On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:20:26 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In message , at 08:37:57
on Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Mike Barnes remarked:
I've seen mention in this thread of dodgy kitchen scales. They needn't
be. Modern digital kitchen scales are perfectly adequate for 99.9% of
postage purposes.

I have a modern set of non-digital scales. They are adequate to +/- 50g,
which is OK for cooking, but not for posting. Are you saying I should
use up some more of the earth's precious resources upgrading, just
because of the Royal Mail?

If you were regularly sending items heavier than a standard letter,
for example if you're a regular eBay seller, then investing in a set
of accurate scales would be worthwhile.

Mark
--
Please help a cat in need: http://www.goodge.co.uk/cat/

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 00:57:41 +0100 Frank Erskine wrote :
What puzzles me is that the Royal Mail, as it faces direct
competition, reduces its standards. One wonders whether this is being
imposed by HMG to make "competition" easier for the newcomers.

No, the other way round I think. It's meant to make the cost of postage
reflect the cost of handling so that RM can keep down the cost of the
cheaper to handle mail which would otherwise migrate to the
competition. We spend several thousand a year on postage some of our
items have gone up significantly, others down: CD and paperwork up from
31p to 41p, DVD box/manual/CD down from 82p to 61p. And the discounts
for franked mail have gone up.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In message e.net, at
12:41:16 on Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Mark Goodge
remarked:
If you were regularly sending items heavier than a standard letter,
for example if you're a regular eBay seller, then investing in a set
of accurate scales would be worthwhile.

But I would have to take most such things to the Post Office to mail
them anyway.
--
Roland Perry

Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-09-21 00:17:09 +0100, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
On 2006-09-20 16:47:11 +0100, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
Good grief

What a palaver.

This is why professional delivery organisations supply little plastic
stick on envelopes to take the label and any other documents.

I shouldn't need to worry about their logistics issues. It should be
possible to read their specs. for delivery requirements (e.g. weight,
dims, value, origin) write it on the address label, call them and
that's it.

How much do you expect such a service to cost?

It's very competitive in comparison to the cost of me going to the post
office, waiting in a queue, dealing with incompetent morons behind the
counter who don't understand the meaning of the word "service"

You don't half make life complicated for yourself! What proportion of
RM's traffic requires that?

Ever less I would imagine.


The majority of our posting needs are handled by 'take stamp out of
little booklet obtained from the supermarket, apply to envelope, stick
in postbox'. No queueing, not even any need for interaction with
people. Cheap too.

I deliberately use their services as little as possible.

In general I have no need to send letters and the like because I can
achieve the same communication by email or fax.

No friends to send birthday and xmas cards to?

MBQ

In uk.d-i-y, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 08:37:57
on Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Mike Barnes remarked:
I've seen mention in this thread of dodgy kitchen scales. They needn't
be. Modern digital kitchen scales are perfectly adequate for 99.9% of
postage purposes.

I have a modern set of non-digital scales. They are adequate to +/-
50g, which is OK for cooking,

+/- 50g OK for cooking? How many people do you cook for? Do you use
those scales for baking?

but not for posting. Are you saying I should use up some more of the
earth's precious resources upgrading, just because of the Royal Mail?

No, I'm only saying what I actually say.

--
Mike Barnes

In uk.d-i-y, Roland Perry wrote:
In message e.net, at
12:41:16 on Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Mark Goodge -
stuff.co.uk remarked:
If you were regularly sending items heavier than a standard letter,
for example if you're a regular eBay seller, then investing in a set
of accurate scales would be worthwhile.

But I would have to take most such things to the Post Office to mail
them anyway.

Obviously it depends on what you're posting. I post a fair amount of
stuff that's not obviously within the 23p/32p limits but will easily fit
into our local roadside box, even though it's only one of those small
bolted-to-a-lamp-post jobs. And most of the packets that won't go in
there, I can simply give to someone else who's going to or near the Post
Office anyway, without them having to queue up or pay postage.

