Hi all,
I have a particular question about Duckburg Soccer Team although I know that some fellows like Don will probably not help me (but if he want I will obviously be very happy ! ) simply because the argument has never been considered by Uncle Carl.
The question is : WHICH COLOR DOES THE DUCKBURG SOCCER TEAM WEAR ?
I mean that in european production (most of all here in Italy and very often in the last years) we have seen several times the D team with differents colors of shirt, shorts and socks .
For instance a Sarda/Molinari story published by Topolino some weeks ago showed a very supersticious musician fan of D team sleeping only with a Red and Green blanket as they are his team colors !
Instead the Ocopoli soccer team in the same story was shown in Yellow and Green .
Moreover, a couple of summer ago, in Italy was published the story about the D soccer champion Anatraldo/ Duckaldo and there the colors seems to be different (if I remind well!)
It's a pity that Barks never gave us a "rule" about Soccer in Duckburg but it is also easy to understand the matter: Soccer was almost unknown in that period in the USA.
Now it is different and perhaps also our scandinavian friends (with Egmont production ) can help us to identify a way to organise data about Soccer in Duckburg.
(Not only the Colors but also the NAME OF THE SOCCER GROUND, WHO IS THE OWNER OR THE TRAINER, HOW ARE CALLED THEIR FANS - I MEAN A NICKNAME - and something else, and if someone would like to put this in a link like the best 12 landscapes ... it also could be useful for writers and artists ! )
Bye , Luca Faccioli.
(fan and subscriber of Bologna soccer team - Pagliuca, Signori, ecc.- that wear Red and Blue! )
Author
Topic: 200207
(255 messages)
Luca Faccioli
Duckburg' soccer team colors
Message 211 -
2002-07-24 at 17:07:49
Lavia, Janne
Vulle Vuojas, advice needed
Message 212 -
2002-07-24 at 17:44:28
Hi all,
I'd like to receive a bit of advice. My friend is selling his full set of
Vulle Vuojas, the Lapp Donald Duck, which was published in 1987-88 with 33
issues (#1-14 in 1987 and #15-32 in 1988, with two #16's).
Would someone here be able to tell which channel would be ideal for selling,
and how much the sets would now be worth? They are not in NM/M condition but
do come close.
Thanks
Janne
I'd like to receive a bit of advice. My friend is selling his full set of
Vulle Vuojas, the Lapp Donald Duck, which was published in 1987-88 with 33
issues (#1-14 in 1987 and #15-32 in 1988, with two #16's).
Would someone here be able to tell which channel would be ideal for selling,
and how much the sets would now be worth? They are not in NM/M condition but
do come close.
Thanks
Janne
Roy Kooijman
DCML digest #1017 (apparently this suffices as a subject)
Message 213 -
2002-07-24 at 20:31:09
> That does not fully explain why Scrooge keeps telling that
> he's broke when he loses the full content of that bin. One
> may think that he is always exaggerating and sentimental, but
> in most stories, Donald and the nephews seem to take it seriously.
Just a thought:
Scrooge has more bins and since he is an investor could easily loose the
contents of one or more bins so it could be that his most important bin
is sometimes really the last one left from being really broke. That
would make it seem plausible too isn't it? ;-)
-- Roy
> he's broke when he loses the full content of that bin. One
> may think that he is always exaggerating and sentimental, but
> in most stories, Donald and the nephews seem to take it seriously.
Just a thought:
Scrooge has more bins and since he is an investor could easily loose the
contents of one or more bins so it could be that his most important bin
is sometimes really the last one left from being really broke. That
would make it seem plausible too isn't it? ;-)
-- Roy
Lgiver
Money Bin dimensions---it's all been discussed long ago
Message 214 -
2002-07-25 at 11:23:54
I just re-read the first half of "Return to Xanadu" (my favorite Rosa
story), in
US 261, December, 1991). I looked at the letters to the editor page, and
Yoicks! A letter by J.W. Burns defined a cubic acre just as I did,
resulting in 9091408 cubic feet per cubic acre. He was responding to a
letter in US 256, which estimated the dimensions of Scrooge's money bin
as approximately a cube 136 feet on each side, and he pointed out that
was much too small to hold 3 cubic acres of cash. We're re-hashing an
old, old discussion!
