Comments on: Deadliest Warrior – Fact vs Fiction

By: mysterylady101

mysterylady101 — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 06:10:42 +0000

I think Skoti knows alot more than you think.
I also think that historian guy.
has to much time on his hands.
He very judging and you can tell he trys to look like the better
person. He made me laugh. When i read how much he put into a comment.
I think skoti is a very great actor and I am happy he is some one today.
He is very well know.
HIstorianman <<

By: skoti

skoti — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 04:32:20 +0000

season 2 in full swing .

By: bshistorian

bshistorian — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 12:14:28 +0000

I am a former museum curator – but the onus should always be on the claimant – in this case the makers or defenders of the programme. It’s really quite simple – there is NO reliable source that describes the type of sword that Wallace wielded. Pretty much all we have is the highly unreliable Blind Harry and the surviving “Wallace Sword” which is of completely the wrong period/type in every respect. Both the two-handed claymore and ‘Lowland’ longsword styles date from two centuries after Wallace, as does Blind Harry’s embellished heroic account of Wallace.

By: Mac

Mac — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:50:01 +0000

Thank you very much for any info you can give.

By: Mac

Mac — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 01:45:57 +0000

B.S. Historian,
I would like to know your credentials sir or ma’am that you can speak authoritatively about the William Wallace episode. In addition, could you site sources of information that I could use in regards to the history of William Wallace? In my research, I am finding conflicting information as to what kind of weapons that he utilized; Particularly the Claymore sword. In some cases, Wallace is portrayed as using a Claymore of the design seen in the aforementioned episode. Other sources display a uniquely designed Claymore that appears to be a Lowland Claymore. Wasn’t Wallace a Highlander though?

By: Zombiegamer

Zombiegamer — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 01:09:03 +0000

So isn’t basically the cycle for most topics would be, someone would either create a post either to create profits, or to challenge validity off of something. In which would create a dispute against what is true and what isn’t even though everyone has a different point of perspective based on personal thoughts? In which people would either argue to the end, or until something better comes up? Based on what Frank said earlier?

By: skoti

skoti — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:17:30 +0000

your right and i must say SORRY ,,,, Skoti

By: Spiritof1976

Spiritof1976 — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 16:26:54 +0000

Skoti

Sorry if you feel you’re being personally attacked. But I have to state that when I raised the above (and I think, very relevant) points to you, your response was, and I quote:

“poor poor spirtofhomo1976″

Now who’s getting personal?

At least I asked legitimate questions about your professional background, rather than resorting to homophobic namecalling.

By: skoti collins

skoti collins — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:39:46 +0000

it should have read skoti collins irish Descendant because of my family ,,, thats how my contracts reads..it is dead, good luck to you also,,,

By: bshistorian

bshistorian — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 20:03:39 +0000

Attack you personally? I’ve done no such thing. And what other places?

My problem with you is not personal – we’ve never met. It’s with you and others on this show being passed off as something that you’re not, utter disregard for the facts of history, and with the inappropriate inclusion of terrorist organisations (highly amusing though that was).

As I said above “I don’t blame you for this so much as the people who hired you.” As an actor it’s your job to play roles and make money – I understand that. If you’re not claiming to be an IRA historian outside of the show, and especially if you feel you were misrepresented on the show as you imply, then my problem remains with the show. Good luck with your acting career.

If you want to discuss off-list, you already have my email to reply to.