--
Mike Barnes

Mike Barnes wrote:
+/- 50g OK for cooking? How many people do you cook for? Do you use
those scales for baking?

I'm glad it's not just me who thought that! I'd not be happy with
scales unless I could tell to at least the nearest oz or 25g.

--
http://lnr.livejournal.com/

The message
from Tony Bryer contains these words:

No, the other way round I think. It's meant to make the cost of postage
reflect the cost of handling so that RM can keep down the cost of the
cheaper to handle mail which would otherwise migrate to the
competition.

But what the extra complications like size rules and waiting in line
while they print a sticker instead of selling you a few stamps does is
**** off the customer. Just what the RM doesn't need right not.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On 2006-09-21, Roland Perry wrote:

I have a modern set of non-digital scales. They are adequate to +/- 50g,
which is OK for cooking, but not for posting. Are you saying I should
use up some more of the earth's precious resources upgrading, just
because of the Royal Mail?

I wouldn't consider that useful for cooking. I use my scales mainly
for recipes for the breadmaker, and a 50g error would be 11%! (Most
of the recipes I use call for 450g of flour.)

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 13:11:08 +0100, Roland Perry put finger to
keyboard and typed:

In message e.net, at
12:41:16 on Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Mark Goodge
remarked:
If you were regularly sending items heavier than a standard letter,
for example if you're a regular eBay seller, then investing in a set
of accurate scales would be worthwhile.

But I would have to take most such things to the Post Office to mail
them anyway.

But if you can weigh them and add the appropriate postage before you
take them, then you don't need to queue.

Mark
--
Please help a cat in need: http://www.goodge.co.uk/cat/

But if you can weigh them and add the appropriate postage before you
take them, then you don't need to queue.

Why, is there a place to dump parcels to be sent? I've not seen one in any
of my local post offices. You have to pass them to the staff through a trap.
To get to the staff, you have to queue.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
But if you can weigh them and add the appropriate postage before you
take them, then you don't need to queue.

Why, is there a place to dump parcels to be sent? I've not seen one in any
of my local post offices. You have to pass them to the staff through a trap.
To get to the staff, you have to queue.

In one of our local POs there are mailsacks where you post everything,
even those things you've queued to pay for, so letters/parcels of all
sizes will fit.

In our most local I would just walk up to a free section at the counter
and give a friendly wave and "I want to post this", and they'll take it
through.

MBQ

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:45:34 +0100, Christian McArdle put finger to
keyboard and typed:

But if you can weigh them and add the appropriate postage before you
take them, then you don't need to queue.

Why, is there a place to dump parcels to be sent?

There is at all large post offices. Probably not in small ones,
though. And sometimes you need to know where the parcel point is - it
isn't always obvious.

Mark
--
Please help a cat in need: http://www.goodge.co.uk/cat/

In message , at 14:28:56
on Thu, 21 Sep 2006, Mike Barnes remarked:
I have a modern set of non-digital scales. They are adequate to +/-
50g, which is OK for cooking,

+/- 50g OK for cooking? How many people do you cook for?

Four, usually. The scales are divided into 25gm steps, btw. But they
wobble around a lot.

Do you use those scales for baking?

Not very often. Most of the baking recipes go by volume (teaspoons, cups
etc) or pseduo-volume (it's easier to measure 1 oz of butter by cutting
off 1/8 of an 8 oz packet, than using scales). That's the ones that
don't say things like "Take the contents of this packet, and one egg,
half a pint of milk, stir and stick in the oven".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:30:20 on Thu, 21
Sep 2006, Adam Funk remarked:
(Most of the recipes I use call for 450g of flour.)

Can't you judge 45% of a bag of flour by eye? I know that's all I'd do.

Although I just went and checked my recipes, and the very first one had
"2 cups of flour". Who needs scales (although I do have a set of
measuring spoons/cups).
--
Roland Perry

Four, usually. The scales are divided into 25gm steps, btw. But they
wobble around a lot.

Get better scales. Mine go in 5g increments and test well against known
weights. If I was close to the line, I'd probably go up a postage increment
just to be sure.

