dark light

Edgar Brooks

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 1,308 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Discussion #235712
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    A large number of the models are on the North Side at Duxford. Due to their age (and possibly the glue of the time,) they’re falling apart, and model-making firms are asking small fortunes to repair them.

    in reply to: General Discussion #235548
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Seriously?

    You said “normally.” Naturally, there will be times that it would be preferable, especially if the required answer is in pence.

    in reply to: General Discussion #235399
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    people must have grown-up with very agile mathematical minds!

    I can only speak for my (junior) school, but, every afternoon, we had a ten-minute session, where the teacher would throw calculations, taken from anywhere in the 2 – 12 times tables, and the answer had to come back quickly, or you had to stand by your desk; another mistake and it was onto the seat, and a third put you on the desk, with hands on your head, which at 8 years old is mortifying. I always had trouble with the 7 & 8 tables, but soon learnt to calculate x 5, and add two, or x 10 and add take away 2.
    L.s.d. came as part of life, and was later invaluable when calculating pattern repeats in old-style carpets, since, for calculations, feet and inches are identical to shillings and pence.

    in reply to: General Discussion #234463
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Oh come on! He practically called you dumb and you wish him a nice day? Curse him, threaten him with the wrath of your god and watch him quake!

    Maybe he prefers to “turn the other cheek,” which, for hundreds of years, Christians have been exhorted to do, in the face of the sort of crude provocation in which you excel.
    And so this pointless thread meanders on, getting ever more spiteful and downright nasty, with neither “side” having the courage to admit that they only have a belief, and no cast-iron proof either way.
    Over the years, I’ve encountered religious, non-religious, and anti-religious people, and found that the vast majority actually want nothing better than to live in peace with the rest, but there are others, who, for some weird reason, can’t allow this to happen, so stir up trouble, apparently just for the pleasure of being able to do it. The great pity is that they get the reaction they crave; if they were ignored (as shown by how few are bothering to contribute to this thread,) maybe this world would be a better place to live.

    in reply to: General Discussion #234238
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Re 63If the ‘domino’ effect as described, impacted on our daily lives, then none would get out of bed to so much as buy a newspaper !.

    If you smash up your car, and body, every time you buy a newspaper, maybe that would be a good idea.

    The most seemingly insignificant of human activities could, by your reckoning, unleash a trail of destruction, turmoil and death as to rival some of the content of some rugby league matches

    .
    Killing yourself, in a car accident, might be trivial to you, but not others who have to clean up afterwards.

    The ‘picture’ you paint suggest that we should all carry individual, no limit, comprehensive, third party liability, compulsory insurance – just in case !

    Only if you have a rather lurid imagination.

    In any case, your scenario is already in place and serves to deal; on a daily basis, with your examples. These examples are, fortunately, a minority, because education about the general good sense of wearing a seatbelt has had effect. My general complaint is about compulsion.

    Seems we’re arguing pointlessly, then, since the compulsion is aimed at the “I know best” fraternity, not those with the intelligence to see the value of wearing belts.

    We will, mindful of our thoughts about the evils of smoking, see that compulsion extended against the remainder of the population who still smoke. I’ve no doubt that many will applaud the proposed extention of non smoking laws into public parks and open spaces regardless of the chipping away by the State of what is left of personal freedom.
    Some nanny minded interfering politician intent on making a cheap headlne or two and getting his/her name into Hansard will promote this measure thus ensuring even more firmly that the State is holding our hand when we cross the road – by the approved crossing – of course

    It has actually already been denied (do you really think they’d dare to do it just a few months before an election?)

    in reply to: General Discussion #234292
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Since when did it become the duty of the State to protect the individual from the consequences of their carelessness and stupidity particularly when only that individual’s safety and well being is at stake ?

    Which is fine, when it doesn’t affect others, but that is rarely the case. Leaving aside the required attendance of the police at any accident involving injury, there’s also the ambulance crew(s) and fire crew(s.) As well as picking up your body parts, they might well have to risk their lives to get you out of the wreckage, plus the charming job of hosing down the area to remove all of the signs of your blood (upsets the public, you see.) There’s then the staff at the A&E, who try to repair the damage, and, if they can’t, there’s the staff of the hospital morgue, who have to try to make you presentable for the poor sod who has to come to identify the remains. In the meantime, a police man or woman (often of junior rank) has to go and inform your family of your death.

    in reply to: General Discussion #234296
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Police are required and have duty to enforce laws and that is it, no matter the laws bias.
    There is nothing in any duty laws that say police are to protect and serve, that is a political gimmick..