I found letters on this topic in US 252, 256, 257, 259, and 261,
which I had read at the time, but had forgotten. The estimate of 136
feet per side was based on the depth gauge of about 100 feet, an
estimate of 30+ feet head room, and the general cubic looking appearance
on most drawings of the bin.
A clever solution to this dilemna was suggested by Brian Schmidt in
US 256. He acknowledged that the most straightforward definition of a
cubic acre is a cube with square acres on each of its 6 sides. But if
Barks intended it to mean a cube with a TOTAL surface area of one acre,
then each side would have only a sixth of an acre, or 7260 square feet.
Each edge of such a cubic acre is then only about 85.2 feet, with a
volume of 618593 cubic feet, only about 7% of the volume of the cubic
acre Burns defined and I supported. Three of these cubic acres are then
1855779 cubic feet, which could be contained in a cube only 123 feet on
each edge. But since the depth gauge is about 100 feet, then a bin
with a square base 136 feet on each side would hold all 3 of these cubic
acres! That's amazingly close! But the blueprints of the Killmotor
bin have many other things besides the giant money room, so Scrooge
still needs that overflow bin, etc, in his downtown office building.
Maybe next time I can think of something original to discuss.
Best wishes,
Larry Giver.
story), in
US 261, December, 1991). I looked at the letters to the editor page, and
Yoicks! A letter by J.W. Burns defined a cubic acre just as I did,
resulting in 9091408 cubic feet per cubic acre. He was responding to a
letter in US 256, which estimated the dimensions of Scrooge's money bin
as approximately a cube 136 feet on each side, and he pointed out that
was much too small to hold 3 cubic acres of cash. We're re-hashing an
old, old discussion!
I found letters on this topic in US 252, 256, 257, 259, and 261,
which I had read at the time, but had forgotten. The estimate of 136
feet per side was based on the depth gauge of about 100 feet, an
estimate of 30+ feet head room, and the general cubic looking appearance
on most drawings of the bin.
A clever solution to this dilemna was suggested by Brian Schmidt in
US 256. He acknowledged that the most straightforward definition of a
cubic acre is a cube with square acres on each of its 6 sides. But if
Barks intended it to mean a cube with a TOTAL surface area of one acre,
then each side would have only a sixth of an acre, or 7260 square feet.
Each edge of such a cubic acre is then only about 85.2 feet, with a
volume of 618593 cubic feet, only about 7% of the volume of the cubic
acre Burns defined and I supported. Three of these cubic acres are then
1855779 cubic feet, which could be contained in a cube only 123 feet on
each edge. But since the depth gauge is about 100 feet, then a bin
with a square base 136 feet on each side would hold all 3 of these cubic
acres! That's amazingly close! But the blueprints of the Killmotor
bin have many other things besides the giant money room, so Scrooge
still needs that overflow bin, etc, in his downtown office building.
Maybe next time I can think of something original to discuss.
Best wishes,
Larry Giver.
H.W.Fluks
Bin
Message 215 -
2002-07-25 at 19:54:52
I wrote:
> > I thought about the following possibility. Scrooge has an
> > agreement with the
> > banks, that he can use cheques and stuff, to represent the
> > money that is in his bin.
Don wrote:
> you already had a better-worded answer than I did!
Note that I rejected that possibility, because it would imply that the money
in Scrooge's bin is not (all) his. He cannot spend it at will. Even when we
know that Scrooge will never *want* to spend it, the idea that the money is
not his is unacceptable.
--Harry.
> > I thought about the following possibility. Scrooge has an
> > agreement with the
> > banks, that he can use cheques and stuff, to represent the
> > money that is in his bin.
Don wrote:
> you already had a better-worded answer than I did!
Note that I rejected that possibility, because it would imply that the money
in Scrooge's bin is not (all) his. He cannot spend it at will. Even when we
know that Scrooge will never *want* to spend it, the idea that the money is
not his is unacceptable.
--Harry.
