On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:31:48 -0700, Charles Bishop
<
ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In article <
asbrtbtm5ih4i6ep9...@4ax.com>,
> Tony Cooper <
tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 07:41:08 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <
gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 10:26:21 AM UTC-4, Don Phillipson wrote:
>> >
>> >> Most obviously, the
www.answers.com solution omits soldiers'
>> >> observation that lighting three cigarettes from the same match
>> >> invites death. This may have originated in trench warfare in WW1.
>> >> The idea is that the first event alerts an enemy sniper, he aims at
>> >> the second glow and shoots when he sees the third.
>> >
>> >There is only one glow, which in moving a foot or so from smoker to smoker,
>> >remains visible long enough for the sniper to take aim.
>>
>> That's not the way it was supposed to have worked. The sniper watched
>> to see where the two end points were and aimed at the middle between
>> those two. He didn't aim at a "glow"; he aimed between where two
>> glowing points were seen earlier. His chances of hitting the middle
>> person were very good.
>
>I don't understand why the last man using the match would necessarily be
>in between the other two.
>
That's not implied. The last man to use the match is the one who sets
the third point. All the sniper needs is three points because he is
going to aim at the space between the two end points. The last man to
use the match could be any of the three, but the end points would have
been set by his use.
>More likely the use of one match gave the rifleman time to follow the
>flame and fire. One match for each cigarette wouldn't give this
>opportunity.
The saying is about "Three on a match". One match. The three uses
would be separated be a very brief time because one match doesn't stay
lit that long. Matches would have been hoarded by combat soldiers who
smoked because there was no place to replenish the supply.