On 10/10/2012 8:37 AM, micky wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:46:32 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 10/9/2012 10:02 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
harry wrote:

The recommendation here is that if you smell gas, shut off the gas,
open the windows, don't operate electrical appliances and call the gas
company.

Call from a cell phone OUTSIDE or the neighbor's home. Phone line
voltage *can* produce a spark in rare circumstances just by lifting the
receiver.


It would have to be a very old phone that weighs a ton to have open
mechanical contacts on the handset hook switch. I'd be more worried
about static electric discharge from your hand to something like a
metal door knob. I've seen some nice big sparks and I would often spray
fabric softener on the carpets back in the old days when computer gear
was more susceptible to static electricity discharge. Oh yea, be sure to
flip the light switch on your way out the door. We must conserve energy. O_o

Some (old?) light switfches make sparks, don't they? I've heard of
somone polyurethaning his wood floor and causing an explosion with the
lightswitch.

You did realize that I was being fecesious{sic] about the light switch. ^_^

TDD

TDD

On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 22:31:22 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:
Under the regulations of the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC), General Order 112-E, only SoCalGas
is authorized to operate the gas service shut-off valve

See page 10

http://www.socalgas.com/documents/sa...ergy_guide.pdf

In my area, there is always a valve ahead of the meter and another just
past it on the customer side. The gas company has a seal on the valve
ahead of the meter and a tag that says it's for their use only. The
other valve, after the meter, is for the consumer's use.



There is a logical reason for this. Pre meter is "line pressure" -
which varies from quite low to reasonably high. Post meter is
regulated pressure (very low).

Also, if someone of low integrity was allowed to shut off the gas
before the meter, they COULD tap in ahead of the meter and use
unmetered gas. Shutting off after the meter and tapping in, it is
still metered (and paid for) gas.

Around here, there is no wire on the pre-meter valve, and the
post-meter valves are generally "pre-appliance" - and inside the
house.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:29:45 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Those, or pipe wrenches do the job nicely. The dorky gas tool is nice, for
people who don't know about Crescent wrenches.

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"NotMe" wrote in message ...

10-12 in crescent wrench does the job and has for over 50 years in our
world.



The "official" tool is BRASS or BRONZE- spark proof on steel valve.
If you have a brass valve, a steel wrench is fine. 99.999% of the time
steel on steel is also OK.

On 10/10/2012 07:29 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
Those, or pipe wrenches do the job nicely. The dorky gas tool is nice, for
people who don't know about Crescent wrenches.

Christopher A. Young



I use an Allen wrench.



--
Learn more about Mitt at:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/2011/october/romney.html

On Oct 10, 7:43*pm, wrote:
On Tue, 9 Oct 2012 22:31:22 +0000 (UTC),





(Larry W) wrote:
In article ,
wrote:
Under the regulations of the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC), General Order 112-E, only SoCalGas
is authorized to operate the gas service shut-off valve

See page 10

http://www.socalgas.com/documents/sa...ergy_guide.pdf

In my area, there is always a valve ahead of the meter and another just
past it on the customer side. The gas company has a seal on the valve
ahead of the meter and a tag that says it's for their use only. The
other valve, after the meter, is for the consumer's use.

There is a logical reason for this. Pre meter is "line pressure" -
which varies from quite low to reasonably high. Post meter is
regulated pressure (very low).

Also, if someone of low integrity was allowed to shut off the gas
before the meter, they COULD tap in ahead of the meter and use
unmetered gas. Shutting off after the meter and tapping in, it is
still metered (and paid for) gas.

Around here, there is no wire on the pre-meter valve, and the
post-meter valves are generally "pre-appliance" - and inside the
house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting explanation. But here in NJ the arrangement is
as you describe and the gas company, AFAIK, doesn't get
their shorts in a knot if you shut all the gas off using the
valve before the meter.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:19:52 -0700 (PDT), Thomas
wrote:

On Oct 9, 3:41*pm, micky wrote:
Just a minor rant.

