April 06, 2007
I Dunno.
I sort of like my verbiage in little bite-sized chunks. And they have to be separated
somehow. But too many commas are, indeed, an aesthetic evil.
So I usually prefer—under most circumstance, mind you—to set some of the phrases off with em-dashes.
And the one rule in the Joy Style Guide is that series commas are our friends; the eye generally skips by that extra comma before the "and" or the "or," but when it needs it—well, it needs it badly.
So many things are that way.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
08:44 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.
Amazing Video
Check it out over at
Ace's digs: Talk about your Angry Black Men.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
Freezing (Literally) in April
Sayeth
Glenn,from Ohio: "Greenhouse effect? Global warming? Faster, please."
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:56 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.
What a
sur-prize.
The Brits did what they had to do to keep this from turning into an international incident and forcing premature war.
What the Iranians did still qualifies as an act of war, and should be taken seriously. But the timing should be up to the British, the Americans, and the Aussies. Not the Iranians.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:37 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.
1
If Act I wasn't an embarrassment, Act II certainly is. ("Britain suspends boarding operations in Gulf")http://www.gulfnews.com/world/United_Kingdom/10116571.html
Posted by: Darrell at April 07, 2007 11:30 AM (ME0W0)
2
They'd be fine if they weren't so close to Europe: they're getting infected, is all.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 07, 2007 05:26 PM (6C0F9)
3
If they (the UK) existed, that is. . .
Posted by: Darrell at April 07, 2007 07:53 PM (YBxie)
4
The patient has flatlined?
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 07, 2007 09:06 PM (6C0F9)
5
Your theory, remember? It's all a myth: Just a tourist attraction like Universal Studios. They change a few American words to give it atmosphere. The world needed a place for those who don't fit in, and aren't welcome anywhere else like Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow. And Noam Chomsky, now and again.
Posted by: Darrell at April 08, 2007 07:46 AM (HnawK)
6
Well, my theory was based on the fact that all their place names sound like they are right out of the Shire in
Lord of the Rings. Or vaguely like
The Once and Future King.
So I thought, "that place must be made-up. It's just too . . . pat."
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 08, 2007 09:10 PM (W+TwH)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 05, 2007
An Open Letter to the Lonesome L.A. Cowboy.
Dear Jim Ladd:
First of all, I love you. I love you because I love rock 'n' roll, and I love radio. I believe in what you've done for both the art of music and the medium of broadcast radio over the years.
And your voice is as lovely as ever; it's a mystery to me how a guy can live a rich, full life in the Los Angeles counterculture and yet preserve those dulcet tones that make the long-legged ponies swoon.
And I love to listen to your shows on KLOS. Mostly. More on that in a moment.
There are a lot of us—both here in L.A. and across the nation—who are deeply saddened by what's happened to commercial radio, and wonder how it could possibly have drifted as far from its original mission as it has. We believe that there is an audience for free-form rock 'n' roll, if only the corporate powers would seek it out. We don't believe in playlists, in computer-generated "radio stations" that use idiot tests to determine what will sell.
You're the real deal, Jim. You're an amazing man and a force for creativity over the airwaves.
And I listen to you whenever I can. I listen to you until you start to insult me so much that I have to turn the radio off.
I'm a libertarian, Jim. That means I often vote with the Republican party. That means that despite having some disagreements with him, I voted for George W. Bush twice.
I'm a great believer in liberal democracy, and I think it's under threat from Islamists (not Muslims in general, mind you—radical fundamentalists). The geopolitical chess game that will be required to defeat it or contain it is a complicated one that you disregard in your glib "analyses" of the war in Iraq, which seems to boil down to: "Bush lied; he's a bad guy. Anyone who supports him in any way is an idiot."
I'm not suggesting that you stay away from politics, but for you to reduce very complicated issues down to black-and-white thinking and then insult the beliefs of those who disagree with you is going to lead to a lot of people voting with their radio dials. Your ratings will stay high, of course, but you will have alienated some of the Southland's most independent thinkers.
There has to be a way to express your beliefs without putting down your fans who support the war in Iraq—who did see a legal and moral justification for our military action there.