John Garvin
Fort knox
Message 216 -
2002-07-25 at 23:15:42
"just like an American banknote represents the gold in Fort Knox
> (more or less)"
Less, by a lot, I'm afraid. The US, like almost all countries, has not
been on the gold standard for a number of decades. There is nothing
backing those greenbacks but our own collective word that we all agree
they are worth something.
> (more or less)"
Less, by a lot, I'm afraid. The US, like almost all countries, has not
been on the gold standard for a number of decades. There is nothing
backing those greenbacks but our own collective word that we all agree
they are worth something.
Cwiljes
AW: fort knox
Message 217 -
2002-07-26 at 10:49:28
John Jarvin wrote:
> There is nothing backing those greenbacks but
> our own collective word that we all agree
> they are worth something.
Sometimes a simple fact of live hits you like a ton of bricks.
As did this info with me.
So we all agree that these small pieces of paper or pieces of metal
are worth something. We think they are worth much more than the
material value of the paper or metal they are made of. And because all
of us believe this (or have agreed to think so) it's a self fulfilling
prophecy.
But how do we agree how much worth it is? How do we measure "worth"
to begin with? We can't measure worth in monetary value because it
is the money's value we want to determine. So we determine the money's
value in goods: This small piece of paper with a "10" printed on it
is worth
100 eggs
or 1 visit to the cinema
or 0.01 of "Uncle Scrooge" #1 in fine condition
But how do we determine the goods' value? We cannot use money because this
would result in a circulary definition.
Even worth: Think about a person (or duck) who considers money as a good,
so he does not use the money to be goods but wants to have the money just
because it is money. If all people would think so, money would no longer be
money but we would need another form of "symbolic good".
The same happened to gold: Gold is not a worth in itself. Or why should I
want
to own this stuff? What can I do with a ton of gold? Nothing! But it is
scarce,
so in the beginning of history it was ideal to be used as a "symbolic good"
-
as money. Nowadays we can control the scarcity of money by government
institutions
and international conventions. And if any country does not follow theses its
currency
will soon get worthless because people lose faith in it. Just like people of
ancient
time would have if somebody would have found an indefinite supply of gold:
inflation.
There are some goods which I would like to call "semi-currencies": Objects
which
are not as desirably as their monetary value. These goods share some traits
with money:
- stamps
- stocks
- comic books
To be precise: If someone buys a comic book for an astronomical sum this
does
not automatically make the comic book a "semi currency". If he want's to
have it
for himself (just like Scrooge wants money) it's not money! But if he buys
it
simply because he thinks someone else will want to buy it for a higher
amount
it soon might become a semi-currency. So I think there is no sharp contrast
between
"money" an "good".
The whole thing gets even more complicated since we started using money
which has no
(controllable) physical representation at all: Just little numbers on paper
or in a computer.
What is their worth? It is this: The good name (=reliability) of those who
are involved
in it's transaction. So it's just this: A promise! It's an IOU (="I owe
you"). You can trade
these IOUs to others. But in the end it all boils down to trust. But trust
in whom? In the
seller? the bank? the government? the future? I am beginning to get lost
here.
Sorry, I got carried away a bit ;-)
Cord
> There is nothing backing those greenbacks but
> our own collective word that we all agree
> they are worth something.
Sometimes a simple fact of live hits you like a ton of bricks.
As did this info with me.
So we all agree that these small pieces of paper or pieces of metal
are worth something. We think they are worth much more than the
material value of the paper or metal they are made of. And because all
of us believe this (or have agreed to think so) it's a self fulfilling
prophecy.
But how do we agree how much worth it is? How do we measure "worth"
to begin with? We can't measure worth in monetary value because it
is the money's value we want to determine. So we determine the money's
value in goods: This small piece of paper with a "10" printed on it
is worth
100 eggs
or 1 visit to the cinema
or 0.01 of "Uncle Scrooge" #1 in fine condition
But how do we determine the goods' value? We cannot use money because this
would result in a circulary definition.
Even worth: Think about a person (or duck) who considers money as a good,
so he does not use the money to be goods but wants to have the money just
because it is money. If all people would think so, money would no longer be
money but we would need another form of "symbolic good".