It would be a lot easier to follow this thread if you wouldn't snip
all of the relevant parts of the previous post.

Rant over.

True.

Rant over.

Why the rant? You do not remember what you read 10 seconds ago?
I'm confused. Why re-read everything?

The person complained about wrote his reply post B right after
reading post A. But some of us red post A hours ago or yesterday, not
10 seconds ago We don't know what B is talking about. I reed a few
posts, then go on to another newsgroup and reed and reply there, or do
my email, or and often look up something on the web, and even if B
was posted 10 minutes after A, I don't see it until hours later.
Why doesn't A quote, like everyone else?.

On Oct 10, 3:38*pm, Gordon Shumway wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:19:52 -0700 (PDT), Thomas
wrote:

On Oct 9, 3:41 pm, micky wrote:
Just a minor rant.

It would be a lot easier to follow this thread if you wouldn't snip
all of the relevant parts of the previous post.

Rant over.

True.

Rant over.

Why the rant? You do not remember what you read 10 seconds ago?
I'm confused.

I'm so sorry you are confused. *I will try to help alleviate that
confusion.

The reason it is beneficial to not only see the relevant text that is
being replied to but also who is being replied to as well is because
once the original post, and possibly the first replies, have been read
those messages will disappear from the message window, assuming you
are using a news reader which you are not.

Why would that be inherent to all news readers?
I find it hard to believe, but if it is, then it's a good
reason to use Google Groups, no such problems
there. I see all the messages in a nice tree format.





*Later, much longer than 10
seconds, when you retrieve new messages you see a message and you
won't know who is being replied to or what they said without viewing
old messages.


No such problems with Google Groups. Not saying
you should use it, just that it seems a lot of folks here
slam GG, yet it has some compelling advantages. Not
sure this is one of them though,. It may be that you
have a crappy client-based news reader.





Why re-read everything?

See above.

I think you and HomeGuy must be related.

On Oct 11, 8:55*am, micky wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:19:52 -0700 (PDT), Thomas
wrote:

On Oct 9, 3:41 pm, micky wrote:
Just a minor rant.

It would be a lot easier to follow this thread if you wouldn't snip
all of the relevant parts of the previous post.

Rant over.

True.

Rant over.

Why the rant? You do not remember what you read 10 seconds ago?
I'm confused. Why re-read everything?

The *person complained about wrote his reply post B right after
reading post A. *But some of us red post A hours ago or yesterday, not
10 seconds ago *We don't know what B is talking about. * *I reed a few
posts, then go on to another newsgroup and reed and reply there, or do
my email, or and often look up something on *the web, and even if B
was posted 10 minutes after A, I don't see it until hours later.
Why doesn't A quote, like everyone else?.

If I understand what you're saying, it appears you read
a post and then reply to it hours or a day later without
seeing what has been posted since? If that is the
case, I would think you'd have a lot of problems with
your operating method.

As for posts taking hours to show up, I use Google
Groups and I see posts from various posters on this
group showing up within a few minutes. I know because
sometimes I'll post something and just a few minutes
later someone else has replied. Sometimes we've
exchanged several back and forths in less than an hour.
It sounds like your ewgroup service just sucks, or your
client isn't echanging with the server regularly, which
could be a setting issue.

On 10/11/2012 8:10 AM, wrote:
On Oct 10, 3:38 pm, Gordon wrote:
....

....

... when you retrieve new messages you see a message and you
won't know who is being replied to or what they said without viewing
old messages.


No such problems with Google Groups. Not saying
you should use it, just that it seems a lot of folks here
slam GG, yet it has some compelling advantages. Not
sure this is one of them though,. It may be that you
have a crappy client-based news reader.
....

GG has no redeeming features other than a long retention period,
period...