Please believe me, Jim: there are people in Los Angeles who think the way I do, and we want independent voices on the air. We love music. We may not speak up in media or artistic circles as much as we should, because most of us have already lost jobs because we voted for the President, or because we want to take a hard line against Islamo-fascism. We aren't all "out."
But we are out there. Listening. We want to listen. Please don't make us turn your show off. Be as kind to your audience as you have been to the real talents who undergird the music business over all the years that you've graced the airwaves.
You're the last DJ, Jim. For real. Don't shut us out.
Sincerely,
Joy McCann
Little Miss Attila
http://attila.mu.nu
Posted by: Attila Girl at
07:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 574 words, total size 3 kb.
On the One Hand
. . . I'm making my page quota on the "Mystery in Arizona" manuscript.
On the other hand, I'm running around the house in my bathrobe all day and taking lots of naps.
I need to catch up on laundry, answer a few phone calls, and get out to the grocery store. You know: life stuff.
The thing about this project is, it can only help me, even if the ms. is returned unread by the Hillerman Competition. If I've got two manuscripts on hand, I can shop them around more effectively: it'll give me some detachment about the fate of any one given story.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:01 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 113 words, total size 1 kb.
Right-Wing Bloggers Are Well-Funded?
Um. Are they
talking about that time
The Washington Times gave me a beer voucher?
Or does it have to do with the fact that my readers send me socks and martini shakers?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:35 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 41 words, total size 1 kb.
Biker Thugs.
No, no: not people on
motorcycles. People on
bicycles.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:27 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
Ready, Freddy?
Fred Thompson's gun record
looks pretty good.
Via Glenn.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:06 AM
| Comments (3)
| Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.
1
This is the footage from an anti-semitic rally at Wayne State University last Thursday:
Part I:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqbfZqX7LWU
Part II:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxeweTTLqII
Part III:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1BlPhbW5tw
Here is a story that aired about the rally on Fox 2 News (Detroit):
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=2828453&version=4&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.1.1
Here are two rally organizers (Mike Staunch and Shemon Salam) trying to defend themselves, but they ended up being really offensive:
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=2838924&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=3.2.1
There is also a story posted on littlegreenfootballs about the rally.
THE OFFENSIVE GROUP WHO ORGANIZED THE RALLY, "ANTI-RACIST ACTION" (ARA), IS MADE UP MOSTLY OF NON-STUDENTS, AND THE GROUP OPENLY CALLS FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL AND AMERICA.
Posted by: WSU Observer at April 05, 2007 07:03 AM (ITScx)
2
Thompson may have a problem with his current wife. She is younger than his daughter, social conservatives may think that is a bit too "Hollywood"
Posted by: John Ryan at April 05, 2007 12:38 PM (TcoRJ)
3
Isn't it strange how deeply wives and children get sucked into these campaigns?
If I had my way, we'd only be looking at the candidates themselves.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 05, 2007 04:43 PM (6C0F9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 04, 2007
Yeah.
When in doubt, blame it on the
White Mountain Apaches.
My story is shaping up nicely. I'm letting you know because I assume you're almost as obsessed with me as I am.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
06:11 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 34 words, total size 1 kb.
On Internet Stalkers
Oh, nice. I missed
TC Leather Penguin's remark on this
RightGirl post:
Feh. When I get death threats (and I've gotten a bunch of them), I reply with my home address at the top of the answer and tell the various mooks "Come on over. If you get past the dog then we'll see if you can handle me."
Because I'm too old and beat up to give a rat's ass about that brand of vermin.
Almost to a one, Internet "thugs" are fairies who wouldn't know what to do if you told them how to pull a trigger.
Not a bad point: I have a 30-round clip for my Glock (perfectly legal; I bought it pre-ban). And I spook easily, which acquaintances of mine will be quite happy to explain to the jury. You know how high-strung short girls can be.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
05:22 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 148 words, total size 1 kb.
1
Day By Day cartoon fit you and a friend of mine, I sent her a copy. You could send a copy to those that threaten you.
Posted by: Jack at April 04, 2007 08:21 PM (MhbtL)
2
The funny thing is that I posted that before I read the current DbD! I thought they harmonized very well.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 04, 2007 09:27 PM (6C0F9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No One's in the Mood to Get It On.
Thank
God.
