Mr. Blobby Builds A Roman Villa

[RedHerring2]

Cobblers, MM.

I think you meant cobblers, not a shoesmith. Cobbler - one who makes/repairs shoes.

You're confusing Low Tech with High Tech.

Granted, what we see now as Low Tech was once High Tech, as perhaps the iPod, and it's ilk, will, one day, be seen as Low Tech. Then, maybe, someone will be able to construct an iPod from a collection of copper and other metals, plastic, etc.

Without cheating and doing a Wiki search, I was under the impression that a Cobbler, 'cobbled' back together a shoe, ie my term a shoesmith, whereas the maker of shoes was called something else, hence my term 'shoesmith', to abide by blacksmith et al..to keep the joke running that I made, 'cart' dealership..no? One has to let their hair down on their birthday, nobody can really seriously say they did this or that in ancient times, historians can make guesses. My point was, the end user bought the goods, they didn't cottage industry them, until the Romans left.

I don't think I agree with your origin of "cobbled together". I think it was derived from cobblestone streets. The finished article can look a bit higgledy-piggeldy but in reality it's probably quite a laborious pain to lay all those cobbles accurately.
Cobblers definitely made shoes as well as repairing them, 'cos I remember the Queens 'shoesmith' [sic] putting up a sign outside his shop saying "Cobblers to the Queen"

Your reference to cart:dealership is a bit tenuous, init? I assume you meant cartel as in price fixing amongst a group of dealers.

You're surely oversimplifying the procurement of tools during the Roman times. Bearing in mind the population density around that time, possibly about 80/sq mile, about the same as USA now. Current population density is about 660/sq mile in UK. But in the USA now the population mainly resides in conurbations, whereas, during (and cetainly before the Roman invasion of Britain) population in the UK was mainly scattered in farming type communities and settlements.
No doubt there would have been 'artisans' within these communities who each had their own 'trade' and these 'artisans' would have contributed or made the tools, 'on demand'. But it was hardly a case of going along to the nearest dealership and choosing an appropriate model. It was probably more than likely a combination of carpenter and blacksmith cooperating, or even producing the parts to be asembled by the procurer.

 

[simonpolly]

This is filmed down the road from me,while driving past one day last summer i noticed that someone had painted in big white letters on the roof of the finished building "EVEN ROMANS USED WHEEL BARROWS!",my guess is mr blobby and his gang got abit pi ssed off in the end.

 

[Mickymoody]

Cobblers, MM.

I think you meant cobblers, not a shoesmith. Cobbler - one who makes/repairs shoes.

You're confusing Low Tech with High Tech.

Granted, what we see now as Low Tech was once High Tech, as perhaps the iPod, and it's ilk, will, one day, be seen as Low Tech. Then, maybe, someone will be able to construct an iPod from a collection of copper and other metals, plastic, etc.

Without cheating and doing a Wiki search, I was under the impression that a Cobbler, 'cobbled' back together a shoe, ie my term a shoesmith, whereas the maker of shoes was called something else, hence my term 'shoesmith', to abide by blacksmith et al..to keep the joke running that I made, 'cart' dealership..no? One has to let their hair down on their birthday, nobody can really seriously say they did this or that in ancient times, historians can make guesses. My point was, the end user bought the goods, they didn't cottage industry them, until the Romans left.

I don't think I agree with your origin of "cobbled together". I think it was derived from cobblestone streets. The finished article can look a bit higgledy-piggeldy but in reality it's probably quite a laborious pain to lay all those cobbles accurately.
Cobblers definitely made shoes as well as repairing them, 'cos I remember the Queens 'shoesmith' [sic] putting up a sign outside his shop saying "Cobblers to the Queen"

Your reference to cart:dealership is a bit tenuous, init? I assume you meant cartel as in price fixing amongst a group of dealers.

