Malcolm McKayThe funny thing about language purity is that at no time in its history is a language static. There are people who claim that their version of a language is perfect and therefore should set the standard for future generations but the harm that’s done in this dogmatic approach is immeasurable. The best example of this for the English language was the move to standardization which became the so-called received pronunciation (a synonym for approved), itself an outgrowth of the early forays into public broadcasting. In Australia we had a rush by radio broadcasters to lose their acceptable Australian accents and learn to speak like some inhabitant of a semi posh London suburb and the results are excruciating to listen to.
This move to received pronunciation had the deleterious effect of destroying perfectly legitimate regional accents, dialects, words and phrases which had been in common usage (spoken at all social levels) in their respective regions for centuries. It also reduced many otherwise historically legitimate regional accents to the level of fodder for comedians. Rather than enhance our use of language it set up a mythical class divide where if you used the received pronunciation you were obviously of a better class than some miner from a Yorkshire pit or a hardworking stock man on an Australian cattle station.
Certainly we need some form of standardized language in certain circumstances such as technical and scientific discourse but as new discoveries and advances are made even that minority use sees the evolution of new words and language constructs so why are some people so keen to set in cement what they learned in their school days’ grammar exercises when those were nothing more than the invention of 19th century educators working in what was a horrendously class divided society. We should encourage these changes of usage and the invention of new words because as with Latin if a language doesn’t respond to the needs of all its users it will die. Our common English language is the property of all of us, not the property of people who try to enhance their own status by inventing rules that are exclusionary for many people.
Malcolm McKayHanger is an interesting word because like so many words in the English language it can have several meanings. Some of which are obscure or are formalized usages of what might have been slang originally.
For instance a hanger is also the term for a wood or small forest which lies on top of a hill – this being of Middle English origin. It also is the name of a dress or short sword which is worn at the waist – presumably that comes from it being hung from the belt.
And while criminals are hanged, pictures are hung.
Malcolm McKayMalcolm McKayOver the last century and more it appears that serial numbers and their fonts have all sorts of differences both subtle and readily apparent. The last edition of Bruce Robertson’s British Military Aircraft Serials 1878 – … – that I have (mine is 1987) has all these illustrated. Other historians have noted this also – Paul Lucas’s excellent The Battle for Britain – RAF May to December 1940 also goes into great detail on the styles and fonts used. It is obvious that each aircraft manufacturer, sub-contractor, maintenance unit and servicing facility had, over the years, painted these in styles, which, while vaguely complying with what was officially required, were tempered by whoever the chap in charge of the paint shop saw as meeting that requirement. Add to those local producers aircraft delivered under lend lease etc. then it is not surprising that there are so many variations. The other area of variation are the squadron codes letter codes adopted in the late thirties. About the only thing that is common to these over the period to the end of the war is the colour – again we see changes in font styles and even sizes and placement. I suspect that anyone looking for uniformity in this subject is going to be disappointed.
Malcolm McKayDoesn’t look like a Spitfire slipper tank to me – no flat sides.
Malcolm McKayIt’s our curious Brazilian.
Malcolm McKayThe low back Griffon engined Spitfires really are attractive – more so IMHO than the low back Merlin XVI. I think the lines of the Griffon nose really suit the low back versions.
Malcolm McKayBack on topic I echo an earlier comment that the MkXVIII is a very pretty aircraft. One thing I can add is that a few years back Lucas suggested a camo scheme for certain ME MkXVIIIs used in Palestine (I realise that it isn’t in Palestine) of slate grey/dark earth. That one doesn’t appear to have that as the contrasts are quite apparent. The examples he depicted had a much less contrasting colour scheme. I went so far as to build a model of a MkXVIII (a modified low back Academy MkXIV) in that suggested scheme. Correct or not it is actually rather attractive. Hardly to do with real aircraft I agree but that’s why I found the pic interesting.
Malcolm McKayThat is a skip, in traditional use as a site for everyone in the neighbourhood to make use of it before the hirer has chance to make use of his/her receptacle.
A problem not uncommon world wide – I had some major clearing out to do a few years back and hired a skip. It was amazing that after a day or so I discovered stuff in it that not only could I not recall ever owning let alone throwing out. :rolleyes:
Malcolm McKayYou need the Historic Rubbish Disposal Forum for that discussion. 😀
Malcolm McKayJust looking at that scene and it appears to be a day for night attempt but sort of ruined by the fully sunlit sea as the shot swings around to point aft of the aircraft. It’s funny the things that one misses until they are pointed out but as a much younger edition of myself I can say that the position of the sun was the last thing on my mind. The film The Dambusters really is an icon of it time – a modern remake could never capture that feeling.