    That might be true in the U.S., but not here:-
    CODE OF CONDUCT FOR POLICE OFFICERS
    1(a) The primary duties of those who hold the office of constable are the protection of life
    and property, the preservation of the Queen’s peace, and the prevention and detection of
    criminal offences. To fulfil these duties police officers are granted extraordinary powers; the
    public and the police service therefore have the right to expect the highest standards of
    conduct from them.

    in reply to: General Discussion #233540
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    So therefore, with no proof that a ‘creator’ was created other than in the minds of those seeking to control the populous through fear and bribery, it cannot have happened. QED did/does not exist.

    So, therefore, with no proof that a “creator” was not created, other than in the minds of those seeking to control the populace, it can have happened. QED (quite easily debunked) does exist.
    Just using your flawed (as so often) “logic.” But, since none of us have any real importance in the world order, what any of us believe matters not one jot, underlining what a complete waste of time threads like this turn out to be.

    in reply to: General Discussion #233356
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Nice to hear you also have an imaginary friend, Edgar.

    All of my friends are real, but you do love to assume whatever suits your particular agenda, don’t you?

    So why bother to post, unless it is because you are following me about, debunking me. Are you my stalker as well as trying to be my god? Or maybe you fancy me

    1/. Because somebody has to, otherwise you’ll continue to get ideas above your station. 2/- & 3/- Of all the nonsense you’ve spouted over the months, that has to be the most hysterically funny.

    in reply to: General Discussion #233358
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    22s =5280d + 3d 5283d x 1600000 =35200000 / 240 = £3,522.000
    But have no idea, if that’s the correct way to do it..

    Neither do I, but 22/3 = 264d + 3d = 267d (not 5283 – were you thinking 2400d per shilling, instead 12?) x 160,000,000.
    Actually, I took the initial amount in £s, divided by 10 (2s =1/10 of £1,) divided that figure by 8 (3d = 1/8 of 2/- ,) then added the three amounts together :-
    1,600,000 + 160,000 + 20,000 = 1,780,000, but I have no idea if that’s how rateable value is calculated, either.

    in reply to: General Discussion #233378
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Don’t know if these are the correct answers]

    I got the same for most, though, having rented all my life, I don’t really understand rateable value, so arrived at £1,780,000
    I made the last one £135 (810 – 135 = 675 + 20% = 810.)

    in reply to: General Discussion #233381
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    It should be remembered that, in 1944, tank commanders probably didn’t have access to stage make-up, and film make-up artists.

    in reply to: General Discussion #233270
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Just going by what you have mentioned..

    As I said, you assume too much.

    So you follow me around, claim these threads are a waste of time whilst still posting on them, and just so that I don’t get ideas above my station? How perfectly base. Where do you suppose my station is?

    If you stop allowing your ego to get in the way, you’ll see that I do respond on threads to which (thankfully) you do not reply (I can’t say “contribute,” because that would be overstating things,) so “following you around” is (as usual) a gross overstatement.

    in reply to: General Discussion #233126
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Someone mentioned having to read exam questions back then, very carefully. I do remember being tripped up like this and felt it was unnecessary. The questions were hard enough. What were they testing you on anyway, your maths or reading ability?

    When we were approaching O-levels, our maths master went to great lengths to warn us to stick to the “proper” way to do the papers; he said that, due to the number of examinees, everybody was drafted in to help with the marking, even the canteen staff (I think he was joking, but we were very careful during our “mock” exams.)

    in reply to: General Discussion #232860
    Edgar Brooks
    Participant

    Or he could have posted them here to let younger readers put the crime into context. Emotions ran high on both sides.

    It comes as no surprise to see you leaping to this creature’s defence, but it would be appreciated if you had the courtesy to read what was written. The existence of the chants is not disputed, just whether we really need, yet again, to read every word that was said. Some like to wallow in such nastiness; others don’t.

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 1,308 total)