| Author |
Message |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 7:10 am
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
ray o'hara wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | You left out the worst aspect of the "Leisure Suit" the term "double knit".
|
Okay, ray, we'll forgive you the lack of a dash after "Leisure
Suit." But still, "double knit" is a lot more than just a "term."
It labels something quite specific -- a particular sort of fabric.
Here's one among several definitions available online: "a knitted
fabric (as wool) made with a double set of needles to produce a
double thickness of fabric with each thickness joined by
interlocking stitches."
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=double+knit>.
Yuck!
| Quote: | Add in a pair of white J.C.Penny
|
Penney
You're
| Quote: | ready to peddle used cars.
|
A guy dressed like that might have the sort of used cars that need
pedaling.
--
Liebs |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rodney
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 7:11 am
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
| > I believe the Americans
| > were responsible for the 1980's questionable fashion statement,
| > the "Leisure Suit".
| > I have heard on occasions that it was a bold act, to out-do
| > the ghastly Dutch/German "socks and sandals" Oscar.
| > (you had previously failed with the Hawaiian Floral shirt)
|
| Who is the mysterious "you"?
"You " is the polite gender response, to anybody else
apart from the person speaking, made famous by Australians.
eg: "Oh! youse guys"
As you probably are aware, Australians refined human speech,
and as much as other races become jealous of this fact, rather than object
is should be made compulsory to learn Strine in all colleges of learning.
I can tell by your obvious ignorance, that you may require the "advanced" course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thomas W Ping
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 2:26 pm
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:52:19 -0400, ray o'hara wrote:
| Quote: | "Thomas W Ping" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.30.22.13.57.455036@earthlink.net...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:11:31 -0400, ray o'hara wrote:
The superb FW-190 also used a radial engine. Radial engines were
A beautiful airplane, that.
cool and were more robust in combat. The belly radiator in the mustang
was a brilliant innovation
not only did it cool the radiator but the small opening behind it gave
the plane more forward thrust.
In-line planes look sleeker but the need for radiators just transferred
the drag to a differnt part of the plane, on Spits and Hurricanes they
were placed under the wings on the Focke-Wulfe Fw-190D and the TA-152
it was in front of the engine like on a car and gives the plane the look
of a radial engine, they can be distiguished from the regular FW-190 by
the longer cowl.
A beautiful slightly longer airplain, that.
Kurt Tank could design a nice plane.
|
Indeed. And spell "airplane" better than I can, as well.
Wasn't it a variation of the FW-190 that they were developing for use with
the Graf Zeppelin? I'd hate to have anyone have to try to trap on a
pitching deck with an Me-109 and its narrow-tread main gear. Scary.
--
Thomas Winston Ping |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ray o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 9:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
"Thomas W Ping" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.01.08.26.01.272927@earthlink.net...
| Quote: | On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:52:19 -0400, ray o'hara wrote:
"Thomas W Ping" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.30.22.13.57.455036@earthlink.net...
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:11:31 -0400, ray o'hara wrote:
The superb FW-190 also used a radial engine. Radial engines were
A beautiful airplane, that.
cool and were more robust in combat. The belly radiator in the
mustang
was a brilliant innovation
not only did it cool the radiator but the small opening behind it
gave
the plane more forward thrust.
In-line planes look sleeker but the need for radiators just
transferred
the drag to a differnt part of the plane, on Spits and Hurricanes
they
were placed under the wings on the Focke-Wulfe Fw-190D and the
TA-152
it was in front of the engine like on a car and gives the plane the
look
of a radial engine, they can be distiguished from the regular FW-190
by
the longer cowl.
A beautiful slightly longer airplain, that.
Kurt Tank could design a nice plane.
Indeed. And spell "airplane" better than I can, as well.
Wasn't it a variation of the FW-190 that they were developing for use with
the Graf Zeppelin? I'd hate to have anyone have to try to trap on a
pitching deck with an Me-109 and its narrow-tread main gear. Scary.
--
Thomas Winston Ping
|
From what i've seen it was the BF-109 that was slated to be used. The 109's
landing gear was no narrower than the F4F used by the USN. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thomas W Ping
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
On Sun, 01 May 2005 11:59:49 -0400, ray o'hara wrote:
| Quote: | "Thomas W Ping" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.01.08.26.01.272927@earthlink.net...
Wasn't it a variation of the FW-190 that they were developing for use
with the Graf Zeppelin? I'd hate to have anyone have to try to trap on
a pitching deck with an Me-109 and its narrow-tread main gear. Scary.
