Conquer Club

I was the sexiest fat white guy that night. Would have made anyone blush.

DirtyDishSoap wrote:I was the sexiest fat white guy that night. Would have made anyone blush.

Some actual vid of DDS at the party, ...Good times!

Accurate

DirtyDishSoap wrote:Since image uploading is no longer CC friendly and it just seems to hate anything, here was my costume.

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81fR2IesPkL.jpg

Really though, CC is not image friendly anymore lol.

Yeah, I was gonna post a pic of me as a pirate, but gave up.

Votanic wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Last time I dressed up for Halloween was 1994. It was pretty cool.

I knew people in the SCA at the time. (Society for Creative Anachronism, the guys who do the medieval re-enactments.) My friend's mother was seamstress in the SCA, made some very realistic costumes. Anyway, she set me up with a Saladin costume, based on his outfit in the famous painting of Saladin meeting Guy of Lusignan. Not sure how historically authentic that was, but it was definitely cool looking.

This?



or this?

Duk already identified the first painting as the one he was referring to.

both paintings are identified as such

"famous painting of Saladin meeting Guy of Lusignan"

jusplay4fun wrote:

Votanic wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Last time I dressed up for Halloween was 1994. It was pretty cool.

I knew people in the SCA at the time. (Society for Creative Anachronism, the guys who do the medieval re-enactments.) My friend's mother was seamstress in the SCA, made some very realistic costumes. Anyway, she set me up with a Saladin costume, based on his outfit in the famous painting of Saladin meeting Guy of Lusignan. Not sure how historically authentic that was, but it was definitely cool looking.

This?



or this?

Duk already identified the first painting as the one he was referring to.

both paintings are identified as such

"famous painting of Saladin meeting Guy of Lusignan"

No, the first painting was identified as the one in question in this very thread!
Scroll up and re-read, this time with more focus and comprehension.

Votanic wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

Votanic wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Last time I dressed up for Halloween was 1994. It was pretty cool.

I knew people in the SCA at the time. (Society for Creative Anachronism, the guys who do the medieval re-enactments.) My friend's mother was seamstress in the SCA, made some very realistic costumes. Anyway, she set me up with a Saladin costume, based on his outfit in the famous painting of Saladin meeting Guy of Lusignan. Not sure how historically authentic that was, but it was definitely cool looking.

This?



or this?

Duk already identified the first painting as the one he was referring to.

both paintings are identified as such

"famous painting of Saladin meeting Guy of Lusignan"

No, the first painting was identified as the one in question in this very thread!
Scroll up and re-read, this time with more focus and comprehension.

NO, Duk did not confirm it. You need to be more careful.

jusplay4fun wrote:

Votanic wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

Votanic wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Last time I dressed up for Halloween was 1994. It was pretty cool.

I knew people in the SCA at the time. (Society for Creative Anachronism, the guys who do the medieval re-enactments.) My friend's mother was seamstress in the SCA, made some very realistic costumes. Anyway, she set me up with a Saladin costume, based on his outfit in the famous painting of Saladin meeting Guy of Lusignan. Not sure how historically authentic that was, but it was definitely cool looking.

This?



or this?

Duk already identified the first painting as the one he was referring to.

both paintings are identified as such

"famous painting of Saladin meeting Guy of Lusignan"

No, the first painting was identified as the one in question in this very thread!
Scroll up and re-read, this time with more focus and comprehension.

NO, Duk did not confirm it. You need to be more careful.

Wrong again jus', this is the post where Duk himself supplied the image in question.
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 9#p5341182
Bothe then, and at no subsequent point did Duk ever state that this was not the painting that he was refering to, nor did he ever claim to not know the identity of the painting, which in itself would be odd, since he himself was the one who first referred to his costume a "based on his outfit in the famous painting of Saladin meeting Guy of Lusignan". I would further argue that the painting's fame is quite minor at best, but this is admittedly an ancillary point.

Furthermore, he explicitedly stated that his costiume consisted only of the clothing/fabric elements shown in the painting, but that his skin color was not changed, either through use of shoe polish, ...or more conventional cosmetic products!

As I said, Duk NEVER confirmed that was the painting from which his costume was taken and inspired.

jusplay4fun wrote:As I said, Duk NEVER confirmed that was the painting from which his costume was taken and inspired.

You micro-quibbling is insufficient to sustain your misguided argument.
The point is the painting under discussion was already fully and correctly identified, ...long before your obtuse and unnecessary question!

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote: Seriously, why would two Crusader enemy combatants be painted together in such a pose??

The posing is undoubtedly more symbolic than realistic, but Saladin and Guy did converse after the battle of Hattin and Saladin spared Guy's life.

I imagine this painting to represent the two of them looking out at the carnage they had created and sharing a moment of private horror.

Huh?, they're almost smiling?!

Don't look like smiles to me.

Guy looks pensive, contemplative, regretful.

Saladin looks more like this...

Votanic wrote:Though the smiles do seem somewhat fake, like the kind used to disguise a grimace of disgust, ...such as when looking at an ugly baby perhaps?

