Flyby PC

Wow, I'm not a fisher and didn't know any of that. If I'd somehow caught a fish like that I'm sorry to confess I'd have munched it for breakfast and been none the wiser about commiting any sacrilege. I often get trout when walking the dogs past fishermen. They have a two catch quota, and if I come along they can squeeze in another. Most will try not to take fish, but sometimes they bleed taking the hook out so they'll kill them if they're injured rather than putting an injured fish back. I'm happy with the occasional trout, but don't understand why people fish when they don't like the taste. It's not the sport I don't understand, it's not liking a delicious fish from nature's larder. Fried with butter and lemon juice, best breakfast in the world and very good for you too. MMmmm, MMmmm, my precious,..

Here here!. Excellent Lou.

Hmmm. I don't know. Something isn't right. I think the album is public Lou, but something is happening in the upload process. If I put the URL text in usind the 'input media' button, it just puts in the text, not the image. I seems there is something wrong between me and my gallery. It's working now. I'll leave it a while. It's Sunday lunch and my mobile broadband gets very slow at weekends. Thanks for the help all the same.

I've got it now Lou copying your image. For some reason my own upload turned pink twice. It's working now though...... I SHALL CHANGE NOTHING!!!! Thank you. Contact Pink just doesn't sound the same as Contact - Clear!

OK, here is what I am uploading, pasted onto the same screen grap as what I'm seeing. OK, that hasn't gone pink, so why is the original image turning pink?

Something is not working. I don't think it's the URL. The URL is linking to the image in the gallery, but the image in the gallery isn't the image I upload. The BOC logo is what I upload, the Problem 2 image shows the picture in my gallery, but when I actually look at the picture, it now has a pink background and blurred image. Edit - Wow, even the straight image post of the BOC logo has gone pink. Why would that happen?

Thanks Lewie, but this is the box I get right clicking pictures in my gallery. I get copy options, but nothing says copy image location, and the closest i get is copy target.. I know I'm missing something really obvious here....

Getting there, but for some reason its changing colour. Looks like its changing to a 256 colours or something. Where do you find 'copy image location'? I've copied the URL and got text, I've cut and pasted and got this colour issue.

Beat me to post it Tranquillo. These puppets are incredible. You don't see a puppet that looks like a horse, you genuinely see horses. Very, very clever. Did a quick check how many horses were killed in WW1. So many conflicting numbers it's impossible to know who is correct, but the numbers start in the hundreds of thousands and go up to 9 million. Wiki says the British lost 1 horse for every 2 men . It also says that of the horses killed, only 1 in 4 died in actual combat so to speak. That's a lot of dead horses. Not sure if those figures include mules either, but I suspect they do..

Sorry guys. My fault.

Thanks for that 77Scout. I get it, loud and clear. So THAT's what it was for. All makes perfect sense now. That'll be today's new thing learned. Feet up time again. This learning stuff is easy. Same time tomorrow?

Sounds about right Lewie. - http://www.teamgob.c...ms/enfield.html I have another question about this too. It says the magazine cut off was removed from the MkIII*. My question is, what exactly is a magazine cut off? I'm guessing, but from a Wiki picture, it looks like it's some kind of safety mechanism to cap off a loaded magazine and keep gunge getting into the mag??? Or is it a safety catch to stop rounds being loaded into the breech, that would presumeably be a safety catch on the loading mechanism as opposed to the firing mechanism? Anybody know? (I don't, it's not a trick question). I'm guessing is was not the mechanism (like the garand is it??) where the ammo clip pings out once it's empty. I believe that was later, when the US frowned upon using magazines. I suppose the magazine cut off could still be some time of quick release, but then you'd have called it a quick release, not a cut off. ???

So is this what we're talking about? I'd never have spotted the difference, and judging by pics on google, neither do a lot of people. Good to know though chaps. That's today's new thing learned, so now I can stop paying attention for the rest of the day.