The same happened to gold: Gold is not a worth in itself. Or why should I
want
to own this stuff? What can I do with a ton of gold? Nothing! But it is
scarce,
so in the beginning of history it was ideal to be used as a "symbolic good"
-
as money. Nowadays we can control the scarcity of money by government
institutions
and international conventions. And if any country does not follow theses its
currency
will soon get worthless because people lose faith in it. Just like people of
ancient
time would have if somebody would have found an indefinite supply of gold:
inflation.
There are some goods which I would like to call "semi-currencies": Objects
which
are not as desirably as their monetary value. These goods share some traits
with money:
- stamps
- stocks
- comic books
To be precise: If someone buys a comic book for an astronomical sum this
does
not automatically make the comic book a "semi currency". If he want's to
have it
for himself (just like Scrooge wants money) it's not money! But if he buys
it
simply because he thinks someone else will want to buy it for a higher
amount
it soon might become a semi-currency. So I think there is no sharp contrast
between
"money" an "good".
The whole thing gets even more complicated since we started using money
which has no
(controllable) physical representation at all: Just little numbers on paper
or in a computer.
What is their worth? It is this: The good name (=reliability) of those who
are involved
in it's transaction. So it's just this: A promise! It's an IOU (="I owe
you"). You can trade
these IOUs to others. But in the end it all boils down to trust. But trust
in whom? In the
seller? the bank? the government? the future? I am beginning to get lost
here.
Sorry, I got carried away a bit ;-)
Cord
Cwiljes
AW: fort knox
Message 218 -
2002-07-26 at 10:59:07
Sorry, the lines in my previous posting were too long. Here is
a version which should look better:
John Jarvin wrote:
> There is nothing backing those greenbacks but
> our own collective word that we all agree
> they are worth something.
Sometimes a simple fact of live hits you like a ton of bricks.
As did this info with me.
So we all agree that these small pieces of paper or pieces of metal
are worth something. We think they are worth much more than the
material value of the paper or metal they are made of. And because all
of us believe this (or have agreed to think so) it's a self fulfilling
prophecy.
But how do we agree how much worth it is? How do we measure "worth"
to begin with? We can't measure worth in monetary value because it
is the money's value we want to determine. So we determine the money's
value in goods: This small piece of paper with a "10" printed on it
is worth
100 eggs
or 1 visit to the cinema
or 0.01 of "Uncle Scrooge" #1 in fine condition
But how do we determine the goods' value? We cannot use money because
this would result in a circulary definition.
Even worth: Think about a person (or duck) who considers money as a
good, so he does not use the money to be goods but wants to have
the money just because it is money. If all people would think so,
money would no longer be money but we would need another form of
"symbolic good".
The same happened to gold: Gold is not a worth in itself. Or why
should I want to own this stuff? What can I do with a ton of gold?
Nothing! But it is scarce, so in the beginning of history it was
ideal to be used as a "symbolic good" - as money. Nowadays we can
control the scarcity of money by government institutions and
international conventions. And if any country does not follow
these its currency will soon get worthless because people lose
faith in it. Just like people of ancient times would have if
somebody would have found an indefinite supply of gold: inflation.
There are some goods which I would like to call "semi-currencies":
Objects which are not as desirably as their monetary value. These
goods share some traits with money:
- stamps
- stocks
- comic books
To be precise: If someone buys a comic book for an astronomical
sum this does not automatically make the comic book a "semi currency".
If he want's to have it for himself (just like Scrooge wants money)
it's not money! But if he buys it simply because he thinks someone
else will want to buy it for a higher amount it soon might become
a semi-currency. So I think there is no sharp contrast between
"money" an "good".
The whole thing gets even more complicated since we started using
money which has no (controllable) physical representation at all:
Just little numbers on paper or in a computer. What is their worth?
It is this: The good name (=reliability) of those who are involved
in it's transaction. So it's just this: A promise! It's an IOU
(="I owe you"). You can trade these IOUs to others. But in the
end it all boils down to trust. But trust in whom? In the seller?
the bank? the government? the future? I am beginning to get lost here.
