White House?

[noname]

Does it have something to do with white flags?

[John Cook]

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:17:56 +0300, noname > wrote:

>Does it have something to do with white flags?

No, but it might have something to do with the repainting it needed
when an invading force burnt it down...

Cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
>
> No, but it might have something to do with the repainting it needed
> when an invading force burnt it down...
>

It didn't have anything to do with that either. The building was first made
white with lime-based whitewash in 1798, when its walls were finished,
simply as a
means of protecting the porous stone in freezing weather.

[John Keeney]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:17:56 +0300, noname > wrote:
>
> >Does it have something to do with white flags?
>
> No, but it might have something to do with the repainting it needed
> when an invading force burnt it down...

If it had been "burnt down" I don't think a little paint would have helped.
Granted, they did do a lot of damage.

[Richard Brooks]

John Cook wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:17:56 +0300, noname > wrote:
>
>> Does it have something to do with white flags?
>
> No, but it might have something to do with the repainting it needed
> when an invading force burnt it down...
>
> Cheers
> John Cook

This is the story in Ripley's Believe It Or Not. According to Ripley, it
started out pink.

Richard.

[Marc Reeve]

Richard Brooks > wrote:
> John Cook wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:17:56 +0300, noname > wrote:
> >
> >> Does it have something to do with white flags?
> >
> > No, but it might have something to do with the repainting it needed
> > when an invading force burnt it down...
> >
> > Cheers
> > John Cook
>
> This is the story in Ripley's Believe It Or Not. According to Ripley, it
> started out pink.
>
Pinkish-beige to be exact. It's sandstone, after all.

Got to see it in early 1988 when it was being re-painted. They said that
it was going to be about an inch smaller in all dimensions after all the
old paint was scraped/sandblasted off. I suspect this was a leg pull,
however.

--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

[Richard Brooks]

Marc Reeve wrote:
> Richard Brooks > wrote:
>> John Cook wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 12:17:56 +0300, noname >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does it have something to do with white flags?
>>>
>>> No, but it might have something to do with the repainting it needed
>>> when an invading force burnt it down...
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> John Cook
>>
>> This is the story in Ripley's Believe It Or Not. According to
>> Ripley, it started out pink.
>>
> Pinkish-beige to be exact. It's sandstone, after all.
>
> Got to see it in early 1988 when it was being re-painted. They said
> that it was going to be about an inch smaller in all dimensions after
> all the old paint was scraped/sandblasted off. I suspect this was a
> leg pull, however.

No! Go with it. When I worked for the BBC (and Imperial College, London)
that there was this blanket contempt from the old boys for students who'd
learnt it all on paper and had little or no "hands on" experience.

These college genii worked out the size of the box to fit an orifice and had
forgotten that the thickness of the paint would have serious consequences on
the outcome. Duly painted, the box didn't fit!

Damned college types! ;-)


Richard.