ThePortForum.com

Glenn E. wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:From Julian's link:

43 Manhattan Island United States (New York) 1,619,090 (2012)

Is a land mass really an island just because someone cut off the end of a peninsula with a canal?

djewesbury wrote:The island in question is a small one and not on the list that Julian quoted.

Not a guess, but rather a side question/pedantic rant. I've never considered Manhattan to be an island - it is a peninsula that someone cut off by digging the Harlem River Ship Canal.

Still, you can sail all round it in reasonably substantial boats.. A man-made island is still an island (isn't that what John Donne said..?)
After they moved London Bridge to the Chemehuevi Desert in AZ, the team of contractors worked to excavate a channel underneath it. This diverted a part of the stream of the Colorado River, and created an island at one end of the bridge. Just because it was the result of human intervention, it's still an island. If you can walk to it and not get your feet wet, perhaps it's not an island. By that reckoning, St. Michael's Mount is an island at high tide and a peninsular at low tide. That's reasonable, no..?

EDIT: they didn't really 'move' London Bridge; they built a concrete core and attached the facing stones from London Bridge to it. In fact there's so little rainfall there that you can still see the chalk markings they used to number the stones in transit. Yes, I made a film there...

djewesbury wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:From Julian's link:

43 Manhattan Island United States (New York) 1,619,090 (2012)

Is a land mass really an island just because someone cut off the end of a peninsula with a canal?

djewesbury wrote:The island in question is a small one and not on the list that Julian quoted.

Not a guess, but rather a side question/pedantic rant. I've never considered Manhattan to be an island - it is a peninsula that someone cut off by digging the Harlem River Ship Canal.

Still, you can sail all round it in reasonably substantial boats.. A man-made island is still an island (isn't that what John Donne said..?)

I concede that it is a man-made island, but the pedant in me requires that the "man-made" clarifier be present whenever Manhattan is referenced as such.

I think it's very unfair on Glenn that nobody's guessing. Is all I'll say.

It's okay, I ordered 4 x 2003 Broadbent VP for $22.99 each to console myself.

Glenn E. wrote:It's okay, I ordered 4 x 2003 Broadbent VP for $22.99 each to console myself.

Gotta keep that blood pressure up...

And Glenn, post a TN here of that Broadbent whenever you open one, interested to read it since we don't get it here.. Has it always been made by Dirk..?

Spike Island?

Oh you mean the other Spike Island? No.

Canvey Island?

Not there; more famous for the genius of Wilko Johnson though, surely?

ORKNEY!

djewesbury wrote:And Glenn, post a TN here of that Broadbent whenever you open one, interested to read it since we don't get it here.. Has it always been made by Dirk..?

I think so, at least as far back as 1994 which I also have.

Glenn E. wrote:ORKNEY!

It's the right answer!! That's one to the USA. Your go.

(Thank God someone knows how to Google...)

Back to a previous theme...

I cannot recall for certain what my first ever Port purchase was, but I do still have both bottles from one of my first purchases. Can you name the vintage and shipper of either bottle?

djewesbury wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:ORKNEY!

It's the right answer!! That's one to the USA. Your go.

(Thank God someone knows how to Google...)

As I recall the largest of the Orkney Islands is called the Mainland and none of the others are called Orkney.

Glenn E. wrote:Back to a previous theme...

I cannot recall for certain what my first ever Port purchase was, but I do still have both bottles from one of my first purchases. Can you name the vintage and shipper of either bottle?

Danby 1956?

Krohn 1964?

djewesbury wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:ORKNEY!

It's the right answer!! That's one to the USA. Your go.

(Thank God someone knows how to Google...)

we were hoping to keep this going for 10 days but Glenn didn't spot the joke

RAYC wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:Back to a previous theme...

I cannot recall for certain what my first ever Port purchase was, but I do still have both bottles from one of my first purchases. Can you name the vintage and shipper of either bottle?

Danby 1956?

A Danby 56 was my first wine fridge, but it was not my first Port purchase.

DRT wrote:Krohn 1964?

An excellent guess, but not accurate on either front.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:ORKNEY!

It's the right answer!! That's one to the USA. Your go.

(Thank God someone knows how to Google...)

we were hoping to keep this going for 10 days but Glenn didn't spot the joke

You expected an American to understand British humor?

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:ORKNEY!

It's the right answer!! That's one to the USA. Your go.

(Thank God someone knows how to Google...)

we were hoping to keep this going for 10 days but Glenn didn't spot the joke

At what stage did you know the answer?

Porto Rocha 77 colheita

RAYC wrote:Porto Rocha 77 colheita

Another excellent guess! Incorrect shipper, but one of the correct dates.

Your guess followed soon after my first purchase or two over the internet. The bottles I'm thinking of were an internet purchase.

How about Dow 77

Taylor 1977

Neither of the above. Too expensive for a first purchase!

Delaforce 1977

Not readily available in the US, so no.

Royal Oporto 77 ?

doh!

AW77 wrote:Royal Oporto 77 ?

DRT wrote:we were hoping to keep this going for 10 days but Glenn didn't spot the joke

AW77 wrote:Royal Oporto 77 ?

Correct!

The other bottle was a 1970 Martinez. Naturally you guys zeroed in on the lesser of the two.

Your turn.

So here is the new quiz:

Why do I not want to be disturbed by phone calls on sunday evenings between 8.15 and 9.45? The corrrect answer includes a certain keyword.

You have to watch the first half hour of Tatort, then get bored?

Now I'm flabbergasted. I didn't think someone would guess it straight away. I have to think of something more difficult the next time.

Over to you.

Typical Owen. The man has an idiosyncratic range of knowledge. Every so often he just strikes gold.

I hope your flabber gets over its gast Andre, love the way you're working that idiom btw.

I am afraid I shall be busy washing my hair for a while and would therefore like to bequeath Daniel my go in recognition of his (almost) kind words.

LGTrotter wrote:I hope your flabber gets over its gast Andre, love the way you're working that idiom btw.

I am afraid I shall be busy washing my hair for a while and would therefore like to bequeath Daniel my go in recognition of his (almost) kind words.

Not so fast. Rules are rules, kid. I'm reading someone's PhD thesis today.. there'll be no 'No's from me....!

In less than an hour I will have a question ready. An abstract question of my own devising, easy for some, fiendish for others.

jdaw1 wrote:In less than an hour I will have a question ready. An abstract question of my own devising, easy for some, fiendish for others.

Can I just say, this is your own fault Owen. And everyone else.
Oh, I'm on the TV in 15 minutes (in Northern Ireland).

There follow twenty small images. Eighteen have something in common. The other two do not have the quality of the eighteen, but do have a different quality, for both of the two this quality being the same but not that of the eighteen. Which two are different, and why?

To prevent information being imagined where there is none, the order of presentation is random.







Perhaps those starting a new page could quote this whole post.

(I think that this is an excellent puzzle, and am quietly chuckling to myself. Now back to doing some work.)

This is not a quiz. It is an exam question. "You may turn over your papers now..."

There is an easy observation that provides a key.

the two forms are:
1st line, 1st left
3rd line, 3rd from right
both forms do only have one line and simply white space around them
(I hope you understand me, I couldn't even explain it any better in my mother tongue)

The length of the lines depends on the width of your screen. I’ll assist by making it into five lines of four: wait a moment.

Edit: done. repost your answer. (This is now a new guess, it is a clarification following an edit to the question.)

After the new arrangement I still think the pattern is the same.
Now the two forms are:
1st line, 1st from left
5th line, 2nd from left

Does the white "square" (space) constitute part of each image? I'd go for the two circles in circles (as the only images with no vertices)

He's right. André, your go...

The 18 all contain multiple shapes. The 2 both contain a single shape. André already identified the 2.

However, I doubt that "multiple shapes" and "single shape" are the qualities that Julian is looking for.