Useless Facts

I fear the painful answer is that she spent said money on exactly those.....

 

Well that sounds like a sensible approach to alcohol consumption

 

I like the Australian labeling system. They have a "standard drink" definition, which is (I don't actually know the number) ml of pure alcohol. In addition to the percentage/proof, every bottle or can has a notice on it telling you how many "standard drinks" the container... contains. Much better, from a consumer standpoint, to know that this 200ml flask of whiskey contains 4.8 standard drinks, while that jug of Sapporo contains roughly the same without having to do the math.

 

It take s longer to get drunk alone than it does with company.

 

Ill buy that for a dollar.

 

The oldest known ancestor of chelonians is Odontochelys semitestacea, which means “toothed turtle with a half shell”. It’s discovery led to new theories on the evolution of the shell and on the migration of chelonians.

 

All I heard was Chelada. Forgive me but its five o'clock somewhere.

 

This just reminded me of another useless fact related to turtles. There are some people that make canned jelly drinks using the shells of red-eared sliders.

 

I'm afraid I don't understand the question?

Alcohol by volume

 

Ah, I see now. Seems I've made a mistake, listing alcohol content is voluntary, not illegal. I could have sworn that I read somewhere that there was a law against it, must have just been something proposed, not passed.

Thanks for the gentle correction.

 

Although the tongue contains taste buds, it can't detect taste on its own. You can try this by getting someone to place something on your extended tongue, and then trying to identify it. You won't be able to taste anything until you retract your tongue and move the food around the inside of your mouth.

 

Additionally, if you hold your nose you won't taste much regardless of what you do with the food. (This can be quite useful, though, if you ever need to eat something that you think tastes bad. So it is technically off-topic. )

 

The RMS Titanic became the most famous ship in history when it sank on its Maiden Voyage in 1912, but did you know it had two other sister ships? The RMS Olympic and the HMHS Britannic (sadly, the Britannic also sank during World War 1).

Samantha.

 

And the Britannic sank in waters shallower than she was long, resulting in her bow crashing into the seabed before her stern dropped below the waves.

 

Yep! I find it both sad and interesting! I've actually written a short story, no actually a scene, about the sinking of the Titanic, but that was a long time ago. I found the sinking of the Titanic so interesting, which is why I went on to find out about the sister ships as well.


Did you know that black is the most common hair colour and red is the rarest?

Samantha.

 

Oh man if you want some seriously sad stories then you should look into the passenger liners that got sunk by submarines in the two world wars. The Lusitania was not an isolated incident, you know?

Also, I would like to introduce you to the phrase "rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic" as a more modern alternative to "fiddling while Rome burns".

 

It was the RMS Titanic and her sister ships that got me into history in the first place.

 

Yes I learnt about loads of the tragedys from the world wars, my dad told me about SS Mont Blanc (I think that was the ship's name) which was a massive tragedy which affected Halifax, two ships collided and one had explosives on it which exploded. Really horrible tragedy.

Oh yes I know of The Lusitania, and it was equally as devasting as The Titanic's sinking. I think every ship sinking is awful, I just said Titanic because it's the first one I read and learnt about.

 

Same for me.

 

Titanic is the one most people know because it was so hubristicly perfect. It makes for a good story on all fronts. Between 'unsinkable' and lack of lifeboats and it being it's maiden voyage and so on, it's all very ripe for a good yarn with an appropriate moral lesson.

The thing with civilian ships being torpedoed is that, while sad, they are kinda just part of the general 'war is hell' meta-narrative of war. Lusitania is the one people know about because it (allegedly) brought the US into the war, and because of some other factors too (see "...may as well lower hay bales off the deck of the Lusitania...". 5 points to anyone who can tell me where that reference is from). But Lusitania wasn't the first liner to get torpedoed, or the last. Which begs the question why we care so much.

A little historiography of Lusitania is interesting in it's own right here, starting as 'innocent victims of the vicious hun' and then becoming slowly more politicised. The suggestions she was carrying munitions appears (IIRC) to be true, which does change the complexion of it. The even more murky aspect of it is the suggestion that Churchill schemed to have American liners carry munitions so they would get torpedoed and thus bring America into the war is something that sounds like a conspiracy theory but which might actually be true. As Christopher Hitchen's once said "I have reached the point where there is absolutely nothing I wouldn't put past Churchill". The place where he and I differ is that I actually like Churchill more for being a black-hearted bastard who schemed so hard for king and country.

 

^^ Yes this. So true.
Yes it is interesting that we care so much, disasters tend to attract and interest people, my Grandad finds stuff like that very interesting.

Take care. I have a family crisis, so might be gone for a while See you later.

 

And you had the perfect text of the rich and poor struggling to survive on a doomed ocean liner. Guess which group suffered the most fatality? Hint: Not the one with the money and fancy clothes.

Hope it's resolved soon! <hugs>

 

T'was ever thus!