The 'Lee' in Lee Enfield was born in my home town in 1831. Short Lee-Enfield Mk. III: Introduced on January 26, 1907, the SMLE Mk. III possessed a modified chamber capable of firing the new Mk. VII High Velocity spitzer .303 ammunition, a fixed charger guide, and simplified rear sights. The standard British infantry weapon of World War 1, the SMLE Mk. III soon proved too complicated for industry to produce in sufficient numbers to meet wartime needs. To deal with this problem, a stripped down version was designed in 1915. Dubbed the SMLE Mk. III*, it did away with the Mk. III's magazine cut-off, volley sights, and rear-sight windage adjustment. During the conflict, the SMLE proved a superior rifle on the battlefield and one capable of keeping up high rates of accurate fire. Many stories recount German troops reporting encountering machine fire, when in fact they had met trained British troops equipped with SMLEs. (SMLE by the way stands for Short Magazine Lee Enfield, but thats not because it had a short magazine, it was a short rifle in length, and it had a magazine). EDIT = Pinched this quote from the Great War Forum. (Thank you Brigadier General Derek Robertson). I never actually thought about the Enfield part, I just presumed it was a Mr Enfield. Aren't forums great places to learn stuff? The "LEE" in the Lee-Enfield denotes the name of its designer - James Paris Lee who was born in Hawick on August 9th, 1831, the son of a watchmaker and jeweller. When he was just five years old, the family emigrated to Gault, in Canada. From an early age James displayed an intense interest in all things mechanical and he began to design and build intricate pieces of metalwork. As an article in the Hawick Archaeological Transactions of 1969 recorded: ‘In 1879, he patented a bolt-action magazine rifle which marked the beginning of his success. His vertical box magazine, first used in this weapon, was a milestone in rifle design and the principle was to become a standard for all military rifles.’ He did not actually conceive the box magazine but he perfected it. The bolt-action repeating rifle that he invented, the Remington-Lee was tested by both the United States Army and Navy and soon attracted the attention of the British. In 1880, Lee’s basic magazine rifle, modified to fire a British service round and fitted with a Martini-Henry barrel, successfully eliminated several foreign and domestic rivals in British Service Trials. Trials were continued in Britain throughout the 1880’s with modified Remington-Lees. In 1888, prototype Lee magazine rifles were tested fitted with barrels featuring the seven-groove rifling of William E. Metford. This rifle, the “Magazine Lee-Metford Rifle Mark I’, was Britain’s first general service repeating rifle. It was a bolt action, .303 calibre rifle and had an eight-shot box magazine. British firearms experts began work to modify the Lee’s rifling to take better advantage of a newly designed bullet. It was called ‘Enfield’ rifling because it was developed at the Royal Ordnance Factory at Enfield and this led to the introduction of the first ‘Lee-Enfield’ rifle, which was approved for service on November 11, 1895.

I'll drink to that. I once got the opportunity to shoot down a model aircraft with a Gimpy on a firing range in Wales. We each got 500 or 1000 rounds (I forget now), and there were oil baths beside every gun to cool down the barrels. Most excellent fun, but much, much harder than it looks on TV. 60+ men, but in the whole day only 2 brought it down. I was credited with hitting it, but I didn't bring it down. I'll never forget it. We tabbed over the hill and saw this pale blue VW camper van sitting in the middle of nowhere with 4 gpmgs beside it. We all assumed it must be about car bombs, ambushes, check point duty or something, but when the man opened the door on these model aircraft, well, there's only so many ways that live rounds, machine guns, aircraft and big empty spaces go together. It brought a smile to everybody's face. I'm actually quite chuffed I didn't bring it down, because you had to go and fetch it if you did, and it might crash a mile away across a bog. 2 kills out of 60 attempts doesn't sound great, but it was all new experience, and it took 1000 rounds just to get your eye in. Army isn't daft you know, it's all worked out. That was tough, with 1000 rounds of 4 bit which you could hose the tracer onto your target. Firing on aircraft 1 round at a time? Fly swatting with a toothpick says it just about right. Mind you, flying parralel and having a duel would change the odds, but aiming one of those in a 90mph wind? More likely hurt somebody on the ground by accidentally dropping the darn thing than actually shooting somebody with it.

That blue grey haze as the horizon fades away makes a big difference to things looking real and somehow artificial. Can't put my finger on the exact reason why, but I have to say you chaps have got it looking 100% spot on. P4 screenshot are going to look more real than ever.

