Page 84 of 117

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 29 Jun 2017, 14:25
by Anita Bensoussane
Fiona1986 wrote:Using decimals is potentially confusing in imperial - .8 of an inch is not the same as 1/8th of an inch.
Do you mean .1 of an inch is not the same as 1/8 of an inch (if an inch is commonly divided into eighths), whereas centimetres are split into 10 millimetres, so .1 of a centimetre is the same as 1/10 of a cm or 1 mm?
Fiona1986 wrote:So I can see why it might be avoided.
Yes, it's not surprising that parts of an inch tend to be written in fractions rather than in decimals.
Rob Houghton wrote:...it would be a bit of a bind to go into word just to write '1/2' lol!
I feel the same!

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 29 Jun 2017, 14:31
by Fiona1986
No I meant that it could be confusing if I measured something as "0.8 inches" meaning a measurement just over 0.75 which would be 3/4 of an inch. That's different from 1/8ths of an inch or from 8 increments/sixteenths of an inch.

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 29 Jun 2017, 15:57
by Rob Houghton
Lol! This is getting confusing! I wish I'd just measured the book in cm and not explained further!! ;-) :lol:

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 29 Jun 2017, 16:03
by Courtenay
Well, the reason it's called a "decimal" point is of course that it's used to show tenths (and then hundredths, thousandths etc.) — that's why 0.5 means a half, because it's five tenths. So 0.1 of an inch would be one tenth of an inch, not one eighth. One eighth of anything expressed as a decimal would be 0.125, which is just too complicated when you're working with a system, like feet and inches, that isn't counted in tens in the first place! :wink:
Rob Houghton wrote:Lol! This is getting confusing! I wish I'd just measured the book in cm and not explained further!! ;-) :lol:
I have to admit I've always been glad we're 100% metric in Australia. :mrgreen:

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 29 Jun 2017, 19:47
by Anita Bensoussane
Anita Bensoussane wrote:
Fiona1986 wrote:Using decimals is potentially confusing in imperial - .8 of an inch is not the same as 1/8th of an inch.
Do you mean .1 of an inch is not the same as 1/8 of an inch (if an inch is commonly divided into eighths), whereas centimetres are split into 10 millimetres, so .1 of a centimetre is the same as 1/10 of a cm or 1 mm?
Fiona1986 wrote:No I meant that it could be confusing if I measured something as "0.8 inches" meaning a measurement just over 0.75 which would be 3/4 of an inch. That's different from 1/8ths of an inch or from 8 increments/sixteenths of an inch.
I can see how someone might mistake 0.8 inches for half an inch rather than four-fifths, believing it to mean 8 parts of an inch divided into sixteenths. However, I can't see how they could mistake 0.8 inches for one-eighth of an inch.
Rob Houghton wrote:Lol! This is getting confusing! I wish I'd just measured the book in cm and not explained further!! ;-) :lol:
:lol:

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 29 Jun 2017, 19:55
by John Pickup
Rob Houghton wrote: I wish I'd just measured the book in cm and not explained further!! ;-) :lol:
I wish I hadn't asked for its measurements. :D

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 29 Jun 2017, 23:36
by Rob Houghton
:lol:

Yep - your fault John!! ;-)

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 02 Jul 2017, 17:16
by Moonraker
Anita Bensoussane wrote: I can see how someone might mistake 0.8 inches for half an inch rather than four-fifths, believing it to mean 8 parts of an inch divided into sixteenths.
Blimey, I can't! You been on the falling-down-water, Anita? :shock:

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 05 Jul 2017, 21:59
by Anita Bensoussane
Detailed reviews by Terry Gustafson of one of the Nature Readers (Book 6) and A Day With Noddy. It's good to see write-ups of these lesser-known books.

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 05 Jul 2017, 22:55
by Katharine
Not sure this is the correct place for a query, but I've just spotted the latest picture in the Caption thread, and am wondering what on earth it is from? I've had a quick look in The Cave as I assumed it was supposed to be from Five on a Treasure Island, but couldn't spot it. Anyone able to point me in the right direction please?

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 06 Jul 2017, 01:25
by Rob Houghton
Pete should probably know. I even did a google search but couldn't find that illustration.

I have 'A Day With Noddy' - a lovely book with gorgeous illustrations - so colourful! Some good Noddy-style rhymes as well, of course! ;-)

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 06 Jul 2017, 07:57
by Courtenay
An enjoyable review of A Day With Noddy (which I haven't read). I couldn't help noticing this line:
Some people can't stand the little chap (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)
Now who could that possibly be?? :D :wink:

I was more surprised by this observation, though:
Noddy's original artist, Harmsen van der Beek (Beek), isn't acknowledged in this particular volume.
Well, Harmsen van der Beek died in 1953 and this book was published in 1956 — I don't think Beek ever was acknowledged in any of the books he didn't illustrate. Of the Noddy books I recently bought, one of them has "Pictures by Beek" as stated on the cover, but the others are from after his time and none of them has any indication of who the illustrator was.

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 06 Jul 2017, 08:07
by Anita Bensoussane
Katharine wrote:I've just spotted the latest picture in the Caption thread, and am wondering what on earth it is from? I've had a quick look in The Cave as I assumed it was supposed to be from Five on a Treasure Island, but couldn't spot it.
It looks as if it might come from the magazine Mystery and Suspense (1997). Five on a Treasure Island was serialised in the first six issues.

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 06 Jul 2017, 09:14
by Katharine
Thanks Anita. I think I have that magazine somewhere, I shall try and track it down and check.

Re: Website Additions

Posted: 06 Jul 2017, 10:24
by Rob Houghton
Courtenay wrote: I was more surprised by this observation, though:
Noddy's original artist, Harmsen van der Beek (Beek), isn't acknowledged in this particular volume.
Well, Harmsen van der Beek died in 1953 and this book was published in 1956.
I thought that, too. I don't think Beek did any more illustrations after his death... ;-)

The illustrations are lovely though - and very much in the style of Beek - but I agree with you Courtenay that for some reason, after Beek died, I don't think any other artist was ever credited - at least in the 'Noddy Library' series.

One thing I found interesting about Terry's review - he makes no mention of the fact that 'A Day With Noddy' is told entirely in rhyme. Each page has a full-colour illustration and a four-line rhyme to accompany it. :-D