You do know what a Monastic school is, right?
Monks were the originators of our modern system of higher education. Certain orders did preach simplicity and rejected scholasticism but most didn't. You're quoting bullshit statistics I've never heard of and acting as if the church didn't provide educations to those who ented the clergy when it very much did. The church did own a lot of land in total but that was divied up between the bishops and archbishops. The papacy ultimately was able to get a cut of the money those estates made and when put together accounted for a lot but on the local level monasteries cost money to run day to day and add that with the fact that they did a lot of charity work and you can see that it's not exactly swimming in gold. And again, vellum kind of sucks. It's hardly an ideal paper and recycled old book paper was much preferred any day. The fact that this monk could actually write his prayers (no doubt in latin) seems to suggest that he was very much educated. But here's the thing, if you're out in your public library and you desperately need some paper for some reason you might as well pick the dusty old one that nobody reads that's in another language that nobody there can read.

There was no central distributor of vellum products, there was local production of paper, sure, but you act like the church hierarchy then was some sort of rigid machine, it wasn't. Monasteries bought paper from the money they made from tithes, but there were plenty of shortages of paper (including but not limited to vellum, which can be pretty damn frustrating to work with, there's a reason we don't use it anymore). And sometimes you just didn't make enough bank for that much paper. It could be any number of factors, but you need to understand that you didn't just have warehouses where you "put an order in".

You know what makes me cringe? The shear level of lies and myths that you believe about Europe during the middle ages. Monks were all learned and made to read and understand Latin because that's what the bible was written in and you couldn't be a monk if you couldn't read your own religious text. They didn't just burn all the fucking books, they preserved them and wrote more books about not just religion, but science and philosophy because the church was giving poor people an education long before the state ever did. And witch hunting wasn't a common practice because the Catholic church actually condemned putting them to death for supposed ills that towns experienced. It wasn't until after the 13th century "new theology"= of Thomas Aquinas and possibly even after the reformation and counter reformation that it became common practice. Where do you get your information? The Gentlesir's Guide to le Euphoric History?

You do know what a Monastic school is, right?
Monks were the originators of our modern system of higher education. Certain orders did preach simplicity and rejected scholasticism but most didn't. You're quoting bullshit statistics I've never heard of and acting as if the church didn't provide educations to those who ented the clergy when it very much did. The church did own a lot of land in total but that was divied up between the bishops and archbishops. The papacy ultimately was able to get a cut of the money those estates made and when put together accounted for a lot but on the local level monasteries cost money to run day to day and add that with the fact that they did a lot of charity work and you can see that it's not exactly swimming in gold. And again, vellum kind of sucks. It's hardly an ideal paper and recycled old book paper was much preferred any day. The fact that this monk could actually write his prayers (no doubt in latin) seems to suggest that he was very much educated. But here's the thing, if you're out in your public library and you desperately need some paper for some reason you might as well pick the dusty old one that nobody reads that's in another language that nobody there can read.

You do fucking realize that monks were and still are very educated people with a lot of respect for classical philosophy right? You continue to look at this from a modern perspective. Paper was fucking valuable. It was expensive as hell. You don't just reject free paper back then. Palimpsests, or materials that were written over, were fucking everywhere. You know why? Because paper was valuable and people didn't waste it. You really think the church just got you things because you were a monk? Do you even comprehend that there were no centralized supply systems like that back then? Stop thinking in this post industrial revolution mindset of constant supply and instantaneous communication, it's pretty stupid.

There was no central distributor of vellum products, there was local production of paper, sure, but you act like the church hierarchy then was some sort of rigid machine, it wasn't. Monasteries bought paper from the money they made from tithes, but there were plenty of shortages of paper (including but not limited to vellum, which can be pretty damn frustrating to work with, there's a reason we don't use it anymore). And sometimes you just didn't make enough bank for that much paper. It could be any number of factors, but you need to understand that you didn't just have warehouses where you "put an order in".

You know what makes me cringe? The shear level of lies and myths that you believe about Europe during the middle ages. Monks were all learned and made to read and understand Latin because that's what the bible was written in and you couldn't be a monk if you couldn't read your own religious text. They didn't just burn all the fucking books, they preserved them and wrote more books about not just religion, but science and philosophy because the church was giving poor people an education long before the state ever did. And witch hunting wasn't a common practice because the Catholic church actually condemned putting them to death for supposed ills that towns experienced. It wasn't until after the 13th century "new theology"= of Thomas Aquinas and possibly even after the reformation and counter reformation that it became common practice. Where do you get your information? The Gentlesir's Guide to le Euphoric History?

You do know what a Monastic school is, right?
Monks were the originators of our modern system of higher education. Certain orders did preach simplicity and rejected scholasticism but most didn't. You're quoting bullshit statistics I've never heard of and acting as if the church didn't provide educations to those who ented the clergy when it very much did. The church did own a lot of land in total but that was divied up between the bishops and archbishops. The papacy ultimately was able to get a cut of the money those estates made and when put together accounted for a lot but on the local level monasteries cost money to run day to day and add that with the fact that they did a lot of charity work and you can see that it's not exactly swimming in gold. And again, vellum kind of sucks. It's hardly an ideal paper and recycled old book paper was much preferred any day. The fact that this monk could actually write his prayers (no doubt in latin) seems to suggest that he was very much educated. But here's the thing, if you're out in your public library and you desperately need some paper for some reason you might as well pick the dusty old one that nobody reads that's in another language that nobody there can read.