Sorry, I got carried away a bit ;-)
Cord
a version which should look better:
John Jarvin wrote:
> There is nothing backing those greenbacks but
> our own collective word that we all agree
> they are worth something.
Sometimes a simple fact of live hits you like a ton of bricks.
As did this info with me.
So we all agree that these small pieces of paper or pieces of metal
are worth something. We think they are worth much more than the
material value of the paper or metal they are made of. And because all
of us believe this (or have agreed to think so) it's a self fulfilling
prophecy.
But how do we agree how much worth it is? How do we measure "worth"
to begin with? We can't measure worth in monetary value because it
is the money's value we want to determine. So we determine the money's
value in goods: This small piece of paper with a "10" printed on it
is worth
100 eggs
or 1 visit to the cinema
or 0.01 of "Uncle Scrooge" #1 in fine condition
But how do we determine the goods' value? We cannot use money because
this would result in a circulary definition.
Even worth: Think about a person (or duck) who considers money as a
good, so he does not use the money to be goods but wants to have
the money just because it is money. If all people would think so,
money would no longer be money but we would need another form of
"symbolic good".
The same happened to gold: Gold is not a worth in itself. Or why
should I want to own this stuff? What can I do with a ton of gold?
Nothing! But it is scarce, so in the beginning of history it was
ideal to be used as a "symbolic good" - as money. Nowadays we can
control the scarcity of money by government institutions and
international conventions. And if any country does not follow
these its currency will soon get worthless because people lose
faith in it. Just like people of ancient times would have if
somebody would have found an indefinite supply of gold: inflation.
There are some goods which I would like to call "semi-currencies":
Objects which are not as desirably as their monetary value. These
goods share some traits with money:
- stamps
- stocks
- comic books
To be precise: If someone buys a comic book for an astronomical
sum this does not automatically make the comic book a "semi currency".
If he want's to have it for himself (just like Scrooge wants money)
it's not money! But if he buys it simply because he thinks someone
else will want to buy it for a higher amount it soon might become
a semi-currency. So I think there is no sharp contrast between
"money" an "good".
The whole thing gets even more complicated since we started using
money which has no (controllable) physical representation at all:
Just little numbers on paper or in a computer. What is their worth?
It is this: The good name (=reliability) of those who are involved
in it's transaction. So it's just this: A promise! It's an IOU
(="I owe you"). You can trade these IOUs to others. But in the
end it all boils down to trust. But trust in whom? In the seller?
the bank? the government? the future? I am beginning to get lost here.
Sorry, I got carried away a bit ;-)
Cord
Cwiljes
AW: fort knox
Message 219 -
2002-07-26 at 11:32:38
I wrote:
> Even worth
This should have read:
Even worse
I think it is quite clear why it made the mistake ;-)
> Even worth
This should have read:
Even worse
I think it is quite clear why it made the mistake ;-)
Cwiljes
AW: The Junior Woodchuck Guidebook -- how private is it?
Message 220 -
2002-07-26 at 11:59:18
Probably the Woodchucks' Golden Rule to forbid outsiders'
access to the Guidebook could be compared to Star Fleet's
"Prime Directive" never to interfere with alien civilizations:
It has to be followed absolutely strictly. Except in cases in which
you have very good reasons to break the rule (which might be
in every second episode).
access to the Guidebook could be compared to Star Fleet's
"Prime Directive" never to interfere with alien civilizations:
It has to be followed absolutely strictly. Except in cases in which
you have very good reasons to break the rule (which might be
in every second episode).
Lgiver
Regarding the Fort Knox discussion
Message 221 -
2002-07-27 at 07:26:01
Yes, it's in the U.S.A. constitution: "Congress shall have the power to
coin money and regulate the value thereof." Of course, the congress is
made up of politicians, not professional economists, so they are mostly
not adept in how to use this power, nor particularly interested. So for
all practical purposes, they've lost this power to the federal reserve
and the treasury department. Interesting how these things evolve. I
remember William J. Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech which launched his
first of 3 nominations for president.
