action fleet

Daily Doodle #301/1000.

Doodle which got out of hand, as usual.  Melee with an English 70-gun ship, based on HMS Centurion (Admiral Anson’s famous flagship from his well-known circumnavigation.)

Did everything but the initial sketch in the stream.  Then CSP blew up and wouldn’t even force quit.  Then my internet died.  :D

But at least I *sort of* finished the painting (or rather, comp study for a future painting)!

- - - - - - -
Clip Studio Paint, Cintiq 22HD. © Avatar Z Brown.

No woman has ever been encouraged to be gay. A woman will be encouraged to be bisexual or straight, however. Men wanting a woman to do some girl-on-girl action are seeking a fleeting moment that will titillate them until they want the woman to solely show attraction to men. Men and women who support conversion therapy are now portraying bisexuality as the next best thing in comparison to the fully normal heterosexuality. Liberals are making homosexuality out to be morally bankrupt. Homosexuality is demonized in every context and there is no way one can logically conclude that we are encouraged to be gay without having a homophobic thought process.

anonymous asked:

Why is Enterprise so famous

Ah, Enterprise. I assume you’re taking about USS Enterprise, CV-6 or CVN-65? If so, there is a lot of reasons.
The first one: Enterprise is a name that has been in the U.S. Navy for centuries, with nine ships (including the soon-to-be-built CVN-80) having used the name. It’s been in the Royal Navy since the early 1700s, with fifteen ships named Enterprise or Enterprize.

Second: USS Enterprise (CV-6) was the most highly decorated carrier of WWII. She participated in every major fleet action except for two, earning twenty battle stars. She sank or damaged 263 ships, and downed 911 planes. From December 7, 1941, to May 14, 1945 - when a kamikaze blew one of her elevators hundreds of meters sky high - she fought in WWII.

At one point in the Pacific, when Lexington, Wasp, Yorktown, and Hornet were sunk, and Saratoga damaged, she was the only U.S. carrier remaining in the entire Pacific. Whole war strategies depended on CV-6’s survival and strength, Enterprise vs. Japan. After the war, she languished until 1958 when she was scrapped. Admiral Halsey had been leading an effort to save her by turning her into a museum ship, but he was unable to raise enough money.

Third: USS Enterprise (CVN-65) was the first nuclear-powered ship, not to mention aircraft carrier, in the world. She ushered in the nuclear age for the navies of the world, and was the longest ship in the world. She was decommissioned in 2013, ending 51 years of service.

Fourth: Enterprise (OV-101), the space shuttle.

Originally to be named Constitution and rolled out on Constitution Day, thousands of letters to the White House convinced president Gerald Ford to name her Enterprise, after the ship from Star Trek. Speaking of Star Trek…

Fifth: USS Enterprise (XCV-330, NX-01) NCC-1701/A/B/C/D/E/J) plus ISS Enterprise (NX-01, NCC-1701). Originally supposed to be named after USS Yorktown (CV-5), she was renamed to Enterprise. Since then, Star Trek and therefore Enterprise has become one of the most famous scifi series to ever play on television. Amusingly, NCC-1701 is a Constitution-class vessel, just like how OV-101 was supposed to be named Constitution.

Sixth: Enterprise, Rent-A-Car. This company that you may or may not have rented a car from in this past was founded by WWII veterans.

sometimes, we love people because of what they give us, the way they make us feel. but people’s ability to give, is not consistent and is always changing. so to chase that feeling, is redundant as feelings cannot ever be constant. if love is reliant on this feeling, it too becomes inconsistent and changes. love is not a feeling. love is a commitment. love is the action of justice despite fleeting emotions.
—  iambrillyant

S.M.S. Derfflinger was a battlecruiser of the Kaiserliche Marine in the outbreak of the world war one.

Derfflinger was part of the I Scouting Group for most of World War I, and was involved in several fleet actions during the war. She took part in the bombardments of English coastal towns, as well as the Battles of Dogger Bank and Jutland, where her stubborn resistance led to the British nicknaming her “Iron Dog”. The ship was partially responsible for the sinking of two British battlecruisers at Jutland; Derfflinger and Seydlitz destroyed Queen Mary, and Lützow assisted her elder sister in the sinking of Invincible. Derfflinger was interned with the rest of the High Seas fleet at Scapa Flow following the armistice in November 1918. Under the orders of Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter, the interned ships were scuttled on 21 June 1919; Derfflinger sank at 14:45.

anonymous asked:

I'm at a point where I'm tired of being fake happy, but understand that being sad/mad/depressed will not make things better. I'm mentally/physically drained.Do you have any recommendations that helps calm the mind/soul I don't want to head into the new year feeling like this.

