILDREN ON AVERAGE??!! 

 

Oh, birth control now, thank god. Or ... wait, when did China enact the one-child thing ...   

 

I only got 3/9. A British chimp isn't the worst thing to be. 

 

Its not, many would argue that Chimps have better lives than many humans.

 

So welcome to our zoo according to the test , you aren't alone

Edited November 8, 2013 by BruceVC

[Walsingham]

FIVE CHILDREN ON AVERAGE??!! 

 

Oh, birth control now, thank god. Or ... wait, when did China enact the one-child thing ...   

 

I only got 3/9. A British chimp isn't the worst thing to be. 

 

 

...You can drink tea, and shoot the French!

[BruceVC]

 

FIVE CHILDREN ON AVERAGE??!! 

 

Oh, birth control now, thank god. Or ... wait, when did China enact the one-child thing ...   

 

I only got 3/9. A British chimp isn't the worst thing to be. 

 

 

...You can drink tea, and shoot the French!

 

 

,,,funny

[Walsingham]

Not for the French it bloody isn't.

 

Incidentally, keep in mind that this is a compliment. Despite having shot people from all over the World, the British still like shooting Frenchmen best.

[Amentep]

I got 5/9 although there are two questions (life expectancy and wealth distribution) that my initial thought was correct on but talked myself out of

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Not for the French it bloody isn't.

 

Incidentally, keep in mind that this is a compliment. Despite having shot people from all over the World, the British still like shooting Frenchmen best.

In all honesty, I can't think of anyone else more enjoyable to shoot(I suppose a certain brand of Russians come close). Perhaps France should be known as "Most Shootable Nation"?

[Walsingham]

Gentlemen, I propose a toast: to the French, long may they fight!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

If by "fight" you mean surrender.

[Azdeus]

Well, you have to START a fight to have something to surrender from!

[Walsingham]

If by "fight" you mean surrender.

 

I have just realised that they only surrender when fighting against enemies without the character, tenacity, and class of the British.

 

I mean, once you've fought the British I can imagine not being bothered about the Germans. It'd be like going to see your team play Hull.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It seems the French have high standards then.

[Malcador]

They have that joke aimed at them just due to their defeat in WW2 and Indochina, I suppose ? Seems somewhat unfair.

[Walsingham]

And Algeria and the Franco-Prussian war.

[Malcador]

Hm, interesting. Most of the time it's just them 'caving' before the Germans (that pretty much beat up everyone else at the time). Haven't really read much on Algeria other than knowing it was a fairly nasty campaign, wiki article indicates it's like Vietnam for the US - smash up the enemy but still 'lose'.

[Walsingham]

But don't you see? They weren't running away. They were giving up in disgust.

[JFSOCC]

If by "fight" you mean surrender.

The French military kicks ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_France_in_modern_history

[Malcador]

But don't you see? They weren't running away. They were giving up in disgust.

I suppose that is one way of looking at it.

[Raithe]

 

If by "fight" you mean surrender.

The French military kicks ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_involving_France_in_modern_history

 

 

On a more historical basis, the French military always used to be pretty damn good. It's only in this last century that they developed the reputation of being cheese-eating surrender monkeys.

[Zoraptor]

And the german/ prussian army was nowhere near as good as its reputation for that matter. Worst performance of any major antagonist in the Napoleonic Wars and only survived the 7YW because Elisveta died at the most opportune moment possible and her heir was a prussophile cretin; lost their nerve terribly in the first few months of WW1 when they could have won quickly and lost- no matter the excuses from Adolf et alia- primarily to the french. They even consistently lost in WW2 whenever they came up against a credible and well lead opponent. They had a purple patch from 1866-1870 but their performance otherwise was uneven.

[Walsingham]

Are you deliberately being revisionist?

[JFSOCC]

That sounds like the history channel to me.

[Zoraptor]

Are you deliberately being revisionist?

I knew I should have left the "come at me, prussophiles" comment at the end...

 

I'm at least moderately serious though, I'd actively defend the opinion that historic german military supremacy was more apparent than real- and largely couched in the hero worship of certain individuals; GrossFreddie/ Rommel/ Manstein etc.

[Nonek]

Prince Ludwig the Indestructible.

[Walsingham]

 

Are you deliberately being revisionist?

I knew I should have left the "come at me, prussophiles" comment at the end...

 

I'm at least moderately serious though, I'd actively defend the opinion that historic german military supremacy was more apparent than real- and largely couched in the hero worship of certain individuals; GrossFreddie/ Rommel/ Manstein etc.

 

 

Whatever criticism you make about their operational nous (which battles they fought) they were tactically way above par (how they fought their battles). And their latter strategic idiocy doesn't come close to marring that.

 

I'd also add that in the last War their procurement could be absolutely amazing. Or basically wherever Hitler, Goering, or Himmler didn't shove a swivel-eyed oar in.

[Agiel]

Let us not forget the mechanised infantry concept embodied by the Panzergrenadiere that forever changed the face of modern ground warfare. I'd argue that the Germans didn't need more Tigers and Panthers, they needed more Hanomags so that their troops weren't stuck riding in horse-drawn carriages half the time.

Edited November 9, 2013 by Agiel