| Author |
Message |
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 05, 2004 7:56 pm
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing (was: Stool and Faeces as words for m |
|
|
Daniel James typed thus:
| Quote: | In article news:<MPG.1bcb3483fdf2e73e98980e@news.individual.net>,
Don groves wrote:
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.
|
It may have changed now, but 10 years ago in Denmark it was not legal
to sell drinks other than in a reusable container, which in practice
meant bottles.
You took your empties to the supermarket and put them in the crates
outside the door, did your shopping, then you told the lady at the
checkout how many bottles you had returned, and she knocked the
appropriate amount off your bill.
Very honest, the Scandinavians.
--
David (moving to a new identity)
=====
replace the first component of address with the definite article.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:53 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing (was: Stool and Faeces as words for m |
|
|
In article <VA.000008f3.0461ceca@nospam.aaisp.org>, Daniel James
at wastebasket@nospam.aaisp.org poured forth...
| Quote: | In article news:<MPG.1bcb3483fdf2e73e98980e@news.individual.net>,
Don groves wrote:
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.
|
Thanks, Daniel, we like to think so. Like any city the size of
Portland, we do have our share of crime and crime-ridden areas
but overall, it's a nice place to live.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Moylan
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:48 am
Post subject: Re: That sort of thing (was: Stool and Faeces as words for m |
|
|
Daniel James hayshed:
| Quote: | In article news:<MPG.1bcb3483fdf2e73e98980e@news.individual.net>,
Don groves wrote:
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.
|
On my first trip to New Zealand one of my friends got thirsty, so
we dropped into a nearby corner store and asked for a pint of
milk. The price was 10 cents; I knew that milk was cheap in NZ,
but it was a surprise to hear that it was that cheap. My
surprise increased when the shopkeeper said "but if you bring
the bottle back you'll get five cents back".
In my youth, collecting empty bottles for the refund was a
standard way for children to make money. I also collected
used newspapers, and sold them to butchers and fish shops.
Garbage collectors reputedly made a lot of money on the side
by separating out the beer bottles for resale.
Recycling wasn't a buzzword at the time, but somehow we recycled
anyway, a lot more than in these environmentally conscious days.
It wasn't about concern for the environment; it was simply
that waste was unthinkable. You didn't throw away something
that could be reused. If you bent a paperclip, you were expected
to refold it when you were finished with it.
At that time our garbage collection was one very small bin a week,
and our family of two adults and five children had no problem
with that. Now, with a family half the size, I put out one very
large bin each week, and a second equally large one every second
week with the recylables (which are probably just dumped with
the rest of the rubbish after being collected). We talk a lot
about recycling nowadays, but compared with the past it's all
talk and no action.
--
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 |
|
|
Daniel James
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 5:05 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In article news:<k7g4m0l2cbthkdfsv5jsc3gi8vbm7pdb5q@4ax.com>, Meirman
wrote:
| Quote: | 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."
|
I have a clear recollection of cereal packets in the UK during my
school days saying "Made from maize, flavoured with sugar, salt, and
malt". I'm pretty sure those would have been Kellogg's Corn Flakes
packets (we occasionally ate other cereals - most (in fact all,
AFAICR) of which were wheat-based - but there were always cornflakes
in the house).
I left school to go to university in 1974, so the suggestion that
sugar was not mentioned on the packets until the mid 1980s seems
wrong, to me.
Indeed, I remember reading one of those packets and having to ask my
mother what maize was (I only knew it as sweetcorn at the time) so it
must have been /well/ before I went to university.
Cheers,
Daniel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bloke
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 11:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 08:38:41 +0000 (UTC), Bloke <mc_wanker@excite.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:01:36 GMT, "Zephir Woodwood"
zwnospam1965@hotmail.com> wrote:
In our laboratory we usually refer to "stool" while outside the laboratory
people generally speak of faeces.
I've never understood the difference except when as a young medical student
one professor used to talk about straining to stool.
I prefer having a "stool manual" as opposed to a "faeces manual"
I'd appreciate your thoughts.
The only important thing is that your readers understand precisely
what you mean. If you are writing a manual on this subject, your
audience is, presumably, of pre-school age (assuming that most people
older than this need no tuition). Can I suggest the word poo?