Christian.

In message , Christian
McArdle writes
But if you can weigh them and add the appropriate postage before you
take them, then you don't need to queue.

Why, is there a place to dump parcels to be sent? I've not seen one in any
of my local post offices.


Our one has, there are two giant letterboxes with slides behind them,
one's marked 'First Class' and the other "Second Class" and then the
slides go into the same bag.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:25:07 +0100 Guy King wrote :
But what the extra complications like size rules and waiting in line
while they print a sticker instead of selling you a few stamps does
is **** off the customer. Just what the RM doesn't need right not.

The cynical truth is probably that RM really doesn't care about private
customers who send the odd card now and again, rather businesses who
frank their mail and for the most part have printed addresses with
postcodes. It's the latter they can't afford to lose and the latter who
are attractive to the competition.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

In message , Roland Perry
writes
In message , at 15:30:20 on Thu, 21
Sep 2006, Adam Funk remarked:
(Most of the recipes I use call for 450g of flour.)

Can't you judge 45% of a bag of flour by eye? I know that's all I'd do.

Although I just went and checked my recipes, and the very first one had
"2 cups of flour". Who needs scales (although I do have a set of
measuring spoons/cups).

I don't use any measuring spoons, find it easier just to use the scales,
put the mixing bowl on, add the ingredients and reset between each one.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message , at 16:37:24 on Thu, 21 Sep
2006, bof remarked:
(Most of the recipes I use call for 450g of flour.)

Can't you judge 45% of a bag of flour by eye? I know that's all I'd do.

Although I just went and checked my recipes, and the very first one
had "2 cups of flour". Who needs scales (although I do have a set of
measuring spoons/cups).

I don't use any measuring spoons, find it easier just to use the
scales, put the mixing bowl on, add the ingredients and reset between
each one.

How does that work when the recipe calls for "cups"?

--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland Perry
writes
In message , at 16:37:24 on Thu, 21 Sep
2006, bof remarked:
(Most of the recipes I use call for 450g of flour.)

Can't you judge 45% of a bag of flour by eye? I know that's all I'd do.

Although I just went and checked my recipes, and the very first one
had "2 cups of flour". Who needs scales (although I do have a set of
measuring spoons/cups).

I don't use any measuring spoons, find it easier just to use the
scales, put the mixing bowl on, add the ingredients and reset between
each one.

How does that work when the recipe calls for "cups"?

It's not a problem I've come across and, having just looked in a load of
recipe books here going back as far as the 30s, none of them use 'cups'
as a measure. Though I did find one recipe that called for 'three
glasses of water', should I ever use it I could get three glasses of
water from the tap, though as the glasses here range in size from about
5ml to 1000ml I may as well just guess.


--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

On 2006-09-21 12:16:20 +0100, Roland Perry said:

In message , at 00:47:27 on Thu, 21 Sep 2006,
Andy Hall remarked:
The only regular use that I make of RM's services is to send copies of
invoices to my accountant once a month by Special Delivery. That's it.

How come you haven't switched to an accountant who will accept scans of
your invoices by email? That would be a logical part of this crusade
you appear to be indulging in.

My choice. It would take longer to put them all through the scanner.

On 2006-09-21 14:17:31 +0100, said:


Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-09-21 00:17:09 +0100, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
On 2006-09-20 16:47:11 +0100, "Clive George" said:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message ...
Good grief

What a palaver.

This is why professional delivery organisations supply little plastic
stick on envelopes to take the label and any other documents.

I shouldn't need to worry about their logistics issues. It should be
possible to read their specs. for delivery requirements (e.g. weight,
dims, value, origin) write it on the address label, call them and
that's it.

How much do you expect such a service to cost?

It's very competitive in comparison to the cost of me going to the post
office, waiting in a queue, dealing with incompetent morons behind the
counter who don't understand the meaning of the word "service"

You don't half make life complicated for yourself! What proportion of
RM's traffic requires that?

