A post I made elsewhere that fits here much better.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:01 am

http://www.christopher-columbus.eu/ships-crew.htm

Christopher Columbus' crew on the first voyage were from small towns in from Andalucia, and nearly all experienced seamen. The Spanish Sovereigns offered amnesty to convicts who signed up for the voyage, but only four men took up the offer: one who had killed a man in a fight, and three of his friends who then helped him escape from jail.

OmniNegro · Post by **OmniNegro** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:02 am

"Portuguese exploration of Africa and Asia, Columbus's voyage to the Americas (1492) and finally Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (1519–21) provided the final, practical proofs for the global shape of the Earth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Eart ... iddle_Ages

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:07 am

Jesus, asshole, do you even read the pages you quote?

The misconception that educated Europeans at the time of Columbus believed in a flat Earth, and that his voyages refuted that belief, has been referred to as the "Myth of the Flat Earth". In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.

From your own link, right at the top, end of the second paragraph.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:17 am

OmniNegro wrote:"Portuguese exploration of Africa and Asia, Columbus's voyage to the Americas (1492) and finally Ferdinand Magellan's circumnavigation of the Earth (1519–21) provided the final, practical proofs for the global shape of the Earth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Eart ... iddle_Ages

My trip to Africa will be the final practical proof that Africa exists. None the less, I have believed it exists for decades without ever having been there.

Nothing about what you have posted indicates that they didn't believe the Earth was round, or substantiates your bizarre claim that his ships didn't have sailors. Also it specifically states that they knew the earth was round.

OmniNegro · Post by **OmniNegro** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:22 am

"Previous editions of Thomas Bailey's The American Pageant stated that "The superstitious sailors [of Columbus' crew] ... grew increasingly mutinous...because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world"; however, no such historical account is known."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_t ... th_century

My mistake. This is what I was taught in elementary school.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 4:58 am

I looked it up, and it seems that there actually wasn't a priest who sailed with Columbus the first time. I had no idea.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:10 am

Maj wrote:I looked it up, and it seems that there actually wasn't a priest who sailed with Columbus the first time. I had no idea.

There was no reason to bring a priest. Contrary to popular conception, Catholics do not actually believe that if you die with sins unconfessed you go to hell. An extra mouth to feed who can't put in the work needed to get the ship there is an especially bad idea for a trip that barely had enough supplies to make the distance it expected.

OmniNegro · Post by **OmniNegro** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:38 am

I do not know Catholic views on such matters. But none of that matters much. In general sailors would not board a vessel without a Priest at the time of Columbus. (I do not even know how heavily entrenched the sailors were in any particular religion.) But I know that it was generally considered a bad idea to board a ship without one. I never found an explanation of the reasoning for this point of view though.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:47 am

But dude, anecdotally I totally know there was a priest on those ships! Hell, they were all priests! Every single person on the ships! I can't be proven wrong because all those sources are lying! Na na na!

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:58 am

The reason there was relatively little support for Columbus' voyage was that his math was completely wrong and everyone knew it. He had severely underestimated the circumference of the globe and overestimated how far China extended. He could not possibly have reached China with the supplies he was bringing.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:28 am

OmniNegro wrote:I do not know Catholic views on such matters. But none of that matters much. In general sailors would not board a vessel without a Priest at the time of Columbus. (I do not even know how heavily entrenched the sailors were in any particular religion.) But I know that it was generally considered a bad idea to board a ship without one. I never found an explanation of the reasoning for this point of view though.

You know garbage. A few posts ago you 'knew' that there were no experienced sailors on Columbus' ships and that educated people in Columbus' time thought the world was flat; and somehow being schooled on those points has not taught you to check your fucking work before spouting more bullshit.

In fact, it was common sailing superstition that it was unlucky to have a priest on board. To the extent that people speculated if carrying a priest contributed to the sinking of the fucking Titanic.

Seriously: don't talk about history; it makes you look like an idiot.

OmniNegro · Post by **OmniNegro** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:32 am

Well Surgo, you must be wrong. I should know, since I was on the ship too. Along with Moses and Mohamed. And also Micky Mouse and Monty Python. Yeah. Sure. And anyone else whose name starts with the letter M.

OmniNegro · Post by **OmniNegro** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:40 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
OmniNegro wrote:I do not know Catholic views on such matters. But none of that matters much. In general sailors would not board a vessel without a Priest at the time of Columbus. (I do not even know how heavily entrenched the sailors were in any particular religion.) But I know that it was generally considered a bad idea to board a ship without one. I never found an explanation of the reasoning for this point of view though.
You know garbage. A few posts ago you 'knew' that there were no experienced sailors on Columbus' ships and that educated people in Columbus' time thought the world was flat; and somehow being schooled on those points has not taught you to check your fucking work before spouting more bullshit.

In fact, it was common sailing superstition that it was unlucky to have a priest on board. To the extent that people speculated if carrying a priest contributed to the sinking of the fucking Titanic.

Seriously: don't talk about history; it makes you look like an idiot.

