On Thu, Jun 26, 2003 at 07:43:14PM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> >For shame, Mr. Devers! Oh, for shame! The Manchurian Gambit of 1978 has
> >been considered obsolete since 1981, after Lt. Col. Charles Monkfish
> >(rtd.) demonstrated that no feathers could exist at King's Cross station
> >without b
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Thursday, June 26, 2003 19:37 +0100 Ian Malpass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > For shame, Mr. Devers! Oh, for shame! The Manchurian Gambit of 1978 has
> > been considered obsolete since 1981, after Lt. Col. Charles Monkfish
> > (rtd.) demonstrate
On Thursday, June 26, 2003 19:37 +0100 Ian Malpass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
For shame, Mr. Devers! Oh, for shame! The Manchurian Gambit of 1978 has
been considered obsolete since 1981, after Lt. Col. Charles Monkfish
(rtd.) demonstrated that no feathers could exist at King's Cross station
witho
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Chris Devers wrote:
> > Bzzt! You're forgetting the effect of uplift in a fluid.
> >
> > Now, of course, we're assuming the feathers are in an uncompressed
> > state
>
> But you're forgetting the Manchurian Gambit of 1978, in which it was
> clearly demonstrated that this v
On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Ian Malpass wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, muppet wrote:
>
> > Ian Malpass said:
> > > On Thu, 26 Jun 2003, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > >
> > >> Meanwhile, which is heavier, an ounce of feathers or an ounce of gold?
> > >
> > > In air, an ounce of gold. In a vacuum, they weigh th