Ever less I would imagine.


The majority of our posting needs are handled by 'take stamp out of
little booklet obtained from the supermarket, apply to envelope, stick
in postbox'. No queueing, not even any need for interaction with
people. Cheap too.

I deliberately use their services as little as possible.

In general I have no need to send letters and the like because I can
achieve the same communication by email or fax.

No friends to send birthday and xmas cards to?

MBQ

Absolutely, but they get emailed greetings and flowers or packs of
booze as appropriate.

They are happy and it's vastly quicker.

I am surprised that greetings card companies are still in business.

On 2006-09-21 16:34:29 +0100, Tony Bryer said:

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 15:25:07 +0100 Guy King wrote :
But what the extra complications like size rules and waiting in line
while they print a sticker instead of selling you a few stamps does
is **** off the customer. Just what the RM doesn't need right not.

The cynical truth is probably that RM really doesn't care about private
customers who send the odd card now and again, rather businesses who
frank their mail and for the most part have printed addresses with
postcodes. It's the latter they can't afford to lose and the latter who
are attractive to the competition.

I think that that's true, and it will be their ultimate demise because
they have no clue about what service means and will be gobbled up by
the professionals.

In message , at 18:13:00 on Thu, 21 Sep
2006, bof remarked:
How does that work when the recipe calls for "cups"?

It's not a problem I've come across and, having just looked in a load
of recipe books here going back as far as the 30s, none of them use
'cups' as a measure.

Different recipe books, it seems.
--
Roland Perry

On 2006-09-21, Roland Perry wrote:

Can't you judge 45% of a bag of flour by eye? I know that's all I'd do.

Well, maybe I'm a bit pedantic.


Although I just went and checked my recipes, and the very first one
had "2 cups of flour". Who needs scales (although I do have a set of
measuring spoons/cups).

Is that an American cookbook? I thought most British and Continental
cookbooks specified dry ingredients by weight.

On 2006-09-21, bof wrote:

Although I just went and checked my recipes, and the very first one had
"2 cups of flour". Who needs scales (although I do have a set of
measuring spoons/cups).

I don't use any measuring spoons, find it easier just to use the scales,
put the mixing bowl on, add the ingredients and reset between each one.

That's how I do it too (although I use spoons for the ingredients in
quantities too small to weigh accurately, which the recipes happen to
specify in spoons).

In message , Adam Funk
writes
On 2006-09-21, bof wrote:

Although I just went and checked my recipes, and the very first one had
"2 cups of flour". Who needs scales (although I do have a set of
measuring spoons/cups).

I don't use any measuring spoons, find it easier just to use the scales,
put the mixing bowl on, add the ingredients and reset between each one.

That's how I do it too (although I use spoons for the ingredients in
quantities too small to weigh accurately, which the recipes happen to
specify in spoons).

The scales here go in 1g increments, so (all but) everything gets
weighed.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message , Adam Funk
writes
On 2006-09-21, Roland Perry wrote:

Can't you judge 45% of a bag of flour by eye? I know that's all I'd do.

Well, maybe I'm a bit pedantic.


Although I just went and checked my recipes, and the very first one
had "2 cups of flour". Who needs scales (although I do have a set of
measuring spoons/cups).

Is that an American cookbook? I thought most British and Continental
cookbooks specified dry ingredients by weight.

If they're US cookbooks then you'll have to convert all the pint
measures to 0.8pint measures.

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message , at 19:01:14 on Thu, 21
Sep 2006, Adam Funk remarked:
Although I just went and checked my recipes, and the very first one
had "2 cups of flour". Who needs scales (although I do have a set of
measuring spoons/cups).

Is that an American cookbook? I thought most British and Continental
cookbooks specified dry ingredients by weight.

It wasn't a recipe from a cookbook.
--
Roland Perry

In uk.d-i-y, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 18:13:00 on Thu, 21 Sep
2006, bof remarked:
How does that work when the recipe calls for "cups"?

