It's huge - i wonder if it cleared all telephone and telegraph wires that crisscrossed the streets back then?
Well I guess that would be the direct opposite of Hell On Wheels!
Not safe to put that much fire and brimstone near the gas tank.
The other side reads "Loony Bin".
Zippity-doo-dah, zippety-eh .....
If you drive that thing under the trolley car wire, you'd have a real electrifying service!
It looks like it has a steering wheel in the vestibule.
Oversize wheels and tires all around in Australian fashion. Probably need them. Cannot imagine driving that in a strong cross wind. (pun noted)
Special designation for MVD ...
House Of God Car
HELL ! this story was forwarded to me by my very good friend Howard Genrich, A.K.A. Humble Howard. O.T.
The following is an actual question/ANSWER given on a University of Arizona chemistry midterm, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by one student was so 'profound' that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, 'It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,' and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct..... ...leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting 'Oh my God.'
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+
That was a Hell of a great read Frank! Thanks for sharing!
You're right, Jay, but it turned Heavenly right there at the end.
Wouldn't want to ride in the thing but still a cool T. I like them all. Looks like it would turn over in a slight curve. Tim
That student may not have become a chemist, in fact I suspect he became a lawyer which strongly supports theorem #1. However, If the student married Teresa, he has no doubt discovered that Hell has no fury like a woman scorned. Bringing me to the undeniable conclusion that the existence or non existence of hell is irrelevant to him, HIS life is a living hell.
John, a hell of a good postulation !
I took a few years off between high school and college, so when I entered, I was something
of an "old man". This showed terribly in a large auditorium sized world history class when the
professor stepped to the lectern and handed out our mid-term assignment:
Choose any two persons from all of history that you would like to spend a large amount of
time with to really get to know them, and WHY.
The student was expected to write a paper on this and do a 15 minute presentation at the
lectern TO to the rest of the class for a final grade.
Of the MANY students in that class, it was appalling how many chose current "nobodies" of
the time ... Madonna was a perennial choice, and few chose anyone of real historical importance.
I was only about 21 at the time, but quickly realized that college kids are still just stupid kids
with little life experience or sense of what is really important.
Some, however, will surprise even the salty old professor.
I too, went back after a small gap, and then went back after a large gap, so I was in my mid-30s when I graduated from CSU, Chico (I have the very last Industrial Arts degree they gave). Am curious as to whom you chose. I do remember going to the first class of a general ed class I was going to take, "The possibilities for Peace and the Probability of War." I sat through the class and immediately realized the prof thought he was God's gift to the college and his class was the ONLY class the students were taking. Turned in my "drop slip" at the end of the class. A few weeks later I ran into a couple of other students who were taking the class, "We wish we'd done what you did!" was their universal response. Life experience has its rewards! I found something less strenuous to fill in the GE requirement.
The GE requirements are there to expose those "young minds filled with mush" to other subjects and ideas they might not consider. It was part of the idea to provide a well-rounded graduate. Today's colleges seem less open to contrary ideas and open debate, a great loss.
BUT, I'm getting far afield of this thread, sorry!
As a retired College professor and later on the Dean of Instruction and Curriculum, the reason we offer crazy classes is to see if a student can study an unimportant subject and answer questions about it in a test. The is done in order to train students for the workforce and do the silly things one must do for a pay check.
Aha! I always wondered why they made us take all of those calculus classes in college!
In my entire 35 year engineering career, I think I took a derivative maybe twice....
I only had two years of college, both at Chicago Technical College, studying mechanical engineering, however, arranging my courses in such priority order as to lead to a diploma in "Machine Drafting & Design". That 2 yrs of college was followed by the U.S. Marine Corps, marriage, family, mortgage, etc, etc, etc,......
Dropping out was NOT one of the smartest things I ever did, however, at least gaining the diploma in Machine Drafting & Design was one of the smartest things I ever did, as it led to a pretty good job as a "detail draftsman" with the International Harvester Advance Engineering and Research Center in Hinsdale, Illinois.