You're surely oversimplifying the procurement of tools during the Roman times. Bearing in mind the population density around that time, possibly about 80/sq mile, about the same as USA now. Current population density is about 660/sq mile in UK. But in the USA now the population mainly resides in conurbations, whereas, during (and cetainly before the Roman invasion of Britain) population in the UK was mainly scattered in farming type communities and settlements.
No doubt there would have been 'artisans' within these communities who each had their own 'trade' and these 'artisans' would have contributed or made the tools, 'on demand'. But it was hardly a case of going along to the nearest dealership and choosing an appropriate model. It was probably more than likely a combination of carpenter and blacksmith cooperating, or even producing the parts to be asembled by the procurer.

I think Ladylola might back me up, on my poor understanding of history, whereas, Rome conquered most of Europe, into Russia, and far beyond what you claim, so claimed a lot of cottage technology, and turned it into an industry. They ruled the Empire, what England aspired to later, and look at the trouble that now causes.

But basically, we are talking about a cheaply made TV programme, that doesn't adhere to any historic facts, really, and you pick bones out of my comments regarding it. This is a forum, in a forum, everyone is allowed an opinion. If you don't like it, disagree, as you have, but you have been proved incorrect by someone that studies this in their life.

I think a seperate thread is needed to discuss historical fact/fiction - with Ladyloma, as opposed to a Reality TV programme, highlighting the builders, over the technical work, when modern day builders can't or won't address what their task is. It's just another reality program, without much reality.

 

[RedHerring2]

I think Ladylola might back me up, on my poor understanding of history, whereas, Rome conquered most of Europe, into Russia, and far beyond what you claim, so claimed a lot of cottage technology, and turned it into an industry. They ruled the Empire, what England aspired to later, and look at the trouble that now causes.

But basically, we are talking about a cheaply made TV programme, that doesn't adhere to any historic facts, really, and you pick bones out of my comments regarding it. This is a forum, in a forum, everyone is allowed an opinion. If you don't like it, disagree, as you have, but you have been proved incorrect by someone that studies this in their life.

I think a seperate thread is needed to discuss historical fact/fiction - with Ladyloma, as opposed to a Reality TV programme, highlighting the builders, over the technical work, when modern day builders can't or won't address what their task is. It's just another reality program, without much reality.

A load of nearly unintelligible ramblings. I can hardly be bothered to unravel your argument 'cos there's that many holes in it, and so many inane comments thrown in to try to confuse, you've almost succeeded.
E.g.

..., and far beyond what you claim, ....

I didn't claim anything.

..... so claimed a lot of cottage technology, and turned it into an industry. They ruled the Empire, what England aspired to later, and look at the trouble that now causes.
........

Quite the reverse, the Romans didn't want/try to assimilate into the indigenous culture but wanted to impose their version of society, technology, etc. To a degree, a similarity can be drawn to the British Empire, but to continue with an offhand "look at the trouble that caused" is a simple attempt to "confuse the issue". (BTW, we weren't the only ones, French, Dutch, Portugese, Spanish, they were all at it.)
And then to add later:

......I think a seperate thread is needed to discuss historical fact/fiction ......

is contradictory after trying to drag a lot of irrelevant or inaccurate comments into the discussion.

 

[Mickymoody]

I think Ladylola might back me up, on my poor understanding of history, whereas, Rome conquered most of Europe, into Russia, and far beyond what you claim, so claimed a lot of cottage technology, and turned it into an industry. They ruled the Empire, what England aspired to later, and look at the trouble that now causes.

But basically, we are talking about a cheaply made TV programme, that doesn't adhere to any historic facts, really, and you pick bones out of my comments regarding it. This is a forum, in a forum, everyone is allowed an opinion. If you don't like it, disagree, as you have, but you have been proved incorrect by someone that studies this in their life.

I think a seperate thread is needed to discuss historical fact/fiction - with Ladyloma, as opposed to a Reality TV programme, highlighting the builders, over the technical work, when modern day builders can't or won't address what their task is. It's just another reality program, without much reality.

A load of nearly unintelligible ramblings. I can hardly be bothered to unravel your argument 'cos there's that many holes in it, and so many inane comments thrown in to try to confuse, you've almost succeeded.
E.g.

