Harry P.

$1.55 at the local Thornton's today. But on the road earlier in the day, I saw a Clark station with a $1.44 price posted.

Carl, yes I remember Twin Oaks Dairy. And guess what? My neighbor across the street still gets fresh milk delivered by the milkman! Yes, in 2016! They still do it!

Assume a runner on a circular track exactly one mile in circumference. He runs a lap around the track. He covers one mile of distance (one lap around the track) in X amount of time; let's say five minutes. By plugging in the circumference of the track (one mile), and the time it took the runner to cover that distance (five minutes), we can calculate the speed he was running at (speed being the ratio of distance/time)... or 12 mph. And if the runner maintains a constant speed as he circles the track several times, we can then calculate his RPM around the track. 1/5 RPM. Right? So why is a dot revolving on a record in a circular motion moving at a certain RPM but not moving at a certain speed? Or look at it this way. Each dot on the record travels a certain distance in one revolution. Imagine that we take the distance traveled and take that round "distance" and make it a straight line. The inner and outer dots, in their revolution around the spindle, have traveled different distances, yet they both arrived at the "finish line" at the same time!

OK, obviously I'm missing your point. To me, that's a pretty good looking truck.

Ok, how about this... It takes a certain amount of time for both dots to make the trip around the spindle, right? Isn't speed the ratio of distance traveled over a specific time? As in X miles per hour? So how can the outer dot be traveling at a higher speed if both dots make the trip around the spindle at the same time?

I think I've posted this before, a long time ago, but it's kind of fun to think about, so here goes... Imagine you're looking directly down onto the surface of a record on a turntable. A 12" LP, let's say. And imagine there are two dots painted on the surface of the record... one directly next to the spindle hole, and one directly outboard of that, on the outer edge of the record. Now imagine a straight line outwards from the spindle, through both dots. Let's call that imaginary line the starting line. We turn on the turntable, and the record begins to rotate around the spindle. The record is rotating at a constant speed (33 rpm). In one revolution around the spindle, from starting line, around, and back to the starting line, both dots arrive back at the starting line at exactly the same time (because they are on the record surface and can't move independently of one another). Yet it's obvious that the outer dot... the one on the edge of the record... has traveled a far greater distance than the dot at the center of the record next to the spindle. But both dots cross the starting line at the same time! So how is it possible that the outer dot, traveling a far greater distance per revolution around the spindle, arrives at the starting line at the same time as the inner dot that only traveled a very short distance, if they are both moving at the same speed (33 rpm)?

Man, you are such an Aho...

I believe there's a typo in your post. It's a Nissan Joke.

It's about memories from our childhood... words...food... it's all good. Now where did I put my Pez dispenser...

I agree with you on that point!

That is ultra-cool!

Aztec probably gets the prize for ugliest design ever... but that's not quite the same as "least favorite" car. To the OP's question of a manufacturer "laying an egg," I nominate the Cadillacs with the V8-6-4 variable displacement system. Or the Aspens and Volares that rusted through a week after you brought them home.

Not quite. Saying a book was a "good read" is saying that you enjoyed the book– but you're not calling the book itself a "read." Because if you were, you could then say this: "Hey, have you checked out the latest read from Stephen King?" Obviously that's not correct. As incorrect as calling a model a "build." You read a book, and you build a model... but a book isn't a "read" and a model isn't a "build."

Got me on a technicality. Let's say they're originally from the "Chicago area."

Isn't calling a model a "build" a perfect example of model-car-guy-speak? Replacing the already existing, perfectly logical noun "model" with "build?" I don't see how saying "that's a really nice build" is any improvement over "that's a really nice model." Oh well... I guess we've beaten this horse to death several times over! Onward to the next topic...

Replace that white "bread" with some real bread, like maybe a Kaiser roll or some good Jewish caraway rye or some Ciabatta, and then you've got something!

I just found your argument a little disingenuous, that's all. But your above "explanation" is fairly well done. But in reply, I'd say that your machine won't work very well if you install the parts incorrectly, even if you used the correct fasteners. Your machine can evolve over time and incorporate new parts... but you probably shouldn't take existing parts and reuse them in ways other than they were intended to be used, because if you do that too often, your machine begins to run poorly... or break down altogether. The right parts, used correctly, along with the addition of new parts as necessary, along with the right fasteners, used correctly, equals a well-functioning machine.

Well, I like hot dogs. And I love Swiss cheese. I just might have to try that some time!

Well, of course Portillo's is good! You do realize that Portillo's is from Chicago... right? Talk about humble beginnings... not even running water!

That's a new one on me. I have never heard of putting Swiss cheese on a hot dog before. Is that a regional thing? Or just your thing?

I'd bet if you had one you'd love it.

Just to play devil's advocate here... So you're ok with using words incorrectly, as it's just the "evolution" of the language? But incorrect punctuation, spelling, and grammar bothers you? Why? Wouldn't incorrect punctuation, spelling, and grammar just be another part of the "evolution" of the language, as using words incorrectly apparently is? Hmmmmm....

I agree that language evolves constantly; some words disappear, some new words appear. But there has to be some sort of "standard," to define what is and what isn't correct word usage, and that's the dictionary. Dictionaries evolve as language evolves... certain words disappear or as labeled "obsolete" in their definitions; new words are added all the time as language evolves. For example, you wouldn't have seen the term "video game" in the dictionary in 1965... new words are always coming into use. When the word "build" is defined in the dictionary as a synonym for "scale model car," that's when it becomes "correct" usage. Until then, it's incorrect. Maybe "accepted." Maybe common. But technically not correct. That's all I'm saying.

I didn't say that I was the one who decided it's not correct. The dictionary is what I was referencing. And as far as I know, the dictionary is the arbiter of correct word usage, not you and not me. You can use words any way you want; I'm not the "word police." All I was saying is that I agree with Drew... referring to a scale model as a "build" is incorrect, no matter how many people do it. You can do it if you want to, everybody can do it if they want to... but it's still wrong. And that has nothing to do with being grumpy or pedantic... it has to do with the dictionary definition of the word. If you want to call a model car a "build" go right ahead. "I could care less"...