Not much, is it?
But this gives me something to work on when my needle-pushing finger is too mangled to push a needle.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Friday, November 12, 2010
Compare and contrast
Another reason I'm glad I don't live in Californina -- asking a kid to remove an American flag from his bike "for his own safety". The idea has me so livid I just sputter when I try to articulate it. It is infurating on countless levels.
Compare with what Sweet Daughter brought home from school yesterday:
I'm sure she wasn't the only kid in her class that got to say that her Daddy and both grandfathers were veterans (although I bet she's the only one with a grandfather who fought in WWII). I don't think telling a kid to take his American flag off his bike would go over very well here.
H/T to Alan and my Blogfather.
Compare with what Sweet Daughter brought home from school yesterday:
I'm sure she wasn't the only kid in her class that got to say that her Daddy and both grandfathers were veterans (although I bet she's the only one with a grandfather who fought in WWII). I don't think telling a kid to take his American flag off his bike would go over very well here.
H/T to Alan and my Blogfather.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
A Petition to allow students and faculty with CHPs to carry at ODU
From a VCDL VA-Alert:
The students at Old Dominion University have grown tired of being disarmed by the University while crime is rampant around them. A group of students dedicated to changing the University's ban on self-defense have put together an on-line petition that urges the University to allow students, faculty, and staff with CHPs to carry on campus.
The organizers want signatures of ODU students, faculty, staff AND concerned citizens from around the state:
You can go here to sign the petition.
You can go to WAVY (it's a NBC, what can I say?) to see more.
I signed it and ask Joe Huffman's Just one question.
The students at Old Dominion University have grown tired of being disarmed by the University while crime is rampant around them. A group of students dedicated to changing the University's ban on self-defense have put together an on-line petition that urges the University to allow students, faculty, and staff with CHPs to carry on campus.
The organizers want signatures of ODU students, faculty, staff AND concerned citizens from around the state:
You can go here to sign the petition.
You can go to WAVY (it's a NBC, what can I say?) to see more.
I signed it and ask Joe Huffman's Just one question.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
What do these 3 things have in common?
The United States Marines
The Edmund Fitzgerald
The Colt .45 Special Army Model of 1910
And the answer is ... November 10th!
Today is the 235th anniversary of the founding of the USMC, the Edmund Fitzgerald sank 35 years ago, and 100 years ago, the Ordnance Officers’ Board began testing John M. Browning’s (PBUH) Colt .45 Special Army Model of 1910 against the Savage Arms .45 caliber Model H.
In the end, the Colt weapon proved more easily field stripped, more accurate, and more reliable, with 12 malfunctions requiring replacement of 4 components, while the Savage had 43 malfunctions requiring replacement of 13 components.
Go get your gun geek* on and read the whole thing.
* Speaking of gun geek, Shorter Half added:
Wikipedia (in case you haven't already checked it out) is here.
US Army started testing Browning (PBUH) semiauto pistols, starting with this .38ACP (NOT .380ACP!!! – the .380ACP is a later, smaller, cartridge) in 1899. By 1906, the poor performance of the (then brand new) .38 Long Colt revolvers against Muslim fanatics in the Philippines made the Army insist on going back to a .45 caliber pistol. (A typical instance occurred in 1905 and was later recounted by Col. Louis A. LaGarde: "Antonio Caspi, a prisoner on the island of Samar, P.I. attempted escape on Oct. 26, 1905. He was shot four times at close range in a hand-to-hand encounter by a .38 Colt's revolver loaded with U.S. Army regulation ammunition. He was finally stunned by a blow on the forehead from the butt end of a Springfield carbine." Col. LaGarde noted Caspi's wounds were fairly well-placed: three .38 bullets entered the chest, perforating the lungs. One passed through the body, one lodged near the back and the other lodged in subcutaneous tissue. The fourth round went though the right hand and exited through the forearm. Wikipedia, .38 Long Colt – COL LaGarde is a big name in the .45 world, and this incident is well-attributed, even if I did swipe it from Rumorpedia.)
The 1907 version was the first to do away with the original “parallel rule” operating system (swinging links at both ends of the barrel, vs, the single link at the back of the 1907, 1909, 1910, and 1911). The 1910 version was modified to give the pistol the grip angle 1911 shooters adore.
The 1910 model you illustrated was the beginning of the first really “modern” .45 we all know and love. The real difference between the two is that the 1910 Colt is a developmental version, and the Army officially adopted it in 1911, with some VERY minor suggested changes.
Trial History is here.
THREE DAYS after the 1910 test reports were written up, the Colt Special Army Model 1910 pistol was adopted by the US Army as the Model 1911 pistol.
The Edmund Fitzgerald
The Colt .45 Special Army Model of 1910
And the answer is ... November 10th!
Today is the 235th anniversary of the founding of the USMC, the Edmund Fitzgerald sank 35 years ago, and 100 years ago, the Ordnance Officers’ Board began testing John M. Browning’s (PBUH) Colt .45 Special Army Model of 1910 against the Savage Arms .45 caliber Model H.
In the end, the Colt weapon proved more easily field stripped, more accurate, and more reliable, with 12 malfunctions requiring replacement of 4 components, while the Savage had 43 malfunctions requiring replacement of 13 components.
Go get your gun geek* on and read the whole thing.
