From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
> In message <c-CdnXIhyIZ0ypzWnZ2dnUVZ_sidnZ2d(a)>, Neil
> Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>>"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
>>> In message <1e00g51800npsuco24380ml1u76jrfa7lf(a)>, tony cooper
>>> <tony_cooper213(a)> writes
>>>>On 15 Nov 2009 06:48:13 GMT, rfischer(a) (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:03:59 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
>>>>>><nospamclayton(a)> wrote:
>>>>>>>US units are a shambolic mess, inconsistent with each other and
>>>>>>>completely irrational for dealing with the real world.
>>>>>>And yet we manage.
>>>>>Only just.
>>>>>>The world that each of us lives in is the "real world". We, who live
>>>>>>in the US, have no problem dealing with our system.
>>>>>"No problem"?? How many yards in a mile? How many feet in a quarter
>>>>>mile? How many teaspoons in a cup? If you don't know those offhand
>>>>>then you obviously have problems dealing with the system.
>>>>If you have a legitimate example of how we have a problem with the
>>>>system, then state it.
>>> Interfacing with the rest of the world.
>>What specifically is the problem?
> The US will have to use the International systems when talking to the
> rest of the world. This means doing lots of conversions, holding dual
> stock etc
> For example the whole world uses ISO A4 and the US uses US letter.... so
> when the US want to communicate with the rest of the world it has to use
> A4 and for internal use uses Letter.

Why? I have sent letters to European companies using our letter size and
received replies from them, probably on their A4 size (they're close enough
that I never noticed any difference). Where's the problem?

> Dates are another problem the whole world bar the USA uses DD/MM/YY and
> the US uses MM/DD/YY it causes problems.

Again, not a problem. If I write "November 16" and you write "16 November,"
do either of us misunderstand the other? Besides, your statement is not
quite correct. MM/DD/YY is our standard civilian form, but our military has
used DD/MM/YY for many years. That causes no problems here either. My
sister, an ex-Navy employee retired for several years, still writes dates
that way.

And don't the Japanese still use YY/MM/DD? That is really the most logical
system of all, since it automatically sorts dates correctly which neither
our methods nor yours do. If we're going to change at all, we should change
to the Japanese system.

> It is no conscience to Americans who only interact with other Americans
> but as soon as Americans have to interact externally it will cause
> Americans problems, time and money.

It never has so far, that I know of. You are straining mightily to produce
an argument for an insupportable position.

From: Savageduck on
On 2009-11-16 06:07:32 -0800, Chris H <chris(a)> said:

> In message <2009111605502095335-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> writes
>> On 2009-11-16 01:00:35 -0800, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)> said:
>>> On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:25:50 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)> wrote in message
>>>> news:DOydnQgIzaeZCmLXnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d(a)
>>>>> "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:t28uf5hjm52ous6p5d4sren7rv8k86agfo(a)
>>>>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:03:47 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>>>>>> <secret(a)> wrote:
>>>>>> Blame Napoleon. He laid down the law for France and at the
>>>>>> beginning
>>>>>> of the 20th century France dominated the automobile industry.
>>>>> But sans Napoleon.
>>>> Hummmm.....I wonder if France had stagecoaches before their
>>>> automobiles, and
>>>> if so, were they operated from the left or right sides?
>>> Where ever they were operated from, ever since Napoleon they drove
>>> on
>>> the right.
>> Cite. You authority is in as much doubt as ours.
> I would be interested too... though it sounds plausible. Napoleon was
> into Standards and making France the Centre Of The World.

Napoleon might have set the French standard just to be different to the
English. I have not found any documentation to support that argument,
or the argument that he was responsible for the European right side
direction of travel convention.

After doing a little reading what I have found seems to go back to
horseback travel.

As most riders were right handed, by riding to the left of a path or
road the rider would be able to hold the reins with the left hand,
leaving the right free to wield a sword or lance. The riders passing
each other would also be free to salute to demonstrate less aggressive

Apparently the first English "rule" for direction of travel was in 1756
with regard to London bridge, and was encoded in the English Highway
Act 1835, Napoleon had been long dead by then.