They used whatever material they could get their grubby little hands on back then. You know how today libraries will give away or throw old their oldest and dustiest books that don't appear to be worth anything? Well back then they just wrote over those books instead of wasting all that paper.

You do fucking realize that monks were and still are very educated people with a lot of respect for classical philosophy right? You continue to look at this from a modern perspective. Paper was fucking valuable. It was expensive as hell. You don't just reject free paper back then. Palimpsests, or materials that were written over, were fucking everywhere. You know why? Because paper was valuable and people didn't waste it. You really think the church just got you things because you were a monk? Do you even comprehend that there were no centralized supply systems like that back then? Stop thinking in this post industrial revolution mindset of constant supply and instantaneous communication, it's pretty stupid.

There was no central distributor of vellum products, there was local production of paper, sure, but you act like the church hierarchy then was some sort of rigid machine, it wasn't. Monasteries bought paper from the money they made from tithes, but there were plenty of shortages of paper (including but not limited to vellum, which can be pretty damn frustrating to work with, there's a reason we don't use it anymore). And sometimes you just didn't make enough bank for that much paper. It could be any number of factors, but you need to understand that you didn't just have warehouses where you "put an order in".

You know what makes me cringe? The shear level of lies and myths that you believe about Europe during the middle ages. Monks were all learned and made to read and understand Latin because that's what the bible was written in and you couldn't be a monk if you couldn't read your own religious text. They didn't just burn all the fucking books, they preserved them and wrote more books about not just religion, but science and philosophy because the church was giving poor people an education long before the state ever did. And witch hunting wasn't a common practice because the Catholic church actually condemned putting them to death for supposed ills that towns experienced. It wasn't until after the 13th century "new theology"= of Thomas Aquinas and possibly even after the reformation and counter reformation that it became common practice. Where do you get your information? The Gentlesir's Guide to le Euphoric History?

You do know what a Monastic school is, right?
Monks were the originators of our modern system of higher education. Certain orders did preach simplicity and rejected scholasticism but most didn't. You're quoting bullshit statistics I've never heard of and acting as if the church didn't provide educations to those who ented the clergy when it very much did. The church did own a lot of land in total but that was divied up between the bishops and archbishops. The papacy ultimately was able to get a cut of the money those estates made and when put together accounted for a lot but on the local level monasteries cost money to run day to day and add that with the fact that they did a lot of charity work and you can see that it's not exactly swimming in gold. And again, vellum kind of sucks. It's hardly an ideal paper and recycled old book paper was much preferred any day. The fact that this monk could actually write his prayers (no doubt in latin) seems to suggest that he was very much educated. But here's the thing, if you're out in your public library and you desperately need some paper for some reason you might as well pick the dusty old one that nobody reads that's in another language that nobody there can read.

Well, there weren't many things that got copied so widely, especially thousand year old manuscripts. I accept that paper was scarce, but he would've, or should've, known given the age of the book at the time of erasing, which I'm assuming would've been well over 500 years that it was more than some random book and still decided in spite of that fact that his prayers were worth more.

They did hand-copy books back then, it was very rare but still done. Hell, if the monk didn't understand Greek (especially Syracusan Greek that was scribbled in a bunch of messy notes all along it) he probably just thought it was gobbledigook or that someone else had just copied their notes onto someone else's perfectly good book. Sure it must have looked old, but there's no way he could have known it was an authentic book by THE Archimedes. How exactly should he have known? If it took modern people a while to realize that the book was not in fact medieval and was actually ancient how should the monk have known it was 500 years old and not a fifth of that amount of time? Can you honestly tell exactly how old a book is just by looking at it?

Yeah, I can see that. They tried to make it a family movie and then half-way through one of the main characters fucking rips his enemy's jaw off. That shit's a bit brutal for just a family movie.

Well, at least the books are still there. And if there ever is another attempt at making a film adaptation hopefully there will be less executive meddling and no directors quitting in the middle of production only to return a year later.

I don't know, I liked how Solstheim looked in both games, because in each case it was a nice change from the original setting. Even if north of the map in Dragonborn looked copy pasted from Skyrim. I only wish there were more things to do, in Bloodmoon you had your hands full the entire time, in Dragonborn the longest quest has you come back to the mainland and wait for a courier.

Some lore consistency would be nice too. Why are there dwemer ruins and dragon temples on the island all of sudden? Where's the damn lake? Why is there only one floor in Thirsk? And how do you reanimate a corpse that's been decomposing for 200 years (events of Skyrim start in 4E 201, Red Year happened in 4E 5) with the body intact and why said corpse proceeds to send attacks against something that started out as an IMPERIAL settlement? And still was one when he died?

Silly Bugthesda, that's not how you deal with lore.

Isn't this called Ghost Shark or something like that? I need this in my life.

yes it is www.imdb.com/title/tt2600742/