On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:09:31 GMT someone who may be "Pet @
www.gymratz.co.uk ;¬)" wrote this:-

Indeed they do, and the video footage on their site looks quite
impressive, but there isn't anyone in the southern half of the country
that has one mounted in a domestic or commercial enviroment

The one in the video on their site is in North Berwick, which is in
the southern half of the country.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:29:46 -0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

Trucks make a lot of noise, kids make a lot of noise, my cockerel makes
a lot of noise ...

But generally not at a sustained level and for extended (many hours to
days at a time) periods. The wind noise around the house here when it's
F7 or above gets decidedly "wearing" after 6 hrs. Boy, is it nice when
the front comes through and the wind drops.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:29:46 -0000, Mary Fisher wrote:

Trucks make a lot of noise, kids make a lot of noise, my cockerel makes
a lot of noise ...

But generally not at a sustained level and for extended (many hours to
days at a time) periods. The wind noise around the house here when it's
F7 or above gets decidedly "wearing" after 6 hrs. Boy, is it nice when
the front comes through and the wind drops.

So in your case a wind powered generator would probably work :-) If you're
suffering from the wind you might as well put it to good use, you're already
being disturbed by the noise.

Traffic noise does continue almost the clock round for very many people,
sadly.

Mary

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
So in your case a wind powered generator would probably work :-) If
you're suffering from the wind you might as well put it to good use,
you're already being disturbed by the noise.

Traffic noise does continue almost the clock round for very many people,
sadly.

What you need then is a large microphone connected to a battery. Probably
work as well as most wind turbines.

--
*To steal ideas from *one* person is plagiarism; from many, research*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

The one in the video on their site is in North Berwick, which is in
the southern half of the country.

Typical Hansen. Out to mislead as usual.

North Berwick isn't in the southern half of the country. It is in the
Southern half of Scotland.

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger" wrote in message
k...
The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

The one in the video on their site is in North Berwick, which is in
the southern half of the country.

Typical Hansen. Out to mislead as usual.

North Berwick isn't in the southern half of the country. It is in the
Southern half of Scotland.

?

The country of Scotland!

Mary

--
Roger Chapman

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:00:20 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Typical Hansen. Out to mislead as usual.

North Berwick isn't in the southern half of the country. It is in the
Southern half of Scotland.

The country of Scotland!

Correct...but designed to mislead, as with so much greenwash.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:45:07 GMT someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

Typical Hansen.

Excellent, an attempt to be rude.

Out to mislead as usual.

Incorrect.

North Berwick isn't in the southern half of the country.

Incorrect.

It is in the Southern half of Scotland.

Correct.

Those that take a little time to study UK know that the UK consists
of two countries (England and Scotland), a principality (Wales,
which was a country until sacked by the English and may become a
country again one day) and a province (Northern Ireland, the
complicated history of which is another discussion). All this is
elementary history.

Next contestant please.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

Typical Hansen.

Excellent, an attempt to be rude.

Stating the truth unlike you. It is not rude to tell the truth.

Out to mislead as usual.

Incorrect.

No. All we need to do is to look at the context to see how devious you are.

North Berwick isn't in the southern half of the country.

Incorrect.

Liar.

It is in the Southern half of Scotland.

Correct.

Which isn't the country in question.

Just to recap.

Pet stated:

"Indeed they do, and the video footage on their site looks quite
impressive, but there isn't anyone in the southern half of the country
that has one mounted in a domestic or commercial enviroment (except a
tower block in London) and they wouldn't give me any information on
customers that had them installed on the side of their house who I could
contact with regards to associated noise/vibration etc."

Now London is undoubtedly in England as well as the UK so it doesn't
actually matter which Pet intended but just as undoubtedly London is not
in Scotland.

So what did devious Hansen do. He quoted only part of Pets message:

"Indeed they do, and the video footage on their site looks quite
impressive, but there isn't anyone in the southern half of the country
that has one mounted in a domestic or commercial enviroment

The one in the video on their site is in North Berwick, which is in
the southern half of the country."

Thus implying that Pet had been lying when in reality the boot was very
much on the other foot.

Those that take a little time to study UK know that the UK consists
of two countries (England and Scotland), a principality (Wales,
which was a country until sacked by the English and may become a
country again one day) and a province (Northern Ireland, the
complicated history of which is another discussion). All this is
elementary history.

The history of the UK is a good deal more complicated than that.

Next contestant please.

