king of research finals poll - please vote if you like KoR

I have no idea what the question was, but I do find it difficult to believe Tuomas has been disguising his crack research skills this whole time -- next you're going to tell me the Lex knows everything there is to know about the history and music of the Touch & Go label

I'm really not sure, and about to go out. To be honest, I think it should be up to the judge rather than the popular vote.

Final B: Tuomas, Alba

2. Post art which includes gun. Musket, blunderbus, good, but no cannon - handheld only. Tiebreaker is earliest. If date disputed, latest possible taken. Art can be painting, sculpture, anything, but must post photo of it.

Posted 9PM, yesterday.

[irrelevant image]

I'm not sure if this is actually a "handheld" gun, even though it is called "hand cannon". The picture is from 1400.

http://www.geocities.com/wolfram_von_taus/Research/Research_images/HGnorth_1411.jpg

However, this one is clearly a hanheld gun. The picture is from 1411.

The source for both pictures:

http://www.geocities.com/wolfram_von_taus/Research/Research_Handgonne.htm

― Tuomas, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:12 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/86/FireLanceAndGrenade10thCenturyDunhuang.jpg

I'm not sure if you consider this one a "gun", but here's a 10th century cave mural, where in the upper corner you can see someone wielding a fire lance. Wikipedia claims this is the "earliest known representation of a gun".

― Tuomas, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:25 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

[irrelevant image]

Cannon firing a sprite or springel (cannon arrow) , from "De Nobilitatibus, Sapientii et Prudentiis Regum", manuscript, by Walter de Milemete, 1326

― Alba, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:26 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

That's not handheld, sorry. Just catching up with this.

― Alba, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:27 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Whoops, that's huge! Here's a smaller version of the same pic:

― Tuomas, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:27 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

― Tuomas, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:27 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I think you've already won this!

― Alba, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:28 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Well, it doesn't seem to work. Just check the big picture.

― Tuomas, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:29 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

fire lance not gun, i don't think - fires spear!

― Maps, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:30 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Are you sure? Wikipedia says:

The earliest fire lances were spear-like weapons combining a tube containing gunpowder and projectiles tied to a Chinese spear. Upon firing, the charge ejected a small projectile or poison dart along with the flame.

So apparently the spear and the gun were different parts of the same weapon.

― Tuomas, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:33 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Here's a picture of a fire lance that clearly fires bullets/pellets. It's from Huolongjing, which dates from the 14th century.

― Tuomas, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:36 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Sorry, that didn't work, here's the pic:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Chinese_Fire_Lance_with_Pellets.JPG

― Tuomas, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 9:37 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v417/albaalba/ilx/Picture3.png

Carving in a Sichuan cave, depicting a vase-like bombard. Dated 1128.

http://www.robert-temple.com/newspaper_articles/sundaytimes_1mar1987.pdf

― Alba, Wednesday, June 17, 2009 11:06 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Alba, the news story you linked to says: "Contrary to the mythical depiction in the cave, no human could have held the weapon. It would probably have been mounted on a rack." So I guess it's not a handheld weapon.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:14 AM (13 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

And I know the 10th century mural I linked to is "mythical" also, but the fire lance was a handheld gun in real life too.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:26 AM (13 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I don't think the rules said we had to find a representation of a real-world weapon. If it's a hand-held gun in the carving, surely that's OK?

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:29 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I dunno, I guess that's up to Maps to decide. Anyway, the picture I posted is still older.

I think this round was a bit too easy though. That mural picture was so easy to find, it was more like a quickness contest.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:55 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I was having my dinner at the crucial hour!

I thought the 10th century fire-lance mural was ruled out for shooting arrows, rather than bullets?

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:58 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

No, it doesn't shoot arrows, I think Maps misread the description in the Wiki page for fire lances.

(And anyway, it's pretty hard to define a "bullet" or "gun", isn't it? I'd say any weapon that fires a projectile via a controlled explosion should be called a "gun".)

