| Author |
Message |
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:23 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing |
|
|
In article <1gl4d9c.pkd0maicm4cgN%que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com>,
que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com wrote...
| Quote: | Steve Hayes <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 4 Oct 2004 00:09:30 GMT, "Mark Barratt" <mark.barratt@enternet.hu> wrote:
don groves wrote:
There's an active Buddhist community here in Portland (we're a
haven for "that sort of thing").
My mind is boggling as to what else falls into the "that sort of
thing" category alongside Buddhism.
Suggestions?
Other active (religious) communities?
Suggesting, perhaps, that Portlanders (or whatever they call themselves) are
not apathetic, but are enthusiastic joiners and participators in various
religious (and other?) communities?
That would make sense, but I don't think that's it -- the Pacific
Northwest is the least-religious part of the country, I've read.
Ahhh, Portland!
|
Also the most bookish and caffeinated if the polls are to be
believed.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:26 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing (was: Stool and Faeces as words for m |
|
|
don groves wrote:
| Quote: | We require a nickel deposit on all beer, soft drink, etc.,
containers, redeemable upon return to a collection center.
This law has cut the amount of refuse along our roads and
highways considerably. The supermarket chains and beer
distributors fight this tooth-and-nail every time it comes up for
renewal but we have prevailed, so far. A few other states have
similar laws.
|
Including most of the states of the Great Northeast (except that it's a
dime in some places, isn't it? Michigan? But Michigan isn't in the
Northeast of course).
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:31 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing |
|
|
don groves wrote:
| Quote: | Also the most bookish and caffeinated if the polls are to be
believed.
|
Portland (Ah, Portland!) more caffeinated than Seattle? Maybe, though, as
those freckle-faced Oregonian Anti-WTO Lunatics (NTTARWT) found out a few
years ago, you can't throw a stone in Seattle without hitting a
Starbuck's.
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:33 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing (was: Stool and Faeces as words for m |
|
|
In article <nf03m0lcg7eth8icgogkuhivrd3r74i41d@4ax.com>, don-
aitken@freeuk.com wrote...
| Quote: | On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 17:39:10 +0100, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Mark Barratt typed thus:
Mike Lyle wrote:
Mark Barratt wrote:
don groves wrote:
There's an active Buddhist community here in Portland (we're
a haven for "that sort of thing").
My mind is boggling as to what else falls into the "that sort
of thing" category alongside Buddhism.
Suggestions?
Think "Totnes"; think "Dartington".
Duhh.. Totnes is a suburb of Liverpool where there was a
newsworthy riot about 20 years ago, I think.
You think wrong - that's Toxteth, pronounced "Liverpool Eight".
Totness is across the river from Dartington. But I have no idea what
is being referenced here.
A Google on <totnes "new age"> will reveal enough, including this
delighful snipet from http://www.free-definition.com/New-Age.html
Places with a higher than normal proportion of people holding New Age
belief
Esalen at Big Sur, California, USA
Sedona , Arizona, USA
Arcosanti, Arizona, USA
Findhorn , near Forres ,Scotland
Glastonbury, Somerset, England
Totnes, Devon , England
Dornach, Switzerland
Monte Verità near Ascona , Switzerland
|
I'm surprised not to see Yelm, Washington, USA, the home of J. Z.
Knight who channels Ramtha, a 35,000 year old warrior. Many new
agers have made pilgrimages there, including our own Shiley
MacLaine.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:13 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing |
|
|
don groves <dgroves@domain.net> writes:
| Quote: | In article <VA.000008f0.07e0816a@nospam.aaisp.org>,
wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org wrote...
In article news:<MPG.1bca42e5eb3bffac989801@news.individual.net>,
Don groves wrote:
Support for our state's bottle bill in spite of massive industry
opposition.
Sorry, I have to ask: "bottle bill" -- what's that about?
Cheers,
Daniel.
We require a nickel deposit on all beer, soft drink, etc.,
containers, redeemable upon return to a collection center. This law
has cut the amount of refuse along our roads and highways
considerably. The supermarket chains and beer distributors fight
this tooth-and-nail every time it comes up for renewal but we have
prevailed, so far. A few other states have similar laws.
|
California has a similar tax. It's fully refundable if you want to
haul your cans to a "collection center", but disappears if you make
use of your city's curbside recycling program. (I don't believe that
the cities themseleves get it back, either.) Not that all that many
cans make it to the recycling trucks. Each pick-up day, we're treated
to the early morning sound of people for whom it *is* worth hauling
cans to the collection center to redeem for the deposit pawing through
our recycling to get them out. Often, they don't even spill much of
the rest of the can.
Ya gotta love economic incentives. Pay people to scavenge and they
become scavengers. This, of course, is the real reason that such laws
"cut the amount of refuse along roads and highways". Not that it
keeps anybody from littering, but that it pays other people to pick
the litter up.
I think that the supermarkets here don't mind the law because
everybody here just treats it as yet another invisible tax. Another
reason, however, might be that many supermarkets host machines in
which you can deposit cans and get the refund. Minus, I believe, a
handling fee, some of which no doubt goes to the store.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |...as a mobile phone is analogous
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you stick in your ear, but there
|all resemblance ends.
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com | Ross Howard
(650)857-7572
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 2:13 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
news:ekkeicfn.fsf@hpl.hp.com...
| Quote: | meirman <meirman@invalid.com> writes:
I didn't know they were the first ready-to-eat oat cereal. And that
was just 1941. So Cheerios is not porridge but its recency seems to
support what Tedfriet said "Well, I know a lot of adults who like
porridge in the morning, but of course there are also people who
agree with dictionary Johnson about oats: "Eaten by horses and the
Scots." and make a face about it." Otoh, when was the first
ready-to-eat NON-oat cereal?
Post claims that Grape-Nuts (1897) was "one of the first ready-to-eat
cold cereals", although it was apparently originally marketed as a
beverage(!). The Kelloggs invented flakes (by accident) in 1894:
However, the really significant development came quite by chance
one day in 1894 when an interruption of their laboratory
activities left cooked wheat exposed to the air for more than a
day. When the brothers returned, they decided to run the wheat
through the rollers despite the fact that it was no longer fresh.
What they saw next amazed them - instead of a single, large sheet
of wheat, the rollers discharged a single flake for each wheat
berry and cereal flakes were born.
http://www.kelloggs.co.uk/history/accmiracle.asp
but it doesn't look as though corn flakes were actually marketed until
1902. Kellogg's original flakes appear to have been called "Granose".
I suspect that the question is better answered by Scott Bruce and Bill
Crawford's _Cerealizing America: The Unsweetened Story of American
Breakfast Cereal_ (1995).
|
Not ready-to-eat, but a relatively modern product anyway, was "Granula":
From
http://www.cuisinenet.com/digest/breakfast/cereal.shtml
"In pursuit of the healthful diet, Dr. James Caleb Jackson created the first
breakfast cereal in 1863, which he called Granula. But it was far from
convenient; it had to be soaked overnight before it was even possible to
chew the dense, bran-heavy nuggets."
From
http://www.uoguelph.ca/botany/cba/plpr201b.htm#2right
"The first dry cereal, called Granula appeared in 1863, made from the bran
left over after flour had been made from the grain. However, the heavy
nuggets of this cereal were so tough that they had to be soaked overnight
before they could be eaten."
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Skitt
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 3:26 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: | don groves writes:
wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org wrote...
Don groves wrote:
Support for our state's bottle bill in spite of massive industry
opposition.
Sorry, I have to ask: "bottle bill" -- what's that about?
We require a nickel deposit on all beer, soft drink, etc.,
containers, redeemable upon return to a collection center. This law
has cut the amount of refuse along our roads and highways
considerably. The supermarket chains and beer distributors fight
this tooth-and-nail every time it comes up for renewal but we have
prevailed, so far. A few other states have similar laws.
California has a similar tax. It's fully refundable if you want to
haul your cans to a "collection center", but disappears if you make
use of your city's curbside recycling program. (I don't believe that
the cities themseleves get it back, either.) Not that all that many
cans make it to the recycling trucks. Each pick-up day, we're treated
to the early morning sound of people for whom it *is* worth hauling
cans to the collection center to redeem for the deposit pawing through
our recycling to get them out. Often, they don't even spill much of
the rest of the can.