Infantile humour from an infantile mind. If you want to be taken
seriously you need to stop being so devious.

--
Roger Chapman

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 13:31:12 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
Liquorice" wrote this:-

Really.

Yes, I've heard them with my own ears. Not doing a Drivel by quoting
marketing puff. Several different designs/makes and models as well.

I note that you failed to tell us whether you have heard the model I
referred to. I'll take it that you haven't.

You also appear to be under the misapprehension that you are the
only one who has heard these devices. Fascinating.

Even more fascinating is the power output.

The Swift is rated at 1500W, at 12.5m/s (about 28 mph).

Given the 'Halve the windspeed, divide output by eight' rule, that
gives (all figures approx):

At 6.25m/s (14mph) - 187.5W

At 3.125m/s (7mph) - 23.5W

At the 2.3m/s (5mph) cut-in speed, the output is a trivial, single
figure value.

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:27:34 GMT someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

Typical Hansen.

Excellent, an attempt to be rude.

Stating the truth unlike you. It is not rude to tell the truth.

The rudeness was in using my surname. It is reassuring when the best
people can do is be rude.

North Berwick isn't in the southern half of the country.

Incorrect.

Liar.

Ah, proof by assertion.

It is in the Southern half of Scotland.

Correct.

Which isn't the country in question.

Incorrect. There wasn't a country in question at the time, as one
had not been stated at that point.

So what did devious Hansen do. He quoted only part of Pets message:

Excellent, more rudeness. Do keep it up.

Infantile humour from an infantile mind.

Excellent, more rudeness. Do keep it up.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop being so devious.

Those who discuss individuals, rather than the subject under
discussion, tend not to have anything useful to say on the subject
under discussion. As they continue to discuss individuals others can
make their minds up about the value of their contributions.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 20:00:20 UTC, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

Typical Hansen. Out to mislead as usual.

North Berwick isn't in the southern half of the country. It is in the
Southern half of Scotland.

The country of Scotland!

Correct...but designed to mislead, as with so much greenwash.

Huh?

I understood it! I've never known David Hansen to mislead.

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:45:07 GMT someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

Typical Hansen.

Excellent, an attempt to be rude.

Out to mislead as usual.

Incorrect.

North Berwick isn't in the southern half of the country.

Incorrect.

It is in the Southern half of Scotland.

Correct.

Those that take a little time to study UK know that the UK consists
of two countries (England and Scotland), a principality (Wales,
which was a country until sacked by the English and may become a
country again one day) and a province (Northern Ireland, the
complicated history of which is another discussion). All this is
elementary history.

Next contestant please.

Not contesting but I'm not sure about Wales - unlike Scotland I can't
remember it having its own kings.

Of course I could be wrong, it has been kown :-)

Mary


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 19:45:07 GMT someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

Typical Hansen.

Excellent, an attempt to be rude.

Out to mislead as usual.

Incorrect.

North Berwick isn't in the southern half of the country.

Incorrect.

It is in the Southern half of Scotland.

Correct.

Those that take a little time to study UK know that the UK consists
of two countries (England and Scotland), a principality (Wales,
which was a country until sacked by the English and may become a
country again one day) and a province (Northern Ireland, the
complicated history of which is another discussion). All this is
elementary history.

Next contestant please.


Actually; Great Britian consists of England ... which was a country until
sacked by the Welsh (Tudor) monarchs then sacked by the Scottish monarchs
(Stuarts) ....
the "complicated history" ... even elementary haistory ... is a matter of
perspective!


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54


--

Brian

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:22:10 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

Not contesting but I'm not sure about Wales - unlike Scotland I can't
remember it having its own kings.

Having kings does not make a country. Wales had a different approach
to such matters, though it did have leaders.

Of course I could be wrong, it has been kown :-)

I have yet to meet the perfect person (and I hope I never do). Those
who have never made a mistake have never made anything else.



--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:58:52 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock"
wrote this:-

Actually; Great Britian consists of England ... which was a country until
sacked by the Welsh (Tudor) monarchs then sacked by the Scottish monarchs
(Stuarts) ....

The latter didn't last too long. The current royal family are a
mixture of Germans, Greeks and Scots.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2006-12-15 14:20:34 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:58:52 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock"
wrote this:-

Actually; Great Britian consists of England ... which was a country
until sacked by the Welsh (Tudor) monarchs then sacked by the Scottish
monarchs (Stuarts) ....

