User talk:Randazzo56

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Randazzo56, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some links that can help you get started editing:

• The tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article

And for more detailed information:

• Help pages - the instruction manual, contains everything you could possibly want to know
• The five pillars of Wikipedia - our principles, or how to get on with other editors
• Manual of Style - how to format articles, where to place pictures, and other stylistic matters.

All of this information can be daunting, but if you have a question and can't find the answer, you can always ask me on my talk page or go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. One last thing: please sign your name when leaving messages for others on article and user talk pages using (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you enjoy editing!   --Malthusian (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Help desk 2 Talk page etiquette 3 bonnie and clyde 4 More inappropriate comments 5 I like what I like 6 Get A Job 7 User pages 8 Blocked 9 BACK AT LAST 10 want a laugh? 11 Everyone 12 aurora 13 Re: Harley Earl 14 Toyota Camry talk page 15 Your edits to Harley Earl 16 Harley Earl 17 Thank You 18 Vandalism warning 19 Evolution... 20 Your edits in Henry Ford and Talk:Henry Ford 21 Tom McCahill 22 in re: Kennedy comment on my page 23 On Bobby Kennedy 24 New Info on Monroe's Death? 25 Caliber designations 26 in re: your recent post on my talk page entitled "Bobby Kennedy"

Help desk

Your question on the help desk has been replied to. --Malthusian (talk) 20:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Comments like these [1] are inappropriate and will be removed. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 18:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Randazzo and I have talked, and I thank him/her for the coutesy, and I believe such won't happen again, and this user will be, as they were with Bonnie and Clyde, a positive contributer! old windy bear 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

bonnie and clyde

I was not the source of the "battery acid" quote - I am well aware most (though not all, some reports do indicate it was leaking battery acid from the old, huge, batteries which did the msot damage) say it was fire damage from being trapped underneth a red hot frame from the fire -- but yours was a good edit. and congrats, and also thank you for talking to me about the other comment - that takes a big person, and a good one. You will make a fine user here, helping! old windy bear 22:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

More inappropriate comments

[2] It's not appropriate -- it's uncivil and hurtful. I am blocking you for 24 hours; please stop making comments like this, or the block will be longer next time. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I like what I like

Please don't tell me what cars I like and what cars I don't like. If I like the Eagle Premier (which, by the way, is not an "impossible to repair", "throw away" car like you claim it is), then tough. --ApolloBoy 02:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, STOP harassing me about my choices in cars. I know all about Chrysler engines and transmissions; I don't need your advice. If you leave another demeaning message on my talk page again, I will be forced to take action against you. --ApolloBoy 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

ApolloBoy I was asked as a disinterested party to look at the comments you deleted from Randazzo56 on your talk page. I realize it is your talk page, but it is generally not good wikipedia Etiquette to delete someone's comments on an article just because you disagree with them. When someone with genuine expertise offers an opinion, it is not meant to attack you, or dictate your choice of cars, merely offering an opinion as to their reliability and the general cost of repair of that vehicle over it's lifetime. As to your articles, you need to understand, as I had to, that anyone may edit them, mercilessly, and the three revert rule applies to you as well as the user editing. You seem very well versed on automobiles, and I am sure it is frustrating to have your expertise questioned, but again, I had to learn on history issues, (I am a historian), that MANY people have expertise, and many of them will disagree with you! The comments in question were not personally demeaning, or an attack on you, just a statement on the car. old windy bear 13:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I never directly said he was challenging my expertise. The way he arose his opinions made it sound like he was being demeaning towards me. He's also attacked me as well, if you look at the vandalism he did on the Requests for Investigation page. An top of that, I still think Fat Carl and the AOL IP that vandalized my talk page are his sockpuppets, since they both edited similar pages and edited my talk page in less than 2 hours. --ApolloBoy 05:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

