Checking on a potential 'Mitty'
Sorry, too interested in all the codebreaking. 
I've just realised that as well as I and O, Z is also omitted (hence the use of modulo 23), so A follows Y, unless Y was suffixing a number ending in 9, in which case the next letter is D.
I've just realised that as well as I and O, Z is also omitted (hence the use of modulo 23), so A follows Y, unless Y was suffixing a number ending in 9, in which case the next letter is D.
Last edited by Underbolt; 15th Sep 2016 at 15:54.
And I thought writing about non-publics on Sunday afternoon (on another thread) might be seen as "anal", although I am sure I am now better educated, but not sure I am any wiser (to paraphrase a comment made in court many years ago by a famous barrister and, no, no I cannot recall who it was)
..to paraphrase a comment made in court many years ago and, no, no I cannot recall who it was - Wander00
It was the famous F E Smith, later Lord Birkenhead, and there are two known variations, namely:
“Judge: I've listened to you for an hour and I'm none wiser.
Smith: None the wiser, perhaps, my lord but certainly better informed.”
“Judge: I have read your case, Mr Smith, and I am no wiser now than I was when I started.
Smith: Possibly not, My Lord, but far better informed.”
I trust that you now feel "certainly better informed" - or at least "better informed"....
Jack
It was the famous F E Smith, later Lord Birkenhead, and there are two known variations, namely:
“Judge: I've listened to you for an hour and I'm none wiser.
Smith: None the wiser, perhaps, my lord but certainly better informed.”
“Judge: I have read your case, Mr Smith, and I am no wiser now than I was when I started.
Smith: Possibly not, My Lord, but far better informed.”
I trust that you now feel "certainly better informed" - or at least "better informed"....
Jack
We had a correction in post #120. If you multiply the 5 that your number ends with 1 rather than 5, your total is 296. 296 modulo 23 is 20. The 21st letter starting from A and skipping I and O is W.
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
My God, my brain hurts! I'm glad I was there when it was only numbers. I left in '76, but when I joined the VR(T) in '84 to fly the Chippie, my number was still the same.
For what it's worth, and I suspect it's not very much, the letter on the calculation came out as a Q when in fact I was an R. Is there a ServiceNumber4U claim lawyers I can contact? I feel diddled.
If we think RAF numbering is difficult, the army changed their sysytem for a "new" one seven times between 1810 [demi-official] and now.
1829, 1856, 1873, 1881, 1920, 1942, 2007 [JPA]
The changes were sufficient and sufficiently often to allow, with ease, several soldiers in the same regiment to have identical numbers. Rather defeated the purpose of a number, I thought.
1829, 1856, 1873, 1881, 1920, 1942, 2007 [JPA]
The changes were sufficient and sufficiently often to allow, with ease, several soldiers in the same regiment to have identical numbers. Rather defeated the purpose of a number, I thought.
Guilty as charged.
Send him down!
Send him down!
Back to the subject of the thread, at the advanced age of 69 I have become a grandfather for the first time, and my son and his partner have named their son Walter. Pleased to report that when we saw him on our first visit yesterday, the day after his birth, he wasn't (as yet) wearing any unauthorised medals or ribbons on his babygrow 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,808
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Originally Posted by langleybaston
If we think RAF numbering is difficult, the army changed their sysytem for a "new" one seven times between 1810 [demi-official] and now.
1829, 1856, 1873, 1881, 1920, 1942, 2007 [JPA]
The changes were sufficient and sufficiently often to allow, with ease, several soldiers in the same regiment to have identical numbers. Rather defeated the purpose of a number, I thought.
1829, 1856, 1873, 1881, 1920, 1942, 2007 [JPA]
The changes were sufficient and sufficiently often to allow, with ease, several soldiers in the same regiment to have identical numbers. Rather defeated the purpose of a number, I thought.
MPN11
433nnnnB = GD(Ground)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: N. Spain
Age: 79
Posts: 1,311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to the subject of the thread, at the advanced age of 69 I have become a grandfather for the first time, and my son and his partner have named their son Walter. Pleased to report that when we saw him on our first visit yesterday, the day after his birth, he wasn't (as yet) wearing any unauthorised medals or ribbons on his babygrow 
Congratulations TTN to you and the "youngsters" May Walter grow and enjoy less interesting times.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not these days - half our friends have been strong-armed into Grannying small children - starts as an hour or so a day and before you know it it's full-time, unpaid child care.........................
Cunning rule for grandparents:
never but never move "to be nearer the children" because:
1. you will be suckered with grandchild-minding then, just as you become doddery,
2. the children move away from you, leaving you stuck somewhere you did not choose.
Seen it happen time after time.
Our four are 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours and 4 hours away respectively. And the nearest is a bit close for comfort.
never but never move "to be nearer the children" because:
1. you will be suckered with grandchild-minding then, just as you become doddery,
2. the children move away from you, leaving you stuck somewhere you did not choose.
Seen it happen time after time.
Our four are 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours and 4 hours away respectively. And the nearest is a bit close for comfort.