That job as a "detail draftsman", working for the "engine & transmission group" of 9 mechanical engineers was a real "eye opener"! I found out very quickly that an awful lot of actual "engineering" is NOT done the way I was led to believe it was done during my 2 years of engineering college! Yes, there certainly were some things done in accordance with good,solid, engineering practice, however, a whole lot was done by,......"well, we know that works, 'cause we did it like that once before and it works great, or, well, no sense even trying THAT, 'cause we tried THAT before, and it didn't work then, so why would it work now, right?"
Anyway, IH was a great experience, I probably learned more there than I did in college, and those IH folks were sure a great bunch of guys, but somehow, I ended up as a railroad cop ....that's a whole 'other story,.... and frankly, "praise the Lord", things worked out pretty well. And interestingly enough,..... International Harvester, once a GIANT in the industry, is long gone! (....and for the most part, so are "draftsmen"!)
Dewey ~ my choices were Jesus Christ. I thought he might prove most interesting to
clear up a whole lot of "grey areas" regarding the Christian religion and teachings SINCE
The second was Adolph Hitler. I'd really like to carry on some serious debate with this
man on the soundness of his ideology and strategy and where it ultimately led.
I have often asked friends since college days whom they would choose. It makes for
some interesting conversation on who and what people think is relevant in life.
I should have known you would pick some controversial and difficult folks! Kinda hard to limit the presentation to 15 minutes though!
Hmm, who would I have chosen?? Hmmm. Einstein would be a very interesting person to talk to, and he's well-documented, so there's one. Maybe Tesla would be fun to get to know, such a genius!
The trouble with Hitler, is that I understand he lost his mind somewhere during the last year of his rule. If he'd been a bit more logical, there is a good chance we would not have won!
To get back on track here is the opposition.
I don't see this as controversial. I see it as historical and an opportunity to take
the "controversial" out of it by going straight to the source.
I think both would offer some rather relevant and interesting straight-from-the-
horse's-mouth conversation and insight into subjects that are often "presented
to advantage" by groups and persons since those times.
Would it not be incredible to listen to some blowhard spouting off fiction and be
able to say "Well, actually, I talked to the guy and what he really said was .... " ?
One represents our more ancient cultural basis, the other had a profound effect
on our modern social/political paradigm.
I always knew that The Lord moves in mysterious ways
I just hope there will be Model Ts in heaven, lol.
I did mean to imply that your choices were controversial, but that your subjects certainly are! And yes, that would be a great thing to do (correct someone with info direct from the source).
This reminds me of a time in High School when the class genius (yes he was, probably still is) was arguing with our Social Studies teacher about something to do with WWII. Frustrated, Mr. Longo final said, "That's what happened, I was THERE!"
That's when I realized he had been in Black Ops (I forget the situation, but it was something that the only Americans that would have been there would have been "black ops" guys.).
Like many of the WWII guys, including my Dad, they never talked about it. By the time my Dad would talk about it, he'd lost most of his memory.
Come to think of it, if I could go back, my Dad would be someone I'd want to talk with--for a long time!
OK, much later in day, I see I made a mistake above, it should have read:
I did NOT mean to imply. . . .
Lesson learned: sometimes late at night, I don't type well!!!
It's all good ...
I find it tough to talk social history with many people. They have their "comfortable"
version of whatever, and are not open to learning or even discussing certain subjects.
I am used to it.
I was lucky, I guess, being raised in a small town where you got to know your teachers, and much more than what was in the textbooks was at least talked about. I know I seem to have a wider history education than most my age.
Now, I need to put my aluminum foil hat back on, just in case someone's listening!
BTW, I usually can't talk stuff like this with my own family, they don't like to hear stuff different than what they think and some of their thinking is just crazy!! Of course, what do I know? They might be right!
The "Gospel Car No 1" is concerning to me. I am sure if there was a No. 2 it was built differently. I can't see how they could hold passengers without lifting the front wheels off the ground. Perhaps that is why they are parked! They are waiting to have the garage move their rear wheels back
Option 2 is that car was for services and it empty when moving. In this case one would just have to support the rear.
Perhaps having the rearend on the ground and the frontend pointed toward the sky was done for the purpose of giving the congregation the sensation they were headed somewhere important. "Brethren fasten thy safety belts, we're going to launch this sucker and in a matter of a few minutes we'll be following close behind Haleys comet." Koolaid anyone?