ApolloBoy Good morning! I honestly do not believe he was trying to personally challange your expertise, which is pretty formidable, by the way. I really believe at the onset he was just commenting on repair issues. I think that was simply a professional disagreement between two experts, and you and I both know that happens on wikipedia a great deal! Lord, if you look at the disagreements I have had on some of the history articles I have worked on, you would think they were dogfights! I think he lost his temper on the request for investigations page, which I have done myself, when things turn personal. That was why I advised him to NEVER let a professional disagreement - because he is also an expert - turn personal. He is also a genuinely nice guy, and I really don't believe he meant to insult you - this just got out of hand, and you knom, from your time here, how easily that happens! I truly don't believe Fat Carl is a sock puppet of User:Randazzo56because both have been involved on different sides of an issue with the Bonnie and Clyde article. I have not known User:Randazzo56 to use an AOL IP either. In any case, I don't believe [User:Randazzo56]] will use your talk page to disagree - if there are professional differences, he will put them on the talk page of the article, where they can be discussed appropriately. I don't know Fat Carl and truly don't believe he is the same person. Again, they disagreed on a very heated issue on the Bonnie and Clyde article, which tells me that they are not the same person. Besides, I know User:Randazzo56 and believe him when he says that he does not use sock puppets. I think that was a coincidence, and they do happen. I appreciate your discussing this with me, and trying to reach a resolution that avoids trouble between users who both want to help wikipedia. You are a genius with cars. So is [User:Randazzo56]]! I think you would actually find you two have more in common with your love of cars than differences! Remember please that experts do disagree - something that was hard for me to learn, believe me! Wikipedia needs you both, and where you disagree, let it be on the talk page of the article involved, and both can discuss it professionally, not personally. Take care! old windy bear 11:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Randazzo56 As requested, I went and looked at the comments in question. I do not feel you left anything inappropriate. I would simply not leave comments on ApolloBoy's talk page, because he obviously does not wish to discuss his articles there unless you agree with him. As to the specific articles, you are free, as any user is, to edit his article. If you feel, as an expert, that those cars are hard to repair, (an opinion shared by many, look at their sales statistics!), then you are certainly allowed to edit the article to reflect that. The 3 r rule would then come into effect. If either party reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours they would be violating wikipedia policy. I would appreciate a link to the article in question, so I can look at that also. (I might add some things on those cars myself, because i support your comments on the talk page!) But as to his talk page, your comments were not inappropriate, and he should not have deleted them - but it probably is not worth arbitration. I just would not leave comments on his talk page, since he does not want them. But again, as to the articles, I have had mine (as you know!) mercilessly edited, and reedited, and that is simply the reality of writing on wikipedia! If your comments were deleted on an ARTICLE then that is a serious breach of wikipedia rules. Leave me a link to the article page, and I will check that.I strongly suggest with your expertise that you join project automobile, and instead of just amauters giving us opinions, we can have an expert! The link to that project is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles You merely enter your name on the project list - you don't need to be nominated or anything like that, and with your background, you are needed on that project.old windy bear 13:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Get A Job

At no time did I attempt to tell you what you may or may not like. I never offered any advice. Find a dictionary and look up the term "Demeaning". I simply offered my opinion on your article, which any contributer is entitled to do. If you cant take criticism, you dont belong on wikipedia. randazzo56

{Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. FYI: this post is in regards to your edits on the Wikipedia Administration's Investigation Page Signature^brendel 02:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

brendel is right on this one, don't let your distress at people lead you to make comments on them personally. I had to learn that one! Stay with the issues! You have genuine expertise on automobiles, in particular, and have every right to edit any article on automobiles, and defend the edit on the talk page OF THAT ARTICLE. Just be careful, don't give people who disagree with you ammunition to get you blocked by saying anything personal, no matter how irritating they are! I got blocked for the same thing, and in the end, saw that the administrator was right -- stay with the issues. You have made some very good edits on ISSUES, don't get sidetracked into personalities. On the opinions on articles, leave them on the article talk page, and as long as nothing personal is said about the writer, you may mercilessly rip the article - as users frequently do mine! No one who cannot take criticism, belongs on wikipedia, but it has to be criticism of the article, on the article talk page, rather than their personal page. (I personally don't care if people leave comments on my talk page, but i am less thin skinned than some. It is better as policy to leave disagreements on the ARTICLE talk page, because that is what it is there for). old windy bear 13:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for experimenting with the page User:Fat Carl on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. AmiDaniel (Talk) 01:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

User pages

Please don't edit other peoples' user pages. If you're the same person as User:Fat Carl, then you need to say so. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 02:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, no... if you want, you can just redirect that account's user and talk pages here to these pages, and just make sure to only edit from this account going forward. That sound OK? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

To this account. So if anybody clicks on the Fat Carl account's user or talk pages, they'll be redirected to these instead. I went ahead and just made the change. So, just edit from this account going forward. Good luck and let me know if you need any help. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 03:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