Bloke
|
Sorry. I was being faeces-shush! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:26 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 15:54:26 GMT, "Richard Chambers"
<richard.chambers7@NOSPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | There is something wrong with the psychological state of an entire
nationality (and this applies, unfortunately, to both the British and the
American nationality) which
(a) has an insatiable appetite for topless photographs
and:-
(b) finds it reprehensible or embarassing to show breasts in public, even
for feeding a baby.
Somewhere we have got our values upside-down. We, both British and US
American, are (as a gross generalisation) uptight beyond all reason.
|
A few weeks back I was having lunch at a place with patio seating. A
young woman was sitting at a nearby table breastfeeding her infant
(discreetly covered with a towel). A lady at the table next to me
started a loud rant about the young woman and how "that sort of thing
shouldn't be allowed". I tried to ignore her, but when she brought up
that HRS (the "family police") should be notified, I was about to jump
in. Then, I noticed that the young woman was smoking a cigarette
while she was breastfeeding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:38 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:29:52 +0200, "Tedfriet" <friet@quicknet.nl>
wrote:
| Quote: | I wonder why Americans have this double standard. They make quite a fuss
about ms Jackson showing one (only one) breast on television,
|
The objection was not about the baring of the breast. Any American
with access to cable TV stations, or any American that rents or goes
to movies, is quite used to bared breasts. There's hardly a fuss
made about it.
The objection in the Jackson situation was over *where and when* the
breast was bared: the half-time show at the Super Bowl. The
half-time show is considered a "family event". It was entirely
inappropriate in that situation. It was rather like baring a breast
on Sesame Street.
The American TV viewer has the reasonable expectation of being able to
watch certain types of programming and not be exposed to what some
might consider to be objectionable. There's no reason that every
American should have to consider anything to be unobjectionable. The
person who considers a bare breast to objectionable should be able to
avoid certain types of programming if they choose to.
| Quote: | but have no
problems with showing a murder live on it, as happened a few years ago.
Oh boy, how embarrassed much my dear Americans be if they come to Holland
where we are very liberal about that kind of thing.
|
I doubt it. You either have a strange group of "dear American"
friends, or you misunderstand the general American society.
| Quote: | Nudity on TV is no problem whatsoever,
|
Nor is it here. You will not see nudity on the major network channels
here. Partial perhaps, but brief glimpses at most. NYPD Blue, for
example, has shown more bare butts than most shows. Partial nudity
is usually restricted to shows that are aired after "prime time".
However, most (many, if not most) Americans subscribe to cable
channels that routinely show nudity. "The Sopranos", for example,
routinely show topless scenes.
| Quote: | the first topless girl on TV was shown somewhere in the
sixties. It made quite a stir then, but not since then. Prostitution is
legal overhere and almost any woman will be topless on the beach.
|
We have nude beaches in Florida. I avoid them. Young, topless women
are a delight to watch, but - unfortunately - you can't keep saggy,
obese women (or men) off the beaches. It's hardly something to brag
about to be able to go to the beach and see some woman with tits
hanging down to her knees.
| Quote: | So because
we are so open about sex, we have very few teenage pregnancies as opposed to
the numers of pregnant teenagers in the US.
|
I love those "because of this we have that" statements. If one wants
to take a pot shot at false logic, it's good to have an elephant-sized
target.
| Quote: | The same holds good for regulated abortion. The pro-life people condemn
abortion, but have no compunction in killing the doctor who carries it out.
|
Another elephant. There are hundreds of thousands of pro-life
supporters in the US. We just don't have enough doctors to go around
if each of them decided to shoot one.
| Quote: | I have beento the US and I think it's awfully beautiful country, but I just
don't understand their attitude about things which are so common and natural
to us.
|
Try expanding your understanding of us.
I have been to Holland. It's a lovely country, but when I don't
understand the social mores of your society I try to gain additional
knowledge about them before I start flinging out generalizations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:49 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:28:29 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Tedfriet" <friet@quicknet.nl> writes:
I wonder why Americans have this double standard. They make quite a
fuss about ms Jackson showing one (only one) breast on television,
Many (probably most) had no problem with it. Some that do are very
vocal.
but have no problems with showing a murder live on it, as happened a
few years ago.