[...]
|
The part that I don't like is the sales tax that gets charged on the
deposit. That tax is non-refundable. Last time I returned some cans, I got
$28.55 for them, as I recall. I must have paid around $2.50 in sales tax on
them. No big deal, but it's the principle of the thing. It's never the
money ...
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:00 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing |
|
|
In article <2sdtftF1jvpokU1@uni-berlin.de>, Skitt at skitt99
@comcast.net poured forth...
| Quote: | Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
don groves writes:
wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org wrote...
Don groves wrote:
Support for our state's bottle bill in spite of massive industry
opposition.
Sorry, I have to ask: "bottle bill" -- what's that about?
We require a nickel deposit on all beer, soft drink, etc.,
containers, redeemable upon return to a collection center. This law
has cut the amount of refuse along our roads and highways
considerably. The supermarket chains and beer distributors fight
this tooth-and-nail every time it comes up for renewal but we have
prevailed, so far. A few other states have similar laws.
California has a similar tax. It's fully refundable if you want to
haul your cans to a "collection center", but disappears if you make
use of your city's curbside recycling program. (I don't believe that
the cities themseleves get it back, either.) Not that all that many
cans make it to the recycling trucks. Each pick-up day, we're treated
to the early morning sound of people for whom it *is* worth hauling
cans to the collection center to redeem for the deposit pawing through
our recycling to get them out. Often, they don't even spill much of
the rest of the can.
[...]
The part that I don't like is the sales tax that gets charged on the
deposit. That tax is non-refundable. Last time I returned some cans, I got
$28.55 for them, as I recall. I must have paid around $2.50 in sales tax on
them. No big deal, but it's the principle of the thing. It's never the
money ...
|
That's attrocious, as bad as charging sales tax on shipping which
is common too.
We don't have a sales tax yet in Oregon, as those living in
Southwest Washington know and take full advantage of, but it
keeps coming up in discussions. Probably won't be without one
much longer.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gerald Smyth
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:58 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing |
|
|
que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara Lorimer) wrote in message news:<1gl4d9c.pkd0maicm4cgN%que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com>...
[snip]
| Quote: | That would make sense, but I don't think that's it -- the Pacific
Northwest is the least-religious part of the country, I've read.
|
I've been known to use hyphens others have regarded as superfluous;
now I find myself in the unusual position of suggesting that a hyphen
might not actually be needed...
[snip]
....g |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Moylan
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 9:10 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Mickwick hayshed:
| Quote: | In alt.usage.english, Donna Richoux wrote:
Listen, this is purely a personal wish of mine, but as the election
nears, I really hope people can restrain themselves from filling this
newsgroup with "funny things the candidates were said to have said" and
political scandals and all that. I think it gets very tempting to do so
-- "look, it relates to language!" -- but it can get overwhelming.
There's an election? Who's having an election?
|
This coming weekend it's Australia and Afghanistan.
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:15 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:08:12 -0700 Evan
Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> posted:
| Quote: | meirman <meirman@invalid.com> writes:
I didn't know they were the first ready-to-eat oat cereal. And that
was just 1941. So Cheerios is not porridge but its recency seems to
support what Tedfriet said "Well, I know a lot of adults who like
porridge in the morning, but of course there are also people who
agree with dictionary Johnson about oats: "Eaten by horses and the
Scots." and make a face about it." Otoh, when was the first
ready-to-eat NON-oat cereal?
Post claims that Grape-Nuts (1897) was "one of the first ready-to-eat
|
So not having any cold cereals made of oats until 1941 maybe does show
how reluctant people were to eat oats, although I probably shouldn't
say that until I look into the history of oatmeal, which I also like.
Strangely, afaict, it takes barely any more effort to make oatmeal
than to make instant oatmeal. Although the instant stuff comes in
some good flavors.
| Quote: | cold cereals", although it was apparently originally marketed as a
beverage(!). The Kelloggs invented flakes (by accident) in 1894:
However, the really significant development came quite by chance
one day in 1894 when an interruption of their laboratory
activities left cooked wheat exposed to the air for more than a
day. When the brothers returned, they decided to run the wheat
through the rollers despite the fact that it was no longer fresh.
