|Funny Pictures||Funny Videos|
|Funny GIFs||YouTube Videos|
Rank #10832 on CommentsLevel 213 Comments: Comedic Genius
OnlineSend mail to reteip Block reteip Invite reteip to be your friend
latest user's comments
|#23 - Picture||10/14/2014 on Comrade, what the shit||+15|
|#106 - Blessed be Admin!||09/25/2014 on autoplay is kill||0|
|#36 - Picture||09/25/2014 on Ivan and Dimitry Thread||+2|
|#580 - **reteip rolled user argoniansrule **||09/18/2014 on Nemesis||+1|
|#40 - Picture||09/17/2014 on A sad day in the internet...||+1|
|#164 - Picture||09/15/2014 on hate to say it...||+5|
|#4 - Picture [+] (4 new replies)||09/12/2014 on Mini shark||+33|
|#9 - Swell with tiny member states!||09/12/2014 on Meanwhile In Germany||+3|
|#22 - You can, sort of. [+] (4 new replies)||09/11/2014 on Amazing "robin hood" darts||0|
#48 - alucardhell (09/11/2014) [-]
You actually can't do it with a wooden arrow because of how wooden arrows are made. The wood fibers aren't continuous down the length of the arrow, so when the second arrow hits it follows the path of the wood fibers and just chips off a section from the back half of the arrow, but never making it past part way before leaving the arrow and hitting next to the original arrow.
#74 - cormy (09/12/2014) [-]
I don't know how much experience you have with wood but it wouldn't be hard to make an arrow out of a piece of wood where the fibers are in fact continuous throughout its length. I don't know how they're normally made, no doubt in some mass-producing facility that doesn't really check for such imperfections but it should be doable.
Also, your arrow must have an actual flat tip like those used for piercing between deer ribs instead of our usual smooth-pointed ones in order to feed it nicely down the middle of the shaft.
|#13 - Raid on the Medway, second Anglo-Dutch war, Dutch ships burnin… [+] (21 new replies)||09/03/2014 on RIP in pieces||0|
#28 - xxxsonic fanxxx (09/03/2014) [-]
#17 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/03/2014) [-]
Don't tempt the British my friend, we have beaten you many more times than you have us.
#31 - anoxz (09/03/2014) [-]
May I ask for a specific source?
The Battle of Copenhagen was a naval engagement between the British and Denmark-Norway, to prevent the danish fleet from threatening british naval superiority. The Netherlands were a client state of the French Republic and under their management.
There are no sources that indicates that the dutch were participating in the battle, and there's no connection between this event and dutch participation in the wars.
#32 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/03/2014) [-]
It was a Dutch fleet at Copenhagen. I'm getting the bulk of my infro from a five minute chat in my History class, we kinda skipped over the battle because it wasn't a part of the syllabus, but it was definitely a dutch fleet.
And i wouldn't really call them a client state, more " A dirty double corssing state who took the first chance to get their greedy hands on better trade ports so decided to declare war on Britain because it looked like Napoleon was going to win."
But hey, different countried call it different things i suppose.
#34 - anoxz (09/03/2014) [-]
Funny, because in my history class, we were told it was the danish fleet at quarters at their main base in Copenhagen.
Popular opinion agrees:
About the part of the Netherlands being, "a dirty douple corssing state...", it may be noted that it was the Batavian Republic, which was formed out of economic and political turmoil, afterwards being invaded by France and made into a yes-puppet.
Maybe the british should be more grateful to the dutch. Esspecially at the Battle of Waterloo.
#35 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
Yeah, i really don't think we should thank you for waterloo... at all. Waterloo was a triumph for the British because of Wellington. We had less men and less equipment than Napoleon (even with all the extra soldiers from the Netherlands, Hannover and what not) and it was Wellingtons skill that won the day, not the fucking Dutch.
The Dutch involvement really does show the integrity of the Dutch people; "The French are about to win! Quick, attack the brittish!@
"Oh shit they defeated us! Now the French are about to lose! Quick, help the British!"
"We won! We truly are the best!"
Also, are you trying to defend your own country by passing blame onto a completely unrelated country? That doesn't change the fact that the Dutch have no integrity whatsoever and just want fucking trade routs.
Also, the Dutch should be thanking the British who, during WW2, housed the Dutch Royal family who fled. Where as the British Royal family refused to flee to Canada even though the Nazis were knocking down our door.
Also, before you say we weren't invaded, consider this; at the time they refused to flee our army was in tatters, Hitler was on the beaches of France with lust in his eyes and we were expecting an invasion any day. The British Royal Family refused to flee because they knew it wasn't the right thing for a Monarch to do. If Britain was going down, they were going down with the ship. But theres the Dutch Family, running away on a British ship.
#38 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
The Hitler-card... Really?
I couldn't give a single flying fuck about who and whoever is more powerfull than the other. It's in the past, and using ones past as justification for the present is silly. History is the mere study of the past and to give us a cultural understanding of our present.
One thing that rustles my jimmies though, are neckbeards who blindly throws out historical anecotes, without any confirmation or sources to back them up.
It's pathetic to see how people ignorantly blind themself from an objectiv view, to satisfy their own ideal imagination of the past.
#41 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
A new field? My Friend, we are talking about wars of our past and, if I am not mistaken, World War 2 was, in fact, a war.
If we go down the "you took the discussion of out its premise and context" may i avert your attention to your previous comment where you, out of nowhere, brought up the Batavian Republic which had absolutely no connection with what we were talking about/no connection with the discussion.
Lets just get things straight before accusing one another (i.e. you accusing me) of taking things in the wrong direction.
Also, I love how defeated you are; "Call it Hitler Card, WW2 Card of Chirchil... I do not care." As soon as you have nothing to say its all "I don't care anyway!"
#42 - anoxz (09/04/2014) [-]
What is really pathetic, is randomly tossing historical inaccuracies with no sources or confirmation... stating it as fact. But I already noted that earlier.
If however we are talking war, then why didn't you use your WWII argument at the beginning? Continue that, and I hope that you will back your sources up next time and try to be just little more objective.
#43 - aabbccddeeffgghhii (09/04/2014) [-]
I don't need to back them up, a quick five minute google search will confirm most of what I say.
If you're to lazy to go an look, thats fine. But that doesn't automatically mean i'm wrong. I know what i'm talking about, if you want to research it that is your prerogative.
#24 - flybager (09/03/2014) [-]
That drawings probably not going for historical accuraty.
and neither's the first one. besides, what's that guy's problem anyways. Trying to show off.
I'd tell by how it's just a one-sided pure ass-whoopin'.
There'd be losses & damage on both sides, given the enemy fired back.
Though your picture's a fuck'n awesome show-off of naval stragety in large quantaties