Roy, I really agree with you on some posts ("...so often "I agree" with no real offering or constructive information."). Other comments like "I really dont' have much time to work on my model..." yet they seem to have a lot of time creating length posts using a large amount of info cut and paste from othe web sites. I guess these types of people can't be creative in their own.
Lew

I virtually stopped using another similar forum as the alerted contents was so often "I agree" with no real offering or constructive information.
Even things like "I got it wrong again" on QoD score 2 points.
It is a bit like being the Captain's "yes man" and gaining promotion.

I like ranks as a bit of fun but as in life sometimes your boss can be a corporate idiot! Seen it twice at work where talk outshone common sense.
In one case a salesman did well in the company his briefings were greeted with all eyes on him.
Management thought this was good presentation technique and he was promoted.

The reality was he had a very large wig and we were all wondering if the next time he turned round his wig would stay facing us!

As with many members I have done a lot of other things not as an expert but in so doing picked up useful knowledge.

There are some very good threads running and I am still learning so please keep this up, for me the rest gets deleted.

e.g. I was not aware how much the keel on a fast boat affected the performance. But I do now!

Roy

Hi Dave and Doug, I would have preferred to write two separate messages (as usual), one for each of us, but to avoid worrying Doug, I'll write one (otherwise I'll raise my score too much and create an alert about Doug's graphs of me, hahaha).
I'm kidding, of course.
Doug, you place a lot of importance on your score and grade (remember, they're not actual grades). I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a fact that you worry too much about them.

Dave, thank you for the clarification; I appreciate your sincere desire to clarify and make myself understood.
I understand there are two issues: one concerns the ability to go back to reread and answer questions, and another concerns the ability to read the blacked-out questions.
I don't think I made a mistake or misunderstood in my message #5133 simply because I was replying to Doug's message #5129 (and not message #5131).
I thought it was clear from the context that my reply was to message 5129 and therefore message 5039; I assumed that.
I now understand that you and Doug were referring to the last question (the current one) and not the one from a few days ago, but in reality it all stems from Roy's message 5128. I could never reach 100% if I didn't also answer the old one.
I don't know if I was clear.
Apologies in advance for any confusion.

Now I'm replying to Doug again.

I don't know how effective Doug's protective shield (Naquada, Asgard, etc., etc., etc.) is; we'll see.

Regarding the possibility of reading obscured messages, you should have already figured it out. With your wit and ability to read between the lines, you'll remember that, several times in the comments, I stated that I didn't want to say too much so as not to reveal the answer to others.
A keen observer like you will have already deduced that this is only possible if you read the blacked-out section.

My reply (message no. 5133), in response to your message 5129, raised the issue of being able to answer questions from previous days.
At the message 5039, you could have simply admitted: yes, it's true, the advice was wrong because you can't read and answer previous questions.
Instead, you interfered with the personal choices of a single member.

It's one thing to express your opinion on contributing money on websites and forums in general, and another to interfere with the actions of a single member.
In my opinion, it's intrusive and inappropriate, as well as conceptually flawed.
How you manage your pension is none of our business, nor is how other members manage their pensions your business.

I've never complained about non-paying members experiencing delays in opening messages, advertising, limitations on the question of the day, etc.
So, whether or not to pay is a personal matter.
If forums were solely based on paying users, they would have very few participants.
Furthermore, I see no connection between the number of active participants with messages, photos, videos, and contributions.

Then the discussion was broadened further, and I noticed that some people (not just you, Doug) like to pretend to be judges, referees, and moderators even though they have no real authority to do so.
They even criticize the number of different messages instead of using the edit function.
I always used the edit button in the past (be careful, I'm justifying myself to a judge). Now I only use the edit button when I notice mistakes, but if I need to add something, I prefer to write a new message because I feel like anyone who's already read it might miss it.
Yet I'm not the only one who does this. Some people post repeatedly, but the criticism is directed only at me. Why?
Many people enjoy criticizing others, but not me.