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:05 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

The earliest fire lances were spear-like weapons combining a tube containing gunpowder and projectiles tied to a Chinese spear. Upon firing, the charge ejected a small projectile or poison dart along with the flame.

The spear and the gun are separate parts of the same weapon, just like more modern guns have bayonets.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:06 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

OK, I've looked into this properly now. Where is the evidence that the fire lance in the mural is firing projectiles of any sort? Some fire lances had shrapnel embedded in the tube, but if you read beyond that Wikipedia entry, you'll see that not all did, and certainly not in 950.

From Siege Weapons of the Far East by Stephen Turnbull:

The fire lance or fire spear consisted of an ordinary spear to which was affixed a tube rather like a Roman Candle. When lit by means of a glowing tinder carried in a box at the soldier's belt, it burned for about five minutes, and when it was burned out its operator could use the spear for its conventional purpose. (p41)

He goes on to talk about their development:

Fire lances were also used during the siege of Xiangyang between 1268 and 1274 and as time went by these weapons grew more and more to resemble the hand-held guns that would eventually replace them, as pellets were discharged along with the flames, and certain varieties had metal barrels from as early as 1200 (p42)

In that mural, the fire lance is a flamethrower, not a gun.

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 10:59 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Well, if you want to go into details, the article you linked offers no proper evidence either that the device in the picture is a gun and not a flamethrower, except that it has the same shape as guns brought to Europe two centuries later. Maybe the first versions of this weapon were merely flamethrowers just like first versions of fire lances were.

Also, I'd still call it into question that it's a "handheld" weapon, if it wasn't like that in real life. And in the picture you can actually see a supporting rod beneath the gun, so maybe it isn't a handheld weapon even inside this "mythical depiction".

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:47 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark

Moreso, it looks like Joseph Needham (quoted in the article) isn't an uncontested authority on the subject:

Significance
Gunpowder did not appear in the West until the late thirteenth century. Therefore, it is clear that gunpowder was a Chinese invention, and its first military applications were also made by the Chinese. However, the first use of gunpowder in guns and cannon is controversial. Some scholars, such as Sinologist Joseph Needham, believe that the transition from bamboo tube to metal barrel to gun and cannon occurred in China in the thirteenth century. Others argue that these weapons are European inventions. Still others trace them to Arab inventors.

Quote from here:

https://salempress.com/store/samples/great_events_from_history_middle_ages/great_events_from_history_middle_ages_invention.htm

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:51 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

...so it could be that Needham's interpretation that the device in the picture is a gun that fires bullets is incorrect.

I guess Maps will be the final judge here.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:56 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I have found a clearer picture of the carving, which clearly shows a ball-shaped missile firing from the bombard. And the "rod" doesn't touch the floor - it is clearly being held by the soldier.

http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/3319/ishackimageohd.jpg

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:57 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

But you can see carving is damaged in the spot where the rod would connect to the floor, so maybe the bit has been scraped off.

Anyway, since Needham himself says that weapon couldn't have been handheld in real life, I guess it's up to our judge to decide whether or not this is a picture of a "handheld gun".

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:04 PM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

"the bit that would show the rod touching the floor has been scraped off"

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:05 PM (9 hours ago) Bookmark

http://www.grandhistorian.com/chinesesiegewarfare/images/bamboogeneral.jpg

According to this page, these devices are the first "true handguns", and they date to the 13th century. The article mentions Needham's finding, but says that it isn't certain whether the picture depicts a gun. Also, it mentions that the date of the statues Needham found is also unclear:

The actual date of the statues are unknown, perhaps dating at the latest to the late Song period of the mid 13th century A.D., and at the earliest to the Northern Song of the late 10th century A.D.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:21 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Anyway, I think this round suddenly became much more interesting. I'm glad you didn't settle for an easy defeat, Alba.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:23 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I saw that page, but those illustrations are not from the 13th century. They are from the Wubei Zhi, published in the 17th century.

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:37 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

And, yes, it does question the age of the carving. But it gives mid-13th century as the latest possible date. Still much earlier than 1411 picture you posted before.

