Difference between revisions of "Talk:1979: History"
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:Same here. Then I thought "What the heck?" and read the last line again. Lol. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 13:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | :Same here. Then I thought "What the heck?" and read the last line again. Lol. [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 13:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
::And same here, lol! I was actually wondering about what the possible motivations could have been to use Megan as the character to say that. Then I read it again :D [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.172|162.158.255.172]] 14:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | ::And same here, lol! I was actually wondering about what the possible motivations could have been to use Megan as the character to say that. Then I read it again :D [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.172|162.158.255.172]] 14:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
| + | :::Considering Randall's opinion on Trump, it made a little sense. But he hasn't ever attacked him directly.[[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 15:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
I only make comments, and let others figure out how to edit it into the above. I once read someplace that there is a reasonable limit to accurate historical research at about 3 centuries- events more than 300 years in the past become more mythological than factual, and events more than 500 years in the past are so remote that we can't even begin to understand the culture in which they occurred. While there are famous exceptions to this rule, they occur entirely in the realms of either archaeology or theology and religion, not in the science of history.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | I only make comments, and let others figure out how to edit it into the above. I once read someplace that there is a reasonable limit to accurate historical research at about 3 centuries- events more than 300 years in the past become more mythological than factual, and events more than 500 years in the past are so remote that we can't even begin to understand the culture in which they occurred. While there are famous exceptions to this rule, they occur entirely in the realms of either archaeology or theology and religion, not in the science of history.[[User:Seebert|Seebert]] ([[User talk:Seebert|talk]]) 13:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 15:22, 11 April 2018
Heh. I accidentally misread the line, so I thought it said: "I honestly have enough trouble with just the president". Linker (talk) 11:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Same here. Then I thought "What the heck?" and read the last line again. Lol. Herobrine (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- And same here, lol! I was actually wondering about what the possible motivations could have been to use Megan as the character to say that. Then I read it again :D 162.158.255.172 14:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I only make comments, and let others figure out how to edit it into the above. I once read someplace that there is a reasonable limit to accurate historical research at about 3 centuries- events more than 300 years in the past become more mythological than factual, and events more than 500 years in the past are so remote that we can't even begin to understand the culture in which they occurred. While there are famous exceptions to this rule, they occur entirely in the realms of either archaeology or theology and religion, not in the science of history.Seebert (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- What is "accurate historical research"? No scientist would use those words. And a historian as an expert - let's say of the Roman Empire or the medieval - would strictly disagree. --Dgbrt (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Even shorter periods of time. There were a lot of changes in the twentieth century. I was born in 1960. At that time, there were people alive before the automobile, powered airflight, the telephone. How about photocopiers which really got going in the 1970s? Can any of you younger people understand not being able to photocopy something? Then, there are the developments in computers and mobile phones.
- On a USENET newgroup that I follow -- alt.talk.royalty -- there is one monarchist who posts a series of posts on Queen Elizabeth II. Sort of. He takes the current length of her reign and goes back that far before it (less a day, I think). He then describes the world at that time and finishes with "Consider all the changes, natural and manmade, visited upon the world in all the time since. And now consider this...Queen Elizabeth II has been on the Throne for MOST of that time since then." Twice her reign length from present time is now in the 1880s. A very different world.
- 108.162.216.220 15:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC) Gene Wirchenko [email protected]
The link to the actual page of the paper is fantastic - especially the ads along the right side - "Anti-Morbific, the Great Liver and Kidney Remedy" and "Trash's Magnetic Ointment". So, a question - there's no by-line. Is there any way to figure out who wrote this? I assume maybe multiple people, like and editorial board? DanB (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
