QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

[Guest Mike M]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

Airco was a 1950s state engineered co-operative between DeHavilland,

Hunting and Fairey. It may have even included Bristol but I'm not so sure

there. The Trident was the result. When the big mergers of the 60s came

along the various parts of Airco ended up in different groups, for example

Fairey was subsumed within Westland (together with Saunders Roe),

DeHavilland within Hawker Siddley and I think Hunting ended up with the

likes of Miles, Auster and Beagle.

> And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a

> bizarre one!

 

Yes, many a time and not in its customary glass dome either. What hair it

still has is a vivid orange!

--

Mike

 

 

Mrs Doyle <parochialhouse@craggyisland.com> wrote:

> Mike M wrote:

>> I never really liked the Victor but that picture makes it look good.

>

> I think they look much better without the refueling pods on the

> wings! It is a very graceful aircraft and sometimes I think it looks

> better than the Vulcan, while other times I think it looks ugly! It

> certainly was a performer! Perhaps it is that from certain angles it

> looks good, and I'd suggest those are the ones where it most

> resembles a Swallow. Or anyway that's what *I* think it looks like.

>

>

>>

>> BTW I have had sitting here for ages another disk of videos, not

>> Vulcan but rather various other UK post WWII aircraft including two

>> my Dad worked on - the Gannet and the Airco 121 (cannot remember if

>

> The Gannet I know, but not the Airco. The Gannet was quite

> remarkeable, wasn't it (and as if to prove it, I just remarked upon

> it!).

>> the number was 121) later DH121 then HS121 better known as Trident.

>

> But I never realised how ahead of it's time the Trident was! I mean, I

> (vaguely) remember it entering service; how noisy it was; and the

> Staines crash. Amazing to think that we didn't have the black box

> requirement prior to that.

>

> Anyway, definate pilot error, not the aircraft, at fault. The

> aircraft was yet another British aviation first and I wish I could go

> on one but...it hardly needs saying, does it; you can take it as a

> given, there are none flying anywhere in the world today!

>

>> I even managed to find on YouTube a clip of another he worked on

>> during the 50s, the Rotadyne, including shots of a demo it made of

>> moving a bridge where I was standing close to the film crew.

>

> Right, I'll go take a look at that. I trust you're not actually in

> it, then, since they probably didn't film themselves?

>

> And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a

> bizarre one!

>

> Okay, so; I'll just go and make a nice cup of tea now, Father!

[Guest Mike M]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

>> And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a

>> bizarre one!

>

> Yes, many a time and not in its customary glass dome either. What

> hair it still has is a vivid orange!

 

PS I'm talking here about the real head which is kept under a dome in a

wooden box that until the mid 90s or so used to sit at his feet in his

glassfronted cabinet but is now kept under lock and key elsewhere

following a break-in when various of his personal artefacts were stolen

such as rings, pens and spectacles. The head on the autoicon that can be

seen by visitors is a wax model and looks almost respectable.

 

For a long time JB was brought in to meetings of UCL's Council where his

presence was recorded in the Minutes as "Present but not voting". I think

this stopped in the 1960s or 70s.

--

Mike Maltby

mike.maltby@gmail.com

 

 

Mike M <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote:

> Airco was a 1950s state engineered co-operative between DeHavilland,

> Hunting and Fairey. It may have even included Bristol but I'm not so

> sure there. The Trident was the result. When the big mergers of the

> 60s came along the various parts of Airco ended up in different

> groups, for example Fairey was subsumed within Westland (together

> with Saunders Roe), DeHavilland within Hawker Siddley and I think

> Hunting ended up with the likes of Miles, Auster and Beagle.

>

>> And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a

>> bizarre one!

>

> Yes, many a time and not in its customary glass dome either. What

> hair it still has is a vivid orange!

[Guest Mrs Doyle]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

ctowers wrote:

> Dr. Archibald Crumpenshtupa wrote:

>>> happened and that nuclear bomber was recalled and finally got to

>>> drop some ordinance - just the conventional kind - on Port Stanley,

>>

>> You'd have thought - what with all the hiking and the maps that

>> requires - that I'd have learnt the word 'ordnance' by now, wouldn't

>> you?

>

> A real "Dr." would have known. ;-)

 

I am a doctor of Pseudology!

 

In fact, if you look ever so carefully out of your peripheral vision...and

then *suddenly* turn your head!...you might catch a glimpse of my diploma.

But as it is from the University of Brigadoon, you just might not see it!

 

Dr Mrs Doyle

[Guest Heather]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

 

"Mrs Doyle" <parochialhouse@craggyisland.com> wrote in message

news:enfSbyf7IHA.5596@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> ctowers wrote:

>> Dr. Archibald Crumpenshtupa wrote:

>>>> happened and that nuclear bomber was recalled and finally got to

>>>> drop some ordinance - just the conventional kind - on Port Stanley,

>>>

>>> You'd have thought - what with all the hiking and the maps that

>>> requires - that I'd have learnt the word 'ordnance' by now, wouldn't

>>> you?

>>

>> A real "Dr." would have known. ;-)

>

> I am a doctor of Pseudology!

>

> In fact, if you look ever so carefully out of your peripheral

> vision...and then *suddenly* turn your head!...you might catch a

> glimpse of my diploma. But as it is from the University of Brigadoon,

> you just might not see it!

>

> Dr Mrs Doyle

 

And this is the mother of Dr. Mrs. Doyle.......

 

GET TO BED!!!! IT IS LIKE 5 AM OVER THERE!!!

>

>

[Guest Dr Archibald Crumpenshtumpa]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

Heather wrote:

> "Mrs Doyle" <parochialhouse@craggyisland.com> wrote in message

> news:enfSbyf7IHA.5596@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> ctowers wrote:

>>> Dr. Archibald Crumpenshtupa wrote:

>>>>> happened and that nuclear bomber was recalled and finally got to

>>>>> drop some ordinance - just the conventional kind - on Port

>>>>> Stanley,

>>>>

>>>> You'd have thought - what with all the hiking and the maps that

>>>> requires - that I'd have learnt the word 'ordnance' by now,

>>>> wouldn't you?

>>>

>>> A real "Dr." would have known. ;-)

>>

>> I am a doctor of Pseudology!

>>

>> In fact, if you look ever so carefully out of your peripheral

>> vision...and then *suddenly* turn your head!...you might catch a

>> glimpse of my diploma. But as it is from the University of Brigadoon,

>> you just might not see it!

>>

>> Dr Mrs Doyle

>

> And this is the mother of Dr. Mrs. Doyle.......

>

> GET TO BED!!!! IT IS LIKE 5 AM OVER THERE!!!

 

Jeez Louise! Je n'avais aucune idée!

[Guest Arturo Seis]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

 

"Mike M" <No_Spam@Corned_Beef.Only> wrote in message

news:eKfv1Ae7IHA.3624@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> And btw, have you seen Jeremy Bentham's head then? That is/was a

>>> bizarre one!

>>

>> Yes, many a time and not in its customary glass dome either. What

>> hair it still has is a vivid orange!

>

 

That is strange, isn't it? I presume it isn't the consequence of an

deliberate act or an accident?

> PS I'm talking here about the real head which is kept under a dome in a

> wooden box that until the mid 90s or so used to sit at his feet in his

> glassfronted cabinet but is now kept under lock and key elsewhere

> following a break-in when various of his personal artefacts were stolen

> such as rings, pens and spectacles. The head on the autoicon that can be

> seen by visitors is a wax model and looks almost respectable.

>

> For a long time JB was brought in to meetings of UCL's Council where his

> presence was recorded in the Minutes as "Present but not voting". I think

> this stopped in the 1960s or 70s.

 

Ha ha!

 

Mind you, you'll probably find that he was down the road, in the Commons, a

few weeks back "Voting but not present" when they got 42 days through!

 

Presumably when they hold the innocent incommunicado for 42 days, they'll be

hoping to find the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything.

 

 

Arturo

[Guest Mike M]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

Arturo Seis <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote:

> That is strange, isn't it? I presume it isn't the consequence of an

> deliberate act or an accident?

 

I think that is more a consequence of his pickling instructions not having

quite the effect he had hoped for or expected.

> Ha ha!

>

> Mind you, you'll probably find that he was down the road, in the

> Commons, a few weeks back "Voting but not present" when they got 42

> days through!

 

You're getting on dangerous ground here. There are quite a few that I

would like to see locked up for 42 days without charge, all known to

occasionally frequent the Commons including GB and several in his Cabinet.

> Presumably when they hold the innocent incommunicado for 42 days,

> they'll be hoping to find the answer to Life, the Universe, and

> Everything.

 

It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit to any

error let alone discover the meaning of anything.

 

And to think I didn't used to be a fan of Liar!

--

Mike M

[Guest Arturo Seis]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

> It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit

> to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.

>

 

Notice he's going the attempting to salvage his Premiership by talking war

route (that he'd watched his two most successful predecessors get away

with). I don't know why we can't just hang 'em for treason for doing that.

Well, I would.

 

Where's Guido Fawkes when you need him? Or even a competent facsimile!

[Guest webster72n]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

Arturo:

 

The more you reveal, the better I like it.

I am not in the UK, but there are a lot of similarities between it and the

USA, especially right now. Could that be because the Queen claims ownership,

including Social Security?

Or was I reading the wrong script (not meant for peoples eyes)?

 

Harry.

 

 

"Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message

news:e2sMQew7IHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> > It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit

> > to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.

> >

>

> Notice he's going the attempting to salvage his Premiership by talking war

> route (that he'd watched his two most successful predecessors get away

> with). I don't know why we can't just hang 'em for treason for doing that.

> Well, I would.

>

> Where's Guido Fawkes when you need him? Or even a competent facsimile!

>

>

[Guest Dr Archibald Crumpenshtumpa]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

 

> It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit

> to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.

 

Do you watch 'Mock the Week' Mike? Apart from 'Have I Got News For You' with

Kirsty Young, Marcus Brigstocke or Daisy Sampson (I'd marry two of them!) I

think it's the most intelligent thing on the box these days. I thought I

could die laughing tonight when Frankie Boyle described Brown as looking

like a sad face painted on a scrotum! I wasn't expecting to think about it

(once I'd recovered) and think "well, actually, that's fairly accurate!".

 

Almost coughed up my FairTrade Chenin Blanc (£3.99 in the Co-op and

definately passable)!

[Guest Dr Archibald Crumpenshtumpa]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

Mike M wrote:

> Airco was a 1950s state engineered co-operative between DeHavilland,

> Hunting and Fairey. It may have even included Bristol but I'm not so

> sure there. The Trident was the result. When the big mergers of the

> 60s came along the various parts of Airco ended up in different

> groups, for example Fairey was subsumed within Westland (together

> with Saunders Roe), DeHavilland within Hawker Siddley and I think

> Hunting ended up with the likes of Miles, Auster and Beagle.

>

 

I've seen the YouTube video now. Very interesting! The Rotodyne could

perhaps have been revolutionary; but choppers annoy the hell out of me -

particularly Chinooks going back and forth, so I don't quite know how I feel

about that one.

[Guest Dr Archibald Crumpenshtumpa]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

Mike M wrote:

> Arturo Seis <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote:

>

>> That is strange, isn't it? I presume it isn't the consequence of an

>> deliberate act or an accident?

>

> I think that is more a consequence of his pickling instructions not

> having quite the effect he had hoped for or expected.

>

 

His philosophising knew no bounds, did it.

 

 

Arturo

[Guest Heather]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

 

"webster72n" <webster72n@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:u0lvBz17IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Arturo:

>

> The more you reveal, the better I like it.

> I am not in the UK, but there are a lot of similarities between it and

> the

> USA, especially right now.

 

No bloody way, Harry!! We have a Queen......you have a total, bumbling

fool for President. Mind you, that will change if and when Obama

*ascends the US throne*.

> Could that be because the Queen claims ownership,

> including Social Security?

 

Wot in hell are you talking about?? *ownership* of what.

> Or was I reading the wrong script (not meant for peoples eyes)?

 

No......you were probably fantasizing after drinking some cooking

sherry.

 

8-))

>

> Harry.

>

>

> "Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message

> news:e2sMQew7IHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> > It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit

>> > to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.

>> >

>>

>> Notice he's going the attempting to salvage his Premiership by

>> talking war

>> route (that he'd watched his two most successful predecessors get

>> away

>> with). I don't know why we can't just hang 'em for treason for doing

>> that.

