Forum > Off-Topic Stuff


<< < (2/2)

Well you know, that's part of the problem.... they like having the anonymity of position, with none of the resposibility/accountability that should be part & parcel of dealing with the unfortunate bastards that have to live with these supercilious decrees that they dole out.  If there were some hazard about having to actually confront some of results of their actions, you can damn well bet that they'd be more careful and actually consider what it takes to follow through on such decrees.  In other words, have a REAL backbone!

Karl Helweg:
"For all registered blood donors with an unsatisfied passion for dueling, Paraguay should be top of your list of places to go. It is a ?fact? that dueling is indeed legal in Paraguay, as long as both parties are registered blood donors. "

Do we have any lawyers form Paraguay here to confirm this?  Come to think of it, would a country with legal dueling have any lawyers left?  ;)

We should probably require both parties to sign a full organ donor card and update their wills in order to help those in medical need and save some of the legal drain on society.  

Almost forgot that dueling is strictly forbidden in the military:

I think dueling should be reinstated for sure!  There are trivial things we all let go but seriously, some of the stuff people get away with now is unreal!  I think swords would be better than guns, makes it that much more personal - and brutal. But that's my opinion :) 

Karl Helweg:
Fans of dueling might enjoy this 

Karl Helweg:
Code Duello   or rules for dueling

"Reprinted from "American Duels and Hostile Encounters," Chilton Books, 1963.

The Code Duello, covering the practice of dueling and points of honor, was drawn up and settled at Clonmel Summer Assizes, 1777, by gentlemen-delegates of Tipperary, Galway, Sligo, Mayo and Roscommon, and prescribed for general adoption throughout Ireland. The Code was generally also followed in England and on the Continent with some slight variations. In America, the principal rules were followed, although occasionally there were some glaring deviations.

Rule 1. The first offense requires the first apology, though the retort may have been more offensive than the insult. Example: A tells B he is impertinent, etc. B retorts that he lies; yet A must make the first apology because he gave the first offense, and then (after one fire) B may explain away the retort by a subsequent apology.

Rule 2. But if the parties would rather fight on, then after two shots each (but in no case before), B may explain first, and A apologize afterward.

N.B. The above rules apply to all cases of offenses in retort not of stronger class than the example.

Rule 3. If a doubt exist who gave the first offense, the decision rests with the seconds; if they won't decide, or can't agree, the matter must proceed to two shots, or to a hit, if the challenger require it.  etc....."


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version