One can only suspect what's going on beneath the surface, here: either the Brits/Americans quietly issued an ultimatum, or the entire situation was manufactured within Iran and reflects its own turmoil.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
04:56 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 51 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The Brits apologized and said they won't do it again
Posted by: John Ryan at April 05, 2007 12:35 PM (TcoRJ)
2
They sure as blue blazes wouldn't have pulled this stunt with Truman in the Oval Office.
Of course, if Truman ran for president today, he'd have to run as a Republican (and he'd win the nomination easily), because the Democrats have moved light-years away from him.
Posted by: John at April 05, 2007 03:29 PM (us1EO)
3
Yeah, but we don't know what went on behind the scenes.
Publicly, everyone saved face. Privately, I suspect it was a bit different.
And who knows whether a different person as President here--or as P.M. in Britain--would have made a big difference. We cannot assume that the Iranians are going to act in their own rational self-interest. That's why the WoT is tougher than the Cold War.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 05, 2007 04:47 PM (6C0F9)
4
"Publicly, everyone saved face. Privately, I suspect it was a bit different."
Reminds me of this quote, said by someone whose name I forget at the moment.
"While you're saving your face, you're losing your ass."
Posted by: John at April 06, 2007 04:26 PM (WOJb1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Other White Thompson.
Hackbarth has the
scoop on Tommy Thompson's formal announcement that he's running.
Sure, he has more executive experience than anyone else in the GOP field. So superficially, he would seem to be a strong candidate. But as a crack investigative journalist, I checked IMDB, and found, shockingly, that the former Governor of Wisconsin only has two credits to his name.
Some might say that problem-solving at the state and federal level left him little time to work on his credits—but that strikes me as a cop-out. I mean, surely there are community theatres around Madison, and small Indie production companies. There had to be some kind of opportunity to burnish his repertoire—even if it meant just doing voice work on local radio shows, or filming commercials.
The comparison is highly unflattering. How on earth are we supposed to take Tommy Thompson seriously as a candidate?
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:26 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.
1
It almost makes me want to rent Super Size Me. Almost.
Posted by: Sean Hackbarth at April 04, 2007 03:42 PM (QJ5cf)
2
FRED Thompson Rally
April 28, 3:30
Cookeville, TN
www.ThompsomRally.com
Posted by: DJKirkus at April 04, 2007 05:22 PM (hPJ+u)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Fine As Far As It Goes . . .
but there truly are people who use obesity to commit slow suicide.
Yet I'm happy for Joy; she seems like a hell of a girl.
H/t: the Cotillion girls.
UPDATE: CTG on the "fat" issue.
Again, it's complicated for me. I theorize that my mother has made a point of being heavy in order to keep men away from her in her later years. (She is intrinsically a very attractive woman.) Mostly, her strong body is able to handle the consequences, and the liver problems, diabetes and high blood pressure are treatable with the right medications. She's 70 now, and will be around for a good long time.
My aunt, however, is significantly heavier, and more addicted to carbs. Not to mention the fact that she is extraordinarily inactive—and, until recently, she smoked. Her greater obesity has led to a greater level of diabetes. Despite her being four years my mother's junior, I know I will lose her before I lose my mother.
I had the following exchange with my mom a few years ago:
Me: "My friend Dean Esmay says that many obese people don't actually overeat."
My mom: "Oh. How interesting. But I do."
At which point she proceeded to take another bite of the huge salad she was eating. (Because my mother eats compulsively, she tries to only keep healthful foods in the house. This is the main reason she won't stay at my aunt's place any more: the aunt keeps too many sugary and carby treats around, and these trigger binging on icky food.)
Food and obesity are linked, and in many cases there is a behavioral component. The problem is that you don't know from looking at a person whether that's the case. And you don't know what someone's genetic predisposition is from that single, judgemental glance.
It can, indeed, be a moral problem: there are certainly fat gluttons. But the biochemistry is complex, and there are several conditions that make people look "fat." And even in the case of the true pedal-to-the-metal food addict, there are worse things they could be binging on. (Drinking and driving, anyone?)
So this is an individual problem, with many solutions. One of which is societal acceptance of the fact that some people are naturally heavy.
UPDATE 2: Dean Esmay posts the Joy Nash video, and comments:
It's a metabolic issue, not a character issue.