There have been many criticisms, and many more could be made.
Here are some directed at me, others, or that can be addressed to many members of this forum.
-You write too many messages instead of editing previous messages-
-You post too many photos-
-You write too many messages even though you haven't built any ship models in a while-
-You create a new topic when a recent one on the same topic already exists-
-What's the point of your nickname?-
-Too much reasoning and calculations-
-This topic has nothing to do with the title-
-This topic has nothing to do with ship modeling-
-This topic has nothing to do with modeling in general-
-You always bring up work and personal experiences, you're too self-centered-
-You don't build anything or build very little, but only buy other people's models-
I could go on with the list, but for now I'll stop here (if I need to add anything, I'll use the edit button, don't worry, hahaha).
In my opinion, these criticisms are intrusive and inappropriate, pointless, and often driven by bad feelings.
What surprises me most, and even bothers me a little, is that some members who made these criticisms actually did what they were criticizing (and even worse).

But nothing surprised and amused me more than Doug's new count, demoting me to the rank of captain with a score of 3,980 points.
It surprised me because he took the time and effort to calculate what must not have been an easy one.
It amused me because it seems like points and ranks are real and serve a purpose.
Don't worry, Doug, call me captain (or private) if you like, hahahaha, I'm fine with that.

I agree with your post RN on contributions - I did wait a while before contributing, but that was to understand the site and to find the real expertise and wide knowledge of the contributors. Even the basic yearly contribution is not really a penalty. even for us pensioners.
Why not put a posting limit, after which you either contribute or your get a read only access? More work for Steven, but might be a thought?

Oh hell. Another damn sailing ship question.☹️
I'm 'all at sea' again🤔
Late 19th century??
Do I really look that old?
Answers please in a sealed envelope together with a pony (a 20 pound note for the uninitiated😉) to ... PM me for PayPal info😁
😎

Exactly Dave👍

😎

Alessandro,
Your post 5133- yes I did read your post 5039.
That is about a totally different function and has nothing to do with this topic; i.e. reading comments to QOtD questions before answering yourself.
Going back to look at previous questions, as your post 5039 refers to, is not the subject here.

BTW; apropos not being able to do that if you don't contribute to site (as you contend in your post 5039, I can only check if that is the case next February when my current contribution expires) ...
You have been a Basic member of our site for some years now and with your numerous posts (some multiplicity of posts within a very short time frame could have been reduced by use of the 'Edit' function) have risen very quickly to the rank of Fleet Admiral and have apparently enjoyed the debates here and maybe also learned a thing or two and benefited from the experience and knowledge of our members as well as contributing your own expertise.👍
So don't you think it is maybe time to contribute a few shekels/lira to the upkeep of the site which you are so obviously enjoying so much?
Or have you contributed but declined the addition of the corresponding medal to your avatar?
(EDIT- Does anyone actually do that? I doubt it.)
If you had you would be able to 'time travel' and answer any questions you may have missed.

As a regular contributor factually/humorously😁and financially🤑for many years -
I have to say that I am somewhat dismayed to see that over half of our senior Flag Rank members are merely Basic Members, i.e. do not contribute to the continued existence of the site which they are so obviously enjoying so much and often post experiences of their travels etc which indicate that they are not short of a bob or two.
And before all the pensioner members start an outcry - I AM ALSO A PENSIONER, since Feb. 2017.
But I still manage an annual contribution. I pay a single annual contribution rather than a monthly subscription as doing that reduces the amount taken by the Paypal or credit card institution and thus more of my donation actually goes to the upkeep of our unique and beloved site.
Also consider; the more we members contribute to the site we love the less we are likely to be plagued by intrusive advertising. We are not Google or Amazon and server hardware/space etc, etc must be paid for and we wish to remain independent, don't we?

Cheers All, Doug😎
BTW: Alessandro looking at the number of posts you have so often made within a very short space of time, often 3 or 4 within minutes on the same thread, instead of using the Edit function, I guesstimate that your true point score and thus rank would be- 3980 and thus Captain.
Not really earth shattering but just distorting the ranking/contribution picture.

