 | | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
|
(...) Why wouldn't I? I'm a Bricki...er, British historian, not prone to Colonial degeneralities (oooh, a neologism, ™ me, oh yeah). Ardour, candour, endeavour, and/our...hmm, that last one sounds a bit funny, but the others are aboot (1) right. (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote in (...) rather than the colonial 'Brikish' :-) (...) Colonial degeneralities (oooh, a neologism, ™ me, oh yeah). Ardour, candour, endeavour, and/our...hmm, that last one sounds a bit funny, but the others are aboot right. Now, (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoBLH7.DHF@lugnet.com>) wrote at 10:13:06 (...) Given that this is an imaginary world, I have no problem with either, and can see advantages in either spelling. I can see where you're coming from completely, (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
|
(...) I'm for Great Brikain, Brikannic, and Brikish myself. But then, I think "colour" is a silly way to spell color, and I like cheque over check, so I'm not sure you should pay the slightest attention to my opinions. Bruce (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
|
DISCLAIMER: I'm a little loopy today. Medication. (...) It also has the LEGO edge--"brik" to me brings to mind "blok," something about which no more should be spoken. 'Nuff said. *suppressing shudder* (...) I hope you mean to get at the (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2000, Mr L F Braun (<387F7F9F.766BF76@p....msu.edu>) wrote at 19:57:19 (...) I *knew* there was something about it that made me uneasy :-) (...) Absolutely! Spell checker overridden on that one. (...) Hmmm. Interesting point, but not (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle.
|
|
(...) Snipping all that stuff that I didn't write.... (...) Kind of like someone from Boston, "I have to pahk the cah." Even my Boston Terrier has to bark, "Bahk, bahk!" :-) Canadians are hard to pick out, but I can usually do it (and these are (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle, weekly update
|
|
Let's see.... Tim's 'lawyers giving marital advice' got a guernsey after all 'Brikish' stands for now, while the issue remains open The pics and description of Shangrila were filled out a bit There are a couple of pics of the HMS Guy Fawkes making (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle, weekly update
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoFJJ0.76H@lugnet.com>) wrote at 13:15:26 (...) And I want some of the stuff *you're* on as well :-) Not quite a moral imperative, but what if Aurora got captured somewhere, and John E. needed a big ship to (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle, weekly update
|
|
Tony Priestman wrote (...) I like this. How do I do minifigs in the appropriate (skimpy) garb - or do you know something about TLCs next release that I don't? regards Richard Still baldly going... Check out Port Block at (URL) the change in URL - (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle, weekly update
|
|
<FoCEr4.D8C@lugnet.com> <FoFJJ0.76H@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) A cow? :) (...) *LOL* I love the name! I wonder, do they have a problem with the powder magazine on that ship...? Or (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote (...) <<snip>> (...) battle, a happy ending, *and* a tweak of the nose of an amoral Establishment. COOL. In fact this is SO cool, it probably deserves the two syllable rating; COOO-WEL. Agamemnon under Doolittle v a 2 deck slaver! (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle, weekly update
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<FoG7w2.BKt@lugnet.com>) wrote at 22:02:14 (...) 'fraid not. Time to call in craigo... Although, thinking about it, an adapted Islander babe might do the trick. (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
<38824981.7374FB63@p...t.msu.edu> <FoGAr7.1Fv@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) Thank God it wasn't any better, or you would have "kewled" me or something (or is that a "1.5" cool?). It (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote a truly epic story. It needs a bit of a beginning. How about..... So, at the height of their (John E. and Aurora's) success, while Waite is broken and penniless having blown his not inconsiderable fortune in vain (and often comic) (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
<3882AC0B.420D2906@p...t.msu.edu> <FoHHML.7B6@lugnet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit (...) I like it! However, I still really like the theft-with-the-help-...ber-locals thing--after all, that ship (...) (25 years ago, 17-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote (...) theft-with-the-help-...ber-locals thing--after all, that ship will take quite a few people to operate, even if the captain goes along with it (because in order for it to succeed, you've got to do it without most of the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle (Update)
|
|
Guys, Now I know replying to your own posts is not exactly de rigeur, but I could use the expertise of someone who knows something about sailing ships. John E Doolittle has managed to rescue the (I've had just about enough of thinking of (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle (Update)
|
|
Guys, Now I know replying to your own posts is not exactly de rigeur, but I could use the expertise of someone who knows something about sailing ships. John E Doolittle has managed to rescue the (I've had just about enough of thinking of (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle (Update)
|
|
(...) Hard a'starboard. A command that will actually turn the boat to the left (port, larboard). The command is which way to turn the wheel, not the boat. I think (and here I was watching the America's Cup last night and didn't notice how it works (...) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle (Update)
|
|