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:41 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Yeah, I know the pictures don't date from the 13th century, but they are presented as the first "true handguns". So I guess the question remains whether the thing in your pic is a handgun or not.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:52 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'd say any weapon that fires a projectile via a controlled explosion should be called a "gun".

― Tuomas, Thursday, 18 June 2009 10:05

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:56 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/Chinese_Fire_Lance_with_Pellets.JPG " class="noborder">

This picture of a bullet-firing fire lance, which I posted above, is from the Chinese weapon manual Huolongjing. Huolongjing dates to the 14th Century, so the picture is older than the 1411 picture of European handgun. This is the oldest picture of a real-life handgun I could find, though obviously it isn't as old as the carving of a bombard Needham found. So I leave it up to Maps to decide which one of us won.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:07 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'd say any weapon that fires a projectile via a controlled explosion should be called a "gun".
― Tuomas, Thursday, 18 June 2009 10:05
― Alba, 18. kesäkuuta 2009 14:56 Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

A "gun", yes, but not a "handheld gun". A gun that can't fired from hand is not a handheld gun, and Needham himself says that the gun in question couldn't have been handheld in real life. We were supposed to find "art which includes gun. Musket, blunderbus, good, but no cannon - handheld only". According to Needham the carving has a picture of a bombard, which is a type of a cannon, and not a handheld gun. It is a question of semantics whether Maps meant for us to find art which includes a real-life handheld gun, or a gun that is held by a mythological creature, even though it wasn't handheld in real life.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:17 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

That bombard is as handheld as a blunderbuss. It's not a "handgun" (which must by definition be designed to be held and fired by one hand alone) but then neither is your fire lance.

The only issue is whether fantastical guns are prohibited. I can see nothing in Maps's criteria to suggest that they are.

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:49 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Also, I don't suppose anyone has a copy of Konrad Kyser von Eichstadt's Belliforti (1405) lying around? Apparently it has a picture of a gun in it.

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:55 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

No, the fire lance could be used by holding it in both hands. That still fits the definition of "handheld", at least to me it does. Whereas with the bombard, according to Needham, "no human could have held the weapon. It would probably have been mounted on a rack." So it couldn't have been "handheld" by any definition of the word.

We were supposed to look for "handheld" guns, not handguns. I guess Maps didn't say "no fantastical guns" (though I'd say it was implied we should look for real weapons), but he did say "no cannons". And a bombard is a cannon.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 1:56 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

No, the fire lance could be used by holding it in both hands. That still fits the definition of "handheld", at least to me it does.

Tuomas, you have misread me. I am arguing that both the fire lance and the bombard in the mural fit the criteria. But mine is earlier. If the word "bombard" upsets you, then call it something else. The point is that it is handheld. The "cannon" thing is a red herring - it was only invoked by Maps because the archetypal "cannon" is not handheld.

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:04 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Fire lance fits the criteria of "handheld" in real life, whereas the bombard fits the criteria of "handheld" only in the fantasy world of that carving. I think it's up to Maps to inform which definition he meant.

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:08 PM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

And I still think it's a supportive rod in that pic. ;)

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:11 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

You are the first authority to suggest so.

Fire lance fits the criteria of "handheld" in real life, whereas the bombard fits the criteria of "handheld" only in the fantasy world of that carving. I think it's up to Maps to inform which definition he meant.

I agree.

― Alba, Thursday, June 18, 2009 2:12 PM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

jesus

Oh, Alba is right -- the challenge wasn't to post a real weapon, it was to post art that depicts a type of weapon (whether fanciful or not)

I mean if the challenge were "post a piece of art depicting a policeman" and you posted a picture of Robocop, it wouldn't make much sense to say that doesn't count

for example

http://geekofalltrades.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/robocop-792844bmp.jpg

so... what do i win

you get to adjudicate Tuomas's supporting rod

oh, the code did not work? the image tuomas originally posted is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FireLanceAndGrenade10thCenturyDunhuang.jpg#filelinks

emily i truly thought this was fairest - what people think is better judge of what gun is than what I think!