The other left -right side issue was related to the way wagons were
driven. Coaches and buggies and such were always driven from the right,
with the exception of some London "Hansom" cabs which were driven from
the center rear, with reins running over the roof of the cab. Early
freight wagons had no drivers seat and were guided by a "teamster"
either walking to the left of the team of oxen, mules, or horses, or
riding as a postillion on the left rear team animal. This would give
the right handed driver the ability to whip across the team, and by
keeping to the right watch for clearance for traffic on his left.

The bottom line is, one way or another we are all stuck in history.


From: Neil Harrington on

"Chris H" <chris(a)> wrote in message
> In message <e4ydnf8Ny7zCwJzWnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d(a)>, Neil
> Harrington <secret(a)> writes
>>"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> wrote in message
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>> news:2009111517302780278-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> On 2009-11-15 17:24:37 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:
>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2009111517220470933-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> Well! - Sorrrrrry. I used to have a colt auto chambered in 9 mm. It was
>>> the most reliable auto I ever had.
>>You can't beat the good old 9mm, but you'll never convince .45 fanciers of
>>that. They all have an abiding faith in those pumpkin rollers and are
>>impervious to reason. ;-)
> Having used both the answer is "it depends" on why you are carrying and
> pistol and the conditions. In the 70's when I used a pistol the .45 was
> a better choice for operational reasons for urban work. For battle field
> work a 9mm.

If you mean because of stopping power vs. firepower, I think the
much-vaunted stopping power of the .45 is largely a myth. Several years ago,
two police officers wrote a book on the subject of stopping power (sorry I
can't recall either their names or the book's title), based on their
extensive study of actual shooting cases. What they went by, and graded
their results by, was the percentage of "one-shot stops" for every caliber
and load for which they could obtain data. Their conclusion as I recall it
was that stopping power was much more dependent on the specific load than on
the caliber, and the best one turned out to be a 115-grain JHP in 9mm, with
a roughly comparable .45 load close behind. Full-jacket loads in either
caliber fell far behind, not surprisingly.

Now at the time of their survey the .40 S&W either didn't yet exist or
wasn't as popular as it has become. My guess is that that caliber would
outperform either the 9mm or .45 in a real-life situation, but probably not
by very much.

My own belief is that it all comes down to kinetic energy, assuming a bullet
so constructed as to efficiently transmit that energy to the target rather
than wasting it on the scenery beyond, and assuming optimum placement of

>>> Generally, I preferred to carry revolvers, because I needed to know they
>>> were going to go off if I ever had to fire them. Also, I wanted to walk
>>> away with my empties still in the chamber and not lying someplace on the
>>> ground.
>>Yes, there are some obvious advantages to that. However, as far as
>>reliability goes revolvers can have their problems too.
> True and the problem is that when a revolver jams it is not easily
> fixable. At least 95% of auto jams are easily and quickly cleared.

Yes. About the worst that can happen is having the extractor override or
tear through the case rim, leaving the case stuck in the chamber. And that's
relatively rare.

> SO a revolver jam is usually fatal. This is why autos have a reputation
> for jamming, people cleared them and lived to tell the tail. When the
> revolver jammed no one knew.

Heh. That could be.

From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:04:02 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)>

>The US will have to use the International systems when talking to the
>rest of the world. This means doing lots of conversions, holding dual
>stock etc
>For example the whole world uses ISO A4 and the US uses US letter.... so
>when the US want to communicate with the rest of the world it has to use
>A4 and for internal use uses Letter.

Are you saying that if an American - individual or corporate entity -
wants to send a letter to a foreign entity that the letter must be on
A4 paper for the foreign entity to read it? That non-Americans are
unable to understand something because it is written on paper that is
8.5" x 11"?

You've said some stupid things because of your anti-American bias, but
this tops most of them.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:21:54 +0000, Chris H <chris(a)>

>SO a revolver jam is usually fatal. This is why autos have a reputation
>for jamming, people cleared them and lived to tell the tail.

So they had a brush with death?

(I'm sure that pun is over your head, so I'll explain that a fox's
tail is called a "brush".)

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida