Navy Net - Royal Navy Community

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

THAT'S HIM AWAY

Tas-ape said:
Don't think there would be much use for an Old X Big OD,
however, one thing I am intersted to find out is the first three on his offical number. Watch this space.... 8)

TAS-Ape

you can read his full number and name from his Part 1 Certificate shown very nicely in the pics.

Nutty

PS his D263 is a long way from my P064 in the region of 199,00 matelots seperate him and me.
 
Nutty said:
Tas-ape said:
Don't think there would be much use for an Old X Big OD,
however, one thing I am intersted to find out is the first three on his offical number. Watch this space.... 8)

TAS-Ape

you can read his full number and name from his Part 1 Certificate shown very nicely in the pics.

Nutty

PS his D263 is a long way from my P064 in the region of 199,00 matelots seperate him and me.

Should that read 199,000 Nutty?

Tas, if you haven't got the software, I'll edit out his name & number after the first three digits and email to you ready to upload. If interested please PM me.

Steve.
 
Always_a_Civvy said:
dt018a9667 said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
dunkers said:
Nicks I had 3 kit musters a week when I went there!

Nicks said:
My son passed out in March and all they had was 2 proper kit musters.

There's something not quite right here :?

Dunkers it looks like that ex-G-Place instructor might have been giving you a taste of the "good old days" before he slung his hook! :lol:

Nicks: I can't believe they scattered your kit round the mess. Nutty's sworn blind that these tales of woe and grief at the G-Place were all myths and got all my 115 remaining brain cells truly washed. 8O


No its true.

Which bit? :?

The G spot bit shippers.
 
Always_a_Civvy said:
dt018a9667 said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
Dunkers, the purpose of his amendment is really designed to protect 16 year olds in the Army, if we are honest about it, after the Deepcut debacle. But the Minister agreed at the end of the Second Reading debate that Tim Garden (who I still think of as an RAF Group Captain from the 1980s from my RUSI days!) could introduce this at the Third Reading stage. For the RN it does appear to be problematic, but I must be honest until I came on RR I assumed they were still segregated for their own safety (from older matelots... you know, those Golden Rivet loving Stoker types) as they certainly were in the past. In the case of the Army & possibly the RAF I believe he has a strong case. In fact I've supported his amendment since its inception. I am neutral in the RN's case only because I don't know whether it has caused any problems with bullying, abuse, etc.

Steve.



I am afraid AAC you have been misled. The juniors have always been looked after. After all what is a sea daddy for?
And all you nit pickers, {Walts, pongos and crabs etc} who like to make witty comments, sea daddies are an integral part of the navy with no initiations associated with some of the things you like to think.



They genuinely look after/out for the kids.

I've heard some odd tales about "sea daddies" and the RN's attempts to stamp out the practice. Are you telling me that the sea dads weren't predatory older seaman out to get their hands on Billy Nozzer's todger but actually really were decent people?! :eek: Interesting! :?



the words odd tales springs to mind in all this, from the 70`s I never came across dodgy sea daddies. It all comes down to dits that have been embellished a bit and those who think and like to accuse mate lots are bent. As it is their only defence when Jolly Jack gets on their case.
 
My Sea Daddy was a 3 badge MA that had worked in the Psychy wards at Haslar for years!Bungy was a mine of info,even if he did have the odd bite or 3 out of me!I often wonder what happened to him.He'd been busted from LMA several times,spent time in Cells in Bankok after smashing a coppers Glass table top,thence being escorted back on board to be forbidden to land in Thailand for ever.He told tales of places and things that would inspire anybody to join up!He wouldnt have looked out of place as the subject of one of Tugg's cartoons!
 
dt018a9667 said:
the words odd tales springs to mind in all this, from the 70`s I never came across dodgy sea daddies. It all comes down to dits that have been embellished a bit and those who think and like to accuse mate lots are bent. As it is their only defence when Jolly Jack gets on their case.

That's OK then DT. I'm much relieved. You just don't know what to believe these days. Kit scattered on the Mess Deck... Never scattered... insists Nutty... and casually mentions something about filing kit into shiny dustbins. What a strange Navy! :? :roll: :lol:

With women on board do sailors have Sea Mummies now: to do the sewing and ironing, read them bedtime stories and tuck them into their hammocks... oops I means bunks, at night? :wink:
 
Always_a_Civvy said:
Tas-ape said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
Wot, no bow wave? A certificate after Part 1? Ooooh! Does that replace his parchment?


Sorry you have lost me.....please enlighten. 8)

Bow wave - on his lid? The top looks far too flat :lol:

PS: You can resize those piccies from within Imagecave by following the guidelines here
http://www.rumration.co.uk/cpgn2/Forums/viewtopic/t=2150/start=42.html

PPS: Like then model boats in your piccy Tas... are they counted toward the fleet total? :wink:

Thanks for the tip, they were a bit on the big side. Sorted now. 8)
 
SSSMMCCC.jpg


Sorry about that, in my haste to get them downloaded I never noticed his Official Number was shown. Sorted now. :p
Also, I have removed his name.
 
Always_a_Civvy said:
Nutty said:
Tas-ape said:
Don't think there would be much use for an Old X Big OD,
however, one thing I am intersted to find out is the first three on his offical number. Watch this space.... 8)

TAS-Ape

you can read his full number and name from his Part 1 Certificate shown very nicely in the pics.

Nutty

PS his D263 is a long way from my P064 in the region of 199,00 matelots seperate him and me.

Should that read 199,000 Nutty?

Tas, if you haven't got the software, I'll edit out his name & number after the first three digits and email to you ready to upload. If interested please PM me.

Steve.

Steve

If he is 263,000 and I was 064,000 if you subtract the lesser from the greater then you are left with 199,000 approx. That is how many official numbers have been issued between 1961 and 2006.

Well that is my lower mathmatics. Unless you know different.

Nutty
 
Nutty said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
Nutty said:
Tas-ape said:
Don't think there would be much use for an Old X Big OD,
however, one thing I am intersted to find out is the first three on his offical number. Watch this space.... 8)

TAS-Ape

you can read his full number and name from his Part 1 Certificate shown very nicely in the pics.

Nutty

PS his D263 is a long way from my P064 in the region of 199,00 matelots seperate him and me.

Should that read 199,000 Nutty?

Tas, if you haven't got the software, I'll edit out his name & number after the first three digits and email to you ready to upload. If interested please PM me.

Steve.

Steve

If he is 263,000 and I was 064,000 if you subtract the lesser from the greater then you are left with 199,000 approx. That is how many official numbers have been issued between 1961 and 2006.

Well that is my lower mathmatics. Unless you know different.

Nutty

Nutty,

Your maths cannot be as bad as mine: CSE grade 4 is the best I ever attained at school - and that was a bit of a struggle :roll: (I did try for the O Level - twice as it happens, and even after extra tuition at great expense... I still got the same grade... er...erm... a U... Unclassified. There was nothing lower than a U - it was even lower than an F (Fail) !) :cry: :lol:

Steve. :oops:
 
Always_a_Civvy said:
Nutty said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
Nutty said:
Tas-ape said:
Don't think there would be much use for an Old X Big OD,
however, one thing I am intersted to find out is the first three on his offical number. Watch this space.... 8)

TAS-Ape

you can read his full number and name from his Part 1 Certificate shown very nicely in the pics.

Nutty

PS his D263 is a long way from my P064 in the region of 199,00 matelots seperate him and me.

Should that read 199,000 Nutty?

Tas, if you haven't got the software, I'll edit out his name & number after the first three digits and email to you ready to upload. If interested please PM me.

Steve.

Steve

If he is 263,000 and I was 064,000 if you subtract the lesser from the greater then you are left with 199,000 approx. That is how many official numbers have been issued between 1961 and 2006.

Well that is my lower mathmatics. Unless you know different.

Nutty

Nutty,

Your maths cannot be as bad as mine: CSE grade 4 is the best I ever attained at school - and that was a bit of a struggle :roll: (I did try for the O Level - twice as it happens, and even after extra tuition at great expense... I still got the same grade... er...erm... a U... Unclassified. There was nothing lower than a U - it was even lower than an F (Fail) !) :cry: :lol:

Steve. :oops:

I reckon the MOD or a n other edited it.

Nutty GCE O-Level Maths (Pass)
 
Nutty said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
Nutty said:
Always_a_Civvy said:
Nutty said:
Tas-ape said:
Don't think there would be much use for an Old X Big OD,
however, one thing I am intersted to find out is the first three on his offical number. Watch this space.... 8)

TAS-Ape

you can read his full number and name from his Part 1 Certificate shown very nicely in the pics.

Nutty

PS his D263 is a long way from my P064 in the region of 199,00 matelots seperate him and me.

Should that read 199,000 Nutty?

Tas, if you haven't got the software, I'll edit out his name & number after the first three digits and email to you ready to upload. If interested please PM me.

Steve.

Steve

If he is 263,000 and I was 064,000 if you subtract the lesser from the greater then you are left with 199,000 approx. That is how many official numbers have been issued between 1961 and 2006.

Well that is my lower mathmatics. Unless you know different.

Nutty

Nutty,

Your maths cannot be as bad as mine: CSE grade 4 is the best I ever attained at school - and that was a bit of a struggle :roll: (I did try for the O Level - twice as it happens, and even after extra tuition at great expense... I still got the same grade... er...erm... a U... Unclassified. There was nothing lower than a U - it was even lower than an F (Fail) !) :cry: :lol:

Steve. :oops:

I reckon the MOD or a n other edited it.

Nutty GCE O-Level Maths (Pass)

Nutty you're a genius!

O Level Maths and you joined as a Junior Seaman?!! :eek: As a Mathematician you should have joined as a Snotty. You'd have been invaluable calculating CADDET in navigation class!

That means you must know what a square root is!? When I was first asked about one of those I thought it was the product of a misshapen plant, perhaps a eurocarrot? :oops: :oops:

Always the Half-Wit
 
I still cannot for the feck of me remember what logarithams were for or why we had pages of tables. This apparently is the simple explanation:

============================================

Is there any operation in mathematics which produces a multiplication by the performance of an addition?

With not too much thought, the answer should come to you.

What is 23 x 24.

The answer is 2 7 which is obtained by adding the powers 3 and 4. This is correct, of course, since 23 x 24 is just seven 2s multiplied together. Note that this addition trick does not work for the case of 33 x 24. The base numbers must be the same, as in the first case, where we used 2.

In general, this addition trick can be written as pa x pb = pa+b. This expression will do our job of multiplying any two numbers, say 1.3 and 6.9, if we can only express 1.3 as pa and 6.9 as pb.

What number will we use for the base p? Any number will do, but traditionally, only two are in common use:

Ten (10) and the transcendental number e (= 2.71828...), giving logarithms to the base 10 or common logarithms (log), and logarithms to the base e or natural logarithms (ln).

If you would like to know why this strange number e is used click here.

Let's first talk about logarithms to the base 10 or common logs. We thus choose to let our number 1.3 be equal to 10a.


1.3 = 10a
`a' is called "the logarithm of 1.3". How large is `a'? Well, it's not 0 since 100 = 1 and it's less than 1 since 101 = 10. Therefore, we see that all numbers between 1 and 10 have logarithms between 0 and 1. If you look at the table below you'll see a summary of this.

Number range
1 - 10 or 100 - 101
10 - 100 or 101 - 102
100 -1000 or 102 - 103
etc. Logarithm Range
0 -1
1 - 2
2 - 3
etc.


You see, we have the number range listed on the left and the logarithm range listed on the right. For numbers between 1 and 10, that is between 100 and 101, the logarithm lies in the range 0 to 1. For numbers between 10 and 100, that is between 101 and 102, the logarithm lies in the range 1 to 2, and so on. Now in the bad old days before calculators, you would have to learn to use a set of logarithm tables to find the logarithm of our number, 1.3, that we asked for earlier. But nowadays, you can get it at the press of a button on your calculator.

============================================


Nutty
 
Nutty,

Having read that, and had problems after the first sentence, I'm beginning to wonder if my CSE Grade 4 should now be regraded to a 10 ! (I think 10 was the lowest score you could get?) :oops:

What this clearly demonstrates is that obtaining an O level Maths is a great deal harder than getting a Law Degree! :lol:

Steve.
 

Latest Threads

Top