Reply With QuoteHes your god? Yeah, I can see how a primitive intellect might see someone intelligent as godlike.Originally Posted by java
He's back!
And he of all people has every right to be back - its because of him we're all talking about this...
Yes
No
1) I've made it quite clear why I believe the thread now has merit.
2) I made no attempt to "close down the thread", nor do I have the power so to do.
3) Had you read the discussion between Peter and I properly, you'd have realised that there was no "digging" involved.
Hes your god? Yeah, I can see how a primitive intellect might see someone intelligent as godlike.
And he of all people has every right to be back - its because of him we're all talking about this...
Indeed.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Even £3k is expensive for a Rolex
My mistake. In my naivety I assumed a difference between "offering an opinon" and "attempting to close down the thread". Thanks to you I stand corrected, however.
Obviously, it serves your purposes to ignore the (clearly stated) reason that I now find the thread to be of interest. Let's carry on in that vein, shall we, in order for you to have just cause for your sniping?
Put Jack on Dad, he might talk a bit more sense.
Nice one, chaps :)
Anyway, to answer the poll question...
It's relatively expensive when one considers the average amount spent on a watch; and it's relatively inexpensive when compared to the most expensive watches one can buy.
Right, I might have my dinner now, too!
I haven't voted in the poll as I believe the OP question is subjective and dependent on personal circumstances, context and potential history of the watch. However, having not read the whole nine pages, I do find it interesting the way threads start and finish very differently, often veering off at tangents, potentially off topic.
Damn, I thought I was being subtle LOL
Well, that's not the poll question answered is it? The answer of the poll was very clear - clear enough for 95% of the voters to agree upon it.
Enjoy your dinner. What are you and Timmy having? By rights it should be humble pie...
It depends on the value of he watch in question.
Pongo. You really do labour under the idea that because a lot of people think something, it must therefore be right. Run along to McDonalds and have your dinner now. It must of course be the best restaurant, by your logic.
That's because, by and large, theyre only vaguely intellectual.I love how you avoid the responses that are even vaguely intellectual
- - - Updated - - -
Will do wee Timmy!
Alas Harry, it seems you've had a little more time since yesterday to apply yourself to this than I and I'm only sorry it's taken until now to catch up.
You put up a great succession of posts today (I especially enjoyed the human behaviours and validity of the debate aspects (oh and of course your interesting link which I've skimmed but will return to over the weekend). It's hard to fault your analysis and reasoned conclusions, much less categorically dismiss elements, and there is no doubt your assertions have made me think again (hard (even when I couldn't really spare the time:)). Whether you're wholly right on whether the question is illogical? Well, I don't know. I'm confident I showed there is a route to resolving it with a valid and logical answer. So I'm bound to maintain much doubt that it can be deemed illogical; but as hinted before, I think we both realise we've reached the philosophical Rubicon, beyond which only professionals can continue to fail to find consensus :)
So I suppose that's me for this one and thanks for the knockabout... most enjoyable.. ;)
Though I'm still disappointed no one sought to answer my 'Is a 28 stone human "heavy"?' question, born of my being a tad factious earlier in the thread. But please, don't anyone try now...
I think the problem here might simply be one of epistemology.
I agree that length is a property we might expect of a piece of string, as might width or thickness. If the piece of string has this property we might expect to be able to measure it. As you point out, the property of length may vary depending upon external conditions. Even though that might be the case, we would still be able to observe and measure it even so. In this way we might build up a body of knowledge about the piece of string in an empirical fashion. Given enough observations and measurements we might be sufficiently confident to induce and predict the behaviour of the string under certain specified conditions or circumstances. If so we might also fins that these observations will allow us to answer the sort of question what is x if y; where for example x is length and y is perhaps temperature. In short these are all properties of the string that have an absolute value that can be measured. As a result the question: how long is a piece of string? seems to me to be one that can elicit a differing number of answers all of which can backed up or verified by reference to a number of explicit and repeatable observations. This of course is a basic scientific method.
However, it seems to me that the question: "is a piece of string long?" is a question of a different sort and is fundamentally less interesting than the question above, particularly if we limit ourselves just to a question about a property that the string might possess. If we ask the question: is a piece of string long? I think there are only three possible alternatives either: yes (the piece of string has length); no (the piece of string has no length); dunno squire, (couldn't give a toss). It seems to me to be a closed question which has a good chance of eliciting a coherent but I have to say uninteresting answer.
