The 'Car Talk' show (on NPR) with Click and Clack, the Tappet Brothers have a feature called the 'Puzzler', and a recent 'Puzzler' was about the battle of Agincourt. The French, who were overwhelmingly favored to win the battle, threatened to cut a certain body part off of all captured English soldiers so that they could never fight again.
The English won in a major upset and waved the body part in question at the French in defiance. The puzzler was: What was this body part? This is the answer submitted by a listener:
Dear Click and Clack,
Thank you for the Agincourt 'Puzzler', which clears up some profound questions of etymology, folklore and emotional symbolism. The body part which the French proposed to cut off of the English after defeating them was, of course, the middle finger, without which it is impossible to draw the renowned English longbow. This famous weapon was made of the native English yew tree, and so the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking yew". Thus, when the victorious English waved their middle fingers at the defeated French, they said, "See, we can still pluck yew! PLUCK YEW!"
Over the years some 'folk etymologies' have grown up around this symbolic gesture. Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say (like "pleasant mother pheasant plucker", which is who you had to go to for the feathers used on the arrows), the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'f', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter. It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird".
Honest.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Operators vs Maintainers
I have noticed that there is a built in conflict between the people that operate things and the people that maintain them. Here is a good example of an airline company that put this conflict to use in a constructive way, with some humorous results.
After every flight, pilots fill out a form, called a gripe sheet which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The mechanics correct the problems, document their repairs on the form, and then pilots review the gripe sheets before the next flight. Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humor. Here are some maintenance complaints submitted by pilots and the solutions recorded by maintenance engineers. By the way, the airline these came from is the only major airline that has never, ever, had an accident.
Pilot: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement. Engineers: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
Pilot: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough. Engineers: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
Pilot: Something loose in cockpit. Engineers: Something tightened in cockpit.
Pilot: Dead bugs on windshield. Engineers: Live bugs on back-order.
Pilot: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent. Engineers: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
Pilot: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear. Engineers: Evidence removed.
Pilot: DME volume unbelievably loud. Engineers: DME volume set to more believable level.
Pilot: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick. Engineers: That's what friction locks are for.
Pilot: IFF inoperative in OFF mode. Engineers: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
Pilot: Suspected crack in windshield. Engineers: Suspect you're right.
Pilot: Number 3 engine missing. Engineers: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
Pilot: Aircraft handles funny. Engineers: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
Pilot: Target radar hums. Engineers: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
Pilot: Mouse in cockpit. Engineers: Cat installed.
Pilot: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer. Engineers: Took hammer away from midget!
After every flight, pilots fill out a form, called a gripe sheet which tells mechanics about problems with the aircraft. The mechanics correct the problems, document their repairs on the form, and then pilots review the gripe sheets before the next flight. Never let it be said that ground crews lack a sense of humor. Here are some maintenance complaints submitted by pilots and the solutions recorded by maintenance engineers. By the way, the airline these came from is the only major airline that has never, ever, had an accident.
Pilot: Left inside main tire almost needs replacement. Engineers: Almost replaced left inside main tire.
Pilot: Test flight OK, except auto-land very rough. Engineers: Auto-land not installed on this aircraft.
Pilot: Something loose in cockpit. Engineers: Something tightened in cockpit.
Pilot: Dead bugs on windshield. Engineers: Live bugs on back-order.
Pilot: Autopilot in altitude-hold mode produces a 200 feet per minute descent. Engineers: Cannot reproduce problem on ground.
Pilot: Evidence of leak on right main landing gear. Engineers: Evidence removed.
Pilot: DME volume unbelievably loud. Engineers: DME volume set to more believable level.
Pilot: Friction locks cause throttle levers to stick. Engineers: That's what friction locks are for.
Pilot: IFF inoperative in OFF mode. Engineers: IFF always inoperative in OFF mode.
Pilot: Suspected crack in windshield. Engineers: Suspect you're right.
Pilot: Number 3 engine missing. Engineers: Engine found on right wing after brief search.
Pilot: Aircraft handles funny. Engineers: Aircraft warned to straighten up, fly right, and be serious.
Pilot: Target radar hums. Engineers: Reprogrammed target radar with lyrics.
Pilot: Mouse in cockpit. Engineers: Cat installed.
Pilot: Noise coming from under instrument panel. Sounds like a midget pounding on something with a hammer. Engineers: Took hammer away from midget!
Monday, April 09, 2007
Apocryphal Irony
Bizarre Death - 1994 Urban Legend
At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS, President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story:
On March 23,1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to that effect, indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window which killed him instantly.
Neither the shooter nor the descender was aware that a safety net had been installed just below at the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned.
"Ordinarily," Dr. Mills continued, "a person who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide." However, since Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have died because of the safety net, the medical examiner felt that he had a homicide on his hands.
The room on the ninth floor, whence the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Mr. Opus.
When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant. They both said they thought the shotgun was unloaded. The old man said it was his long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother. The case had now become one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
Ironicly, further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son had actually murdered himself so the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
At the 1994 annual awards dinner given for Forensic Science, AAFS, President Dr. Don Harper Mills astounded his audience with the legal complications of a bizarre death. Here is the story:
On March 23,1994 the medical examiner viewed the body of Ronald Opus and concluded that he died from a shotgun wound to the head. Mr. Opus had jumped from the top of a ten story building intending to commit suicide. He left a note to that effect, indicating his despondency. As he fell past the ninth floor his life was interrupted by a shotgun blast passing through a window which killed him instantly.
Neither the shooter nor the descender was aware that a safety net had been installed just below at the eighth floor level to protect some building workers and that Ronald Opus would not have been able to complete his suicide the way he had planned.
"Ordinarily," Dr. Mills continued, "a person who sets out to commit suicide and ultimately succeeds, even though the mechanism might not be what he intended, is still defined as committing suicide." However, since Mr. Opus was shot on the way to certain death, but probably would not have died because of the safety net, the medical examiner felt that he had a homicide on his hands.
The room on the ninth floor, whence the shotgun blast emanated, was occupied by an elderly man and his wife. They were arguing vigorously and he was threatening her with a shotgun. The man was so upset that when he pulled the trigger he completely missed his wife and the pellets went through the window, striking Mr. Opus.
When one intends to kill subject A but kills subject B in the attempt, one is guilty of the murder of subject B. When confronted with the murder charge the old man and his wife were both adamant. They both said they thought the shotgun was unloaded. The old man said it was his long-standing habit to threaten his wife with the unloaded shotgun. He had no intention to murder her. Therefore the killing of Mr. Opus appeared to be an accident; that is, the gun had been accidentally loaded.
The continuing investigation turned up a witness who saw the old couple's son loading the shotgun about six weeks prior to the fatal accident. It transpired that the old lady had cut off her son's financial support and the son, knowing the propensity of his father to use the shotgun threateningly, loaded the gun with the expectation that his father would shoot his mother. The case had now become one of murder on the part of the son for the death of Ronald Opus.
Ironicly, further investigation revealed that the son was, in fact, Ronald Opus. He had become increasingly despondent over the failure of his attempt to engineer his mother's murder. This led him to jump off the ten story building on March 23rd, only to be killed by a shotgun blast passing through the ninth story window. The son had actually murdered himself so the medical examiner closed the case as a suicide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