Amongst other things, they are the source of a sizable majority of spam
across all of usenet and their web-based client screws up a sizable
fraction of its postings as they're broadcast by such things as
inserting spurious linefeeds (altho that seems to have been patched to a
certain degree recently it was so that any reply to an existing thread
that was posted from GG for a while had an extra LF inserted at each
line so that soon one might find a posting that had only one or
sometimes even not actual text on a page).

Threading (or not) is dependent on the view chosen in most (if not all)
clients...and, of course, on the server and the posting clients
following protocol to allow it to not be broken...

--

On 10/11/2012 8:18 AM, wrote:
....

If I understand what you're saying, it appears you read
a post and then reply to it hours or a day later without
seeing what has been posted since? If that is the
case, I would think you'd have a lot of problems with
your operating method.
....

Not everybody stays logged in continuously nor does everybody read every
subthread of every thread...nor should you presume and write as if
you're having a conversation w/ any one individual--there are any number
of folks coming in/out of any thread at any time. It's a posters duty
to ensure they all have the pertinent pieces at hand.

Therefore, quoting (and eliding) judiciously is only polite and good
netiquette--there is absolutely _no_ guarantee anybody will see anything
on usenet--nntp is inherently _not_ an error-free protocol--while
messages aren't routinely dropped there's no guarantee they aren't and
certainly propagation times are extremely variable altho again most are
pretty good most of the time, the operative word there is "most"...

--

On Oct 11, 9:43*am, dpb wrote:
On 10/11/2012 8:18 AM, wrote:
...

If I understand what you're saying, it appears you read
a post and then reply to it hours or a day later without
seeing what has been posted since? * If that is the
case, I would think you'd have a lot of problems with
your operating method.

...

Not everybody stays logged in continuously nor does everybody read every
subthread of every thread...nor should you presume and write as if
you're having a conversation w/ any one individual--there are any number
of folks coming in/out of any thread at any time. *It's a posters duty
to ensure they all have the pertinent pieces at hand.

Which is exactly what I was saying with regard to his
apparent operating procedures. If one reads a thread and
then replies hours or a day later without looking at what's
transpired since, they are bound to have problems.





Therefore, quoting (and eliding) judiciously is only polite and good
netiquette--there is absolutely _no_ guarantee anybody will see anything
on usenet--nntp is inherently _not_ an error-free protocol--while
messages aren't routinely dropped there's no guarantee they aren't and
certainly propagation times are extremely variable altho again most are
pretty good most of the time, the operative word there is "most"...

--

I agree.

On 10/11/2012 8:50 AM, wrote:
....

Which is exactly what I was saying with regard to his
apparent operating procedures. If one reads a thread and
then replies hours or a day later without looking at what's
transpired since, they are bound to have problems.
....

No, I'm saying essentially the obverse--it's the initial (and subsequent
as well, of course) poster's job to maintain enough context in his reply
that the subthread can stand on its own w/o needing to go down every
possible rabbit warren that may have grown up since...

--

On Oct 11, 10:48*am, dpb wrote:
On 10/11/2012 8:50 AM, wrote:
...

Which is exactly what I was saying with regard to his
apparent operating procedures. *If one reads a thread and
then replies hours or a day later without looking at what's
transpired since, they are bound to have problems.

...

No, I'm saying essentially the obverse--it's the initial (and subsequent
as well, of course) poster's job to maintain enough context in his reply
that the subthread can stand on its own w/o needing to go down every
possible rabbit warren that may have grown up since...

--


I don't see what you are saying as being the obverse.
The poster is saying that he reads a post, then makes
a reply to it hours to a day later. So, let's say everyone
follows your procedure, to the extent that's possible, and
includes much of the original post, pertinent replies, etc.
If the OP's last read of the thread was yesterday, he's
still going to have major problems, because he hasn't
seen anything that has transpired since.

I agree it's a good idea to keep enough info
in a post so that it makes it easy to follow, as you suggest.
But if you read and then wait hours to a day to reply,
that's a problem specific to the poster.