Hi. I have blocked you for a month for your activities today, which have included trolling, inflammatory rhetoric [3], altering others' talk page comments [4], and vandalizing other users' userpages [5]. Wikipedia has strict rules about conducting yourself civilly and refraining from making personal attacks. I know you know about these rules, because we've had discussions about them in the past. Please use this time to figure out how you can contribute to Wikipedia without falling afoul of these rules. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

((Quote))"Vandalism of userpages, inflammatory rhetoric, and altering others' talk page comments"((End Quote))

Thats the reason I got for my IP being blocked from this Biased, Censored, Myth mixing with Facts site called Wikipedia. Id Like you to explain to me right now each and everyone of those accusations without foolishness, what I mean is give me a "Real reason"...

The last one 'Altering others Talk page comments" Two Words DEAD WRONG! I did no such thing perhaps you would like to quote the edit history of this blatant claim...-Marduk

You can see links to the cited behavior above (links "3," "4," and "5." · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 17:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

AOL Denial of service vandal, please clean up long trail of autoblocks--205.188.117.67 01:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

BACK AT LAST

want a laugh?

randazzo56 Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.128.224.128 and look at that fool and my answer. Feel free to pitch in, you never minded a good rumble! old windy bear 21:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

randazzo56 Go look at what MyTwoCents is trying, yet again, to do to Bonnie and Clyde, which I will obviously fight, and would appreciate your help. old windy bear 11:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Everyone

Wants to be an "Editor" and choose their own rules. Erasing comments on talk pages is also vandalism. If you dont like vandals then perhaps its not a good idea to engage in this practice. Continuing to do so will encourage Creative Vandalism. randazzo56 00:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

aurora

hi i live in new haven, and the local paper carried a piece on the aurora, since branford is a local town. amazing vehicle! Gzuckier 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Harley Earl

That edit was made because the Anti-Vandal Tool said the last edit was vandalism. I believed it, and thus I reverted the edit. Selmo

Toyota Camry talk page

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --ApolloBoy 18:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --ApolloBoy 20:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

ApolloBoy is 100% correct. Saying things like: "Go ahead, cry to the administrators about how I hurt your feelings, your a know-nothing little shit who needs to feel important. No wonder you atract so much vandalism" is completely inappropriate. Remember, we're trying to work together here to create an encyclopedia, and personal attacks do not help. Consider this your last warning against any further personal attacks against any user. —Mets501 (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Harley Earl

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Harley Earl. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. BaseballBaby 00:08, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello - thanks for the message. This is the difference between the way the article was before and after your edit. Your edit is full of punctuation, grammar, and spelling errors; it removed almost 2,000 characters (about 750 words) from the article; it removed headings and formatting consistent with the Manual of Style and replace those headings with words in ALL CAPS; and inserted several sentences that are completely unreadable. Any editor looking at your contribution to this article would call it nonsense instead of content. I was just the first one there.

If you have content to add, then add it using correct English, including proper grammar and spelling. Consult the Manual of Style and learn how articles are formatted. Cite your sources. However, if you persist in adding jibberish to articles, the community will take action. BaseballBaby 00:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me try again: I can't understand anything you're saying because it's so poorly written. You've replaced well-written, objective paragraphs with rambling nonsense. If you need help, I could help you put your thoughts and facts into prose, but right now it just doesn't make any sense. (What does his weight have to do with anything? Who cares about "industrial ventalators (sic) in his personal office rest room"?)

I won't revert it again because I don't get into edit wars, but you really should take it back to the previous version while you work to improve your text. BaseballBaby 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Harley Earl

I reverted the article by accident and I'm sorry. My anti-vandalism tool detected it as a false positive. I retracted this earlier, and I don't pretend to have any information about the washrooms. I'm sorry that you feel that I said somthing idiotic. Hopefully, this clears up the matter. -- Selmo ^(talk) 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Selmo, as per my resonse on your talk page, no hard feelings randazzo56

Vandalism warning

Please stop vandalizing the Henry Ford article. Ford has enough troubles this week without your ridicule. Rjensen 02:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Evolution...

