Cali Posted January 17, 2023 Posted January 17, 2023 Or maybe he needs to get something from the attic. Attics are really cold in Iowa.🤨 1
mlroseplant Posted January 18, 2023 Author Posted January 18, 2023 12 hours ago, Puffer said: I assume you mean 'Arctic'? This is an artic (or what I think you call a rig in the colonies😞 But the coat would doubtless be snug when driving, in an artic or otherwise, in the winter. Maybe, under very specific circumstances, would this be called a "rig." However, most people call them a "semi." And that is always pronounced with a long "i" sound at the end. People who actually drive semis usually call them tractor trailers. The Iowa Driver's Manual refers to them as "truck tractor semitrailer combinations," which is where the "semi" part comes from.
Shyheels Posted January 18, 2023 Posted January 18, 2023 Add two more trailers and in Australia it would be a road train 1
Puffer Posted January 18, 2023 Posted January 18, 2023 11 hours ago, mlroseplant said: Maybe, under very specific circumstances, would this be called a "rig." However, most people call them a "semi." And that is always pronounced with a long "i" sound at the end. People who actually drive semis usually call them tractor trailers. The Iowa Driver's Manual refers to them as "truck tractor semitrailer combinations," which is where the "semi" part comes from. I am obliged for the clarification. Presumably 'semitrailer' because they only have wheels at the rear, whereas a trailer proper is self-contained with wheels fore and aft? What do you call a longer unit, with one or more additional coupled trailers? (I can think of a few suitable names if trying to overtake one!)
Shyheels Posted January 18, 2023 Posted January 18, 2023 I don’t know what they’d call such things in the US but in Australia they’d be called either “doubles” or “triples”. A triple is as big as you’re allowed to have on a public road in Australia. On some of the big stations - ranches - they’ll occasionally use four trailers when they are moving livestock. A popular myth has road trains - as we call doubles or triples - having more trailers and you’ll see this sometimes in movies, but in a public road triples are the limit and even then only in the outback. The trailers they use in Australia are long and a triple can be 165 feet long in total - not great for busy roads or manoeuvring through towns.
mlroseplant Posted January 19, 2023 Author Posted January 19, 2023 We call them doubles and triples too, but triples are not allowed in every state, and they are shorter than the triples in Australia by a long shot. Iowa does not allow triples, and until 1980, did not allow doubles either, until the U.S. Supreme Court made us. 53 feet is the standard length for a single trailer. If you're doing doubles or triples, I believe the length of each trailer has to shrink to 40 feet. In any case, each trailer is noticeably smaller.
Shyheels Posted January 19, 2023 Posted January 19, 2023 (edited) Road trains in the outback are awesome. Especially when you see them thundering along a dirt track with a boiling dust cloud in their wake. I have seen the flyblown bodies of camels and cattle lying in the scrub a good fifty, sixty feet off the road where they bounced after being struck by a road train - probably during the night when the road train was rumbling along the lonely desert highway, non-stop, at speed, on its way to distant places. Edited January 19, 2023 by Shyheels
mlroseplant Posted January 20, 2023 Author Posted January 20, 2023 Welcome to Melrose's thread, where we talk about anything random. Keeping with the trucking theme, are road trains generally company owned, or are there owner-operators out there? The owner-operator used to be a fixture of American trucking, but they are a fast disappearing breed.
Shyheels Posted January 20, 2023 Posted January 20, 2023 There are - or at least there were when I was living in the bush - a lot of owner operators. Given the remoteness, small populations and general individuality and spirit of enterprise you find in the bush I suspect the owner operator is still alive and well
mlroseplant Posted February 20, 2023 Author Posted February 20, 2023 It has evidently been about a month and a half since I posted any pictures of me. Today was the first day in a while that I actually didn't feel like immediately rushing indoors to escape the cold. Spring is not here yet, but it is just around the corner. I need to start my seeds for my garden here in a couple of weeks. Pictured here is my Zara suit. I have no idea how much the thing cost, because it was a gift given to me by my nephew. It's not really a formal suit, it's made of softer, more flowing material than most traditional suits. I like the fact that the pant legs are cut a little bit on the narrow side, the better to show off my Steve Madden "Klory" pumps, which got their first proper outing today. Also featured here is my experiment with facial hair, which is really the first since I started wearing heels. I wondered if it would look too out of place with the rest of my wardrobe, but it seems to be just fine, at least for the winter. I am committed to it for at least another month, after which I'll probably shave it, as I don't see the white mustache and side whiskers going well with shaved legs, short shorts, and sandals. 4
spikesmike Posted February 20, 2023 Posted February 20, 2023 milroseplant: Like the heels. Not so much the facial hair. Mike 1
Cali Posted February 20, 2023 Posted February 20, 2023 What's missing is the wife's reaction to the facial hair. They usually have an important opionion on these things. I agree, facial and smooth legs might be too much. Although I don't shave my legs, they are basically hairless now do to old age and taping. So facial hair and the hairless legs would look strange on me too.