PS (Edit - this is how it works Alessandro)
I've now erected my Asgard ZPM powered Naquada enhanced shield to deflect eventual phaser/photon/torpedo/drone attacks from basic members.
I have THE GENE😁😂🤣

Alessandro,
Doug was not referring to going back and seeing past questions.
He was referring to the fact that there is a way to see greyed-out responses for the day's question before you answer yourself.
Whether you choose to or not, is certainly your choice.
Dave B

Roy,
'I like to add logic to knowledge and really only challenge myself.'
Again I heartily agree👍On both counts. I've never played Bridge but, many years ago, Brag, Poker and Canasta.
It wouldn't have been half as much fun (but perhaps more lucrative😉🤑) if I knew what the other players were holding.
Where immediate knowledge/recollection fails many QOtD questions can be figured out using simple logic, and/or analysis of the syntax AI uses. That this doesn't always work is witnessed by my four recent cock ups☹️ Mostly sailing related. Not exactly my strong suit🤔
Interestingly; many neurologists and human brain researchers are proponents of the theory that we remember absolutely everything that we have ever experienced/seen/heard. Including from before our actual birth! Each new experience creating new synapses in the brain. Like adding a new zig Terabyte hard-drive/stick to our PC. It's ALL in there somewhere😀
Unfortunately with advancing age our file retrieval systems can go a bit wonky and return zilch or wrong answers☹️ So folks re brain and memory 'Use it or lose it!'😊

Cheers All, Doug😎

No, I can't do that, Doug.
Didn't you read my message #5039?

Hi Doug I think I would not like to know.
I teach Bridge play and I would prefer not to see another person's hand as it would spoil the game for me.

I like to add logic to knowledge and really only challenge myself.

Roy

Oh yes he could Roy. You don't even need to be logged in😉
It's a simple trick which I'm sure Alessandro has figured out.
He's a clever laddie.
Ciao, Doug😎

Hi Doug I thought he could not look on the answer comments until he had completed the question.
Roy

Wait for it Roy!
Alessandro can still do it, and he's been told the answer🙄
Doug😎

Wow! Nobody at 100% is this a first?
Roy

I always thought it was the Bell Rock Lighthouse

Alan, it was built in 1759 and set the standard for lighthouses built in the 19th century.

My daughter was at the Plymouth Polytechnic now University. She could see the tower through one of her windows from the flat where she lived.

She said if you could not see the tower, then it was raining.
If you could see the tower then it was going to rain!

Roy

C. Eddystone Lighthouse (Smeaton's Tower, 1759) Is not 19th Century.
Caught me out again

This lighthouse was moved to Plymouth Hoe when a new one was built on Eddystone Rock. It stands there as a monument to its designer, Smeaton’s Tower.

I have visited it.

Hi Doug, I figured you were joking, but I thought your point was interesting and worthy of discussion. We all knew the correct answer, though.
You're right, though, I can't always tell when you're joking.

The Lighthouse question. I had no idea, so I just picked the one that had the longest answer and hoped for the best!!😉
When I pick an answer and the tab says "Are You Sure". It's very rarely that I am very sure but with the Outboard motor one I was!!😊.
As for British Summer time--Doug gave the best explanation and beat me to it. 👍 🕶 💥 🕵️‍♀️..

The answer with the most words, for the win!!

Hi Garth / Ross,
UK does use British Summer Time; Spring forward - Fall back one hour.
But this is irrelevant to our QOtD as the question changes at 00:00 hours Zulu time = GMT.
Which doesn't change.
Cheers, Doug😎

As Garth said, can somebody in the UK explain your time change to the Canucks

Garth, your drop will be 3 and a third percent, rounded off, like mine.☹️

First off Canada changes time in the fall. The slogan is that time falls back one hour on Nov.2, daylight saving time, so after all the thinking about what time to answer the Question was 8.00 PM. Now it's 7.00 PM I guess England doesn't do Daylight saving time . I had to use AI to find the Question of the day Answer which was B & that was wrong. So how can Eddystone Lighthouse be right AI gave this reason Eddystone Lighthouse (C): John Smeaton’s 1759 tower was the first to use interlocking stone blocks, but it was replaced in 1882. While revolutionary, it predates the 19th-century standard-setting Bell Rock.P/S I would never know this unless I to lived in England Which I don't sorry.My score will probably go down 10% I guess.

Alessandro,
I guess you'll never understand British humour😉
You take everything much too seriously.
Cheers, Doug😎

Indeed, Ross, we're on the same wavelength, we agree.
For me, an airplane engine, even if mounted outside the fuselage, cannot properly be defined as an outboard motor, given all the considerations we've made so far.
The split has been split into many parts.

Alessandro,

Aircraft engines are removable, but it's about a 6 hour process for the purpose of maintenance, repair, and overhaul.