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fp0A9s.4wq@lugnet.com>) wrote at 18:05:52 (...) 200 yards. (...) More when I've read it myself :-) (25 years ago, 27-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) boat. I (...) notice (...) Really? So I turn the wheel left to steer right. I didn't know that. I though only airplanes were that cock-eyed. And despite having taken the wheel of HMS Bounty (the one they (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Tony Priestman wrote (...) Cool. Anyone know how long a chain was? How about a league? And a fathom was about 6 feet, yes? And thanks for the email - I'll get those corrections sorted out over the weekend. regards Richard Still baldly going... Check (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Quoting from the book [1]: <quote> Units of Linear Measure 1 chain = 100 links = 66 feet 1 mile = 80 chains = 5280 feet Units of Area 1 acre = 10 square chains = 43,560 square feet 1 square mile = 640 acres The chain unit, devised in the seventeenth (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Ray Sanders wrote (...) For every fact there is at least one person who knows it. This internet thingie - very clever! Thanks Ray. Richard Still baldly going... Check out Port Block at (URL) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) Not really suited for the seafarer. They tended to use the League, Fathom and Cable. Don't have the specifics for each at hand, but might be able to locate. Like the Story, am sorry my own Lego Dark Age lasted through Pirates. Hope they (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) locate. (...) Found it! Main Entry: league Pronunciation: 'lEg Function: noun Etymology: Middle English leuge, lege, from Late Latin leuga Date: 14th century 1 : any of various units of distance from about 2.4 to 4.6 statute miles (3.9 to 7.4 (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) I grew up with small sailboats that only had a tiller, where you push the tiller one way to go the other. But I've specifcally read somewhere that "hard a'starboard" is the command for the wheel and the ship very specifcally goes the other (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) I bow to the other post on the chain. A league is variable, but usually three miles. A fathom is six feet. It should be noted a nautical mile is 6000 feet, not 5280. Bruce (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) Since my knowledge of maritime issues extends only far enough to know that a whale is not a fish, I ask the following question: How many whats are in a "knot?" Is it shorthand for "nautical mile?" Is it a standard value, or is it a more (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) three (...) Ah... A Knot is 12 feet, or a Nautical Mile. Drop a float overboard, and count how many Knots go through your hands in (forget how many seconds). This tells you how fast you are moving relative to the water, in Nautical Miles per (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) I think I read or saw somewhere that this same tactic was used in WWII (Battle of Midway, maybe?). It's cool (insofar as war is cool) that such venerable methods still see use in more modern times. Dave! (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) three (...) Webster's Dictionary says: <quote> In nautical usage knot is a unit of speed, not of distance, and has a built-in meaning of “per hour.” Therefore, a ship would strictly be said to travel at ten knots (not ten knots per hour). (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) three (...) Here ya go 7 a : a division of the log's line serving to measure a ship's speed b (1) : one nautical mile per hour (2) : one nautical mile -- not used technically They would measure the ship's speed by dropping a piece of wood (the (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) He (...) The tactic does still hold with turret mounted guns, the enemy can still only bear a fraction of his firepower, while you can use all of yours. Missiles on the other hand negate that advantage entirely. (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) Heh. Yeah, I guess it's a lot different when you can fire more-or-less from all directions... Dave! (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) a (...) a (...) The term was, "heaving the log". Bruce (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) He (...) The fleets never saw each other at the Battle of Midway (aircraft carrier warfare). The Battle of Jutland in WWI would be more appropriate. The entire british fleet crossed the T on the german fleet. The germans used their "battle (...) (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) Yeah--I guess aircraft carriers don't shoot at each other that much... (...) Maybe that's the battle I read/heard about. Thanks for the info! Dave! (25 years ago, 28-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Lance Scott wrote in message ... (...) measurement. (...) and (...) locate. Right. Cables it is. (...) Sympathies. Look sharp though, there still be a few treasures to be found. (...) enemy. (...) He (...) volley. (...) each (...) the (...) Mmmm. In (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote (...) How about if the helmsman, instead of 'slammed the wheel hard a'starboard', 'pushed the wheel hard over, and the Aurora heaved sharply to starboard'.? (...) and (...) Wasn't lady Washington the Enterprise of Trek 7? (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) only (...) from (...) Ok, sounds good. So what's the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century equivalent of a missile system - a carronade? ;-) Richard Still baldly going... Check out Port Block at (URL) the (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<Fp2xL2.D31@lugnet.com>) wrote at 04:23:36 (...) I don't think so - carronades were only good a short range. You might be able to put a very large cannon on a very small, fast ship, but even so, you'd probably (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
In lugnet.pirates, Tony Priestman writes: (major snippage) (...) Hmmmmmmm. Wood. Hmmm...mmm. Canvas. So which ship are you planning to sink? The target or your own? :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fp3tv1.Lx5@lugnet.com>) wrote at 16:01:49 (...) Yes, I had the same thoughts, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs :-) I can see the added risk making for a few comic situations! I can't find (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: "Hard a starboard" (was John E. Doolittle)
|
|
OK, now that I've recovered, but lost all the knowledge of which messages I had read... (I've been thinking of writing my own customized newsreader, OEs little crashes are making me seriously consider it...) Bruce Schlickbernd wrote in message ... (...) (25 years ago, 29-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: "Hard a starboard" (was John E. Doolittle)
