Those aren't crests on the stones "based on partnership towns". Those are shields. A shield is something a combatant had in his hand with or without his arm going through loops or brackets on the shield's back side. A crest is something on top of something: crest of a wave, crest of a bird, crest of a knight's helmet. The confusion arises because an ordinary person, let's say what would be called "middle-class" today (well, not today, since a middle class doesn't exist anymore, but during my childhood) in medieval times could get a coat of arms, a shield. To get a knight's helm on top of it with a crest on top of the helm(et) required more, like being knighted or having an office or a noble title. Therefore to puff themselves up anyone who had ONLY a shield (a middle-class person) would refer to it as a "crest" to give the impression that they were of a higher rank than they really were. In fact they never HAD a crest, only a shield. To this day people will see a shield on the pocket of a private school's blazer and ignorantly call it a "crest". That is probably indicative of the value of a private-school education. 74.64.104.99 ( talk) 10:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for
inappropriate discussion, you may be
blocked from editing.
Acroterion
(talk)
18:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Please cite examples.
I believe Wikipedia has been documented in social experiments where putting something in Wikipedia causes it to be cited in the press, which can then be cited in Wikipedia as grounds for believing the original falsehood in Wikipedia.
I take it for granted that an encyclopedia should serve as an authority that can be cited against common falsehoods such as the Nobel Price in Economics. An encyclopedia is where one goes for the truth after the newspapers have worn won out. Wikipedia seems to aspire to agree with, rather than to refute, the falsehoods that are generated by ill-informed sources parroting each other.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
— k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 01:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |
Those aren't crests on the stones "based on partnership towns". Those are shields. A shield is something a combatant had in his hand with or without his arm going through loops or brackets on the shield's back side. A crest is something on top of something: crest of a wave, crest of a bird, crest of a knight's helmet. The confusion arises because an ordinary person, let's say what would be called "middle-class" today (well, not today, since a middle class doesn't exist anymore, but during my childhood) in medieval times could get a coat of arms, a shield. To get a knight's helm on top of it with a crest on top of the helm(et) required more, like being knighted or having an office or a noble title. Therefore to puff themselves up anyone who had ONLY a shield (a middle-class person) would refer to it as a "crest" to give the impression that they were of a higher rank than they really were. In fact they never HAD a crest, only a shield. To this day people will see a shield on the pocket of a private school's blazer and ignorantly call it a "crest". That is probably indicative of the value of a private-school education. 74.64.104.99 ( talk) 10:24, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for
inappropriate discussion, you may be
blocked from editing.
Acroterion
(talk)
18:12, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Please cite examples.
I believe Wikipedia has been documented in social experiments where putting something in Wikipedia causes it to be cited in the press, which can then be cited in Wikipedia as grounds for believing the original falsehood in Wikipedia.
I take it for granted that an encyclopedia should serve as an authority that can be cited against common falsehoods such as the Nobel Price in Economics. An encyclopedia is where one goes for the truth after the newspapers have worn won out. Wikipedia seems to aspire to agree with, rather than to refute, the falsehoods that are generated by ill-informed sources parroting each other.
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
22:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
— k6ka 🍁 ( Talk · Contributions) 01:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is the
discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's
IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may
create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users.
Registering also hides your IP address. |