Just being difficult and nitpicking

Sure, Dave, but as you rightly say, I think this is an exception.
Interesting information, though, thanks.

Alessandro,
In message 5107 you state"Airplane engines are not removable".
The exception to that seems to be the McDonnell Douglas MD11 planes.
UPS just had an engine "self remove" from an MD11F on November 4th during takeoff.
But, I guess that is a different story altogether.
Dave B

...in my message 5105 I was referring to the Italian language, in fact I wrote: "
The word "fuoribordo," or rather "moto fuoribordo," is immediately associated with a boat or a dinghy.
No one here calls airplane engines "outboards." It's a linguistic custom." From what Oxford-Dave wrote, I note that (as I suspected) not even you English people call the engine outside the fuselage an outboard motor.

A self contained marine engine with an integral propeller that can be easily removed from the boat is usually referred to as an outboard motor.
The outermost engines on aeroplanes are generally referred to as engines.

... however, beyond any considerations made about the airplane, the 100% correct answers (so far) make me think that, in reality, no one has really thought about the airplane.

As Doug was saying, on a 4 engine aircraft, the 2 engines that are farthest away from the fuselage are referred to as the OUTBOARD ENGINES, the 2 engines closest to the fuselage are referred to as the INBOARD ENGINES.

I think AI is confusing the concept of internal COMBUSTION engine with internal MOUNTED engine

...let's just say that boat outboard motors can be easily removed and replaced (because they're not an integral part of the boat). Airplane engines are not removable.

Hi Doug, nitpicking again 🤣

Hi Doug.
Siamo d'accordo sullo Zenith.
I didn't even think about the outboard engine, the answer seemed so obvious. However, your point is correct.
All or almost all airliners have engines mounted outside the fuselage (mostly under the wings, on the empennage, or attached to the fuselage).
Fighters and other single- or two-seater warplanes have internal engines, but even there there are exceptions, and you can see engines mounted outside the fuselage (think, for example, of the Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II).
I think this is due to a lexical reason, at least for us Italians.
The word "fuoribordo," or rather "moto fuoribordo," is immediately associated with a boat or a dinghy.
No one here calls airplane engines "outboards." It's a linguistic custom.
Maybe your point was joking, Doug, but it makes a lot of sense.

Errrr.....

Hi Alessandro.
Re "In fact, it might be if you know the meaning of zenith well. "
FYI, from Uncle Wiki (AI)🙄
Zenith developed from an Arabic phrase meaning "the way over one's head," and then traveled through Old Spanish, Medieval Latin, and Middle French before arriving in English. As long ago as the 1300s, English speakers used zenith to name the highest point in the celestial heavens, directly overhead.

Ciao 😎

Thinks!🤔My bwain 'urts🤕
Aren't the engines on most large commercial airliners and larger military aircraft (B52, C5, C130, A400 and the like) also mounted outside the fuselage = outboard?😁😉
"Aeroplane is incorrect as it uses jet engines or propellers."
Strictly speaking irrelevant in terms of the question which only concerns where the engine is mounted, not what actually provides the motive force/thrust. 😁
Anyone ever sat next to an engine in the cabin of an airliner??🔥😮
Thinks 2: Do Cruise Ships count as Boats? If so do their Azimuth-pods count as outboards?😉

😎

Dave, congratulations on your honesty.
I don't criticize those who research sources before responding.
But I do appreciate consistency: those those who don't (as you) and who do it but admit it.

This time I thought the answer was obvious.
In fact, it might be if you know the meaning of zenith well.

I am down to 83%, now if this were a proper exam that would get you a 'Distinction' So I am happy with that.
Roy

So .... the QOD bug bit me, yet again.
I had been successfully avoiding getting "sucked in" for a while.
Then I made the mistake of "just looking" at a few questions.
I answered a couple of recent ones, some with knowledge, some with semi-educated guess, and some using the recently popular "longest answer" tactic.
Once bitten by the bug, I went back 30 days.
This got me 21 correct, 8 incorrect, and one where I had no idea so I googled it and didn't feel right answering after cheating.
I guess I'm back on the QOD train again for a while .....
Dave B

Longest answer...

Not in my area of knowledge at all.
Roy

Phew when all else fails go for the most words😀

I no longer hear speeches that question the leading positions and this makes me think.

Somewhat lucky guess today (11/15). It made the most sense to me ....