..., and far beyond what you claim, ....

I didn't claim anything.

..... so claimed a lot of cottage technology, and turned it into an industry. They ruled the Empire, what England aspired to later, and look at the trouble that now causes.
........

Quite the reverse, the Romans didn't want/try to assimilate into the indigenous culture but wanted to impose their version of society, technology, etc. To a degree, a similarity can be drawn to the British Empire, but to continue with an offhand "look at the trouble that caused" is a simple attempt to "confuse the issue". (BTW, we weren't the only ones, French, Dutch, Portugese, Spanish, they were all at it.)
And then to add later:

......I think a seperate thread is needed to discuss historical fact/fiction ......

is contradictory after trying to drag a lot of irrelevant or inaccurate comments into the discussion.

If you had a few too bottles of mead, that fine, a comment about a cheap TV production, results in this? Do you believe TV is real? It's not. You are attempting to conquer internetland. And failed. Go away and rethink.

 

[RedHerring2]

If you had a few too bottles of mead, that fine, a comment about a cheap TV production, results in this? ...

You know the wierd thing, I haven't referred to the programme once as far as I can remember.
Another irrelevant comment:

.....Do you believe TV is real?....

Now you're sliding into abuse 'cos you've made some comments about which you have no real understanding and you can't be bothered to do any research to see if your posts were acurate or not.

.... You are attempting to conquer internetland. And failed. Go away and rethink.

 

[Mickymoody]

If you had a few too bottles of mead, that fine, a comment about a cheap TV production, results in this? ...

You know the wierd thing, I haven't referred to the programme once as far as I can remember.
Another irrelevant comment:

.....Do you believe TV is real?....

Now you're sliding into abuse 'cos you've made some comments about which you have no real understanding and you can't be bothered to do any research to see if your posts were acurate or not.

.... You are attempting to conquer internetland. And failed. Go away and rethink.

When people become lazy to spell because, incorrectly,I kind of lose interest. Is 'cos a word even? Then to spell accuracte incorrectly..don't even bother to comment. Or do you prefer the UK version of lasy, of the Americanised, Lazy? GET REAL!

 

[Monkeh]

spell accuracte incorrectly

accuracte

 

[Mickymoody]

spell accuracte incorrectly

accuracte

It's pretty cool that you don't understand how to use a forum quote facility.....shows how banal people are. Re-edit peoples posts, to suit your needs. Nice one. BORING.

 

[Monkeh]

spell accuracte incorrectly

accuracte

It's pretty cool that you don't understand how to use a forum quote facility.....shows how banal people are. Re-edit peoples posts, to suit your needs. Nice one. BORING.

Look at your own post you imbecile.

 

[Mickymoody]

spell accuracte incorrectly

accuracte

It's pretty cool that you don't understand how to use a forum quote facility.....shows how banal people are. Re-edit peoples posts, to suit your needs. Nice one. BORING.

Look at your own post you imbecile.

cool editing, and posting...whatever. lern to spel

 

[Monkeh]

spell accuracte incorrectly

accuracte

It's pretty cool that you don't understand how to use a forum quote facility.....shows how banal people are. Re-edit peoples posts, to suit your needs. Nice one. BORING.

Look at your own post you imbecile.

cool editing, and posting...whatever. lern to spel

I only added emphasis. The failure was yours.

 

[Mickymoody]

spell accuracte incorrectly

accuracte

It's pretty cool that you don't understand how to use a forum quote facility.....shows how banal people are. Re-edit peoples posts, to suit your needs. Nice one. BORING.

Look at your own post you imbecile.

cool editing, and posting...whatever. lern to spel

I only added emphasis. The failure was yours.

yawn, shows how wrong you are.

 

[Monkeh]

yawn, shows how wrong you are.

So are you suggesting I somehow edited your post?

 

[Mickymoody]

yawn, shows how wrong you are.

So are you suggesting I somehow edited your post?

Maybe someone did. that was more bored than me..