It was alright in the 1960's

[securespark]

Watching this now....it's madness!

Like on TW: testing a bullet-proof vest by firing live rounds into one being worn by a human being!

 

[EFLImpudence]

It was very strange, wasn't it?

Perhaps they weren't allowed to use dead pigs - like Mythbusters - for religious reasons.

 

[Newboy]

Something a bit strange about that clip.

Even with today's ceramic / Kevlar vests, a point blank shot from a .44 shell would be expected to knock the wind out of you or even break a rib

 

[JBR]

Something a bit strange about that clip.

Even with today's ceramic / Kevlar vests, a point blank shot from a .44 shell would be expected to knock the wind out of you or even break a rib

Perhaps they removed a proportion of the propellant for effect?

 

[noseall]

Watching this now....it's madness!

Like on TW: testing a bullet-proof vest by firing live rounds into one being worn by a human being!

Animals wouldn't stand still for long enough. Probably.

 

[noseall]

It was very strange, wasn't it?

Perhaps they weren't allowed to use dead pigs - like Mythbusters - for religious reasons.

I thought they used pigs for experiments?

 

[Newboy]

Pigs used to used for ballistic tests - something to do with their physiology being similar to ours

 

[gregers]

i watched the last half of this show,
mans hour lol
having a naked fag
oh and hang on vicar i need a capstan,

 

[noseall]

It was very strange, wasn't it?

Perhaps they weren't allowed to use dead pigs - like Mythbusters - for religious reasons.

When did Mythbusters stop using pigs for religious reasons?

 

[EFLImpudence]

Punctuation.

Or, I don't think all Mythbusters are dead pigs.

 

[noseall]

Punctuation.

Or, I don't think all Mythbusters are dead pigs.

Eh?
Are you saying you made a grammatical error? Or are you embarrassed about posting something potentially inflammatory without actually researching it?

Don't worry, the RWR on GD do it all the time.

 

[EFLImpudence]

No the vagaries of the English language.
Why is it inflammatory?

Seriously, though. I'm interested.
Do the order and dashes not restrict it to the meaning I meant?

If not, what should it be so that there is no other interpretation?

 

[noseall]

At first glance (and ten looks later) it appears to say that Mythbusters stopped using pigs for religious reasons.

When what you meant to say was.....

Punctuation.

Or, I don't think all Mythbusters are dead pigs.

......for religious reasons.

Sorry, I'm still not getting it, especially when you add the last bit. Can you clarify please?

 

[EFLImpudence]

You're being awkward. That's not like you, but anyway:

On the 60s clip they were using a human being for testing a bullet proof vest. People were wondering why.
Actually they used two; one wearing the vest and one firing the gun.
I was going to write 'shooting' the gun but of course people don't shoot guns, do they? That's horses.

So I (humourously) said:

Perhaps they weren't allowed to use dead pigs - like Mythbusters - for religious reasons.

If you read it properly, my meaning is clear.
If you read it wrongly and leave out a dash, you can associate whichever phrase with whichever other one you want.

However,
Perhaps they weren't allowed to use dead pigs (like Mythbusters) for religious reasons.
Is that clearer for you?

If not:
Perhaps they (the people in the clip) weren't allowed to use dead pigs - like Mythbusters (do use dead pigs) - for religious reasons (the people in the clip; not Mythbusters).

There.

 

[noseall]

You're being awkward. That's not like you

.
Yeah, kinda geddit. Thanks. clear as mud.