Malcolm McKaythe anti-Mark12 forum shenanigans have occasionally reached a bullying bloodsport level that has been enough to nauseate. His choice in abandoning the forum for a while, if not permanently, is a direct result of that. I know who to blame for his reaction.
And therein lies the problem doesn’t it Matt – just another unsupported somewhat hyperbolic accusation. What is the difference between discussion and bullying as you see it. My take is as I said above in post 31 … topics do occur which by their nature invite differences of opinion, requests for more evidence, varying interpretations of data etc. So what if these discussions become robust that’s how it happens in real life folks.
Robust discussion isn’t bullying it is just what happens when people disagree on something. Bullying in a discussion is abusive denigration unsupported by anything other than emotion and vindictiveness. The sort of thing that our mods delete with good reason as they do canvassing of issues which by their nature are essentially matters that lie outside the purview of public discussion for private or legal reasons. Forums like this are owned by other parties and they cannot allow themselves to be legally compromised for obvious reasons.
I saw no instances of bullying (given the 10 hour time difference which probably saw inappropriate posts deleted) but if robust disagreement is the issue then perhaps we should only express opinions that agree on any issue so as to avoid disagreement because that might be construed as bullying. However if people wish to invest a high level of emotion and personal committment into a project or topic that later is demonstrated to be a false hope then perhaps we and they need to accept that the cause of the personal disappointment is not those who were sceptical but the person themselves. In other words hope for the best but prepare for the worst.
Malcolm McKayHowever, when a moderator repeatedly deletes his posts out of personal pique, you can hardly blame Mark12 for taking his bat home.
I suspect in bygone times Moggy may have deleted a few of my posts on a certain topic, as did other mods, but I didn’t take my bat and go. As I said if one is going to get into a discussion where discussion can be robust then one really must be prepared for robust discussion, and if it becomes a little too robust then that’s what the mods are there for. Anyway I am sure that Mark12 may return or he may not so what else can I say – I’m not clairvoyant, but I can say that all this discussion of missing people no matter who they are is really a bit pointless. It’s their lives and their choices not mine or yours. There see if you can make a rumour out of that. 😀
Malcolm McKayIt is a silly thing where honest disagreement gets criticised as trolling and bullying when in fact if a topic strays into areas where robust opinions are to be found then it will by its nature attract robust opinions.
99% of the topic threads on this forum are on simple nuts and bolts (pardon the pun) type subjects which attract responses from a few people who have an information in that area. Someone asks a question about a matter of somewhat limited interest to many but usually gets an informative reply from other like minded individuals. No one leaps in and abuses anyone because the subject is very narrow or of no interest to them and if they did then I would hope that the mods will quickly remove the offender because information exchange is vital to the purpose of this forum.
More rarely topics do occur which by their nature invite differences of opinion, requests for more evidence, varying interpretations of data etc. So what if these discussions become robust that’s how it happens in real life folks. If people are going to be offended by the fact that not everyone agrees with them or are going to post public comments taking issue with people and events that so far have been relatively restricted in their canvassing then perhaps they might have been wiser not to, so taking offense at any responses that the public canvassing arouses is just plain silly.
But just like the strange rumour cycle that suddenly erupted when Moggy C disappeared for a day or two then perhaps we are reading too much into Mark12’s disappearance. But in the long run is it of great importance – who knows. I don’t and I don’t propose to get in a wax about “trolling” and “bullying” accusations when in fact I have never seen any of that here – I’ve had some pretty caustic comments directed at me but that’s life and real life is even rougher believe me. I just think that if you are going to comment on something that someone might find contentious then grow a thick skin, have the courage of your convictions and don’t go running to mummy complaining.
Malcolm McKayIt’s a shame what happened, but at the same time it’s a shame how the misguided actions of a guy (who didn’t do anything stupider than what a few thousand other guys have done over the last century…some of which got away with it, some who didn’t) have provided a bunch of internet voyeurs (most of which couldn’t fly if they wanted to…and wouldn’t have the nerve to be a military pilot) an opportunity to stress their smug superiority.
Yes, what he did was wrong…a terrible lack of judgement that others…his crew and their families paid a terrible price for. But he too paid a price, as did his family I’m I’m not sure being the object of continued internet scorn is terribly productive.
The enquiry into the crash revealed that he had a long history of reckless flying and that a number of people would not fly with him – as I read the findings they are not just critical of Col. Holland but of the system that allowed him to keep flying despite his record. That isn’t smug superiority, that is simply reading the report. Personally I see it as a tragedy for the crew and their families that was avoidable.
Sign In