This is very relevant to Don Rosa's Scrooge story "His Majesty
McDuck", my favorite of his stand-alone stories (not a Barks' sequel,
nor part of Scrooge's Life & Times). Scrooge is still concerned about
getting more money---this time as tax refunds from the federal
government, the Calisota state government, and even the Duckburg city
government. But Scrooge should have had bigger thoughts---as king of an
independent country, he can coin his own money, and fill his money bin
with coins and currency having pictures of HIMSELF! The advantages and
disadvantages of doing that would have been really interesting to
explore, and that would really get to the issue of the true nature and
value of money.
---Larry Giver.
coin money and regulate the value thereof." Of course, the congress is
made up of politicians, not professional economists, so they are mostly
not adept in how to use this power, nor particularly interested. So for
all practical purposes, they've lost this power to the federal reserve
and the treasury department. Interesting how these things evolve. I
remember William J. Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech which launched his
first of 3 nominations for president.
This is very relevant to Don Rosa's Scrooge story "His Majesty
McDuck", my favorite of his stand-alone stories (not a Barks' sequel,
nor part of Scrooge's Life & Times). Scrooge is still concerned about
getting more money---this time as tax refunds from the federal
government, the Calisota state government, and even the Duckburg city
government. But Scrooge should have had bigger thoughts---as king of an
independent country, he can coin his own money, and fill his money bin
with coins and currency having pictures of HIMSELF! The advantages and
disadvantages of doing that would have been really interesting to
explore, and that would really get to the issue of the true nature and
value of money.
---Larry Giver.
Fabricio Grellet
Branca!
Message 222 -
2002-07-27 at 07:28:06
HI!
I would like to know if someone here knows the address of an internet site dedicated to the great artist Branca - preferably a site where we could find lots of artwork!!
Thanks.
Fabricio Grellet
I would like to know if someone here knows the address of an internet site dedicated to the great artist Branca - preferably a site where we could find lots of artwork!!
Thanks.
Fabricio Grellet
HorizonHse
The value of money
Message 223 -
2002-07-27 at 10:18:07
hi all,
any discussion of money is actually a discussion of value.
in the material world of this particular planet only 2 things have value:
goods and services -- nothing else.
we can trade goods for goods, goods for services, services for goods, and
services for services.
because we can't carry around all the goods someone might need, and because
we might not offer the right services someone might want, we use money to
represent the value we or someone else attach to the goods or services we
provide.
checks take the process a step further: they represent a representation. same
for credit cards, misnamed as they are, as they actually reduce credit when
used rather than create it.
how do we determine the value of goods and services? simple. supply and
demand. how much are you willing and able to pay for an item or service
compared to someone else, given how many of the item are around or how many
people provide the service?
i have a large collection of original, one-of-a-kind drawings, but they have
no value because no one wants them -- the supply is limited, but the demand
is non-existent. anyone who's been on ebay has seen supply and demand in
action, especially when the item gets to be more than you're either willing
or able to pay -- demand drops. it ultimately sells to someone who values it
more than someone else.
do values change? you bet. ask anyone who owns stock right now. what is
something worth? exactly what the seller and the buyer agree upon to complete
the transaction. you can see this being played out right now on ebay with the
barks oil paintings. as long as the seller values them at more than every
potential buyer values them, they won't sell. what are they really worth?
nothing until the seller and the buyer agree on a value.
end of seminar.
how did we get on this, anyway?
regards
any discussion of money is actually a discussion of value.
in the material world of this particular planet only 2 things have value:
goods and services -- nothing else.
we can trade goods for goods, goods for services, services for goods, and
services for services.
because we can't carry around all the goods someone might need, and because
we might not offer the right services someone might want, we use money to
represent the value we or someone else attach to the goods or services we
provide.
checks take the process a step further: they represent a representation. same
for credit cards, misnamed as they are, as they actually reduce credit when
used rather than create it.
how do we determine the value of goods and services? simple. supply and
demand. how much are you willing and able to pay for an item or service
compared to someone else, given how many of the item are around or how many
people provide the service?
i have a large collection of original, one-of-a-kind drawings, but they have
no value because no one wants them -- the supply is limited, but the demand
is non-existent. anyone who's been on ebay has seen supply and demand in
action, especially when the item gets to be more than you're either willing
or able to pay -- demand drops. it ultimately sells to someone who values it
more than someone else.
do values change? you bet. ask anyone who owns stock right now. what is
something worth? exactly what the seller and the buyer agree upon to complete
the transaction. you can see this being played out right now on ebay with the
barks oil paintings. as long as the seller values them at more than every
potential buyer values them, they won't sell. what are they really worth?
nothing until the seller and the buyer agree on a value.
end of seminar.
how did we get on this, anyway?
regards
Lgiver
A smaller cubic acre, just what's needed!