Don`t be so cynical. There really isn`t one serious scientists who ignores the idea that there is life around us (i can`t say fact because that is the thing....given the sheer size of the universe one could say it is fact but due to the definition of scientific principles there are no scientific facts - this is a rather complicated issue about the current scientific dogma that is universially accepted and thought in universities et al). At last, that other civilizations "planted us" per se is excludable, as we can trace back our genetic (and epigenetic) history objectivly back to the earliest lifeforms from the kindgom of the archae. Moreover there is nothing all too unique about the emergence of life per se, probably it still is constantly emerging but before having a serious chance to evolve it is immediately eaten and digested by the now ubiquitous and way higher microbial species. At last for me it is a matter of fact that the universe is teeming with life (speaking in absolutes but not relative to the occurance of habitable zones), just as it is irrelevant to even waste a thought about contact with them: -a pure wast of ideas and energy because due to the sheer vastness of space and the limiations of space travel this can be savely excluded. See kardashev scale on how to measure a civilization, we are still all the way a Type 0!! civ., now imagine how many of those species out there are civilizations and which of them are type III. And now those civ. III, even if they possess the possibility to get anywhere in space with total disregard of time, the chance that they meet us is still extremely slim. Now all those probabilities combined (you know that independent events are multiplied) gives a chance that is virtually impossible.

There are however extremly good reasons to study the biology of extraterrestrial species, which is a protoscience itself. Such are Exobiology and Astrobiology. One of the reasons is that they tell us what to look for and far more important these sciences also tell us something about us, given that we are just a small number of a possible pool of lifeforms. BUT all life is just a weird property of nature, emerging from the laws of thermodyanmics and quantum mechanics. So the depiction of nanorobots in Sci Fi movies inhabtining other planets is nonsense, the whole idea of nanorobots is false and mostly nurished by people who are engineers and understand little of quantum mechanics/chemistry and physics at large.

At last whilst it is possible for a civilization to build a robot generation that self replicates and self sustains itself with energy, it is impossible for nature itself to make the step to such a robot, due to the thermodynamical twists and heeding of entropy. This is very complicated topic and i would welcome you to study those fields and be as amazed and fascinated by nature as many, many scientists before us.

PS: For me the most complicated task was to get rid of the ignorant picture (for myself) that we decide how nature behaves and what is logical and what isn`t. Because if so then what we are doing isn`t objective science it is religion. Slicky 06:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Okay i left an answer on my talk page. And please contribute constructively to wikipedia, if you get reverted more than three times than it is time to reconsider one´s own position. That is what makes it a good and valuable resource. Took me a while to get accustomed to that as well. PS: I haven`t read any of your edits but i noticed the accumulated request todo so on your talk page. Seriously believe me WP works, because finally there are enough ppl contributing to make it a neutral place. I am rather talking here from experience not judging you.Slicky 19:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Your edits in Henry Ford and Talk:Henry Ford

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism, and if you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. --Mantanmoreland 13:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Tom McCahill

Go ahead and add any usefull info on this guy. Beware however, that any removal of content may target you for personal attacks and creative vandalism. Ive read many of the road tests from Mechanics Illustrated from the fiftys and this guy was a trip. randazzo56 23:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

in re: Kennedy comment on my page

On Bobby Kennedy

You forgot to mention that he was a horse-toothed jackass who was directly resposible for the death of Marylin Monroe. He would have made a lame President randazzo56

There's no creditable evidence that Bobby killed Marilyn. It is a fact that he was having an affair with her (as his Jack had and god knows how many other men), but the Kennedy boys are notorious for their libertinism. Since their followers never seem to have cared about this, I hardly see how the affair becoming public knowledge before the '68 election would have mattered; thus it wouldn't have been motive for murdering her.

After all, Jack's assembly-line promiscuity was widely known before the '60 election. After all, as Sinatra supposedly said, "[Jack Kennedy's] a bootlegger's son who f**** 'em two at a time."

Too have been one of his "conquests" was considered something of a "honor"--as tho' being little more than a used condom is something to be proud.

Syndicated columnist Suzanne Fields once told a story about a party she attended during his presidency. In paraphrase, "A very well known female reporter, you would recognize the name instantly, walked into the party and brazenly announced, "I just came from the president's bed." There weren't too many female reporters of note in the early Sixties, weren't many period. So who was it? My guess? Babwa Wawa.

Just as when Monroe sank "Happy Birthday" to Jackie boy--so smashed out of her mind on Seconal--if you didn't get a clue they were more than just "friends" you had your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears.