By the way, the majority of Americans are overweight, and a third are medically obese. I guess we're just all slobs with character flaws, eh?
We're taking over. Give us your pizza or we'll destroy you.
I remember a discussion at my writer's workshop one day, when a skinny woman wrote about the temptation to judge when she saw an overweight woman ordering a salad at a restaurant.
Several of us were curious about why she would be tempted to condemn the ordering of a salad, of all things. "Um, even if you accept the premise that it's someone else's business what someone else is eating . . . what's to judge about the salad?" I enquired.
"Well, the thought would be 'oh, who does she think she's fooling?'" she responded.
I sort of blinked, and realized that anti-fat bigotry is at astonishing levels in some circles. If we intend to judge the overweight for ordering a steak and a baked potato, and we intend to judge them for ordering a salad, is there any choice they could make that would not incur presumption from those at surrounding tables? Answer: hell, no.
Yeah. Plenty of Americans eat too much. But improve your own damn health regimen: not someone else's.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
03:13 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 623 words, total size 4 kb.
1
"The problem is that you don't know from looking at a person whether that's the case. And you don't know what someone's genetic predisposition is from that single, judgemental glance."
Exactly.
Posted by: caltechgirl at April 04, 2007 03:04 PM (r0kgl)
2
We do know, however, that if a person consumes more calories than they burn, they put on weight.
A person who is overweight has, for a lengthy period of time, done exactly this.
To reverse that situation requires both the knowledge of how to do it, and the willpower to do it. It invariably requires a permanent change to eating and exercise habits.
The fact that some people can do this with small adjustments to their lifestyle, while others can achieve gains only through rigorous effort for a long period of time, really does not justify those in the latter group when they give up.
Posted by: John at April 04, 2007 05:40 PM (EIOof)
3
There are people who, in order to maintain a "healthy weight," would have to live on fewer calories than required to get much nutrition at all--basically a starvation diet.
There are people whose metabolisms are simply
too efficient, and are otherwise quite healthy. And it's just possible that they are not waiting for "justification" from the rest of us in order to be happy. Ya know?
As a matter of fact, I doubt that my aunt and mother, who probably do a decent job of meeting your expectations when it comes to fat people, are interested in whether you and and I can "justify" their eating/exercise patterns.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 04, 2007 06:05 PM (6C0F9)
4
Hair clips and socks . . . Egad!
Posted by: Sissy Willis at April 05, 2007 05:09 AM (Q6JEL)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Yes. I Made Quota Today.
One page of outline. One page of typed text. Three pages of handwritten notes.
And so I'm going to bed. There will be more creepy things to write about in the morning.
But I know who was killed. And why. I just haven't decided how.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:15 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 55 words, total size 1 kb.
1
garotted with Nancy Pelosi's scarf.
Posted by: Colin MacDougall at April 04, 2007 08:03 AM (6RbJz)
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 04, 2007 02:11 PM (6C0F9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Nancy Pelosi's Scarf.
It all hinges on whether she was in a house of worship, which I can't tell from
the photo.
If she was, it was totally legitimate to cover her head, just as a gentile man would if he went to a temple.
Out in the public square, it becomes more dicey.
Though there are certainly parts of the world where I would wear a skirt if local customs demanded it, even though I happen to think that the right pair of slacks is even more modest.
The issue is not how the Speaker attired. It is whether her going to Syria was appropriate in the first place.
UPDATE: Yup. The pic was in a mosque. Talk about your misplaced outrage: get a grip, folks; it's a piece of fabric.
James Joyner, BTW, gets it right: she was within her rights to go on the trip, but that doesn't mean it was a smart stunt to pull.
She made it clear that the U.S. government doesn't speak with one voice when it comes to hostile states. But don't question her patriotism!
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:12 AM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.
Steyn on Passover/Easter, and the Palestinian "People of the Book"
It's a re-run from 2002, but no less
chilling for that.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
02:04 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.
So. Building Codes.
Good idea? Bad idea?
Where does your neighbor's right to build whatever he pleases next door to you end? When he cuts off your view? When he makes the neighborhood too ugly?