The latter didn't last too long. The current royal family are a
mixture of Germans, Greeks and Scots.

So deep fried gyros with sauerkraut for Christmas lunch then?

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

Typical Hansen.

Excellent, an attempt to be rude.

Stating the truth unlike you. It is not rude to tell the truth.

The rudeness was in using my surname. It is reassuring when the best
people can do is be rude.

Nothing rude in that to anyone of my generation. OTOH endless complaints
about rudeness is of itself rude.

North Berwick isn't in the southern half of the country.

Incorrect.

Liar.

Ah, proof by assertion.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. As already established North
Berwick is not in the South half of the UK and hasn't been in England,
North or South, since Harold got an arrow in his eye.


It is in the Southern half of Scotland.

Correct.

Which isn't the country in question.

Incorrect. There wasn't a country in question at the time, as one
had not been stated at that point.

Are you really so dumb that you did not appreciate that placing London
within the country in question established it as either England or the
UK?

So what did devious Hansen do. He quoted only part of Pets message:

Excellent, more rudeness. Do keep it up.

Infantile humour from an infantile mind.

Excellent, more rudeness. Do keep it up.

As long as you carry on like an infant you will continue to be treated
like one. Snipping inconvenient passages out of your reply and ignoring
their content is typical of infantile behaviour.

If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop being so devious.

Those who discuss individuals, rather than the subject under
discussion, tend not to have anything useful to say on the subject
under discussion. As they continue to discuss individuals others can
make their minds up about the value of their contributions.

So why not direct your attention to the inconvenient facts you ignored
rather than trying to impress Mary Fisher with you smokescreen. Just to
recap:

"

Pet stated:

"Indeed they do, and the video footage on their site looks quite
impressive, but there isn't anyone in the southern half of the country
that has one mounted in a domestic or commercial enviroment (except a
tower block in London) and they wouldn't give me any information on
customers that had them installed on the side of their house who I could
contact with regards to associated noise/vibration etc."

Now London is undoubtedly in England as well as the UK so it doesn't
actually matter which Pet intended but just as undoubtedly London is not
in Scotland.

"

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Correct...but designed to mislead, as with so much greenwash.

Huh?

I understood it! I've never known David Hansen to mislead.

No? Deliberately truncating someone elses post to suggest that he was
incorrect is not misleading?

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Not contesting but I'm not sure about Wales - unlike Scotland I can't
remember it having its own kings.

Of course I could be wrong, it has been kown :-)

AFAIK Wales has never been a united independent country. In the days
when the Romans overran it it was ruled (as was the rest of the British
Isles) by local chieftains. Some Welsh rulers may have come close to
uniting Wales but they usually acknowledged the overlordship of an
English ruler or got thumped for their presumption.

--
Roger Chapman

On 2006-12-15 08:43:08 +0000, David Hansen
said:

On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 22:27:34 GMT someone who may be Roger
wrote this:-

Typical Hansen.

Excellent, an attempt to be rude.

Stating the truth unlike you. It is not rude to tell the truth.

The rudeness was in using my surname. It is reassuring when the best
people can do is be rude.



That's curious. When I went to school, it was perfectly normal that
masters used surnames as did colleagues, and nobody thought that was
rude.

Mind you, it was a boys school....

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The rudeness was in using my surname. It is reassuring when the best
people can do is be rude.


That's curious. When I went to school, it was perfectly normal that
masters used surnames as did colleagues, and nobody thought that was
rude.

Mind you, it was a boys school....

Perhaps we should do as Dave Liquorice does and call everyone 'Mr'? Dunno
what he calls Mary, though. ;-)

--
*When a clock is hungry it goes back four seconds*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2006-12-15 17:12:57 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
The rudeness was in using my surname. It is reassuring when the best
people can do is be rude.


That's curious. When I went to school, it was perfectly normal that
masters used surnames as did colleagues, and nobody thought that was
rude.

Mind you, it was a boys school....

Perhaps we should do as Dave Liquorice does and call everyone 'Mr'? Dunno
what he calls Mary, though. ;-)

Mr. ?

On 2006-12-15 18:13:38 +0000, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
The rudeness was in using my surname. It is reassuring when the best
people can do is be rude.
That's curious. When I went to school, it was perfectly normal that
masters used surnames as did colleagues, and nobody thought that was
rude.

Wouldn't have worked at my school - 45% Joneses and 45% Evanses.

