|
Post by JayUtah on Apr 10, 2007 11:56:46 GMT -4
If anyone challenges you, say 'hogwash' a lot.
Hm. I say that a lot.
146. yes but i still feel that 8 is a huge number of astronauts in that time frame no matter how they died. desprtehouswife (1 ) 2:26 pm, 10 Apr
It's important to separate events from fatalities. Several of the proto-Apollo astronauts died together in the same incident, such as in Apollo 1 or in the Bassett-See crash. When reasoning about how probable such things are, each event counts as a single event regardless of how many astronauts died.
Recently in the U.S. a bus carrying a college baseball team crashed off an overpass and plunged to the ground killing five passengers. It was a very sad event. But by that you can't say that American college baseball is a very dangerous sport because five players died this year while participating in it. The correct way to think about it is that fatal bus accidents among American college baseball teams are still almost unheard of.
|
|
|
Post by petereldergill on Apr 10, 2007 12:00:27 GMT -4
Absolute hogwash
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Apr 10, 2007 15:18:15 GMT -4
...as opposed to all that adulterated hogwash.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Apr 20, 2007 21:22:09 GMT -4
The thread has been removed. I hope some people learned from it.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 21, 2007 3:58:39 GMT -4
Because it's a bit quiet here, thought I'd mention another of "those" threads on the same message board. www.trademe.co.nz/Community/MessageBoard/Messages.aspx?id=18856091&threadid=18856091I started posting at No. 18. It's not as bad a thread as the last one, but there's the usual number of stirrers posting and it could get worse soon, being 8pm on Saturday. Currently I'm trying to catch out "Fiddlesticks11" who says "the original fake film has been destroyed" post 2, and claims "I was 20 years old when this fake stuff happened", post 37, but writes more like a slightly-educated teenager. He also says "we had a tv from 1953", post 42, which is rather amusing if he's a Kiwi because, being a hilly country with a small population, there were no public TV broadcasts until 1 June 1960, and then only in our biggest city, Auckland. He also says he watched the landing live, but as most of you know, it was never "filmed" live on TV and furthermore, TV tapes had to be flown across the Tasman Sea from Sydney for us to see the latest overseas news in 1969 - there was no live satellite link at all. I'm trying to get him to tell us he saw the landing live in colour, which will prove he's full of the usual stuff that HBs are full of. Trouble is, I'm not yet sure of when colour TV arrived in New Zealand. He seems a little reluctant to answer my questions. Still, it's good fun. I enjoy trying to get them to think and I never expect to win. It can be like trying to strike a match on a bar of soap.
|
|
|
Post by Grand Lunar on Jul 21, 2007 22:08:19 GMT -4
Is #53 serious when he/she says "On the moon, there is no gravity"?
I'd say "If that's true, how does the moon make the tides happen?"
I suppose if that soap is dry, and contains pumice, then you'll get that match to light!
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jul 22, 2007 6:13:21 GMT -4
Kiwi, Colour TV was introduced in NZ November 1973. Therefore the only Apollo mission that could have been observed in colour by the general public would have been Apollo Soyuz Test Project. Having said that, TV networks no doubt would have been using colour equipment prior transmitting the colour signal on the official launch date. Colleagues of mine at TCN-9 in Sydney said they were watching colour feeds from Apollo 11 as they had colour rated gear within the station.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 22, 2007 7:46:02 GMT -4
Thanks, Dwight. From memory I thought it was between 1971 and 1975. The small histories I have of NZ TV don't mention when colour was introduced.
Few people could afford a colour TV set originally as they cost a few month's income for many. Who from that era could forget the Philips K9? Even I owned one much later on.
Yes, I can imagine the techies having access to all sorts of lovely gear. My brother-in-law worked for the local power board and was into electronics, and became the first person I knew who had a TV set ready to go as soon there were broadcasts in our area in the early 60s. I used to go and watch "Bonanza" on it. Fancy that!
Grand Lunar. No. 53 is one of the stirrers -- they're usually a bit more over-the-top than the HBs. Its a favourite pastime in New Zealand, so you get used to it. I'm just as guilty of it as the next guy!
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Jul 23, 2007 12:15:16 GMT -4
When you say, "stirrers" do you mean that these people are saying things that they themselves do not believe?
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 24, 2007 7:41:16 GMT -4
When you say, "stirrers" do you mean that these people are saying things that they themselves do not believe? Yes, but not necessarily. Stirring is usually done to wind people up or take the mickey out of them. It's a favourite pastime for Aussies too. We stir them up over things like New Zealand thrashing them at both rugby and women's netball this last weekend, and they get into us on the few occasions they beat us at something. (Which they should actually do all the time because their population is so much bigger than ours.) Stirring the British is commonly called pommie-baiting in Australasia. Post 53, with its laughing icon, is taking the mickey out of HBs: on the moon there is no gravity so how come the flag was waving? how could there possible be shadows? when they took steps there were no foot prints? once i have been there i shall take a photo and put it on trade me! bronwyn56 (18 ) 10:55 pm, 19 Jul
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on Jul 24, 2007 7:52:55 GMT -4
OK, so what is "taking the mickey" out of someone?
I looked up the word "cranky". It said "grouchy". I looked up "grouchy". It said "crotchety". No wonder you have such an eccentric culture: none of your words have their own meanings. You have to look up one word to understand another. It never ends. -- Delenn
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jul 24, 2007 8:24:03 GMT -4
OK, so what is "taking the mickey" out of someone? It's rhyming slang. If you are unfamiliar with the concept, you use a phrase which rhymes with the target word, but you normally leave out the part of the phrase which actually rhymes. Eg "plates" is rhyming slang for feet, the full phrase being "plates of meat". With "taking the mickey", the full phrase is "Mickey Bliss", but no-one seems to remember who he was.
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 24, 2007 8:31:54 GMT -4
OK, so what is "taking the mickey" out of someone? Collins, 1979: mickey or micky n. Informal. take the mickey or micky out of. -- to tease. [C20: of unknown origin] Although I would add, to sometimes tease mercilessly, as we do to the Aussies. The best reaction to stirring is none at all. Just carrying on as if nothing happened, followed by thinking, "It'll keep!" and patiently waiting one's turn to get the stirrer back.
|
|
|
Post by tofu on Jul 24, 2007 9:32:10 GMT -4
Looks like the admins deleted your thread Kiwi
|
|
|
Post by Kiwi on Jul 24, 2007 11:49:25 GMT -4
Looks like the admins deleted your thread Kiwi Nope, still there. Page 1Page 2Fiddlesticks11 finally admitted why he could watch TV between 1953 and 1960: "it was live in the UK where I watched it, so was the Coronation in 1953." He can hardly blame anybody for their ignorance when he omits such important information in his original post. And he has still not agreed that the "original film" was not destroyed, contrary to his claim in more than one post. Pretty common behaviour for an HB, including his anti-Americanism. Perhaps we should start arguing that the Battle of Britain was faked.
|
|