And tell me, O my libertarian friends: aren't there real estate developers against whom you harbor some ill-will? I mean, in the middle of the night—when there's no one else around to hear you, least of all the ghost of Ayn Rand—don't you wake up once in a while and say, "damned McMansions. How come so many people have so much more money than they do taste?"
Come on: admit it. When you walk out of your door and wander down your street or road on foot, you're not such a great believer in capitalism, are you?
Dish.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:49 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.
1
O my libertarian friends: aren't there real estate developers against whom you harbor some ill-will?
Ummm...no. I can always obtain a big spread and put my domicile in the middle, where I don't have to see anything other than trees. Problem solved. QED
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at April 04, 2007 06:33 AM (1hM1d)
2
Building codes, the ones that specify materials, design, and detail for the electrical, plumbing, space conditioning, and other systems are a good idea. As long as they're made for technical reasons, not to give union workers a job, or to prevent do-it-yourselfers from trying. Those related to appearance or aesthetics are starting to cross the line. I don't think people should have to beg a committee to paint their house a certain color, or choose a type of window--within reason. But reason and human beings are sometimes different animals. Views are other considerations are for the homeowners and their neighbors to work out. A reasonable, prudent person understands that things can change unless you own all of the adjacent and adjoining property.
As for seeing others do better than me, I say "great!" As a loner, I don't appreciate company, even in misery. McMansions raise everyone's property values nearby over time. And maybe a rich friend and political beneficiary will buy my house to demolish it and improve the view of the owners of said McMansion. Barack Obama's pal, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, bought the vacant lot next to B.O's intended purchase for higher-than-normal value clearing the way for B.O. to offer some $300k less than asking price(from the same seller). An abutting private preserve that adds to the ambiance of your McMansion is always a "good thing"--or so Martha keeps telling me.
Posted by: Darrell at April 04, 2007 09:39 AM (9iZ9f)
3
Yes, of course.
But what if you lived in a part of the country in which vacant lots went for $500K? What if you'd struggled all your life to get into a particular town/neighborhood, and then someone built something that fundamentally changed its character?--wouldn't that constitute a type of theft?
What if you lived in a housing market so blazing hot that getting a higher price for your your newly valuable home didn't really enable you to get something comparable to what you'd been living in before the neighborhood changed its character?
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 04, 2007 02:18 PM (6C0F9)
4
Change is inevitable. I know that I don't control all the factors with the resources at my disposal. So I would take the money and go somewhere else where that money would buy the lifestyle that I've become accustomed to and more. Next time every thing I want to see will be on my land. So many things are outside of my control that I consider that my steady-state condition.
People in big cities are used to neighborhoods changing beyond their control. You are faced with two choices--sell now at depressed values or stay and hope/work for the best. Turnarounds sometimes take decades or more. Isn't this a form of theft? I've had relatives that chose both options, and they all wound up losing. Some had years taken from their lives by weekly robberies/beatings. The police told them they were crazy to live in the house they built forty years before. They also told them that catching the thieves would be their death sentence. All in all, these people would have preferred the McMansion dilemma.
Posted by: Darrell at April 04, 2007 08:12 PM (9nwuO)
5
Building codes and zoning restrictions are two different things. Both are generally more restrictive than I care for, although it is not the codes but the onerous process one has to go through to get the simplest things approved through official channels.
As for zoning requirements I see the sense in keeping industrial areas separate from residential areas and having some buffers between residential and commercial, but when you read most zoning regulations there's inevitably *way* more restrictions than I am comfortable with.
And HOA's are way out. Never, ever will I purchase a home in an area with an active HOA.
Come on: admit it. When you walk out of your door and wander down your street or road on foot, you're not such a great believer in capitalism, are you?
Sorry to disappoint you. And I live in a very mixed use neighborhood to boot. I get *far* more bent about loud music from my neighbors than I'd ever get from a non-compliant shed or porch add-on. Because that, to me, is an actual infringement on my right to peaceable enjoyment of my property.
What if you'd struggled all your life to get into a particular town/neighborhood, and then someone built something that fundamentally changed its character?--wouldn't that constitute a type of theft?
No. Because I don't own the "character" of a place. I only own what I own. And there is always the option of moving from a blazing hot real estate market to one less blazing hot to get what one is after.
Posted by: Desert Cat at April 04, 2007 08:48 PM (xdX36)
6
Cool. So far, no one's taking the bait.