>> Well, I would.

>>

>> Where's Guido Fawkes when you need him? Or even a competent

>> facsimile!

>>

>>

>

>

[Guest webster72n]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

Where I am concerned, you can have your Queen all to yourself.

In order to know what I'm talking about, you'ld have to read up on target

specific information and which of course you also wouldn't find in your

day-to-day history books. Once you have done that, you may be able to

discuss this issue.

Right now you can't. <H>.

 

 

"Heather" <figgyd@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

news:%23%23xvNJ47IHA.1428@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>

> "webster72n" <webster72n@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:u0lvBz17IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> > Arturo:

> >

> > The more you reveal, the better I like it.

> > I am not in the UK, but there are a lot of similarities between it and

> > the

> > USA, especially right now.

>

> No bloody way, Harry!! We have a Queen......you have a total, bumbling

> fool for President. Mind you, that will change if and when Obama

> *ascends the US throne*.

>

> > Could that be because the Queen claims ownership,

> > including Social Security?

>

> Wot in hell are you talking about?? *ownership* of what.

>

> > Or was I reading the wrong script (not meant for peoples eyes)?

>

> No......you were probably fantasizing after drinking some cooking

> sherry.

>

> 8-))

> >

> > Harry.

> >

> >

> > "Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message

> > news:e2sMQew7IHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> >> > It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to admit

> >> > to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.

> >> >

> >>

> >> Notice he's going the attempting to salvage his Premiership by

> >> talking war

> >> route (that he'd watched his two most successful predecessors get

> >> away

> >> with). I don't know why we can't just hang 'em for treason for doing

> >> that.

> >> Well, I would.

> >>

> >> Where's Guido Fawkes when you need him? Or even a competent

> >> facsimile!

> >>

> >>

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest Heather]

Re: QUESTION ABOUT QUESTIONS

 

Have you gone off your meds?? You make absolutely no sense (as usual).

 

Do tell us......what is this *issue* that only you seem to know

about....ROFL!!

 

About the only thing I can't *get* is your incomprehensible off the wall

ramblings which appear to hit you late at night. On second thought,

they also hit at noon. Give your head a shake!!

 

"webster72n" <webster72n@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:OKQdqw57IHA.4112@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Where I am concerned, you can have your Queen all to yourself.

> In order to know what I'm talking about, you'ld have to read up on

> target

> specific information and which of course you also wouldn't find in

> your

> day-to-day history books. Once you have done that, you may be able to

> discuss this issue.

> Right now you can't. <H>.

>

>

> "Heather" <figgyd@nospam.invalid> wrote in message

> news:%23%23xvNJ47IHA.1428@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>

>> "webster72n" <webster72n@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:u0lvBz17IHA.616@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> > Arturo:

>> >

>> > The more you reveal, the better I like it.

>> > I am not in the UK, but there are a lot of similarities between it

>> > and

>> > the

>> > USA, especially right now.

>>

>> No bloody way, Harry!! We have a Queen......you have a total,

>> bumbling

>> fool for President. Mind you, that will change if and when Obama

>> *ascends the US throne*.

>>

>> > Could that be because the Queen claims ownership,

>> > including Social Security?

>>

>> Wot in hell are you talking about?? *ownership* of what.

>>

>> > Or was I reading the wrong script (not meant for peoples eyes)?

>>

>> No......you were probably fantasizing after drinking some cooking

>> sherry.

>>

>> 8-))

>> >

>> > Harry.

>> >

>> >

>> > "Arturo Seis" <sixpencedearturo@googlemail.com> wrote in message

>> > news:e2sMQew7IHA.2224@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> >> > It would take far more than 42 days for our beloved leader to

>> >> > admit

>> >> > to any error let alone discover the meaning of anything.

>> >> >

>> >>

>> >> Notice he's going the attempting to salvage his Premiership by

>> >> talking war

>> >> route (that he'd watched his two most successful predecessors get

>> >> away

>> >> with). I don't know why we can't just hang 'em for treason for

>> >> doing

>> >> that.

>> >> Well, I would.

>> >>

>> >> Where's Guido Fawkes when you need him? Or even a competent

>> >> facsimile!

>> >>

>> >>

>> >

>> >

>>

>>

>

>