On 10/11/2012 11:22 AM, wrote:
....

But if you read and then wait hours to a day to reply,
that's a problem specific to the poster.

I think you're misinterpreting the complaint...he's replying to some
particular posting in the subthread--what he was complaining about was
that he may have read further upthread in the same thread some time
previous but didn't respond at that time for whatever reason. Now he
comes back later and picks up somewhere in a later portion but the
previous poster hasn't quoted sufficiently to know context at this later
date and so he either has to be able to recall previous discussion or go
upthread and read other postings to find that context.

It's not so much the time that's the problem; it's that there's no
longer context and that's because the previous poster trimmed too much
(or didn't/doesn't quote at all I think in the complained-of case,
actually)...

I browse newsgroups much as that as well...if context is gone I'll
generally just kill the thread rather than digging it out unless there's
something vitally interesting that makes it worthy of the effort. A few
observations of a given poster acting that way soon generates another
entry in the 'ignore thread' filter file (just as a particular
top-poster here has been "soft-plonked" for his rudeness in persisting
in that particular fault. )

--

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:42:53 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 10/10/2012 8:37 AM, micky wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:46:32 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 10/9/2012 10:02 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
harry wrote:

The recommendation here is that if you smell gas, shut off the gas,
open the windows, don't operate electrical appliances and call the gas
company.

Call from a cell phone OUTSIDE or the neighbor's home. Phone line
voltage *can* produce a spark in rare circumstances just by lifting the
receiver.


It would have to be a very old phone that weighs a ton to have open
mechanical contacts on the handset hook switch. I'd be more worried
about static electric discharge from your hand to something like a
metal door knob. I've seen some nice big sparks and I would often spray
fabric softener on the carpets back in the old days when computer gear
was more susceptible to static electricity discharge. Oh yea, be sure to
flip the light switch on your way out the door. We must conserve energy. O_o

Some (old?) light switfches make sparks, don't they? I've heard of
somone polyurethaning his wood floor and causing an explosion with the
lightswitch.

You did realize that I was being fecesious{sic] about the light switch. ^_^

No, I didn't get it. :-(

I used to pronounce that word facetishus, in my head without ever
speaking it, but then a guy in the 10th grade used it over and over
again, and one day it dawned on me which word he was using.

TDD

TDD

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 08:44:07 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/11/2012 8:18 AM, wrote:
...

If I understand what you're saying, it appears you read
a post and then reply to it hours or a day later without
seeing what has been posted since?

That's not the problem. Often no one else has replied (especially
when nothing was quoted) , or the replies don't explain what the guy
who doesn't quote was talking about.

If that is the
case, I would think you'd have a lot of problems with
your operating method.
...

Not everybody stays logged in continuously nor does everybody read every
subthread of every thread...nor should you presume and write as if
you're having a conversation w/ any one individual--there are any number
of folks coming in/out of any thread at any time.

Yes, I forgot about that.

It's a posters duty
to ensure they all have the pertinent pieces at hand.

Therefore, quoting (and eliding) judiciously is only polite and good
netiquette--there is absolutely _no_ guarantee anybody will see anything
on usenet--nntp is inherently _not_ an error-free protocol--while
messages aren't routinely dropped there's no guarantee they aren't and
certainly propagation times are extremely variable altho again most are
pretty good most of the time, the operative word there is "most"...

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 13:25:37 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/11/2012 11:22 AM, wrote:
...

But if you read and then wait hours to a day to reply,
that's a problem specific to the poster.

I think you're misinterpreting the complaint...he's replying to some
particular posting in the subthread--what he was complaining about was
that he may have read further upthread in the same thread some time
previous but didn't respond at that time for whatever reason. Now he
comes back later and picks up somewhere in a later portion but the
previous poster hasn't quoted sufficiently to know context at this later
date and so he either has to be able to recall previous discussion or go
upthread and read other postings to find that context.