If we extrapolate this to your formulation of the original question: does a watch have expense? then assuming that we have a clear and distinct understanding of expense in the sense that possession of the watch entails a purchase and the purchase requires a price to be paid then we might conclude that "expense" is a property of the watch. If this is the case the question: is the watch expensive? elicits a similar narrow range of responses: "yes", "no" or "dunno, but give it a rest won'tch you ennarf makin' a mountain aht of a molehill?
However, and this is where the epistemology comes in, I don't think that "length" and "expense" are the same type of property. Furthermore the original question was not: is a watch expensive? The original question was: is a £13K watch expensive. This I think is a very different question.
I fear I am going to repeat myself here but I am aiming to clarify the difference between the the two types of property I referred to above and what bearing this has on the question asked.
It seems to me that length is the sort of property that is absolute, can be observed and measured and exists independently of an observer. In this way it might be possible to claim that the question: is a piece of string long? is an analytical one - that is that it is self referentially true, i.e. if it is a piece of string then length is a property it possesses.
“Expensive” seems to me neither absolute nor analytic. It requires a number of contextual pieces of supporting knowledge to be assembled and agreed in common such that the interrogator and the interrogated understand the sense and meaning of the question. Both would have to have an understanding of what it is to buy, sell and possess, and a common view about what constitutes the property “expensive”. Furthermore the original question proposes that a specific value is expensive. It asks for a qualitative and relative assessment to be made: is a £13K watch expensive? It is therefore a different question and isn’t the same as: is a piece of string long?
So we agree (although again I fear it is for the wrong reasons [shudder]), although I refute the charge that I may be trying to overcomplicate things. In my own way I hope I am trying to simplify matters although I do confess to enjoying arguing the toss in this matter.
I once thought that I had discovered a general principal about truth and knowledge back when I was a student and it was this: the type of truths that we can know about the natural world are different to the types of truths we try to establish in the human world. That is that properties and processes in the natural world, those of chemistry, physics, mathematics and possibly biology are analytic in nature. They are true in and of themselves and are independent of the observer. Particularly in maths and physics, the inherent properties of the universe, of which length might be one, are observable and capable of prediction given the right equipment, method and so on.
However, the sorts of truths we attempt to establish about the human world, those of morality, ethics, justice and so on are not of the same type. They tend to be relative and fluid and not capable of the same analytic approach or categorical conclusion. I believe therefore that there should be an epistemological distinction made between these two types of truth. With regard to this debate therefore I would argue that “length” is a type of analytic truth whereas “expensive” is not as it is a human ascribed property rather than natural one.
As I’ve written before I simply think the OP has simply asked the wrong question: he has implied that he wants our opinion without explicitly stating that is the case. As a result he has received many differing opinions that all have interpreted in their own particular manner for their own purposes, often to support an individual’s own but differing opinion. Furthermore, it seems to me that many have attempted to construct a universal definition of “expense” from a differing set of specific opinions. If this is the case, I fear that we will never arrive at a mutually acceptable answer to the question posed.
In conclusion I would disagree with you to the extent that I feel that the original question is not a simple one, if it were it would have been answered to the satisfaction of all within the first few postings. The length and now regrettable growing bitterness of the debate seem to me to demonstrate that.
I think it actually doesn’t matter whether we all hold the same opinion about whether any particular watch is expensive or cheap, or good or bad, or big or small etc. The opinion we hold is unlikely to impact on the world at large or even on anyone else for that matter. What is interesting from a psychological perspective is that it appears that for many of us posting on this thread it is not enough to express our own opinion, but that we have others agree, endorse and thereby validate that opinion. It also appears that it is important that we are right and are seen to be right in the eyes of others. I have to admit that I’m not that interested in whether a watch is expensive or not, I have a specific opinion about the matter and have expressed it way back in earlier posts. But I am interested in knowledge, reasoning, psychology and philosophy and like an enjoyable debate. I’m even, on occasion, up for an argument as long as it’s conducted in good spirit preferably with a bit of banter thrown in. It’s a shame that this debate is descending again into a bad tempered spat so I think it is best to let it lie now. It’s a shame really, but there it is. At least if I stop posting I can get to bed at a reasonable hour and Eddie won’t have to worry about his bandwidth nor other’s on his behalf.