It’s okay to not be happy. Embrace your sadness, madness, and depression; accept them. Flow with your emotions, but don’t allow them to constantly dictate your actions, because they are fleeting like ocean waves - they come and go. How can you ever truly heal if you keep sweeping your “negative” emotions under the rug instead of face them? They must be examined, touch, and felt to find the root or triggers. So sometimes we have to admit it like “Fuck it - yes I am unhappy. I am not feeling good. What is causing this feeling, and what can I do about it?” Just by welcoming your truth of unhappiness will lighten you up, because pretending will only drain your soul as you stated.

If we observe social media alone, we can see how we’ve been programmed to believe that we’re supposed to feel happy 100% of the time, but no one does. Most of us proudly only post our smiles, accomplishments, and goals, but when it comes to our sadness or failures it isn’t anyone’s business… and this is where the imbalance seeps in - neglecting and hiding.

“Happiness comes and goes. You have to do what brings you peace of mind.”

How To Free Yourself From Repressed Emotions 

How To Remain In Balance With Your Emotions

Why We Have To Feel To Heal

How To Use Pain To Raise Your Vibration 

anonymous asked:

I just have to say that I adore your enthusiasm about Nelson and Georgian Age of Sail in general! It's so cool! Thank you for writing this blog! Can you recommend any books, besides the obvious?

*blushes furiously* Ahhh thank you, anon! The Age of Sail is so fascinating, and Nelson is so ridiculously awesome (emphasis on the ridiculous), it’s impossible not to get enthusiastic about it all! :DD

For book recs, well, it really depends what part of the Age of Sail you’re interested in! But here are the ones I’d recommend to everybody.

For general Age of Sail:

  • Nelson’s Navy, by Brian Lavery. The indispensable reference book for most aspects of the navy between 1793-1815. Lavery’s an eminent naval historian who knows his stuff, so it’s worth checking out his whole backlist.
  • The Wooden World: An Anatomy of the Georgian Navy, by N.A.M. Rodger, one of the definitive studies of life in the Age of Sail. Rodger also has a two volume Naval History of Britain series. The second volume, The Command of the Ocean, covers the Georgian period.
  • Roy and Lesley Adkins have published several great books on the subject, packed full of info, and very readable. Their Jack Tar is a fabulous book about the lives of the ordinary seamen of Nelson’s navy, very much recommended. There’s also their The War For All the Oceans: From Nelson at the Nile to Napoleon at Waterloo and Trafalgar: Biography of a Battle.
  • If you want to get technical, Seamanship in the Age of Sail by John Harland is the book. It’s also very rare and expensive - I got my copy for £65, and that was a steal!
  • William James wrote a six-volume Naval History of Great Britain in the 1820s. It’s a stunning work, painstakingly researched, and more accessible than you’d expect. It’s fascinating to dip in and out of - James arranges his history by year, and by type of action: fleet, single-ship duels, boat actions, etc. And you can get it online! :D
  • As a general rule, historians like David Cordingly, Andrew Lambert, Sam Willis, and Tim Clayton are worth checking out, and they write on a variety of naval subjects, from biographies to certain battles/wars/ships. Seaforth Publishing are a division/imprint/whatever of military publishers Pen and Sword, and publish loads of naval history books, so worth checking out.

And because nothing beats a good, old-fashioned memoir, here’s the ones I have:

  • Autobiography of a Seaman, by Thomas Cochrane. I’ve only read bits of this one, but even those were very entertaining! 
  • A Voice from the Main Deck, by Samuel Leech, who was a ship’s boy in both the British and American navies. Fascinating, even if Sam himself is insufferable!
  • The Narrative of William Spavens. The backstory behind this one is quite poignant: Spavens was a Chatham pensioner who was compelled to write his memoirs as a way to make ends meet.
  • The Adventures of John Wetherell. I’ve actually just started reading this one, but so far so good! He hates his captain and writes terrible poetry, what’s not to like? XD
  • A Mariner of England, by William Richardson. The point of view of a pressed man who eventually ended up as a gunner. 

For Nelson:

  • John Sugden has written a recent biography of Nelson in two massive volumes: A Dream of Glory and The Sword of Albion. Phenomenal work, and totally terrifying! I use them as reference books, for dipping in and out of; I haven’t dared try to read them cover to cover yet!
  • The Pursuit of Victory: The Life and Achievement of Horatio Nelson, by Roger Knight is a much more manageable size than the Sugden, and full of interest.
  • Nelson: A Personal History, by Christopher Hibbert is just what it sounds like, and full of delightful anecdotes.
  • Basically anything by the late, great Colin White, who was the Nelson expert until he passed away in 2008. I haven’t actually got round to reading his Nelson: The Admiral, but that one in particular seems to be about him as a leader.
  • For Nelson in his own words, the various volumes of The Dispatches and Letters of Lord Nelson can often be picked up quite cheap, there’s Nelson: The New Letters edited by Colin White, and the two volumes of The Letters of Lord Nelson to Lady Hamilton (if you have a Kindle, you can get these for free!).
  • Also, if for some ungodly reason you haven’t already read it, the Authentic Narrative of the Death of Lord Nelson by my bb Dr. William Beatty, Victory’s surgeon, was, and still is, one of the key eyewitness accounts of Trafalgar and Nelson’s death. And it will make you cry ALL THE TEARS.