PainMan 03:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

their followers may not have cared or noticed but thier political opponents amd other detractors would have. If this information would have been comfirmed prior to the '68 elections Nixon would have used it to his advantage. Kennedys motive seems clear in that Marylin planned a press conference that would have ruined Kennedy politicaly, he allready had enough enemys.

I don't suppose you can source any of this, beyond that so-called "documentary" that claimed Bobby was the perp in her murder? First, murder has never been conclusively established. She was a massive pill addict and a juicer. That's often lethal, singly or in combination (ask Judy Garland, etc).

Occam's Razor: all things being equal the simpler explanation tends to be the truth. Hoover--as well as the Mafia--were bugging Monroe's house and both had tapes of her assignations with both Jack and Bobby. Surely, if they'd had proof that Bobby'd murdered her, it couldn't have stayed secret.

I detest the Kennedies. But there's no need to either invent stuff or give credence to the loony in order to hold them up for the sleazeoids they are. PainMan 08:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

New Info on Monroe's Death?

I accidentally stumbled across this article. I don't really know how creditable this outlet is. I've heard of it before but can't, at this point, make a judgment about it.

Here's the URL: www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52493[6]

The story claims that the Giancana family murdered Monroe. As everyone knows, Joe Kennedy made a deal with Sam Giancana to steal the W. Virginia primary. This primary was, now and at the time, considered the test of Jack's electability. WVA was--and is--a heavily Protestant state. It was thought to be impossible for a Catholic candidate (God this sounds goofy in 2006, doesn't it?) to win WVA.

Joe Kennedy, using Sinatra as go-between, arranged for Giancana to rig the vote* (just as he would later arrange for Mayor Richard J. Daley to have dead people vote for JFK in Chicago, although even anti-Kennedy historians concede he would have won, even given the small margin, without the dead "voters").

Jack thus "won" W. Virginia and the rest, as they say, is history.

While there's no evidence of this, as an inference, it's not going to far to infer that since Joe had Giancana steal a primary he could have arranged the murder of a woman who was sleeping with two of his sons. On the other hand, Jack had gotten himself into "woman" trouble even when serving in the Senate in the late 50s, something the press kindly covered up.

• This is dramatized in the HBO film, The Rat Pack, starring Ray Liotta as Sinatra. It's well worth watching if you can find it.

PainMan 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Caliber designations

The old-type caliber designations were actually fairly straightforward. Most cartridges had nearly straight cases, with only slight tapers or necks. The only powder available was black powder, which was available in various levels of coarseness for different uses. Small arms all used fine grained powders, compared to the stuff used in cannon, the coarsest powder used was FG, for large bore rifles, FFG for medium bores (what we'd consider large today), FFFG for small bore rifles and pistols, and the finest, FFFFG, for small bore pistols and priming flintlocks. Assuming you used the right powder for the gun, then the burn rate would be right, and all you had to worry about was charge weight. A .44-40 cartridge would be loaded with a .44 caliber bullet and 40 grains of black powder; a .38-40 was a wildcat based on the .44-40, with the same case necked down to accept a .38 caliber bullet. Where this gets a bit confusing is in 2 areas: bullet diameter and case length.

First let me cover case length. Back in 1873 the US military adopted its first general issue, purpose made cartrdige rifle (the previous cartridge rifles had either been for cavalry only, or cartridge conversions of rifled muskets), the Springfield Model 1873 trapdoor rifle. The new cartridge for this rifle was the .45-70-405, a .45 caliber cartrdige holding 70 grains of powder and firing a 405 grain bullet. Later they did some long range tests, and decided that a 500 grain bullet had more range, and so they came out with the .45-70-500. Now, since black powder burns at a pretty constant rate for a given granularity, you basically load the cartridge with as much powder as will burn in the barrel length you have--any additional powder is wasted. When they came up with the carbine version of the trapdoor, the cartridge optimized for the long rifle barrel was too much for the short carbine barrel; the extra powder just blew out the end of the barrel, and added to the already significant recoil. The solution was to come out with a different loading in the same cartridge case, the .45-55. While they could have cut the case down (since they had empty space in it now) doing that would have meant that the tapered .45-70 case wouldn't have chambered in the shorter .45-55 chamber. By using the same case, if you were out of .45-55 ammo you could fire the .45-70 out of the carbine, it would just kick more and waste the extra powder. Other cartridges that differ by charge weight, such as the .50-100 and the .50-110 Sharps, also used the same case. Others, such as the .45-90, .45-100 ahnd .45-110 Sharps, used a straight walled case trimmed to different lengths, which allowed shorter cartrdiges to be fired in the longer chambers with no bad effects. Sometimes you'll see these cases referred to by bullet diameter and length, similar to modern metric cartridge designations, like ".50 by 2.5".