Or 30,000 mutilated corpses.

I am vindicated. There already seems to be widespread concensus that this Van Lievens also-ran 'heavily borrowed' from Peter Paul Rubens Adoration of the Magi paintings. It seems he really didn't do much more than fancifully interpret gold jewelry to be handcuffs, ...and of course, change the title. Seriously this painting is poor quality shlock that does nothing to reveal the supposed history, characters, setting, or theme. The composition, expressions, lack of background, foreground, etc. Everything is wrong. I honestly suspect that Van Lievens did a sub-mediocre copy of a detail from a Rubens, and then gave it an contrived ad hoc new backstory for added attention.

You FALSELY claim vindication here when Duk did not vindicate your assertion. and:

micro-quibbling

??

Your arguments here are almost as bad as liberal Dems trying to claim that Trump threatened them with death. This is another example of your SLOPPY argumentation techniques. YOU ARE NOT VINDICATED. PERIOD.

jusplay4fun wrote:

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

Votanic wrote: Seriously, why would two Crusader enemy combatants be painted together in such a pose??

The posing is undoubtedly more symbolic than realistic, but Saladin and Guy did converse after the battle of Hattin and Saladin spared Guy's life.

I imagine this painting to represent the two of them looking out at the carnage they had created and sharing a moment of private horror.

Huh?, they're almost smiling?!

Don't look like smiles to me.

Guy looks pensive, contemplative, regretful.

Saladin looks more like this...

Votanic wrote:Though the smiles do seem somewhat fake, like the kind used to disguise a grimace of disgust, ...such as when looking at an ugly baby perhaps?

Or 30,000 mutilated corpses.

I am vindicated. There already seems to be widespread concensus that this Van Lievens also-ran 'heavily borrowed' from Peter Paul Rubens Adoration of the Magi paintings. It seems he really didn't do much more than fancifully interpret gold jewelry to be handcuffs, ...and of course, change the title. Seriously this painting is poor quality shlock that does nothing to reveal the supposed history, characters, setting, or theme. The composition, expressions, lack of background, foreground, etc. Everything is wrong. I honestly suspect that Van Lievens did a sub-mediocre copy of a detail from a Rubens, and then gave it an contrived ad hoc new backstory for added attention.

You FALSELY claim vindication here when Duk did not vindicate your assertion. and:

micro-quibbling

??

Your arguments here are almost as bad as liberal Dems trying to claim that Trump threatened them with death. This is another example of your SLOPPY argumentation techniques. YOU ARE NOT VINDICATED. PERIOD.

The FACTS themselves vindicate me.
Obviously, you were the one being sloppy, ...and also sore, now that you were publicly called out on it.

Vot is so myopic, it is pointless to argue this one any more. The evidence is clearly there. Vot was NOT vindicated, as he wants to claim.

jusplay4fun wrote:it is pointless to argue this one any more. The evidence is clearly there.

I agree, jusplay asked a pointless, unnecessary question because he didn't read or understand previous posts.
It is he who is not vindicated.

Okay, I never confirmed it. It really doesn't fucking matter. I didn't see the painting until after the SCA den mother provided me with the costume. Only then did I realize it was based on the painting. And it's a shitty painting, but was a great costume. Were you guys going to come to blows over this triviality?

I'll tell you something far more fascinating. There was a chick that I knew at the party. There was another guy there, dressed as a bunch of grapes who had the hots for her and wouldn't leave her alone. He was one of these guys who wouldn't take know for an answer. So she came to me for protection, and I chased him off. The wicked Saracen warlord intimidating a big bunch of grapes.

Yes, she was grateful, but no (for those of you hoping this will be sex story) she wasn't quite grateful enough to bring me to her bed or anything. Still, it was a fun party.

Dukasaur wrote:Okay, I never confirmed it. It really doesn't fucking matter. I didn't see the painting until after the SCA den mother provided me with the costume. Only then did I realize it was based on the painting. And it's a shitty painting, but was a great costume. Were you guys going to come to blows over this triviality?

I'll tell you something far more fascinating. There was a chick that I knew at the party. There was another guy there, dressed as a bunch of grapes who had the hots for her and wouldn't leave her alone. He was one of these guys who wouldn't take know for an answer. So she came to me for protection, and I chased him off. The wicked Saracen warlord intimidating a big bunch of grapes.

Yes, she was grateful, but no (for those of you hoping this will be sex story) she wasn't quite grateful enough to bring me to her bed or anything. Still, it was a fun party.

It was confirmed. Certainly implicitly, and for all real purposes explicitly too, regardless of whether you actually used the phrase, "I confirm...".

Thanks for the mildly amusing mutual cockblock story.
Halloween parties suck.
overall, it really is an evil holiday, ...full of death, sorcery, and Satanism, violent, sexualized costumes, and all manner of drug/alcohol/sugar toxicity & overdosing.