Thanks for that. You're right, I should perhaps spend a little less time on this and move on to more constructive things, but it has been undeniably enjoyable. I miss a good debate and it's been fun to flex a few very ancient muscles and it's been enjoyable trying to construct and argument again. One of the sad things about life as one gets older is how opportunities for sitting around and just discussing and debating things diminish and wither - perhaps that's why so many of us hang around here in hope. Perhaps what we need is some kind of modern version of a 17th century coffee house salon, a place where gentleman can talk high minded rubbish to other like minded gentlemen. However, I can't help thinking that it's a good thing that Bob didn't find us mucking around in his sandpit, perhaps its not too late to escape before he notices.Alas Harry, it seems you've had a little more time since yesterday to apply yourself to this than I and I'm only sorry it's taken until now to catch up.
You put up a great succession of posts today (I especially enjoyed the human behaviours and validity of the debate aspects (oh and of course your interesting link which I've skimmed but will return to over the weekend). It's hard to fault your analysis and reasoned conclusions, much less categorically dismiss elements, and there is no doubt your assertions have made me think again (hard (even when I couldn't really spare the time:)). Whether you're wholly right on whether the question is illogical? Well, I don't know. I'm confident I showed there is a route to resolving it with a valid and logical answer. So I'm bound to maintain much doubt that it can be deemed illogical; but as hinted before, I think we both realise we've reached the philosophical Rubicon, beyond which only professionals can continue to fail to find consensus :)
So I suppose that's me for this one and thanks for the knockabout... most enjoyable.. ;)
Though I'm still disappointed no one sought to answer my 'Is a 28 stone human "heavy"?' question, born of my being a tad factious earlier in the thread. But please, don't anyone try now...
I was on a cycling forum once where they ran to a huge number of posts where a couple of people were arguing the toss about a problem similar to that one about how many people were on their way to Devizes but it involved Ducks if I recall rightly. I tried to find it to link to it earlier, but it appears to have been wiped off the face of the internet, which is a shame. Because the question was deliberately ambiguous the two participants spent an extraordinary amount of time and effort trying to persuade the other to accept their point of view and it became so famous that people from other forums dropped by to watch and its reputation spread way beyond the world of cycling. I had high hopes for this thread, but I think that people might be taking things a little too seriously and not engaging in the spirit I was hoping the debate would be held in, to prolong it any further. Maybe there will be another time, another question, another debate...
So in the spirit of Snoopy and the Red Baron I'll see you around the forum for the next dogfight. Farewell until then...
Well said, and quite insightfull of the human condition (as it manifests within this particular forum, anyway).
Jim
Is a £13k watch expensive? Yes of course it is! Don't understand why there needs to be 9 pages of posts to figure it out.
Hi Harry.
I found your treatise most interesting, and to do it full justice requires a response in full. However, the forum software limits the number of characters so I will have to respond in two parts as follows: -
part 1
I would certainly agree that the 'problem' on this thread is indeed epistemology. But that is simply because people keep bringing into the equation things that were never part of the original question.
Which is quite correct in the context of the question of how long is a piece of string?
It may indeed be less interesting, but it is still a valid question. But the answer to the question dictates a simple Yes or No answer, there can be no other option unless one brings measurements into the equation. But to do so would be bringing in epistemology, something which is not required as the original question is complete and stands on its own. I'll expand on this below.
Unfortunately no. The question 'does a watch have expense' is not in itself complete and thus cannot be answered. In the case of the piece of string question; for the string, (the object), to have length it must exist, and if it is a piece, (the quantifier), of string then the quantifier 'piece' means it exists; and if it exists then , ergo, it has length, (the subject). But in the case of does a watch have expense then we have an object and a subject. but no quantifier; so the watch cannot exist in logic and a quantifier must be sought, (not assumed as this would be guesswork and likely wrong), before the subject can be rationalised and the question answered.
It is certainly a different question than your 'does a watch have expense' question. But the two questions 'is a £23k watch expensive' and 'is a piece of string long' are both intrinsically the same. That is, they both have an object, a quantifier and a subject. Thus they can be fully answered.
From a logical perspective, and given that the original question proffered no further quantifiers then Expensive is just as absolute as Long, (i.e. it either Is <Expensive>/<Long> or it isn't Expensive>/<Long>. Thus if the Object exists then the Subject can be deduced and can only be Yes or No. There are no possible alternative answers, and only one of those answers can be correct; and clearly, that can only be Yes.