* Speaking of gun geek, Shorter Half added:
Wikipedia (in case you haven't already checked it out) is here.
US Army started testing Browning (PBUH) semiauto pistols, starting with this .38ACP (NOT .380ACP!!! – the .380ACP is a later, smaller, cartridge) in 1899. By 1906, the poor performance of the (then brand new) .38 Long Colt revolvers against Muslim fanatics in the Philippines made the Army insist on going back to a .45 caliber pistol. (A typical instance occurred in 1905 and was later recounted by Col. Louis A. LaGarde: "Antonio Caspi, a prisoner on the island of Samar, P.I. attempted escape on Oct. 26, 1905. He was shot four times at close range in a hand-to-hand encounter by a .38 Colt's revolver loaded with U.S. Army regulation ammunition. He was finally stunned by a blow on the forehead from the butt end of a Springfield carbine." Col. LaGarde noted Caspi's wounds were fairly well-placed: three .38 bullets entered the chest, perforating the lungs. One passed through the body, one lodged near the back and the other lodged in subcutaneous tissue. The fourth round went though the right hand and exited through the forearm. Wikipedia, .38 Long Colt – COL LaGarde is a big name in the .45 world, and this incident is well-attributed, even if I did swipe it from Rumorpedia.)
The 1907 version was the first to do away with the original “parallel rule” operating system (swinging links at both ends of the barrel, vs, the single link at the back of the 1907, 1909, 1910, and 1911). The 1910 version was modified to give the pistol the grip angle 1911 shooters adore.
The 1910 model you illustrated was the beginning of the first really “modern” .45 we all know and love. The real difference between the two is that the 1910 Colt is a developmental version, and the Army officially adopted it in 1911, with some VERY minor suggested changes.
Trial History is here.
THREE DAYS after the 1910 test reports were written up, the Colt Special Army Model 1910 pistol was adopted by the US Army as the Model 1911 pistol.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Remember the marketing fail?
I wrote about it here.
On the Wednesday after I returned, I sent an e-mail to the manager of the hotel telling them about my concerns. Nine days later, I’d heard nothing, not even a “Hey, we got your e-mail, we’ll get back to you”, so I sent a letter to corporate along with a copy of my e-mail. A week after that letter went out, I received this e-mail from the hotel manager:
Dear Ms. Nancy R.,
I would like to first apologize for my delayed response. I'm concerned about the concierge/time-share attendant issue you experienced at our hotel during your recent visit. I'm writing to thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to my attention.
We accommodate many guests each evening, and we strive to make their stay a satisfying one. The principal goal of our hotel is to provide dependable service to all of our guests at reasonable prices. Consequently, it's disappointing to learn that you had to deal with this situation.
Please accept my sincere apology.
I want you to know that the comments and suggestions we receive from our guests are taken seriously. They tell us what we're doing right, what we're doing wrong and how we can improve. Your willingness to share your recent experience is genuinely appreciated.
Please be assured that the issues you've raised have been addressed, and the appropriate action has been taken. A local time share company leases out the seat at our hotel and provides concierge services to our guests while trying to sell their spots, however this behavior was highly unacceptable. I would like to inform you that we have stopped the time-share program with them for the time being because of this and if it is started again we will not allow any of our guests to be harassed or asked questions as you were. We take safety very seriously and I greatly appreciate your feedback.
Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us.
We look forward to serving your future lodging needs.
Sincerely,
Hotel Manager
I’m not happy that they didn’t tell me the name of the time-share company (so I could contact them as well), but all in all, I’m happy with the outcome, and will stay there again.
On the Wednesday after I returned, I sent an e-mail to the manager of the hotel telling them about my concerns. Nine days later, I’d heard nothing, not even a “Hey, we got your e-mail, we’ll get back to you”, so I sent a letter to corporate along with a copy of my e-mail. A week after that letter went out, I received this e-mail from the hotel manager:
Dear Ms. Nancy R.,
I would like to first apologize for my delayed response. I'm concerned about the concierge/time-share attendant issue you experienced at our hotel during your recent visit. I'm writing to thank you for taking the time to bring this matter to my attention.
We accommodate many guests each evening, and we strive to make their stay a satisfying one. The principal goal of our hotel is to provide dependable service to all of our guests at reasonable prices. Consequently, it's disappointing to learn that you had to deal with this situation.
Please accept my sincere apology.
I want you to know that the comments and suggestions we receive from our guests are taken seriously. They tell us what we're doing right, what we're doing wrong and how we can improve. Your willingness to share your recent experience is genuinely appreciated.
Please be assured that the issues you've raised have been addressed, and the appropriate action has been taken. A local time share company leases out the seat at our hotel and provides concierge services to our guests while trying to sell their spots, however this behavior was highly unacceptable. I would like to inform you that we have stopped the time-share program with them for the time being because of this and if it is started again we will not allow any of our guests to be harassed or asked questions as you were. We take safety very seriously and I greatly appreciate your feedback.
Again, I want to thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us.
We look forward to serving your future lodging needs.
Sincerely,
Hotel Manager
I’m not happy that they didn’t tell me the name of the time-share company (so I could contact them as well), but all in all, I’m happy with the outcome, and will stay there again.
Joy
Shamelessly stolen from McBourne's Musings.
Because it makes me smile and cry and want to cheer at the end all at the same time.
Because it makes me smile and cry and want to cheer at the end all at the same time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)