From what i've seen it was the BF-109 that was slated to be used. The
|
I apparently misremembered.
Ah. Bf-109-T series, which were basically adaptations of Emils, and
were ultimately produced without cat points and hooks for non-carrier use.
The mods that *were* retained gave these T-2 variants good
short-field capabilities. "The Warplanes Of The Third Reich" (William
Green, ISBN 0-88365-666-3) has quite a bit on them. The out-of sequence
"T" designation stood for "träger" (carrier).
I also find Fiesler building a few FI-167 folding-wing biplane shipboard
aircraft for "Carrier A" (to be named "Graf Zeppelin") and that "the
shipboard dive bomber role would be performed by the Junkers Ju 87C-0,
thus restricting the Fi 167A to the tasks of torpedo-bombing and
reconnaissance..."
| Quote: | 109's landing gear was no narrower than the F4F used by the USN.
|
And the Hellcat, like the Fw-190 improved on that. Parellel evolution.
--
Thomas Winston Ping |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ray o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 3:03 am
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
"Thomas W Ping" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.01.17.33.44.447136@earthlink.net...
| Quote: | On Sun, 01 May 2005 11:59:49 -0400, ray o'hara wrote:
"Thomas W Ping" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.01.08.26.01.272927@earthlink.net...
Wasn't it a variation of the FW-190 that they were developing for use
with the Graf Zeppelin? I'd hate to have anyone have to try to trap on
a pitching deck with an Me-109 and its narrow-tread main gear. Scary.
From what i've seen it was the BF-109 that was slated to be used. The
I apparently misremembered.
Ah. Bf-109-T series, which were basically adaptations of Emils, and
were ultimately produced without cat points and hooks for non-carrier use.
The mods that *were* retained gave these T-2 variants good
short-field capabilities. "The Warplanes Of The Third Reich" (William
Green, ISBN 0-88365-666-3) has quite a bit on them. The out-of sequence
"T" designation stood for "träger" (carrier).
I also find Fiesler building a few FI-167 folding-wing biplane shipboard
aircraft for "Carrier A" (to be named "Graf Zeppelin") and that "the
shipboard dive bomber role would be performed by the Junkers Ju 87C-0,
thus restricting the Fi 167A to the tasks of torpedo-bombing and
reconnaissance..."
109's landing gear was no narrower than the F4F used by the USN.
And the Hellcat, like the Fw-190 improved on that. Parellel evolution.
--
Thomas Winston Ping
|
The F4F had its gear in the fuselage because of its mid-wing design, the
Wildcat was just a hastily reworked F3F, the BF-109 had its gear int
fuselage because its wings weren't strong enough to support it.
I think we'd both agree that landing the BF-109 on a carrier deck would have
been a short-lived experiment. they were tricky enough to land on the ground
and probably no plane ever suffered more write-offs due to landing
accidents. Stukas seem rather clunky for shipborne duty too, the Germans
were probably smart to can the effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 1:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
Mike Lyle <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote:
| Quote: | J. J. Lodder wrote:
[...]
BTW, found a picture of the Fokker G-1 going down (May 1940)
http://gais.demon.nl/Aircraft/Aircraft026/3.jpg
That's awful, Jan. I can never get used to pictures like that.
They did put up a fight against the Luftwaffe,
but they were greatly outnumbered by the Messerschmitt 109-s,
and didn't stand much of a chance.
|
It is awful.
May 10 to 14 , 1940 weren't the happiest of days.
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 1:39 pm
Post subject: showed vs shown (was Re: Western stars) |
|
|
highstep <highstep@step.fr> wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:50:18 +0200, J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
wrote:
And that both were first shown in the same year (my translation).
I said 'first showed' for I referred to first appearance at an airshow.
(Paris 1936, where it created a sensation)
You dislike the usage?
Jan
Intensely I'm afraid.
|
Up to now I used 'was shown' for was demonstrated, was proved, etc
and 'was showed' for was made to appear at a show.
Should I mend my ways?
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 1:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
ray o'hara <roh@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Rodney" <rodney@touch88gum.com.au> wrote in message
news:4271f0d2$1@news.eftel.com...
"Ugly" is such a negative word.
I would have much preferred it, had you used "less handsome"
| The Huricane is ugly, in comparison.
I always thought Hurricanes were quite cute, I'll grant the Spit is one
of the most beautiful machines of any type ever produced by man.
|
Hurricane pilots complained bitterly about 'Spitfire snobbery'.