The quantifier £13k is just as clear as the quantifier Piece. And the answer to the original question would still have been the same, (Yes), if the quantifier had been £1M or £1 given the facts that were given and that the only options were Yes and No. And before people jump in with "a £1 watch would be cheap, not expensive", they could only surmise that by assuming their own criteria, (which may be right - a £1 Rolex would not be expensive in comparison to the standard AD price, but it would be wrong if it were a £1 rusty Timex with an obligation, on purchase, to have it services monthly at a cost of £2,000 a month), that's the trouble with epistemological reasoning, it often uses thought up on the spot criteria instead of seeking further clarification which could be easily obtainable and used logically.
Now I admit to using extreme examples here to demonstrate the logic of the thing, but there are those in the thread who still won't 'get it', sadly, and will reply with some inane comment. Not you Harry, I hasten to add.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
part 2 please don’t read in isolation
We do indeed agree, and for the wrong reasons, sadly. However, I hope you can see that by using logic rather than epistemological reasoning it is quite simple to arrive at the only possible correct answer given the facts that we were and the requirement to give a Yes or No answer in the first place. (You will note I hope, that I was the first respondent to the thread and my answer was Yes as that was the only possible answer based on the information given).
Ah, but that's an entirely different ball game ;-)
I hope that, at least to some degree, I've managed to convince you that from a Logical perspective that Expensive and Long can in fact be given the same credence.
We agree again. And I have said that in several posts also, though I couched it differently. And we also agree that many have tried, (and failed in my eye), to construct a universal definition of expensive. Without further quantification by the OP though that is entirely impossible, but people will try, (and may well be right from his posts in other threads), to guess what further things he meant. then again,, they could be equally wrong - that's the trouble with guessing.
Here we do disagree I'm afraid. The question is really a simple one and has only one possible correct answer. However, it would be fair to surmise that what the OP realy meant to ask was something entirely different.
Very true on all counts.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
I'm enjoying this. Peter, surely there's a difference between a specific quantifier ("£13k") and a non-specific quantifier ("piece"). Your contention "The quantifier £13k is just as clear as the quantifier Piece" is therefore incorrect, no?
This also renders your later statement "the two questions 'is a £23k watch expensive' and 'is a piece of string long' are both intrinsically the same. That is, they both have an object, a quantifier and a subject. Thus they can be fully answered." incorrect.
I found the logic of Harry's argument quite compelling, I have to say, although at this stage I'm confused by which points you're supporting, and which you're not (for which I take full responsibility).
Things are getting a bit pretentious now, given the simplicity of the original question.
It all puts me in mind of the old Viz character Mr Logic...
Some of these posts, while easy enough to understand, could get the same points across without being anywhere near so longwinded.
Im sure they impress a certain kind of person though and its lovely that people are still putting the effort in...
Last edited by Umbongo; 12th September 2013 at 11:42.
I look at the question from an entirely logical perspective Tony, as there is little else to go on.
There is a indeed a physical difference between £13k and Piece, but from a logical perspective they are the same in the context they are used; and thus can be treated the same.
Look at it from an equation point of view a+b=c where, in the case of the string question a is 'string', b is 'length' and c is the 'subject, (i.e. the result we are looking for).. So you can see that in the case of the first watch question then a is the 'watch' b is £13k and c is the 'subject, (i.e. the result we are looking for). from a logical perspective then both b's can be treated the same way. In the case of Harry's watch question we only have a, so c cannot be deduced.
So, no, "the two questions 'is a £23k watch expensive' and 'is a piece of string long' are both intrinsically the same. That is, they both have an object, a quantifier and a subject. Thus they can be fully answered." is quite correct from a logical perspective.
Harry's argument is indeed quite compelling, and would hold far greater value than mine if the OP had included, (or others had asked him to include), further criteria to arrive at a possible conclusion. Such as the kind of criteria as I used in my two rather extreme examples. But without those further quantifiers from the OP we can only assume what he meant and assign quantifiers of our own, which would be pointless as we would likely all use different quantifiers, chosen specifically to support our own answer.
So, given what we had from the outset the only way an answer could be arrived at would be the use of logic.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
My apologies for being so long winded,but I was concerned that an awful lot of contributors to the thread simply didn't understand that the question being asked really was a very simple one indeed.