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Okay, I never confirmed it. It really doesn't fucking matter. I didn't see the painting until after the SCA den mother provided me with the costume. Only then did I realize it was based on the painting. And it's a shitty painting, but was a great costume. Were you guys going to come to blows over this triviality?

I'll tell you something far more fascinating. There was a chick that I knew at the party. There was another guy there, dressed as a bunch of grapes who had the hots for her and wouldn't leave her alone. He was one of these guys who wouldn't take know for an answer. So she came to me for protection, and I chased him off. The wicked Saracen warlord intimidating a big bunch of grapes.

Yes, she was grateful, but no (for those of you hoping this will be sex story) she wasn't quite grateful enough to bring me to her bed or anything. Still, it was a fun party.

It was confirmed. Certainly implicitly, and for all real purposes explicitly too, regardless of whether you actually used the phrase, "I confirm...".

Thanks for the mildly amusing mutual cockblock story.
Halloween parties suck.
overall, it really is an evil holiday, ...full of death, sorcery, and Satanism, violent, sexualized costumes, and all manner of drug/alcohol/sugar toxicity & overdosing.

It seems that Vot has at least characteristic like Trump: he fails to acknowledge when he is wrong and when he loses.

Anyway, rather than coming to blows (silly to get into a fight over such a trivial point, anyHOOOOO), I merely FOED Vot for a few days to avoid reading his posts and allowing him to get under my skin. It worked.

Now I am ready to move on to important things, such as the Election results.

FYI, for those who need a reminder:

Re: Halloween costumes!
Postby Dukasaur on Sun Nov 03, 2024 6:14 pm

Okay, I never confirmed it. It really doesn't fucking matter. I didn't see the painting until after the SCA den mother provided me with the costume. Only then did I realize it was based on the painting. And it's a shitty painting, but was a great costume. Were you guys going to come to blows over this triviality?

jusplay4fun wrote:

Votanic wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:Okay, I never confirmed it. It really doesn't fucking matter. I didn't see the painting until after the SCA den mother provided me with the costume. Only then did I realize it was based on the painting. And it's a shitty painting, but was a great costume. Were you guys going to come to blows over this triviality?

I'll tell you something far more fascinating. There was a chick that I knew at the party. There was another guy there, dressed as a bunch of grapes who had the hots for her and wouldn't leave her alone. He was one of these guys who wouldn't take know for an answer. So she came to me for protection, and I chased him off. The wicked Saracen warlord intimidating a big bunch of grapes.

Yes, she was grateful, but no (for those of you hoping this will be sex story) she wasn't quite grateful enough to bring me to her bed or anything. Still, it was a fun party.

It was confirmed. Certainly implicitly, and for all real purposes explicitly too, regardless of whether you actually used the phrase, "I confirm...".

Thanks for the mildly amusing mutual cockblock story.
Halloween parties suck.
overall, it really is an evil holiday, ...full of death, sorcery, and Satanism, violent, sexualized costumes, and all manner of drug/alcohol/sugar toxicity & overdosing.

It seems that Vot has at least characteristic like Trump: he fails to acknowledge when he is wrong and when he loses.

Anyway, rather than coming to blows (silly to get into a fight over such a trivial point, anyHOOOOO), I merely FOED Vot for a few days to avoid reading his posts and allowing him to get under my skin. It worked.

On the contrary it is jusplay who...

fails to acknowledge when he is wrong and when he loses.

Furthermore, he has doubled-down on his wrongheadedness by resorting to foeing, the lamest of tactics.
jusplay, foeing never works!

The point is you asked an unnecessary and foolish question concerning the identity of an artwork whose identity was already firmly established.
This fact can never be erased, no matter how often you object, obfuscate, or foe me.
Furthermore, that grievous error shall remain as a black mark on you permanent record forever, from now until the end of time!!!

I picture a fight between votanic and jusplay4MAGA:

What in the habberdashery is this non sense? IT'S HALLOWEEN COSTUMES! Go fight eachother in the cup of water thread and think about what you two dorks have done to this innocent thread!

Poor silly, egotistical Vot; he was wrong and cannot admit. SAD.

There is no stain on my record. No matter how often you tell a LIE does not make it the truth, Vot. I am surprised that you do not realize that simple FACT.

jusplay4fun wrote:Poor silly, egotistical Vot; he was wrong and cannot admit. SAD.

There is no stain on my record. No matter how often you tell a LIE does not make it the truth, Vot. I am surprised that you do not realize that simple FACT.

justplay4fun.
From now on I expect you to read previous posts with comprehension before asking stupid, repetitive, unnecessary questions. Do you understand me.

Unpossible.

Votanic wrote:

jusplay4fun wrote:Poor silly, egotistical Vot; he was wrong and cannot admit. SAD.

There is no stain on my record. No matter how often you tell a LIE does not make it the truth, Vot. I am surprised that you do not realize that simple FACT.

justplay4fun.
From now on I expect you to read previous posts with comprehension before asking stupid, repetitive, unnecessary questions. Do you understand me.

You were wrong and we got clarification. Admit it. Move on. I am.

btw: I was correct and you were NOT.