What they saw next amazed them - instead of a single, large sheet
of wheat, the rollers discharged a single flake for each wheat
berry and cereal flakes were born.
|
Wow!
| Quote: | http://www.kelloggs.co.uk/history/accmiracle.asp
but it doesn't look as though corn flakes were actually marketed until
1902. Kellogg's original flakes appear to have been called "Granose".
I suspect that the question is better answered by Scott Bruce and Bill
Crawford's _Cerealizing America: The Unsweetened Story of American
Breakfast Cereal_ (1995).
|
I'll have to read that some day. I love this sort of thing.
Your quote also agrees with something else I already knew. Kellogg's
Corn Flakes are made by crushing individual kernels of corn. (Well
they don't crush them individually. They do a whole bunch at one
time, with those rollers.  ) Checking some more about this, I see
that so are Frosted Flakes and Ralston Corn Chex.
OTOH, General Mills corn flakes, and iirc Post corn cereals are made
by drying the corn and milling it into flour, and then I think the
flower is somehow shaped into flakes and baked, I guess it is.
Ordinarily I wouldn't know this, but it turns out that the proper
blessing of God that a Jew makes over corn things made from flour is
'shehakol nih'yoh bidvoro, through whose word everything came to be".
But if the Jew knows that the food was made directly from corn, the
blessing is 'borei p'ri ho'adoma, who creates the fruit of the
ground'. Someone checked with Kellogg's and found out that is how
they make their corn flakes. (But not everyone knows this. If one
doesn't know how it is made, he can use shehakol.)
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
meirman
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 12:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In alt.english.usage on Mon, 04 Oct 2004 11:08:12 -0700 Evan
Kirshenbaum <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> posted:
Reading some of the other pages, I found an interesting one.
http://www.kelloggs.co.uk/history/founderslegacy.asp says:
"The founders legacy
Throughout the 1970s, Kellogg Company's commitment to nutrition
evolved into more active support of scientific studies.
The company continued to broaden nutrition fortification practices to
provide more detailed package labels. In the US Kellogg was among the
first food processors to list sugar on its labels in 1979 and the UK
followed in the mid 1980s."
They didn't list sugar on their labels until 1979???? How could that
be? I saw sugar on labels in the 50's I'm pretty sure. If there was
only a tiny bit, I guess it didn't have to be listed, but what about
Frosted Flakes, etc?
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 20 years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 1:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
| Quote: | They didn't list sugar on their labels until 1979???? How could that
be? I saw sugar on labels in the 50's I'm pretty sure. If there was
only a tiny bit, I guess it didn't have to be listed, but what about
Frosted Flakes, etc?
|
Heck, back then the *name* of the cereal was "Sugar Frosted Flakes".
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "No flames were used in the creation of
msb@vex.net | this message." -- Ray Depew |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 4:44 pm
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing (was: Stool and Faeces as words for m |
|
|
In article news:<MPG.1bcb3483fdf2e73e98980e@news.individual.net>,
Don groves wrote:
| Quote: | We require a nickel deposit on all beer, soft drink, etc.,
containers, redeemable upon return to a collection center.
|
How very enlightened. Thanks for the explanation.
A nickel doesn't sound much, though. I remember paying (and
recovering!) 3d deposit on lemonade bottles in the '60s ... that'd
have been about 2.5 cents US, at the time (assuming an exchange
rate of about 3 dollars to the pound which I think is about what it
was), and was about 15% of the price of the full bottle.
Now that I know what the bottle bill is I can say that your list
makes Portland sound pretty civilized, to me.
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 6:12 pm
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing |
|
|
Gerald Smyth wrote:
| Quote: | que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com (Sara Lorimer) wrote in message
news:<1gl4d9c.pkd0maicm4cgN%que.sara.saraDELETE@gmail.com>...
[snip]
That would make sense, but I don't think that's it -- the Pacific
Northwest is the least-religious part of the country, I've read.
I've been known to use hyphens others have regarded as superfluous;
now I find myself in the unusual position of suggesting that a hyphen
might not actually be needed...
|
Hmmm. You're right, I now see -- there's no risk of it being read as
least religious-part-of-the-country, and even if it were it would mean
more or less the same thing (unless there are great stretches of athiesm
that I don't know about).
I just love hyphens so!
--
S-M-L |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in