The debate though, you must admit, is at least entertaining. No?
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Fixed that for you
It's an interesting debate - and on many levels too: I hadn't realised until just now that the '£13k watch' question was in fact related to another thread, but having read both it has been quite illuminating.
R
Ignorance breeds Fear. Fear breeds Hatred. Hatred breeds Ignorance. Break the chain.
Yes it seems this whole thread may have been my fault
In fact for clarity. I think this is the exchange which prompted gunner to start this thread.
Originally Posted by Umbongo
Not really.
Its big.
Its clunky.
Its rolex.
Its gaudy.
Its a vulgar display of wealth.
In fact, the only thing about this watch that a rapper wouldn't like is that its not the "proper" gold version of the clownwatch.
Java
Why would you describe the Yachtmaster two as a vulgar display of wealth. It's a mid priced watch. Surely if someone wanted to display wealth they would buy a high end expensive watch.
Last edited by java; 12th September 2013 at 13:14.
I'm still not with you. A quantifier that prescribes a specific value is surely different to one that does not, regardless of whether or not you're approaching the matter from the perspective of applied logic. It's a bit like the difference between saying "this piece of string has a length" and "this piece of string has a length of 10cm"... the two are most definitely not the same and one could deduce things from the latter statement that are not possible to deduce from the former statement.
I do understand the concept re the string - but only if we can say - is a 20cm (or whatever length you like) piece of string long?
Compared to - is a £13k watch expensive.
The differences here are vast. We all like watches, we all have an idea of the value of lots of watches.
We do not deal in the length of pieces of string on a daily basis (at least I do not know any members that do). Perhaps there are some that sell yards of wool ;)
Anyway length could be more subjective - is a mile long - maybe not if you are a marathon runner, but possibly if you are on crutches with a broken leg.
A mile of string would however (most likely) be considered a long piece of string - by most sane people.
It's just a matter of time...
Almost.
A quantifier that prescribes a specific value is no different to one that does not in the simple case of the two questions posed, (the watch and the string), as no other criteria are involved.
Let's take the string. The answers to the questions 'does a piece of string have length?' and 'does a 10cm piece of string have length?' are both the same. The answer can only be Yes. So, in terms of logic then 'piece' and '10cm piece' can both be treated as the same because all we are trying to determine is does length exist in each case.
But you're absolutely right that, given more information, we can make further deductions, well sometimes anyway: -
For the further possible question 'is a 10cm piece of string longer than a piece of string? then we do not have a higher qualifier for the second piece of string, so this question is, logically, unanswerable as we are no longer trying to determine if they have length, they do as shown above, we are now trying to determine which is longest - the question has changed and we need more information.
But if the question 'is a 10cm piece of string longer than a 2cm piece of string?' then the difference between the two quantifiers becomes relevant as there are now in essence 3 quantifiers, 2cm, piece, and 4cm. And, again, we are not trying to determine if they have length, (we know they do), we are now trying to determine which is the longer and we have all the information needed to arrive at a logical conclusion.
In each case the question has changed, and it is the question itself that is important. From a logical point of view the original £13k watch question could only have one possible correct answer. From that standpoint it could be argued that the poll was rigged - but I don't believe the OP meant it to be so.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Yes it seems this whole thread may have been my fault
Yup, you certainly bit big time.
If we are only asking the simple question 'is a mile long?' then it doesn't matter if you're a snail or a marathon runner. A mile, as a defined measure has length, therefore it is long by definition. (Long - having length).
But the question 'does a mile seem longer to a marathon runner than a snail?' is a different question and will illicit more complex answers based on epistemological thought as we now have more criteria to work with but the word 'seem' requires us to make value judgements based on our own knowledge or experience. Yes, the mile is 'long' in that it has length; it may not seem a long way to a marathon runner, though it may to the snail; but in the end, it is still a mile whichever way you look at it.
And so it is with questions regarding the price of watches.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Fantastically well-put, but unfortunately it seems that those who don't get it yet probably never will.
It's a long way to Tipperary.... Or is it?
Now THATS a question to which the answer could be either yes or no - unlike a question such as "Is a £13k watch expensive", where the answer is yes.It's a long way to Tipperary
Distance and expense are not comparable concepts.