Want to quote me saying that before you try and shove your own bullshit down my throat? I never said what you claim I said. That makes you a dirty, rotten liar.

And I wager you cannot argue your way out of a paper sack.

Since you are likely too dumb to understand the meaning of this post I will spell it out for your weak and feeble mind.
1. I never said anything about educated anyone.
2. I never even mentioned luck.
3. You suck monkey balls.

Surgo · Post by **Surgo** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 6:55 am

Well, I never put anyone on ignore after only one day, but there's a first for everything it seems. Gaslampgames was right to lock this guy's threads.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 7:23 am

OmniNegro wrote:1. I never said anything about educated anyone.

Yes, you did. Not directly, but you did mention people using fucking libraries. In 1492. So, whether you knew it or not, you were talking about educated people.

2. I never even mentioned luck.

So what? You said: 'But I know that it was generally considered a bad idea to board a ship without [a Priest].' That you didn't provide a reason is irrelevant. That I did provide a reason as to why the exact opposite was the case just means I'm better at showing my work than you are.

And that's the last keystroke I'm wasting on you.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:27 am

angelfromanotherpin wrote:
OmniNegro wrote:1. I never said anything about educated anyone.
Yes, you did. Not directly, but you did mention people using fucking libraries. In 1492. So, whether you knew it or not, you were talking about educated people.

And more to the point, where the fuck do you think books come(came) from?

OmniNegro · Post by **OmniNegro** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:04 am

Prak_Anima wrote: And more to the point, where the fuck do you think books come(came) from?

Uneducated sheep herders. Yup. That is where they came from. Christians believe that the Ten Commandments appeared written in stone tablets on a fucking mountain. So I rest my case.

You guys sure like to mistakenly tell me that I said things I never said. Either take me literally and reply accordingly or do not bother to mention that I do not believe the statistics given from governmental agencies, since that would require some reading you guys are clearly incapable of correctly doing.

@anglefromanotherpin "And that's the last keystroke I'm wasting on you." Thank you. Have a nice day.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 9:57 am

Oh fuck this shit. I reiterate, words stopped working a long time ago. I'm putting OmniNegro on ignore, I encourage everyone to do the same, the troll will not change.

Cynic · Post by **Cynic** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 2:55 pm

I'm way too thin skinned because i totally have problems with the name.

It's like saying I"m using the name sand-negro as my name because I'm talking about being black sand. If you already know the association of the words as something hurtful and then you use them anyway because you want to use them because they can *also* mean something else, it's just fucking stupid and idiotic.

I find the fact that you've used that name all your time on the internet to be more a sign of you being a troll douchebag rather than some sort of pigheaded notion that you have a right to use it because it can mean something else.

You aren't really taking back the word. You're just being a douchebag.

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 3:25 pm

There was no priest on board because priests werent allowed on most boats. Sailors knew that the catholic's silly jew-boy had no power where the water gods reign.

Josh_Kablack · Post by **Josh_Kablack** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 5:33 pm

New rule: anyone using "socialism" to mean "policies I don't like, but can't define" gets auto-ignored like a 2e fan.

OmniNegro · Post by **OmniNegro** » Sun Nov 04, 2012 10:01 pm

Cynic wrote:I'm way too thin skinned because i totally have problems with the name.

It's like saying I"m using the name sand-negro as my name because I'm talking about being black sand. If you already know the association of the words as something hurtful and then you use them anyway because you want to use them because they can *also* mean something else, it's just fucking stupid and idiotic.

I find the fact that you've used that name all your time on the internet to be more a sign of you being a troll douchebag rather than some sort of pigheaded notion that you have a right to use it because it can mean something else.

You aren't really taking back the word. You're just being a douchebag.

Negro is a color. Nothing more. It does not always mean race. And it never did.

You call me a troll douchebag, yet *I* and the one being offensive because I did not ask your permission to use this handle? Need I lick your asshole too? Fuck that. I am not here to do your bidding.

You are free to your interpretation of things. As am I.

Or does everyone in the world from now on need to consult you for guidance to every language you are willfully ignorant of? (Fuck that too.)

And thanks for complaining to a moderator to fight your battles for you. That really shows you as you are.

Oh and Josh_Kablack, where exactly did I *EVER* say that I dislike socialism? Since I never said It I will just thank you for ignoring me since you are incapable of reading without wild assumptions and/or extrapolations.

*Edited for spelling*

Ted the Flayer · Post by **Ted the Flayer** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 12:53 am

This is one funny negro, lol.

Essence · Post by **Essence** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:00 am

Yeah, there's a lot of "this guy isn't giving sources so obviously he's a whackjob so obviously I don't actually have to read what he said" going on here. But it seems that it's kind of too late for anything actually interesting to come of this.

I apologize to everyone for my obviously misguided hope that, given a place to post more openly about his politics, OmniNegro would stir up some interesting conversation. I still think it's true, but this is obviously not the right place for it.

name_here · Post by **name_here** » Mon Nov 05, 2012 1:01 am

Oh, I read what he said. It was nonsense.