Fornication Under Cardinal Knowledge University

[Catch]

Okay, Well F. U. C. K. stands for Fornication Under Cardinal Knowledge, so most of the time when people say it, it doesn't even make sense. Then there is the matter of those whom fornicate without any carnal knowledge. And as myself, that have carnal knowledge yet never fornicate.

You know, it is kind of like "ain't." That really means "am not." People use it incorrectly all the time, yet when people use it correctly, people still say, "Ain't, ain't a word." Sure it isn't. It is a conjunction and the people who say that are using in incorrectly, twice.

Mmm, much like, "No. I wouldn't like pie." People still think it is a double negative, however, an answer can contain only one word, as demonstrated.

What are your thoughts on this?

[happy_dude]

Corrections!
F.U.C.K. stands for "Fornication Under Consent of the King" (So a docmentary tells me that back in medieval times you when you got married you were allowed to F.U.C.K.)
Ain't is "are not", even then it is commonly misused.
With refernece to your pie comment, the double negative thing only applies to the same sentence. "No(First sentence). I wouldn't like pie(second sentence)."
Those are my thoughts on this most topical topic.

[Catch]

Okay I don’t have a dictionary on hand. However, “I ain’t going to do that;” or, “You ain’t going to do that.” Would be correct usage.

(I believe, “are not” is, “aren’t.”)

[happy_dude]

Just visited Answers.com, we're both right... but you moreso.

"ain't (ānt) pronunciation
Nonstandard.

1. Contraction of am not.
2. Used also as a contraction for are not, is not, has not, and have not."

[aspendeath]

The word is not an acronym. I think you people are trying too hard to prove that other people are dumb.

[happy_dude]

Damn, you speak the truth we have both been misled.
From Answers.com
"There are several urban-legend fake etymologies postulating an acronymic origin for the word. One legend holds that the word "fuck" came from Irish law. If a couple committing adultery were "Found Under Carnal Knowledge" they would be penalized, with "FUCK" written on the stocks above them to denote the crime. Alternative explanations for "fuck" as an acronym for adultery pin it as "Fornication Under Cardinal/Carnal Knowledge", or "Fornication Under the Consent of the King". Another story is that it was written in the log book as "FUCK" when people in the military or navy who had homosexual intercourse were being punished. Variants of this include "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", "For Using Carnal Knowledge", "Felonious Use of Carnal Knowledge", "Full Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", and "Forced Unlawful Carnal Knowledge", a label supposedly applied to the crime of ****. In some reports, there are tombstones around English cemeteries that had the word fuck engraved in uppercase letters. These referred to those who were put to death for crimes against the state and the church. In another story, a sign reading "Fornication Under Consent of the King" was supposedly placed on signs above houses in medieval Britain during times of population control and was special permission given to knights, by their king, when a knight wished to have sex with a woman."

We are trying to hard to prove that we are ignorant.

[Iriacynthe]

I don't know where that word came from, but I heard a pretty funny story about where the middle-finger-sign came from. The person who told me this said it was true, I don't know if it really is but it's still funny.

Two countries were fighting, I believe it was England and France but I'm not sure about it. The one country had the habit of cutting off the middle finger of enemies they caught, so they couldn't shoot their bows anymore. Enemies who didn't get caught showed them their middle finger to mock them, to show them that they could still shoot them.

[happy_dude]

That is true, that is also the origins of the two fingered verison(Winston's Victory V with the palm facing inwards).
Two fingers are reqired to fire a short bow, while only the middle finger is needed to fire a longbow(perhaps the other way around, unsure).

[Bete Noire]

Originally Posted by happy_dude

That is true, that is also the origins of the two fingered verison(Winston's Victory V with the palm facing inwards).
Two fingers are reqired to fire a short bow, while only the middle finger is needed to fire a longbow(perhaps the other way around, unsure).

You need at least TWO fingers to fire a longbow, or a bow of any kind, apart from a shortbow/horse-bow, which can be shot using a thumb-ring, but that was a practise used by the Mongols and Scythians mostly, and was not used by the english in warfare at any point.
The middle finger alone is not used by itself to shoot any kind of bow, but the French would cut off captured Longbowmen's middle and index fingers, and those who were not captured used it as a sign of defiance.

I knows my Archery.

(Unfortunately my history isn't so good, so please correct me if neccessary.)

Ooo I just realised this comment has no bearing whatsoever on the original topic, oh well eh...

[TheCastrator]

Originally Posted by Bete Noire

(Unfortunately my history isn't so good, so please correct me if neccessary.)

OK:
That's not true. It's a happy little myth.

If the French had an enemy archer, they'd just stick a sword in their throats. Cutting off fingers and letting them go does nothing. They can still use a sword or club, and as such would still be a threat in battle.

[Bete Noire]

"If the French had an enemy archer, they'd just stick a sword in their throats. Cutting off fingers and letting them go does nothing. They can still use a sword or club, and as such would still be a threat in battle."

An archer in those days would dedicate his life to it, they had unblanced arms and over-developed shoulderblades due to the stress of pulling a 180 pound longbow.
Also, I found this on wikipedia:

"It has long been told that the famous "two-fingers salute" and/or "V sign" derives from the gestures of Welsh archers who used the English longbow, fighting alongside the English at the Battle of Agincourt during the Hundred Years' War. The myth claims that the French cut off the middle and index fingers on the right hand of captured archers and that the gesture was a sign of defiance by those who were not mutilated.
This may have some basis in fact - Jean Froissart (circa 1337-circa 1404) was a historian as the author of The Chronicle, a primary document that is essential to an understanding of Europe in the fourteenth century and to the twists and turns taken by the Hundred Years' War. The story of the English waving their fingers at the French is told in the first person account by Froissart, however the description is not of an incident at the Battle of Agincourt, but rather at the siege of a castle in another incident during the Hundred Years' War. Also, Froissart is known to have died before the Battle of Agincourt."


I have met people who use longbows with the same powers as those in Ye Olde England. They have spent 20 years plus just trying to pull it properly. An archer of this type could not have used a sword effectively as Archery would have taken up his whole life, leaving no time for training.

Also, a crippled archer still needs feeding, a dead archer would not have drained food stocks.

(There was also and interesting possible origin which had something to do with French Brothels, but it seemd of little releance to archery.)

[TheCastrator]

I still doubt it. As long as you can swing a club or anything, you're a threat. You lose your fingers, you need feeding, but you can be drafted into the infantry. Just because you have overdeveloped muscles in places doesn't mean you can't swing something at an enemy soldier.

The more dead enemies the better(Unless they laid down arms and surrendered*).



*And archers weren't worth enough, so they'd get a bit killed.

[Bete Noire]

Originally Posted by TheCastrator

As long as you can swing a club or anything, you're a threat. You lose your fingers, you need feeding, but you can be drafted into the infantry. Just because you have overdeveloped muscles in places doesn't mean you can't swing something at an enemy soldier.

The more dead enemies the better(Unless they laid down arms and surrendered*).

True, I don't know enough about the subject to put together a very good argument. Although if they did surrender, it would be a way of showing "mercy" whilst still lessening the chance that they can be as effective as previously.

I just remembered this:
The English longbowmen were the best trained in the world at that time, and their warbows could reach almost 400 yards, the French had a distinct lack of archers. They weren't accurate at long distance, but the sheer range of their bows was their greatest advantage over the French at Agincourt, where they slaughtered half the army before the two sides engaged in combat.

[TheCastrator]

Mercy and all that didn't really apply back then. Chivalry existed, sure, but only amongst those who could afford it.

Longbowmen may have been well trained, but they were below the order of things and as such would just be killed.