I think a mythical gun is still a gun -- however, I am not quite certain that the carving depicts a gun. Is it a gun merely because he is holding it in his hands? Couldn't one conceivably hold a small cannon in such a fashion?

okay someone tell me what the difference between a gun and a small cannon is

Jaymc, he is holding a small cannon. The researcher who found the pic himself says it depicts a cannon that could not be handheld in real life. So, from my point of view it's not a "fantastical handheld gun", rather than a "fantastical creature holding a cannon in his hands".

a cannon is a gun, though!

http://www.answers.com/topic/cannon

Your complaint was that the actual real-world weapon was not handheld. But this doesn't matter: the challenge asked for an artistic depiction, and in the depiction it is indeed handheld.

This would be like if the challenge were "post a work of art depicting an African (not an African-American)," and Alba posted a still of Don Cheadle in Hotel Rwanda, and you said "no, Don Cheadle is African-American" -- this is irrelevant, because the challenge asked for a depiction, and the film depicts an African.

and in the depiction it is indeed handheld.

Yes, but is it a gun? Is the fact that it is handheld sufficient to make it a gun?

It seems like Maps is specifically requesting a depiction of a gun, not just a depiction of a handheld weapon.

(Even if the guy the movie was about was actually in real life American, it wouldn't make a difference, because that wouldn't be what the film depicts!)

xpost - J, Tuomas's original objection centered on the "handheld" part, didn't it? That was his complaint

I think Alba's picture counts.

Yeah, N, I'm just trying to the judge this from a broader perspective.

okay someone tell me what the difference between a gun and a small cannon is

We were supposed to find a picture of a handheld gun. The debate is whether or not a picture that shows a fantastical creature holding a cannon (which couldn't be handheld in real life) is a picture of such a gun.

But this doesn't matter: the challenge asked for an artistic depiction, and in the depiction it is indeed handheld.

The task was actually worded like this: "Post art which includes gun. Musket, blunderbus, good, but no cannon - handheld only." So there's no mention of "artistic depiction" (meaning an interpretation that would make a handheld out of something that isn't), and it specifically forbids cannons, which is exactly what appears in Alba's pic.

(several x-posts)

Tuomas I think the word "art" contains all the elements of "depiction" I'm talking about.

Also I think the phrasing of "no cannon - handheld only" suggests a guideline on the difference between a cannon and a gun -- namely, that it must be handheld.

The claim that the figure holding the gun in its hand is "fantastical" -- like some kind of giant that goes around holding cannons like guns -- seems like a major stretch; I see no reason anyone would decline to interpret that figure as a human.

The "fantasy" bit comes from the researcher who found the pic, this is what he says: "Contrary to the mythical depiction in the cave, no human could have held the weapon. It would probably have been mounted on a rack."

That claim is directly from the citation on the picture, IIRC.

It still doesn't change the fact that it is a depiction of a figure holding a gun.

Contrary to the mythical depiction in "The Scream," human beings are not wavy ghostlike blobs and the perspective you'd see a bridge from doesn't work like that -- nonetheless, "The Scream" is in fact a work of art including a human being screaming.

I guess to me this is like if Maps had asked "Find art depicting a headband" and Alba had found an illustration of a woman with a scarf wrapped around her head. It's not a headband exactly, it's a scarf, but does the fact that it's wrapped around someone's head make it a headband?

Is it folded over like a headband or tied like a handkerchief?

It still doesn't change the fact that it is a depiction of a figure holding a gun.

Yes, but we were supposed to find a picture of "handheld gun", not a picture of someone holding a gun. My argument is that "handheld" is a category of real-life guns, and hence only pictures of such real-life guns should be valid, whereas the opposite argument is that "handheld" is a category only relating to the artistic depiction in a picture, and therefore a cannon held in the hands of a fantastic being is valid.

if it was wrapped around her head, though, how would you know it was a scarf?

