Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2339a7c7cf421ca

Jump to content

Talk:George Duff

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Charles01 in topic George Duff Why Captain?

Ancestry

[edit]

I have deleted (a grandson of 1st Earl Fife [1]) which is untrue. He was grandson of Patrick Duff of Craigston who was uncle of 1st Earl of Fife. - Kittybrewster 10:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

References

  1. William Duff (c. 1696 - 1763)

George Duff Why Captain?

[edit]

Can you please tell why this article starts with "captain"? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 09:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't noticed that it did, but yes. At the time of his death he held the rank of captain in the British Navy. It is because of this, and activites deriving from it, that he has had enough written about him to feed a small (but I think at LEAST averagely interesting to those who are interested in the surrounding subjects) wikipedia entry. Never having captained anything larger than a river boat for a couple of hours after lunch, I do not expect ever to merit a wiki entry on myself. On the other had, and looking on the brighter side, I don't anticipate that a large French cannon ball will blow my torso apart. I guess that folks who die violently do tend to attract more retrospective comment than they might, during their lives, have anticipated. Then again, given (1) his career choices and (2) the fact that the Brits were at war with most of the adjacent states at this time, I guess he would at least have been aware that his risk of experiencing a violent demise were above average for the population as a whole. Though probably, if you think back to the way folks thought back then, he would have said that the timing and nature of his demise were matters for God and not for him to consider.
Is there any (even) more profound concern that you have with the entry? Please share, if so. Thus the traditional dialectic. Or? (Probably more useful on the talk page itself if so: I'll copy this lot over.)
Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Reply