Bullet diameter is another place where things get weird. Did you ever wonder why a .38 Special uses a .357 diameter bullet, the .44 Magnum a .429 inch bullet, or the .45-70 a .458 inch bullet? These all have to do with the changes in bullet technology. Lets start with the .45-70, since we've been talking about it. Black powder doesn't generate a whole lot of pressure, relatively speaking, so sealing the barrel is kind of tricky. A solid bullet, like a round musket ball, may actually be too hard to obturate upon firing to reliably seal the bore. To address this in muzzleloaders, a cloth or paper patch was wrapped around an undersized ball; this was easy to push down the barrel to load, and the soft patch provided a good enough seal upon firing. The other solution was the hollow based Minié ball, whose hollow base was designed to easily flare and provide a tight seal. Since the .45-70 was designed to fire a flat based bullet, it was generally loaded with a paper patched bullet. A .45 caliber bullet would be wrapped in a couple of layers of thin paper, which provided the seal. This additional thickness around the bullet required a slightly larger than .45 caliber bore; add to .45 inches 4 times the paper thickeness (2 layers, double that because we're looking at diameter) and you get a .458 inch bore.

The handgun bullets are a different issue. The most common early cartridge handguns were cartridge conversions of muzzleloading revolvers. Since the cylinder of a muzzeloading revolver was a cylinder the same diameter as the barrel, the outside diameter of the case couldn't be any larger than the outside diameter of the bullet. This meant that a .44 caliber revolver had a cartrdige case .440 inches in diameter, and you still had to stick a .44 caliber bullet in that case. This meant you used a heeled bullet, which had a reduced diameter section at the base, usually with a Minié ball type hollow, that fit into the case. The best example of a heeled bullet is the .22 Long Rifle, which still uses that method. The downside to the heeled bullet is that to lubricate the bullet, you had to put lube on the outside of the bullet, which makes them sticky and prone to pick up dirt. Inside lubed bullets, where the lube is on the base of the bullet and covered by the case, are much better, but require a case whose inside diameter is as large as the outside diameter of the bullet. As new revolvers and new cartridges appeared, they used non-heeled, inside lubed bullets, but kept similar cartidge dimensions. This is why .38 means .357, and .44 means .429 in revolvers. The exception to this is the .38-40, which actually uses a .40 caliber bullet, a near ballstic twin to the .40 S&W. I'm not sure why this, and only this, revolver cartridge is backwards, maybe it was loaded with paper patched bullets?

Anyway, I've probably answered your original question and replaced it with a vast amount of confusion :) so I'll leave it at that. I am going to look into that .38-40 issue, though... scot 16:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

in re: your recent post on my talk page entitled "Bobby Kennedy"

If you really think that the 2000 election was "rigged" to elect the President, I don't think there's much we can agree on--in the political sphere anyway.

This subject has been argued to death 100,000 times over, so there's little point in refuting--tho' it would be easy to do--your arguments. There's just no point to doing it again.

On this subject I'm not going to change your mind. You're not going to change mine. And, frankly, I'm not interested in banging away on each other over it.

BTW: Lt. Gen. Hal Moore (ret), the US commander of the first major battle in Vietnam, in the Ia Drang Valley--the subject of the superlative movie We Were Soldiers--flatly disagrees with your analysis of Nixon's role in Vietnam.

Check out his book, co-written with reporter Joe Galloway (who, despite being a reporter, often fought side-by-side with the US troops he was covering), We Were Soldiers Once and Young.

But that too is subject that's been talked to death.

The most interesting thing Nixon did was to completely evisecerate the so-called "peace" movement. By ending the draft, he completely deflated it. That was a move of political genius. Unfortunately, his political acumen failed him badly in his handling of both Watergate and Vietnam.

These things having been said, perhaps there are other areas where we will have common ground. I bear you no ill-will. And I hope you don't take this post wrongly.

Regards,

PainMan 04:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)