Conquer Club

jsholty4690 wrote:I'd say being slowly crushed to death by a steam roller feet first.

Prankcall wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:

THORNHEART wrote:being skinned alive and the drenched with lemon juices....and then left writhing in a swarm off ants till you finally expire

btw drowing is very peaceful after the first 30 seconds....if you dont srtuggle ive heard its one of the easiest ways to die

There is nothing peaceful in Drowning,you cannot fight Human Nature(instinct to survive) you would fight and would be scared as shit,burning may be a bit harsh at first but wouldn't your body go into shock?

I almost drowned when I was at Disney World as a kid. All I remember is having a sense of peace as I drifted to the bottom of the pool.

khazalid wrote:i dunno what would happen in space... would you freeze quicker than you'd suffocate or what?

jsholty4690 wrote:Nope, all I remember is that I had a tranquil peace surrounding me, as I stared up at the sunlight coming through the water. However, I don't panic easily. I can't imagine a claustrophobic person handling a situation like that very well.

Woodruff wrote:

jsholty4690 wrote:Nope, all I remember is that I had a tranquil peace surrounding me, as I stared up at the sunlight coming through the water. However, I don't panic easily. I can't imagine a claustrophobic person handling a situation like that very well.

It isn't the claustrophobia...it's your body's instinctive response in fighting for your life, a natural reaction having very little at all to do with "panic". Quite honestly, if you didn't fight for your life, that means you have no will to live, which seems like an anti-evolutionary state.

jsholty4690 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

jsholty4690 wrote:Nope, all I remember is that I had a tranquil peace surrounding me, as I stared up at the sunlight coming through the water. However, I don't panic easily. I can't imagine a claustrophobic person handling a situation like that very well.

It isn't the claustrophobia...it's your body's instinctive response in fighting for your life, a natural reaction having very little at all to do with "panic". Quite honestly, if you didn't fight for your life, that means you have no will to live, which seems like an anti-evolutionary state.

I'm sorry, but that is what happened to me. I can't explain it. If you don't believe me, then so be it.

john9blue wrote:Because that is what happens in Off-Topics... you come in and share your personal experiences and someone personally insults you.

edocsil wrote:IDK if this is true, but in grade school we would talk about some king of England that was executed publicly by inserting a tube into his ass and then having a glowing metal rod slid up the tube and into his lower intestines. Sounds horrible to me. We always used to joke around that it was because the king was gay, it was a Catholic school, go figure.

How exactly did Edward II die?

The only actual contemporary account of Edward's death that makes any reference to this question was the work of Adam of Murimuth who simply says that the king was suffocated by Thomas Gourney and John Mautravers and dates the deed to the 22nd September. However the more famous version, the one that everybody believes, first appeared in the set of chronicles known as The Brut which tells us that;

when that night the king had gone to bed and was asleep, the traitors, against their homage and their fealty, went quietly into his chamber and laid a large table on his stomach and with other men's help pressed him down. At this he woke and in fear of his life, turned himself upside down. The tyrants, false traitors, then took a horn and put it into his fundament as deep as they could, and took a pit of burning copper, and put it through the horn into his body, and oftentimes rolled therewith his bowels, and so they killed their lord and nothing was perceived.

This is the origin of the story that Edward II died from having a red hot poker inserted into his rectum and that he was killed in this manner in order that "no appearance of any wound or hurt outwardly might be once perceived". A tale that was elaborated on and repeated by later chroniclers such as Ralph Holinshead and Thomas More. But death by anal insertion does not appear to have been a common method of medieval execution and it seems a rather over-complicated method of killing someone just to avoid leaving any obvious signs of the crime when a simple suffocation would have done just as well.

It is also worth noting that kings at the time were routinely embalmed, that is eviscerated and wrapped in cerecloth as soon as practicable after death, as indeed was the case with Edward II. Indeed as far as Edward was concerned his body was placed in one coffin of lead inside another of wood and it is therefore difficult to see how it would have mattered one way or another how he was killed, as no one would have been any the wiser in the circumstances.

The largely unquestioned acceptance of the traditional story may well be influenced by the perceived connection between the manner of Edward's death and his alleged homosexuality. Although it should be noted that the exact nature of Edward's relationship with Piers Gaveston remains a matter of debate and that the king's homosexuality or bisexuality is a supposition rather than a fact.

It would seem most likely that Edward died by suffocation.

jefjef wrote:Gang banged in a Turkish prison would probably be unpleasant.

Any thoughts on this woody?