Bit slow to respond, but I've not been keeping up with world events this week. Just heard the vintage B17 Liberty Belle caught fire in flight earlier in the week, and was forced to make an emergency landing in a corn field. The crew got out safe and well, but the fire spread and consumed the aircraft, completely destroying it. What a shocker. 5 miles from the airfield with fire tenders. Fate at its cruellest I think. I remember how I felt when the last air worthy Mosquito crashed back in 96. It was just horrible, absolutely horrible, and claimed the pilot & co-pilot too. I don't know these days, I'm torn down the middle. These machines were built to be in the air, but they are just too valuable to lose. If I was at an air show, I wouldn't know the difference between a good replica and the real thing, and even if I did, I'd still be ok provided it was ahalf decent replica. As far as I know the Liberty Belle wasn't the last airworthy B-17, but RR299 was the last air worthy Mosquito and now there aren't any. Surely once these veteran aircraft number in the 1's and 2's, the time has come to stop flying them for entertainment and start flying replicas. We owe it to future generations don't we? I'm thinking in particular about one certain Lancaster.... 65 is the retirement age in the UK. Whatever a replica might cost we can build as many as we need, but the last original of anything is priceless and irreplaceable. I feel for your loss USA.

I support them flying 100%, - until there are only 1 or 2 left. Then I switch sides. There's also flying, and there's flying. I recall comments that towards the end the Mosquito's routine at airshows was getting more and more aerobatic in nature. Who needs aerobatics? Flat, fast, and low, guns blazing, = 1 exceedingly happy customer.

I had an idea which I thought might be a chuckle. OFF in the workplace. Picture says it all chaps. Here is a picture of two stone columns I've been working on.....

You're all very kind gents, and thank you. The stained glass is ok, but it's very basic. The glass I really like is the shaded glass, you know, the stuff with black shadows etc and real faces? It's the old school stuff, mainly found in churches etc. This takes a lot more skill and patience, you need to paint on a layer of black, fire it to bond it to the glass, then build up the depth like a watercolour. You have to be ready each time for the glass to crack in the kiln then you have to start over. Next time you look at stained glass, have a close look. Sadly I don't have a kiln, nor the skill or opportunity yet, but stone and stained glass belong together. One day though .... If I had a kiln for the glass, I might also be tempted to have a go hand making tiles. I've seen how, but never had a go. Fred Dibna eat your heart out. It's OK too about America, I'm not seroius about moving. I had two years in England and that was long enough in a foreign country. Besides, a big part of my job is the supply side of things. I know the local materials, and I know where to find them if I need them. I know who the good guys are and the dodgy customers here, and I know how to find work here too. It's one thing to live in a different country, but it would take me ten years just to find my feet. The money side is true however, I've heard some of the stone repairs we do here for £50 to £100 would earn you $1,000 in the US. Be nice to get a busmans holiday some time just to see for myself. When it comes to big bucks, I've heard it all before. Sometimes it's true, and sometimes it isn't. I had to laugh years ago in London there was a mosque being built and they brought over the tradesman from Pakistan or wherever, and paid them Pakistan rates. If memory serves it was 17p per hour. Cut a long story short, their employers were forced to pay them the minimum wage which back then was £3.80 or something, and back- date it to the workmens starting date. Kerching!!! Obviously Allah likes his stonemasons. Thing is, £3.80 was kings ransom to them, but a slap in the face for a British tradesman. It's all relative.

It's very kind, but please don't worry about me VP. I can still count my blessings. I'm fit and healthy and doing pretty much what I want to be doing. I certainly hope it doesn't fail, but if my business has to shut down, it's been a blast getting it to where it is, and curiously, I won't feel like I've failed at anything. I could not have tried harder. Je ne regrette rien as they say. It's hard to put into words, but this isn't really a job, in the way that being a priest isn't a job. The French have another nice way of putting it, (and they are much more enlightened about such things than the UK). They call their apprentices 'companions to the duty' and train them accordingly. In this I salute the French. We could all learn a lot.

That's perfectly alright Olham. You're very kind to say so. Photography can flatter stonework however, so what looks good in a picture isn't always quite so good in the flesh. It perhaps looks great, but it can still be difficult to make much money. My only luxuries in life are my 2 dogs - and the freedom I have to keep them with me all day. Sadly we're also not as big a company as we were this time last year. 80% smaller in fact, thanks to the cursed Banks. They didn't totally clobber us directly, but didn't half knock the stuffing out of our customers, - which amounts to the same thing. Time will tell if we have to get even smaller too. I'm quite pleased with my business, but strategically I fear it just isn't in the right location. There aren't many big jobs to be had within a 50 mile radius, and those city architects don't need to look 50 miles to find a stonemasonry company. I catch myself wondering how a business like mine would fare abroad too, maybe the US or Canada, but we have an expression that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. I've heard talk of silly money to be had in America, as in a tenfold increase in what you get paid for certain jobs, but in my experience it's never that easy and there's always a catch. Besides, home is where you're born and they all talk funny over there....