Difference between revisions of "Talk:516: Wood Chips"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The wood chips may be a reference to the 1995 horror movie 'Seven' in which the killer fed wood chips to his victim. Also here the wood chips serve as a starting point for an elaborate scavenger hunt. [[User:MrKaizer|MrKaizer]] ([[User talk:MrKaizer|talk]]) 13:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC) | The wood chips may be a reference to the 1995 horror movie 'Seven' in which the killer fed wood chips to his victim. Also here the wood chips serve as a starting point for an elaborate scavenger hunt. [[User:MrKaizer|MrKaizer]] ([[User talk:MrKaizer|talk]]) 13:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Near the end of the explanation is a reference to a test of the Shroud of Turin which "appeared to prove the cloth '''was''' medieval in origin (albeit not old enough to have been used by Jesus)." This should say "was medieval in origin and thus not old enough to have been used on the body of Jesus." "Medieval" refers to the Middle Ages, commonly reckoned to cover about 500 to 1500, or in some contexts 1100-1500. As it stands, using "albeit," this sentence is as logical as saying "This equation is relativistic '''BUT''' does not go back to Newton." [[Special:Contributions/172.68.54.88|172.68.54.88]] 18:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:04, 21 November 2017
The wood chips may be a reference to the 1995 horror movie 'Seven' in which the killer fed wood chips to his victim. Also here the wood chips serve as a starting point for an elaborate scavenger hunt. MrKaizer (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Near the end of the explanation is a reference to a test of the Shroud of Turin which "appeared to prove the cloth was medieval in origin (albeit not old enough to have been used by Jesus)." This should say "was medieval in origin and thus not old enough to have been used on the body of Jesus." "Medieval" refers to the Middle Ages, commonly reckoned to cover about 500 to 1500, or in some contexts 1100-1500. As it stands, using "albeit," this sentence is as logical as saying "This equation is relativistic BUT does not go back to Newton." 172.68.54.88 18:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