|
|
(...) Well done. Thanks for the excellent refernce. Yes, the America's Cup boats turn in the direction of the wheel. I learned to sail before I could drive, so the opposite direction tiller thing never bugged me. Bruce (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Tony Priestman and Bruce Schlickbernd wrote about the relspective meruts of rockets as an offensive weapon aboard late 17th and early 18th century warships. Ok ok ok. How about a barge-like monitor? No sails or rigging to set afire while arguing (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Richard Parsons wrote in message ... (...) of (...) 'relspective meruts'? - why do I pay this spellchecker anyway? Come here little spellchecker. Look at this. 'respective merits', see? Get it? Why is this so hard? Now go and write "I will always (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
On Sun, 30 Jan 2000, Richard Parsons (<Fp4ws7.16n@lugnet.com>) wrote at 06:03:01 (...) But what about the poor souls you'd have to leave on it to fire the ordnance? They'd almost certainly be captured. (...) This is more like it. I can see a tactic (...) (25 years ago, 30-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Got an Idear for ya, Matey! Set during the illustrious career of the indomitable J.E. Doolittle, Capt., etc., etc. Doolittle hears rumours of another Brikish Museum expedition to "gather native artifacts for preservation by the infinitely more (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Lance Scott (<Fp7GBq.AzK@lugnet.com>) wrote at 14:59:50 (...) <*massive* snip> (...) groan! (...) With stuff as good as that, you should be settin' up with a nice little ship of yer own! :-) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) Hmmm, well, that would seem to work. Don't quite know why it wasn't tried (or maybe it has been, but I haven't run across it yet). Too slow to aim, especially when the target is moving? I think it would work best as a surprise weapon under (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Bruce Schlickbernd (<Fp7nEI.50G@lugnet.com>) wrote at 17:32:42 (...) Arr! And throw lubbers to the sharks! (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) I'll be needin' some Pirate set's then. Me own DarkAge lasted through Pirates, more's the pity. Certainly have considered it, might be able to cobble somethin' together with other bits an' pieces, but I might have to fight off a suit from a (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) Ye be making a mistake. Lubbers be good fer sumting 'board ship. We need sumone ta be pulling on the lines and hawsers, an' reefin' the sails. Timmies we throw to the sharks. It not be wise ta get me a'goin' on the subject o' Timmies again... (...) (25 years ago, 31-Jan-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) Ack, no. The only side with battleships at Midway was Japanese, and they never took any part of the battle (they were part of the "invasion force"). It was a purely carrier-driven action (with bits of submarineness about). You may be thinking (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) Yeah, but if you need *guidance*, you need the only sort of guidance system available in the age of sail: Well-liquored sailin' wretches and Greek Fire. I'm thinking of the destruction of the USS Philadelphia at Tripoli by a small party after (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) Thanks for the clarification! Elsewhere Bruce was able to de-fog my mind on the subject, as well. I've so much to learn! (...) Hmm. I wish I could remember where I first heard about this, because my recollection seems to resemble the battle (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) It was tried--in 1862. That was part of the theory behind the Confederate ram Virginia (formerly the Federal frigate USS Merrimack). It just sort of sailed in and among the blockade force at Hampton Roads, and caused mayhem. However, ships (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) That last is the classic example of how steam changed the tactical lexicon. The Royal Navy hadn't even considered the possibility that this could be done, because it couldn't be done under sail in anything approaching an orderly manner. The (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
In lugnet.pirates, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes: (with various others, but the attribs get confusing) (...) could (...) (or (...) in (...) ships (...) impossible (...) I (...) Are you refering to congreaves (which is what this is primarily about) (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) Von Manstein's book, _Lost Victories_ came to the same conclusion. Von Manstein advocated a strategic retreat along the Stalingrad front for the winter, letting the Russians deal with reclaiming the land, then crushing them in the spring when (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) No, I'm referring to barge-like platforms. (...) best, Lindsay (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Tony Priestman wrote (...) Capt., (...) Ditto! I love it! Why is there no website, Lance Scott commanding? I mean, I'm happy to host the story, and eventually put pics to it, and it fits in perfectly (top marks) but but but, what other ideas might (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
Bruce Schlickbernd wrote (...) about (...) Richard Still baldly going... Check out Port Block at (URL) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) through a very echo-ey place here) Capt. Doolittle needs a Nemesis. A thorn in his side. How about the Captian that Waite hires to un-do Dolittle? Meet Captain Otto von Wurstluk. (fanfare and appropriately martial music comes up). Captain (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
SNIP (...) comes (...) Awfully sorry about that, it seems he already has several people in a not-happy mood at him. That's what I get for not re-reading the back-story. Perhaps Capt. Otto vW can be the "worst" sort of merchantman Doolittle takes on. (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
| |
| | Re: John E. Doolittle
|
|
(...) There's a book by David Drake called Surface Action. It's sci-fi about a mostly water world and the conflicts that arise on it. During the climactic naval battle the "good" guys took one of their monitors and disguised it as a floating wreck. (...) (25 years ago, 8-Feb-00, to lugnet.pirates)
|