Exactly.

It's not so much the time that's the problem; it's that there's no
longer context and that's because the previous poster trimmed too much
(or didn't/doesn't quote at all I think in the complained-of case,
actually)...

Right, notthing at all.

Exactly.

I browse newsgroups much as that as well...if context is gone I'll
generally just kill the thread rather than digging it out unless there's
something vitally interesting that makes it worthy of the effort. A few
observations of a given poster acting that way soon generates another
entry in the 'ignore thread' filter file (just as a particular

Yes,

top-poster here has been "soft-plonked" for his rudeness in persisting
in that particular fault. )

And yes.

On 10/13/2012 2:31 AM, micky wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 18:42:53 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 10/10/2012 8:37 AM, micky wrote:
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 02:46:32 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 10/9/2012 10:02 PM, G. Morgan wrote:
harry wrote:

The recommendation here is that if you smell gas, shut off the gas,
open the windows, don't operate electrical appliances and call the gas
company.

Call from a cell phone OUTSIDE or the neighbor's home. Phone line
voltage *can* produce a spark in rare circumstances just by lifting the
receiver.


It would have to be a very old phone that weighs a ton to have open
mechanical contacts on the handset hook switch. I'd be more worried
about static electric discharge from your hand to something like a
metal door knob. I've seen some nice big sparks and I would often spray
fabric softener on the carpets back in the old days when computer gear
was more susceptible to static electricity discharge. Oh yea, be sure to
flip the light switch on your way out the door. We must conserve energy. O_o

Some (old?) light switfches make sparks, don't they? I've heard of
somone polyurethaning his wood floor and causing an explosion with the
lightswitch.

You did realize that I was being fecesious{sic] about the light switch. ^_^

No, I didn't get it. :-(

I used to pronounce that word facetishus, in my head without ever
speaking it, but then a guy in the 10th grade used it over and over
again, and one day it dawned on me which word he was using.


I was playing with the word "facetious" by adding "feces" to it. You'd
be surprised how many folks don't catch it even with "sic" after the
word. It's my way of saying I'm being silly and full of crap at the same
time. ^_^

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:

You did realize that I was being fecesious{sic] about the light
switch. ^_^

Check out a freeware bit called "TinySpell".

On 10/13/2012 10:51 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

You did realize that I was being fecesious{sic] about the light
switch. ^_^

Check out a freeware bit called "TinySpell".



I use WordWeb which can be found at:

http://wordweb.info/free/

WordWeb also has a definition of "sic" and a good explanation can be
found he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic

TDD

The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 10/13/2012 10:51 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

You did realize that I was being fecesious{sic] about the light
switch. ^_^

Check out a freeware bit called "TinySpell".



I use WordWeb which can be found at:

http://wordweb.info/free/

WordWeb also has a definition of "sic" and a good explanation can be
found he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic


Cute. Thanks for the information.

TinySpell and WordWeb do different things. TinySpell monitors your typing
and goes nuts when you type a word that's not in its table. TinySpell
doesn't define words, just checks spelling. It's a spelling chequer.

On 10/15/2012 9:20 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:
On 10/13/2012 10:51 AM, HeyBub wrote:
The Daring Dufas wrote:

You did realize that I was being fecesious{sic] about the light
switch. ^_^

Check out a freeware bit called "TinySpell".



I use WordWeb which can be found at:

http://wordweb.info/free/

WordWeb also has a definition of "sic" and a good explanation can be
found he

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sic


Cute. Thanks for the information.

TinySpell and WordWeb do different things. TinySpell monitors your typing
and goes nuts when you type a word that's not in its table. TinySpell
doesn't define words, just checks spelling. It's a spelling chequer.


I'm using Thunderbird for Usenet and it has a built in spell checker to
help keep me from looking like an illiterate goober. ^_^

TDD