GZG List archives -- March 2004

Number 428 of 940 messages in this Archive
[Date Prev] Main Index [Date Next]
[Thread Prev] Thread Index [Thread Next]

Re: Rant Warning below



Indy wrote:

> Pretty much, yeah. And JMS even stated in one of his posts that
> he thought "destroyer" sounded neater than "cruiser" (after all,
> it's meant to *destroy*, not *cruise*).

He's got a point. What he doesn't know is that "destroyer" originally came from the term "torpedo boat destroyer", a ship designed at the turn of the 20th Century to take on torpedo boats (and also carry out many of the same functions as a torpedo boat). Eventually it was just shortened to "destroyer".

--
Allan Goodall              agoodall@att.net
http://www.hyperbear.com   agoodall@hyperbear.com
> Roger Burton West wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 08:08:46AM -0600, Doug Evans wrote:
> > 
> > >Natch, in B5, where the largest ship the
> > >humans have is a 'destroyer', it's obvious, you can get away with fudge.
> > 
> > My understanding is that Straczynski and Ellison intended to use naval
> > terms, but didn't actually know them well enough to use them correctly
> > and didn't bother to hire an advisor.
> 
> Pretty much, yeah. And JMS even stated in one of his posts that
> he thought "destroyer" sounded neater than "cruiser" (after all,
> it's meant to *destroy*, not *cruise*).
> 
> Mk




  • Prev by Date: Re: Genericity of grasers (was Re: UNSC beta and FB3)
  • Next by Date: Transhuman Space AKV's

  • Previous by thread: Re: Rant Warning below
  • Next by thread: Re: Rant Warning below Re: UNSC beta and FB3

  • Main Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Archive Index

    roger@nospam.firedrake.org
    Generated: Thu Apr 01 01:09:03 GMT 2004