Because there are historical findings of similar scarfs. (Or similar cannons, in this case.)

http://www.unitedmask.com/Costumes/images/ying_yang_head_scarf.JPG

head scarf

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/2008/06/04/Chelsea_De_Luca_Head_Scarf,0.jpg

scarf tied as headband

"handheld" is a category of real-life guns, and hence only pictures of such real-life guns should be valid

This all runs counter to the use of the word "art" in the challenge -- in fact, saying you want a "picture of a real-life gun" cuts against the idea of art. The above is like saying that Robocop is not about a policeman, because "policeman" is a real-life category that does not include cyborgs.

Yes, but we were supposed to find a picture of "handheld gun", not a picture of someone holding a gun.

The fantastical vs. real argument is moot, I think. This is really all it boils down to: whether you think a picture of someone holding a firearm constitutes a handheld firearm.

if it looks like dan's 2nd photo (WS BTW) even if it was called a "scarf" it's still a headband

So by that logic, even if it was called a "cannon" it's still a gun because someone's holding it?

well, a cannon is a gun so yes? but, yes.

Let me clarify then: even it was called a "cannon" it's still a handheld gun because someone's holding it?

i think so, yeah--just my opinion, of course

Yes.

This all runs counter to the use of the word "art" in the challenge -- in fact, saying you want a "picture of a real-life gun" cuts against the idea of art. The above is like saying that Robocop is not about a policeman, because "policeman" is a real-life category that does not include cyborgs.

Well yeah, but I guess the problem here is whether we were supposed to "artistic" or "historical" research, which isn't really defined in the original task.

2. Post art which includes gun. Musket, blunderbus, good, but no cannon - handheld only. Tiebreaker is earliest. If date disputed, latest possible taken. Art can be painting, sculpture, anything, but must post photo of it.

If you were wondering whether you were meant to look for art or history, the word "art" provided a good pointer!

Well yeah, but the words "no cannon" also mean that a picture of a cannon shouldn't be valid, and that Maps was thinking of real guns; he wouldn't have said "no cannon" if he would've thought a picture of handheld cannon is valid.

but no cannon - handheld only

i'm just guessing here, but what the rule is saying is that no cannons *on the ground* count, it has to be a handheld gun. Alba found what appears to be a handheld cannon, but it's not on the ground, it's held in the hand

To me the phrasing "no cannon - handheld only" meant that were supposed to look for something which couldn't at the same time belong to those two categories, i.e. pictures of real-life guns.

(x-post)

- while I don't think Maps necessarily intended to make "handheld" the final arbiter of gun-vs-cannon, he sort of implicitly did

- unless I'm misreading the thing is called a "hand cannon," right? This is no more necessarily a cannon than a "horseless carriage" is just a carriage -- in fact, given the guideline Maps semi-accidentally chose, it's about exactly how you'd refer to a very early gun

-unless I'm misreading the thing is called a "hand cannon," right?

No, it's a picture of a cannon that wasn't held in hands in real life, no one has referred to it as "hand cannon".

When the picture was made real handheld guns most likely didn't even exist, so the word "hand cannon" wouldn't have made sense.

(And anyway, it's pretty hard to define a "bullet" or "gun", isn't it? I'd say any weapon that fires a projectile via a controlled explosion should be called a "gun".)

― Tuomas, Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:05 AM (12 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Yeah, but the definition we're arguing over is "handheld", not "gun". I'm not saying the thing in Alba's pic isn't a gun, but to me it is a cannon, not a handheld gun.

When the picture was made real handheld guns most likely didn't even exist, so the word "hand cannon" wouldn't have made sense.

Wait, this would seem to be a reason why the term "hand cannon" WOULD have made sense:

"Hey look, it's a cannon, but he's holding it in his hand."
"What would you call that?"

a BEETLZORT

Yeah, but no one was actually holding cannons in their hands around that time. Only in a mythological picture.