Jkrenzer Posted February 20, 2023 Posted February 20, 2023 Oh I don't know. I've been pulling off a beard in heels all along. Women really like the look as a whole. I think wearing my stilettos as a man not trying to feminize his look actually has worked well for me. I put Melrose and a few others here in that category. 1
Cali Posted February 20, 2023 Posted February 20, 2023 But there is a difference. I see you, @Jkrenzer, in long pants, but its another thing to wear heels with hairless legs and (short) shorts. I know first hand. The junxtaposition with a white beard might be too much. 1
Jkrenzer Posted February 20, 2023 Posted February 20, 2023 I wear shorts with heels all summer. My lower legs are almost naturally hairless and the hair I do have is faint and not all that visible from any distance. 1
StilettoLuv Posted February 21, 2023 Posted February 21, 2023 I just admire you for pairing such an elegant suit with those lovely high heels.
mlroseplant Posted February 21, 2023 Author Posted February 21, 2023 Since this is a thread where anything goes, I will tell you the story about my whiskers. They are meant to be in the style of U.S. President Chester Arthur, our 21st President from 1881-1885. Back when presidents had facial hair. President Arthur is one of those presidents nobody has ever heard of, possibly but for the mustache with side whiskers, but I am a student of many things obscure, so naturally I know more about President Arthur than most people. My wife does not like the whiskers, but I think it's mainly because they make me look old, and she is not wrong. However, the overall reaction to my Chester Arthur has been overwhelmingly positive, much more so than on this forum. I have gotten compliments from family, friends, coworkers, and even total strangers. It's kind of weird. If the situation warrants, I am happy to give a mini lesson about a relatively boring time in U.S. history. Here is an image of President Arthur, along with a closer up shot of me. It's probably the only selfie I've ever taken that has come out ok on the first try. This selfie was originally taken for a completely different reason, but it happens to work out for my purposes here. 1
Jkrenzer Posted February 21, 2023 Posted February 21, 2023 If only Chester would have worn your heels, I know he would have been remembered. (OK purists, I know heels were not around back then)
Shyheels Posted February 21, 2023 Posted February 21, 2023 He probably did have heels on his riding boots. I have indeed heard of Chester A Arthur - one of only two US presidents from the state of Vermont, and became president because of the assassination of President Garfield who'd only just started his term of office. 1
mlroseplant Posted February 22, 2023 Author Posted February 22, 2023 It just goes to show that foreigners (and I understand you spent substantial time here, but still. . .) know more about American history than Americans do. And that ain't no sh**. 1
Shyheels Posted February 22, 2023 Posted February 22, 2023 Ah well - a few years ago a poll amogst young people here in Britain showed that an alarming percentage of them thought that Churchill was the bulldog mascot for an insurance company that was advertising much on TV and had not heard of Churchill the politician and war-time PM
Puffer Posted February 22, 2023 Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) 9 hours ago, Shyheels said: Ah well - a few years ago a poll amogst young people here in Britain showed that an alarming percentage of them thought that Churchill was the bulldog mascot for an insurance company that was advertising much on TV and had not heard of Churchill the politician and war-time PM You only have to watch UK TV quiz shows such as 'Tipping Point' or 'The Chase' (both of which are far from trivial or juvenile and can be quite educational) to be surprised, if not appalled, by the lack of knowledge of even British history since, say, 1900. And it's not just the under-30s who have little or no understanding of what happened in their lifetime or that of their parents - unless it relates to pop culture. Still, given the poor example set by many of their teachers, perhaps we should not be surprised. History is not the only poorly-learned subject but perhaps the most obvious. Edited February 22, 2023 by Puffer typo
mlroseplant Posted February 25, 2023 Author Posted February 25, 2023 I have to admit that even I only know the names of a few UK prime ministers from years past. Of course nowadays, it's quite difficult to keep up with who's in there at any given moment.
Shyheels Posted February 25, 2023 Posted February 25, 2023 Yes, Lyn Truss's six-week premiership last autumn set an all-time record for brevity. She can be assured of immortality as a trivia question.
at9 Posted February 25, 2023 Posted February 25, 2023 Sufficiently non-memorable that her name can be misremembered. Liz Truss.
Shyheels Posted February 25, 2023 Posted February 25, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, at9 said: Sufficiently non-memorable that her name can be misremembered. Liz Truss. Certainly non-memorable but it was autocorrect that decided her name out to have been Lyn… Its getting so you have to copy edit your every sentence to make sure that some illiterate program hasn’t inserted some spelling or grammatical error Edited February 25, 2023 by Shyheels
Puffer Posted February 25, 2023 Posted February 25, 2023 7 hours ago, Shyheels said: Certainly non-memorable but it was autocorrect that decided her name out to have been Lyn… Its getting so you have to copy edit your every sentence to make sure that some illiterate program hasn’t inserted some spelling or grammatical error Quite so! See me in my study after prayers.
Shyheels Posted February 26, 2023 Posted February 26, 2023 Who preys anymore? Certainly not for those who invented autocorrect. May they all be sent to Hello 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now