Did you know that that song has nothing to do with Ireland?It's a long way to Tipperary
Tipperary was actually the name given by British soldiers during the First World War to a particular brothel they frequented when relieved from the front line.
And the 'sweetest girl I know' part refers to the prostitutes that plied their trade there. Oh, and 'goodbye Picadily, Farewell Leicester Square' has nothing at all to do with London either; they were the names given to particular trenches at the front line. All trenches were given names by the soldiers as that was the best way of navigating them.
OT I know, but interesting for those who might not know perhaps.
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Despite the best efforts of the forum and an overwhelming poll result you and the other chuckle brother still don't seem to be able to get your head round £13k being expensive. Do you think Im going to waste my time explaining something else to you? You would probably start flapping your hands and spinning on the spot like a top. Or, more probably, regardless of what I wrote, you would contradict it because it was me who wrote it! Lol.
In rebuttal of the position set out by Harry Tuttle you have put forward your own cogent arguments why you do not agree entirely with what he wrote. Somewhere along your line of argument I think you say that by using the word expensive as it is currently framed in the OP’s question leads inevitably to the conclusion that the answer to the poll must be yes. There being no qualification of “expensive”.
Does that mean that if the Op’s question had been “Is a £13k watch inexpensive” the answer would also have to be yes? There being no qualification of “inexpensive”
very interesting - thanks for that, you learn something every day on here !
That's an unfortunate (but not unexpected) response - I'd hoped to see you set out your reasoning clearly and logically, in order that it could be considered and critiqued.
I fear this thread is actually beyond your ability to contribute to in any meaningful way. Still, carry on with the insults, I'm sure someone will be listening... just not me
I have your assurance on this? Youre never going to bite again?I'm sure someone will be listening... just not me
As for the rest of what you said - you will remember that, on numerous occasions in the past - Ive been only too happy to debate with you with the same result every time.
Sulks, hissy fits, accusations of "trolling" and calling in your other half whenever your viewpoint is challenged.
All very funny though...
Someone WILL probably take the trouble to explain to you the difference between distance and expense - but their efforts will be wasted, so Im hoping they don't...
Ah, understood - I'd better be more specific, then. Instead of making offensive personal remarks about other members (i.e. trolling) would you please clarify why you claim distance and expense to be concepts that - within the context of the earlier applications of logical argument - are dissimilar. It's quite acceptable for you say that you can't, incidentally.
Thought you weren't listening anymore?
Now that is interesting. Thanks.
It's amazing how certain songs retain their resonance and cross boundaries even during times of conflict. I seem to remember that Tipperary became a favourite song of German forces as did Lilly Marlene for Allied Forces. Isn't it a shame that we still kill each other even when we're singing each other's songs?
I do agree with much of what Harry wrote, and had the question by the OP been couched differently and with more information then Harry's proposition would have more weight than my own, which I tried to explain in my response to his in the thread.
But given that all we had to work with was limited in the extreme the only possible correct answer to the question was indeed the logical Yes.
And no, the answer to the question 'Is a £13k watch inexpensive?' would not be yes, but No .
Again applying logic to the question, and without further information from the questioner a £13k watch would incur expense, therefore it is expensive. If it is expensive then by definition it cannot be inexpensive. Oh, and the same would apply to a £1 watch.
Had the question been 'Is a free watch inexpensive?' then the logical answer in this case can only be No.
The real issue lies in the question, not the answer.
Last edited by Griswold; 12th September 2013 at 17:32. Reason: corrected spellin mistake
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Regarding Trollness. I have, with the help of this thread actually changed my opinion I actually don't think you are a troll. I think you are just a bit thick and can't help it.
Indeed.
One of the most moving cemeteries I visited on my many trips to Belgium and France was the German cemetery at Langemark in Belgium. The mass grave, (50,000 buried in an area smaller than a tennis court), and bleak sombreness of the place is moving enough, but what impacted me most there was a small anteroom, (on the right as you enter the cemetery for anyone who might visit), that is dedicated to a company of German soldiers comprising newly recruited students. These students had uniforms, but couldn't be issued with arms due to a shortage on the German lines at the time. So they were simply told that, after the heavy bombardment of the British lines ceased the British soldiers would be so demoralised that all the students had to do was walk towards the British lines singing songs and any remaining British soldiers would simply run away in fear.
Every one of them was killed!
Best Regards - Peter
I'd hate to be with you when you're on your own.
Posting Permissions
