Eight jet engines: Difference between revisions

Eight jet engines (view source)

Revision as of 18:37, 2 November 2023

66 bytes removed , 2 November 2023

no edit summary

Amwelladmin

Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Administrators

82,891

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{a|metaphor|{{image|Eight jet engines|jpeg|The magnificent B-52 Superfortress. So many engines, they had level the playing field for sensitive [[snowflake]] modern types by removing the “number of engines” category altogether.}}{{image|Eight jet engines|png|With engine count, in original 1970s edition.}}}}“The nuts”, when engaged in a game of [[Top Trumps]] ''Military Planes'' edition.
-There’s no way anyone can beat the engine count on a Boeing [[B-52]] Stratocruiser: there is not an aircraft designer in history foolish enough to try to fit ''nine'' engines on the same plane — these days, four is considered profligate — and even in the giddy heights of the Cold War, Boeing only tried it once. Thus the B-52 stands alone, quite unimpeachable.
+There’s no way anyone can beat the engine count on a Boeing [[B-52]] Stratocruiser: there is not an aircraft designer in history foolish enough to try to fit ''nine'' engines on the same plane — these days, four is considered profligate — and even in the giddy heights of the Cold War, Boeing only tried it once. Thus the B-52 stands alone, utterly peachable.<ref>Towards more picturesque speech corner: There is a [[double negative]] embedded in the prefixes here. I deduce that if “''im''peachability” means, as it must, “an imperviousness to peachery”, therefore to be “unimpeachable” — logically, to ''not'' be impervious to peachery — is really just to be “peachable” after all. As with all other views expressed on this site, this one is by no means not unimpeachable.</ref>
-{{image|Eight jet engines|png|With engine count, in original 1970s edition.}}
+So peachable, in fact, that in later editions of ''Top Trumps'' they ''removed'' the “engine count” criteria altogether. Some people just don’t like to be beat, I guess.
-So peachable,<ref>Towards more picturesque speech corner: There is a [[double negative]] embedded in the prefixes here. I deduce that if “''im''peachability” means, as it must, “an imperviousness to peachery”, therefore to be “unimpeachable” — logically, to ''not'' be impervious to peachery — is really just to be “peachable” after all. As with all other views expressed on this site, this one is by no means not unimpeachable.</ref> in fact, that in the modern edition they ''removed'' the “engine count” criteria altogether. Some people just don’t like to be beat, I guess.
 “[[Eight jet engines]]” is its own kind of [[knee slide]], and [[legal eagle]]s of a certain vintage — mine — may happily squawk it, as they dispatch that exquisitely-timed [[mark-up]], wry rejoinder, devastating [[provuso]], or [[oneNDA|potentially game-changing industry initiative]].