It's not a problem I've come across and, having just looked in a load
of recipe books here going back as far as the 30s, none of them use
'cups' as a measure.

Different recipe books, it seems.

"Cups" (and volumetric measures generally) are typical in American
kitchens. Perhaps you have American recipes?

1 cup = 250 ml, btw, as near as makes no difference.

--
Mike Barnes

"Mike Barnes" wrote in message
...

"Cups" (and volumetric measures generally) are typical in American
kitchens.

The myth is that there wasn't room on the wagon trains for complicated
pieces of mechanical machinery like scales, so the pioneers who wrote the
cookery books used volumetric measures, as they had cups with them anyway.
(Yes I know I could look this up somewhere like snopes but that would spoil
the fun.)

--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor

Eleanor Blair typed


Mike Barnes wrote:
+/- 50g OK for cooking? How many people do you cook for? Do you use
those scales for baking?

I'm glad it's not just me who thought that! I'd not be happy with
scales unless I could tell to at least the nearest oz or 25g.

'Diet' type digital scales have infested my bedsit/kitchen since 1993.
They weigh to the nearest 2g, seem accurate and are used for postal
purposes more frequently than they are for cooking.

I bought them from Boots.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

Roland Perry typed


In message , at 18:13:00 on Thu, 21 Sep
2006, bof remarked:
How does that work when the recipe calls for "cups"?

It's not a problem I've come across and, having just looked in a load
of recipe books here going back as far as the 30s, none of them use
'cups' as a measure.

Different recipe books, it seems.

I think the use of 'cups' in recipe books is an American thing. I seldom
use recipes though.

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

The message
from Helen Deborah Vecht contains these words:

I think the use of 'cups' in recipe books is an American thing. I seldom
use recipes though.

I use them - but I don't follow them except for cakes and things.
They're there as ideas as to what might be nice but the actual cooking
gets made up as it goes along.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In message , at 19:38:22 on Thu, 21 Sep
2006, bof remarked:
If they're US cookbooks then you'll have to convert all the pint
measures to 0.8pint measures.

US recipes don't use pints, they use fluid oz. or cups (which
surprisingly work just as well for liquids as solids).
--
Roland Perry

In uk.d-i-y, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 19:38:22 on Thu, 21 Sep
2006, bof remarked:
If they're US cookbooks then you'll have to convert all the pint
measures to 0.8pint measures.

US recipes don't use pints, they use fluid oz. or cups (which
surprisingly work just as well for liquids as solids).

True, if you're in US and the butter packets have graduations on them
for tablespoons and/or cups.

--
Mike Barnes

On 21 Sep 2006 06:17:31 -0700, wrote:


Andy Hall wrote:

I deliberately use their services as little as possible.

In general I have no need to send letters and the like because I can
achieve the same communication by email or fax.

No friends to send birthday and xmas cards to?

They all died because they chose to go NHS rather than oh so superior
private (complete with Sky tv in the room and complementary rub down
by a nympho nurse dressed in not a lot) after an incident with a cheap
B&Q sourced chinese built power tool.




--

On Thu, 21 Sep 2006 21:08:28 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 19:38:22 on Thu, 21 Sep
2006, bof remarked:
If they're US cookbooks then you'll have to convert all the pint
measures to 0.8pint measures.

US recipes don't use pints, they use fluid oz. or cups (which
surprisingly work just as well for liquids as solids).

They also use a lot of quarts.

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

In message , Roland Perry
writes
In message , at 19:38:22 on Thu, 21 Sep
2006, bof remarked:
If they're US cookbooks then you'll have to convert all the pint
measures to 0.8pint measures.

US recipes don't use pints, they use fluid oz. or cups (which
surprisingly work just as well for liquids as solids).


Ah, OK I don't have any US cookbooks, which I guess is why I've not come
across 'cup' or 'fluid oz.' as a measurement, but to get back to the
original point about weighing stuff using scales I can measure fluids in
oz. or grams, just as easily as I can measure solids in oz. or grams.


--
bof at bof dot me dot uk