Message 224 -
2002-07-28 at 06:31:24
I didn't receive the daily email 2 days ago, which would have been
#1019. I don't know if it's just my problem, or if no one received
#1019. But my post of July 25 is in the archieves, and presumably was
on issue #1019. I had re-read several letters to the editor is US
issues in 1991 and 1992 discussing the size of Scrooge's money bin, and
the definition of a cubic acre. The most interesting letter was by
Brian Schmidt in US 256 (July 1991). He suggested that Barks intended a
cubic acre to mean the volume of a cube with a TOTAL surface area of one
acre, rather than an acre on each of its 6 sides, as many (including
myself) presumed. By this definition a cubic acre is only about 7% of
the larger definition, and is in much closer agreement with the
dimensions on the blueprints for the Killmotor Hill money bin.
------------Larry Giver.
#1019. I don't know if it's just my problem, or if no one received
#1019. But my post of July 25 is in the archieves, and presumably was
on issue #1019. I had re-read several letters to the editor is US
issues in 1991 and 1992 discussing the size of Scrooge's money bin, and
the definition of a cubic acre. The most interesting letter was by
Brian Schmidt in US 256 (July 1991). He suggested that Barks intended a
cubic acre to mean the volume of a cube with a TOTAL surface area of one
acre, rather than an acre on each of its 6 sides, as many (including
myself) presumed. By this definition a cubic acre is only about 7% of
the larger definition, and is in much closer agreement with the
dimensions on the blueprints for the Killmotor Hill money bin.
------------Larry Giver.
Sigvald Grøsfjeld Jr.
An Italian series about the Clan McDuck
Message 225 -
2002-07-29 at 02:04:25
Hi all!
In one of the big white books "Det var en gang",
published in Norway in 1992, there are the 3 first of
8 chapters of an Italian series (published in Topolino
in April-May 1970) about the Clan McDuck. The first
chapter is about Scrooge and Gyro on a pre-Armstrong
trip to the moon.
Chapter II is about a McDuck ancestor and his family
in Egypt.
In chapter III the same McDuck ancestor changes his
coins from Egyptian currency into Roman currency which
has double value. In the end of chapter III the McDuck
ancestor and his family joins a Roman army who is sent
to conquer Caledonia (Scotland). And this is where the
story ends in that book. This leads me to the
following questions:
1. Is the last 5 chapters ever published in Norway?
2. Can anyone come up with summaries of the last 5
chapters here on DCML?
3. Who made this series?
Sigvald :-)
______________________________________________________
F? den nye Yahoo! Messenger p? http://no.messenger.yahoo.com/
N? med webkamera, stemmechat, interaktiv bakgrunn og mye mer!
In one of the big white books "Det var en gang",
published in Norway in 1992, there are the 3 first of
8 chapters of an Italian series (published in Topolino
in April-May 1970) about the Clan McDuck. The first
chapter is about Scrooge and Gyro on a pre-Armstrong
trip to the moon.
Chapter II is about a McDuck ancestor and his family
in Egypt.
In chapter III the same McDuck ancestor changes his
coins from Egyptian currency into Roman currency which
has double value. In the end of chapter III the McDuck
ancestor and his family joins a Roman army who is sent
to conquer Caledonia (Scotland). And this is where the
story ends in that book. This leads me to the
following questions:
1. Is the last 5 chapters ever published in Norway?
2. Can anyone come up with summaries of the last 5
chapters here on DCML?
3. Who made this series?
Sigvald :-)
______________________________________________________
F? den nye Yahoo! Messenger p? http://no.messenger.yahoo.com/
N? med webkamera, stemmechat, interaktiv bakgrunn og mye mer!