(BTW, this doesn't happen to be about me: this is about the story I'm writing--the Phoenix mystery. Although I admit that I feel wistful about what happened to both Malibu and Santa Monica, which used to be earthy beach towns. That comes across in my Santa Monica mystery, of course.
But in the Phonix mystery--at least, the way I have it outlined now--real estate development is central to the crime.)
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 04, 2007 09:37 PM (6C0F9)
7
To Desert Cat
Keep in mind that Zoning Restrictions in this discussion would only apply to areas where there are such things. Houston, TX does not have Zoning. Instead, how land is used is part of land deeds.
To the other assembled:
This blog-cussion reminds of commentaries in a religious tradition known to us all. It was speculated whether a property owner who by ill will (e.g., revenge or greed) hinders another, such as by landlocking, could be stopped using legal remedies in a religious context. The resolve was that on earth, there were no such remedy and such a property owner could act "that way"; however, when that owner goes to the next world, there will be a warrant out for him.
To you die hard Randians, [are you reading this Andrew B or Harry B? (2 writers of the Rand Institute)], when do courtesy and/or cariing for your neighbor; enter your philosophy? Or are those ideas always to be couched within a healty self-interest outlook?
Just inquiring.
Posted by: Richard_Manitoba at April 04, 2007 10:25 PM (LoWgJ)
8
The Quakers, or the Amish?
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 05, 2007 05:11 AM (6C0F9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Who Sank the Titanic?
Well, the
chosen conspirators, of course. Though I think the Masons might have been involved.
Which reminds me: it's almost time to re-read some of my favorite books.
But not this year. Not if I'm going to crank out a book manuscript in 90 days. And, no: not even I can rationalize it by claiming that one of my characters is a Titanic buff, and I need to do this for "character development."
Via Ace.
Posted by: Attila Girl at
01:06 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The demand for steel and dwindling resources of low-sulfur coal sunk the Titanic. Steel makers in the UK had to substitute high-sulfur coal for their usual purchases as demand went through the roof as the Industrial Age blossomed. High sulfur embrittles steel. Popular Science had the definitive analysis in the late 80s or early 90s. They found the son of one of the builders that had a large number of coupons--punched-out steel from the actual hull that the shipbuilder had engraved and was going to pass out as promotional items. They were put into a drawer after the sinking. PS's analysis showed that the sulfur content was many times today's standards and that the steel was as brittle as glass. A sufficient impact could have caused a large section of the hull to shatter--many times the size of the impact contact area-- spanning multiple decks and defeating the compartmentalization safety design. It was a floating accident waiting to happen.
Posted by: Darrell at April 04, 2007 10:03 AM (9iZ9f)
2
Well, there's also the fact that the Titanic was speeding through ice-infested water, ignoring multiple warnings wired ahead from other ships about the icebergs that lay ahead.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 04, 2007 02:21 PM (6C0F9)
3
Yes, there is that. :-)
Men would say--
1) How could I be speeding when there are no posted speed limits?
2) How could I set a new world record without "speeding"?
3) Isn't that why we have Smithy in the crow's nest?
At the time of the collision it is thought that the Titanic was at her normal cruising speed of about 22 knots (1), which was less than her top speed of around 24 knots. At the time it was common (but not universal) practice to maintain normal speed in areas where icebergs were expected (2). It was thought that any iceberg large enough to damage the ship would be seen in sufficient time to be avoided.
(1) British Inquiry - Testimony of JG Boxhall -Fourth Officer - ss "Titanic.", Q15645
(2)British Inquiry – Testimony of G Affeld, Marine Superintendent Red Star Line Q22583 & Q25615/16
Posted by: Darrell at April 04, 2007 08:26 PM (9nwuO)
4
But what underlay this custom about cruising speed was the fact that there was tremendous competition to get across the Atlantic as quickly as possible. It was a status symbol for a captain to get ahead of schedule.
The belief that this was safe emerged from the DESIRE to believe that it was safe.
Posted by: Attila Girl at April 04, 2007 09:42 PM (6C0F9)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
April 03, 2007
73kb generated in CPU 0.1939, elapsed 0.3918 seconds.
217 queries taking 0.3329 seconds, 529 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.