Cite please. I'm not aware of any such incident.
|
November 24, 1963. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 9:30 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | The objection in the Jackson situation was over *where and when* the
breast was bared: the half-time show at the Super Bowl. The
half-time show is considered a "family event". It was entirely
inappropriate in that situation. It was rather like baring a breast
on Sesame Street.
|
Maybe they bare breasts on _Sesamstraat_. Check with J.J.
| Quote: | I have been to Holland. It's a lovely country,
|
I went through the Netherlands by train once. It's sort of flat like the
Inland North, as I recall.
-- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 10:09 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In article <hdb9m09gh1512793livklf3v5g8jb73mc6@4ax.com>, Tony
Cooper at tony_cooper213@earthlink.net poured forth...
| Quote: | On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 09:28:29 -0700, Evan Kirshenbaum
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
"Tedfriet" <friet@quicknet.nl> writes:
I wonder why Americans have this double standard. They make quite a
fuss about ms Jackson showing one (only one) breast on television,
Many (probably most) had no problem with it. Some that do are very
vocal.
but have no problems with showing a murder live on it, as happened a
few years ago.
Cite please. I'm not aware of any such incident.
November 24, 1963.
|
Silencing the one person who may have prevented 40+ years of
controversy. Or, who may have incriminated some very well known
people.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:41 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
Tony Cooper typed thus:
| Quote: | On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 11:29:52 +0200, "Tedfriet" <friet@quicknet.nl
wrote:
I wonder why Americans have this double standard. They make quite a fuss
about ms Jackson showing one (only one) breast on television,
The objection was not about the baring of the breast. Any American
with access to cable TV stations, or any American that rents or goes
to movies, is quite used to bared breasts. There's hardly a fuss
made about it.
The objection in the Jackson situation was over *where and when* the
breast was bared: the half-time show at the Super Bowl. The
half-time show is considered a "family event". It was entirely
inappropriate in that situation. It was rather like baring a breast
on Sesame Street.
|
No, Tony, that's Sesame Teat.
--
David (moving to a new identity)
=====
replace the first component of address with the definite article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MC
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In article <eh89m0tfb0rv99in7jh59286jjfemu5c5g@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
| Quote: | The objection in the Jackson situation was over *where and when* the
breast was bared: the half-time show at the Super Bowl. The
half-time show is considered a "family event". It was entirely
inappropriate in that situation. It was rather like baring a breast
on Sesame Street.
|
Heaven forbid any infants should ever see one!
--
Without a great storyteller, a director's
just a schmuck with a viewfinder.
--Frank Darabont
KILL TROLLS: http://www.schmuckwithanunderwood.com/trolls.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper typed thus:
[...]
inappropriate in that situation. It was rather like baring a
breast
on Sesame Street.
No, Tony, that's Sesame Teat.
|
Not Sesame Streak?
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Moylan
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:11 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
MC hayshed:
| Quote: | In article <eh89m0tfb0rv99in7jh59286jjfemu5c5g@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
The objection in the Jackson situation was over *where and when* the
breast was bared: the half-time show at the Super Bowl. The
half-time show is considered a "family event". It was entirely
inappropriate in that situation. It was rather like baring a breast
on Sesame Street.
Heaven forbid any infants should ever see one!
|
Well, obviously children need to see bare breasts, but the Jackson
situation was something else entirely. You could seriously damage
young minds if you let them see a metallic torture device attached
to a pierced nipple.
Didn't Sesame Street once run an episode showing babies being fed?
Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of Play School.
--
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 |
|
|
don groves
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:42 am
Post subject: Re: Stool and Faeces as words for manuals |
|
|
In article <slrncmd4fj.3pv.peter@EEPJM.newcastle.edu.au>, Peter
Moylan at peter@seagoon.newcastle.edu.au poured forth...
| Quote: | MC hayshed:
In article <eh89m0tfb0rv99in7jh59286jjfemu5c5g@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
The objection in the Jackson situation was over *where and when* the
breast was bared: the half-time show at the Super Bowl. The
half-time show is considered a "family event". It was entirely
inappropriate in that situation. It was rather like baring a breast
on Sesame Street.
Heaven forbid any infants should ever see one!
Well, obviously children need to see bare breasts, but the Jackson
situation was something else entirely. You could seriously damage
young minds if you let them see a metallic torture device attached
to a pierced nipple.
Didn't Sesame Street once run an episode showing babies being fed?
Hmm, maybe I'm thinking of Play School.
|
Possibly Mister Rogers Neighborhood?
--
dg (domain=ccwebster) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in