German fighter pilots shot down over England
always said that it was a Spitfire that did it.
Despite official tactics
(the Spits to hold off the Me109-s, the Hurricanes to get the bombers)
many 109-s were downed by Hurricanes.
Best,
Jan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J. J. Lodder
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 1:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
ray o'hara <roh@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: | "Rodney" <rodney@touch88gum.com.au> wrote in message
news:4271f0d2$1@news.eftel.com...
"Ugly" is such a negative word.
I would have much preferred it, had you used "less handsome"
| The Huricane is ugly, in comparison.
I always thought Hurricanes were quite cute, I'll grant the Spit is one
of the most beautiful machines of any type ever produced by man.
|
When you forget what it was built for, yes,
Jan
--
"Weapons can become works of art only when the wars they were used in
have been long forgotten." (Kousbroek) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 2:28 pm
Post subject: Re: showed vs shown (was Re: Western stars) |
|
|
"J. J. Lodder" <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1gvttzy.fceyp018w9g5tN@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
| Quote: | highstep <highstep@step.fr> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:50:18 +0200, J. J. Lodder
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
wrote:
And that both were first shown in the same year (my translation).
I said 'first showed' for I referred to first appearance at an airshow.
(Paris 1936, where it created a sensation)
You dislike the usage?
Jan
Intensely I'm afraid.
Up to now I used 'was shown' for was demonstrated, was proved, etc
and 'was showed' for was made to appear at a show.
Should I mend my ways?
|
Yes. "Shown" in all senses.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 3:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
ray o'hara wrote:
| Quote: | Irreguardless of its purpose it is a beautiful machine, deadliness does not
dimish that.
|
Uh-oh. Now you've gone and wook up Skitt so many times that he's gone back
to sleep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 5:20 pm
Post subject: Re: showed vs shown (was Re: Western stars) |
|
|
J. J. Lodder wrote on 02 May 2005:
[...]
| Quote: | Up to now I used 'was shown' for was demonstrated, was proved, etc
and 'was showed' for was made to appear at a show.
Should I mend my ways?
|
It depends on who you're writing for. It's standard parlance in the
medical field to use "showed", "demonstrated", indicated", and
"suggested" as rough equivalents. Nobody seems to care unless one says
"proved".
Use what the rest of the writers in your field use, unless it's
obviously incorrect because it's ambiguous, like the use of "enhance"
im the medical field to mean "increase" is bloody wrong.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
"You've got to get over this idea that there's a rule for everything."
Professor John Lawler, U. Michigan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ray o'hara
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 5:47 pm
Post subject: Re: Western stars |
|
|
"J. J. Lodder" <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1gvxgvi.1anv4ugmgg8tyN@de-ster.xs4all.nl...
| Quote: | ray o'hara <roh@comcast.net> wrote:
"Rodney" <rodney@touch88gum.com.au> wrote in message
news:4271f0d2$1@news.eftel.com...
"Ugly" is such a negative word.
I would have much preferred it, had you used "less handsome"
| The Huricane is ugly, in comparison.
I always thought Hurricanes were quite cute, I'll grant the Spit is
one
of the most beautiful machines of any type ever produced by man.
When you forget what it was built for, yes,
|
Irreguardless of its purpose it is a beautiful machine, deadliness does not
dimish that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Picton
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 11:01 pm
Post subject: Re: showed vs shown (was Re: Western stars) |
|
|
J. J. Lodder wrote:
| Quote: | highstep <highstep@step.fr> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 22:50:18 +0200, J. J. Lodder
nospam@de-ster.demon.nl
wrote:
And that both were first shown in the same year (my
translation).
I said 'first showed' for I referred to first appearance at an
airshow.
(Paris 1936, where it created a sensation)
You dislike the usage?
Jan
Intensely I'm afraid.
Up to now I used 'was shown' for was demonstrated, was proved, etc
and 'was showed' for was made to appear at a show.
Should I mend my ways?
|
Yes.
Dictionaries tend to give both 'shown' and 'showed' as the past
participle, but 'shown' is strongly preferred - particularly in passive
expressions like 'was shown'. Google survey results for all web pages:
"is|are|was|were|be|been showed": 260,000 (0.6%)
"is|are|was|were|be|been shown": 41,100,000 (99.4%)
"have|has|had showed": 826,000 (3%)
"have|has|had shown": 24,600,000 (97%)
(N.B. if you want to replicate these results, please note that the
quotes are part of the search string) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in