Whew! That’s a start, anyway! Hopefully there’s a few less obvious ones in there for you. :D I’m also prone to flail a lot over naval surgeons, women at sea, the War of 1812, Philip Broke, and James Cook, so if you’re interested in any of those things, I have recs for them as well!

Simple Accidents (Pt 9)

Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4 Part 5 Part 6 Part 7 Part 8

Jensen x Reader

Warnings: Short Smut (Oral), Language

Word Count: 1,870

(A/N: Again, pretend the suit is all black, yea?)

“You’ve been pretty quiet. Did that guy hurt you?” You could tell he was struggling not to stare at you and veer off the road.

“It was nothing I couldn’t handle.” You smiled at him, squeezing his hand gently. It was the truth, you’d had to deal with much worse, and someone horny weed head wasn’t even the tip of the iceberg. Jensen laughed and shook his head. “What?” You asked.

“It’s just, the more I learn about you, the more I like you. It seems like you’re just mystery after mystery. You keep surprising me. But you don’t make me feel like I’m digging and scratching at you to get information. I love that about you. I really do.” You leaned over and kissed his cheek, a silent thank you for his kind words. A mild blush crept onto his face.

Keep reading

The Imperial German Navy (Kaiserliche Marine) battlecruiser SMS Moltke during a visit to Hampton Roads, Virginia in 1912. She participated in most major fleet actions conducted by the German Navy during the First World War, taking damage several times.

During the Battle of Jutland, on the last night of May 1916 Moltke came under fire from Britain’s new fast battleships, coming to the rescue of their own battlecruisers. The four Queen Elizabeth-class super dreadnoughts she faced were carrying new and very powerful 15″ guns. Within 10 minutes she had been hit. The shell pierced a coal bunker, tore into a casemate deck and ignited ammunition stored there. The explosion burned the ammunition hoist down to the magazine, but there it stopped. Another 15″ shell struck the No. 5 starboard 5.9″ secondary. The ship returned home with 16 dead and 20 wounded. She herself had hit the British battlecruiser HMS Tiger 13 times, which suffered 24 men killed and 46 wounded from 18 hits.

There is a clear difference between a love interest and a love story.

Here is my take on it.

A love interest is temporary. It may only last for part of a season of a television show.

A love story is a long-term relationship. It may even be canon as part of the larger narrative of the story and the characters.

A love interest can happen overnight or even instantly. It has no basis in reason other than being a pleasant distraction for the character or the audience.

A love story takes time to build as the characters develop and learn to take their journey together.

A love interest character falls in like and/or in bed and their actions are fleeting.

A love story character falls in love with their companion character and their actions are deliberate.

A love interest character fights with the chosen character.

A love story character fights for their chosen character.

A love interest advances the plot.

A love story advances the character’s development.

A love interest serves an immediate purpose.

A love story serves the larger story and narrative of the character(s).

A love interest requires little effort because they are created to be one-dimensional; or the relationship itself is one-dimensional.

A love story requires an abundance of effort and time because a character being built is three-dimensional. The romance itself is three-dimensional.

A love interest can be created as a recurring character in a story, but the brief romance they share with another main or supporting character isn’t supposed to be canon. It’s supposed to fill a void in the plot of the moment. They disappear once they have served their purpose.

A love story is something only a leading character can have because the leading character has been written so that they, as a character, matter to the audience. 

The audience can “ship” either a love interest or a love story, but only the love story (supported by the creators) will survive.

A love interest never does. Either the relationship or the character dies. Sometimes they both perish.  

A main character can have either a love interest or a love story.

A supporting or recurring character can only have a love interest.

On Vampire Diaries:

Elena had Stefan and Damon as love stories, and Liam as a love interest.

Caroline had Jesse as a love interest, but Matt, Tyler, and Stefan as love stories. (Klaus is a love story too, but his character was so epic, he was “shipped off” to another show - pardon the pun.)

Bonnie had, well, I suppose you could say Jamie was a love interest. They did kiss once in one Episode of Season 3, but then he vanished from the show.

Jeremy and Bonnie never fell in love on screen. Bonnie actually had to convince herself to date him. That’s not an actual love story, and given that Jeremy only said “I love you” to Bonnie once – right before she was about to vanish from existence – one can’t consider that a love story either.