(x-post)

I'm not sure if this is actually a "handheld" gun, even though it is called "hand cannon".

xpost - yes, Jaymc is OTM -- it's like "horseless carriage" -- one of the first things you'd be inclined to call a handheld gun is, like, a cannon that goes in your hand

Maps's guideline is good and works, btw, because a cannon IS a gun -- Webster's defines it as "a large heavy gun," usually mounted -- so the difference between handheld and mounted really is a viable line between cannon and the modern sense of gun

tuomas, it's art, not historical fact

aaaah but the names don't really matter because they were fluid anyway. the earliest hand held tubes-that-shot-something-with-gunpowder were called a "hand-gonne" in english because the big tube-that-shot-something was called a "gonne"

it's one of those reverse named things like "acoustic guitar" or "dog house" and we have a thread for those too

xp

Okay, I gotta stop obsessing about this and go to sleep. I'm sure me posting in this thread is just more likely to make me lose. Goodnight.

(xxx-post)

besides, the true war nerd headz know that "cannon" is something civilians say, the things on ships and on wagons are "guns". the things that people hold are "arms"

Post art which includes gun.

I.e., post art which includes a portable hand-held firearm that is not mounted like a cannon

What do we see in the image? A portable hand-held firearm that is not mounted like a cannon -- imaginary or not

the things on ships and on wagons are "guns". the things that people hold are "arms"

What about these?

http://content8.flixster.com/question/38/72/09/3872094_std.jpg

I.e., post art which includes a portable hand-held firearm that is not mounted like a cannon

What do we see in the image? A portable hand-held firearm that is not mounted like a cannon -- imaginary or not

No, what we see in the picture is a non-portable, non-handheld cannon that is imagined by the artist to be held in the hands of someone.

What if the task was "post a photo that includes Princess Diana", and I would've posted a photo where some random girl is dressed up as Diana? Is that a photo that includes Diana? I don't know.

JayMC - please check mail! Will send same to Tuomas/Alba on result.

Tuomas if the task were "post ART that includes Princess Diana" and you posted a still from a movie where an actress PLAYS Princess Diana, or a drawing of Princess Diana flying and shooting laser beams out of her butt (even thought the real Princess Diana could not do either of those things) then yes, that would count

Actually a better analogy would be this:

- Maps asks you to "post art that includes a woman shooting lasers out of her butt"
- Alba posts a picture of Princess Diana shooting lasers out of her butt
- Tuomas says that's not fair, because the real Princess Diana in fact could not shoot lasers out of her butt

It's not the same, because in this task it was possible to find a picture of a thing that actually exists (a handheld gun), whereas in your task it would be impossible find such a picture, since laserbutts aren't real.

Neither is Robocop.

Again, I feel that the wording "no cannons - handheld only" means that are our task was to disregard any mythological depictions where these two would not conflict with each other. Why else would Maps have formulated it like that?

I'm not arguing. I voted and suggest ban'd so we're done.

voted alba cos he's my pal

He formulated it like that to clarify that he meant a certain sense of "gun" -- the type that is "portable and hand-held" -- and not a cannon or a piece of heavily artillery, which is "usually mounted." Thus Alba provided an artwork depicting a portable, hand-held item. Nothing in the question specified that the image had to accurately depict an exact real-world item.

Maybe you'll like this analogy better. Imagine Maps asks for a drawing of a four-door car. Alba submits a drawing of a four-door 1975 CarCorp AwesomeCar. But you counter that in fact the 1975 CarCorp AwesomeCar was a two-door vehicle, and no four-door version was ever made. Would that invalidate Alba's submission? Probably not, because he was asked for a drawing of a four-door car, and he provided a drawing of a four-door car, whether or not two of those doors were invented by the artist.

nabisco this is just a popularity contest jeez

cozwn please do not vote for this kind of reason! i made decision a public poll to avoid bad feeling, not to encourage.

Yeah, but you had to realize that most people were going to find it difficult to fairly evaluate Tuomas' arguments cuz he's really annoying.

I have just come back from a very enjoyable trip to the cinema to find all this. I feel very honoured. I think it would be undignified to argue my case here.

I did vote for myself though.

My girlfriend says my mural carving "looks like a big pastry brush. It's good though."

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

Oh good.

See you in the finals!