The truth is, regardless of what Julie Plec says, she has never intended for Bonnie to be anything other than a supporting character to be used at her Executive Producer discretion. Someone needs to die – okay, it’s Bonnie. Someone needs a spell – okay, call Bonnie. Someone needs to be blamed for something – okay, it’s Bonnie.

Julie Plec made a point of commenting on Twitter that she thought Bonnie should have died at the end of Season 5 because she believed the character’s story had been told.

Well, I suppose if you want the only person of color to serve as the proverbial supernatural maid, cleaning up or fixing messes for everyone else. Or if you want someone to serve as the sacrificial lamb because you don’t give a damn about her character – then yeah, Plec HAS told that Bonnie story plenty of times.

Bonnie is not meant to stand out or fall in love. She is not meant to have a career or a family. She’s not meant to be happy. Julie Plec admitted that she didn’t see Bonnie’s character as being valuable until Season 6…you know, the season she didn’t want Bonnie to be in at all. 

Now she wants Bonnie to feel both guilty and grateful for being alive. She ties her life to Elena’s AGAIN – her death being the only thing that can bring back Elena and Delena, even though Bonnie has already died for that girl and her band of boys too many times already.

Sure, Plec is going to throw a “love interest” at Bonnie this season to shut up people who consider her a racist for treating the only black character on the show with such overt disgust and disrespect when compared to her other female characters. The so-called romance for Bonnie will not be canon. It will not be a love story because Plec and Dries don’t give a damn about Bonnie.

You’ll note that Plec said Bonnie’s Season 7 love interest will come out of nowhere, but it will make sense. That is NOT a love story. 

She also stated that they might explore Bonnie’s bi-sexual storyline down the road, if it makes sense for the character. This is basically admitting that whatever romance Bonnie has, like always, won’t last. It won’t develop on screen. It won’t matter because her character doesn’t matter to the executive producers.

I wonder if that is their way of telling young women of color that are fans of the show just how much characters that look like them are valued.

(Wow, that actually turned into a rant pretty quickly.) 

Bonnie, out of all the people on this damn show, deserves a love story.

Who here agrees with me?

surprise: another “stumble” theory

Rhys, Rhys, Rhys,

of course your fleeting action will torment me for an entire year, you sneaky little good-looking bastard.

I recently found the notes I made while rereading ACOTAR again last month and realized that I haven’t even voiced most of my theories, yet.

Here comes my far-fetched theory: Rhysand has some sort of sight, allowing him a glimpse in the future. 

Alright, alright, I know that sounds weird but consider this:

“She would’ve been the one for you, but she is even more stubborn than you.”

As we all know, Rhys commented this as he found out about Feyre currently being situated in the Spring Court manor. I see how he would presume that the only reason for Tamlin to have a mortal in his lands would be in order to break the approaching curse. Yet, somehow the “stubborn” part in his little speech stirred things up in my mind.

See, Feyre is stubborn when it comes to getting away from Tamlin in the beginning etc. However, shouldn’t Rhys have been intrigued by the fact that Tamlin has come so far already? By the glimpse he got into Feyre’s oh-so-unpure mind he already knows that their relationship has reached an advanced stage. Why did he not panic? (I guess, he wouldn’t be Rhys if he did) Why did he not make bigger threats in Amarantha’s name? Why not get rid of her immediately? 

When he implied that she is even more stubborn than him he must have referred to their relationship, right? When was the next time Feyre was “stubborn” of sorts? Right when she is about to leave and Tamlin voices his love for a second time. Yet, she refuses to say it back, stubbornly thinking her mortal love is worthless to him but she could’ve said it.

I believe that Rhysand was all ~chill~ about the situation because shadows always remain: past, present, future. So there definitely could be some sort of sight-factor to it.

Long story short: Rhys saw a glimpse of the looming threat over Prythian and how Feyre will be the key to stop it (see newly released reviews about ACOMAF, as well as the synopsis itself). This “vision” whatsoever cleared up in that moment because of his powers returning fully and due to Feyre’s presence as she is a part of that future, causing the stumble and eventually the fandom’s frustration.

If (for some really rare reason) this was actually the case, what could he specifically have seen? Maybe he didn’t see the threat and maybe the mating bond didn’t actually snap into place (otherwise Feyre would’ve sensed it, too) but maybe he saw the mating bond snapping into place in the future (hehe I couldn’t get around that ;) ) causing him to flare his nostrils as some kind of proof that it wasn’t happening in that moment? I mean.. what other possible reason could the High Lord of the dreaded Night Court have to loose his glamorous composure?

Feel free to continue my stray thoughts.