What about the Thomases and the Parrys?


Mind you, it was a boys school....

Mine was co-ed, but we weren't allowed to share playgrounds or canteen.

I should think not.

On 2006-12-15 18:08:56 +0000, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
The latter didn't last too long. The current royal family are a
mixture of Germans, Greeks and Scots.
So deep fried gyros with sauerkraut for Christmas lunch then?

The Duke of Edinburgh is reported to be very fond of his glass-lidded
electric frying pan.

Poor old buffer...


I suppose such naffness in the ruling classes is "eccentricity"


I did see a TV documentary once with some footage of breakfast at one
of the royal residences with Queenie
pouring cornflakes out of a pale blue Tupperware container.

In message , Roger
writes
The message
from "Mary Fisher" contains these words:

Not contesting but I'm not sure about Wales - unlike Scotland I can't
remember it having its own kings.

Of course I could be wrong, it has been kown :-)

AFAIK Wales has never been a united independent country. In the days
when the Romans overran it it was ruled (as was the rest of the British
Isles) by local chieftains. Some Welsh rulers may have come close to
uniting Wales but they usually acknowledged the overlordship of an
English ruler or got thumped for their presumption.

They did invade England once upon a time, didn't they


--
geoff

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:58:52 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock"
wrote this:-

Actually; Great Britian consists of England ... which was a country until
sacked by the Welsh (Tudor) monarchs then sacked by the Scottish monarchs
(Stuarts) ....

The latter didn't last too long. The current royal family are a
mixture of Germans, Greeks and Scots.


Yes; but that doesn't refute your original contention that Wales and/or
Scotland were somehow plundered by the English when it was actually Welsh,
then later Scot, monarchs who took over the English throne!
BTW, what was the exchange rate for a Scottish Pound wrt the English Pound
prior to the Act of Union?

--

Brian

On 2006-12-15 20:51:37 +0000, Owain said:

Andy Hall wrote:
Wouldn't have worked at my school - 45% Joneses and 45% Evanses.
What about the Thomases and the Parrys?

Didn't actually have many of them - in the remainder 10%

Price-less as well?


Mind you, it was a boys school....
Mine was co-ed, but we weren't allowed to share playgrounds or canteen.
I should think not.

The magazine corner of the library was the place to be ;-)


Reading the parish magazine of course....

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:10:37 +0000, Andy Hall
wrote:



Wouldn't have worked at my school - 45% Joneses and 45% Evanses.

What about the Thomases and the Parrys?

Amateurs the lot of you. Jones the Oil, Jones the Coal, Jones the
Garage, Jones the Law, Evans the Baker, Evans the Council, Evans the
Fish, Thomas the Library, Parry the School, Parry the Rail.

What's the problem?
--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:12:57 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Perhaps we should do as Dave Liquorice does and call everyone 'Mr'?
Dunno what he calls Mary, though. ;-)

Fortunately Mrs Fisher gives her name and marital status...

As this is usnet not everyone uses what could be a real name or gives
their marital status. In the case of no apparent real name I'd use the
nickname, in quotes. Unknown marital status of an apparent female with an
apparent real name would be refered to as Ms surname.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.com...
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 17:12:57 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Perhaps we should do as Dave Liquorice does and call everyone 'Mr'?
Dunno what he calls Mary, though. ;-)

Fortunately Mrs Fisher gives her name and marital status...

What's more, they're my real given and family names. I can't see the point
in hiding anything.

I'm happy to be called Mary among friends, Mrs Fisher isn't unacceptable.
Darling, Mam, Grandam, Madame, Mistress, Auntie etc. are fine where
appropriate and I respond to all of them in those circumstances. What I
don't like is nurses calling me 'Sweetheart' and the like when I've been
asked how I'd like to be addressed. It shows laziness.

As this is usnet not everyone uses what could be a real name or gives
their marital status. In the case of no apparent real name I'd use the
nickname, in quotes. Unknown marital status of an apparent female with an
apparent real name would be refered to as Ms surname.

Ms means Meaningless, both Miss and Mrs are shortened forms of Mistress.
Pointless political ploys by early feminists have caused irritation in this
house at least. If I have to reply to anyone using Ms Fisher I ask for my
proper name or title to be used, if it's not their future correspondence
will be ignored.

I apply the same to internet correspondence.

The other feminist move, for married women to keep their maiden name, is
stupid. Instead of converting to a husband's name they're using another
man's, their father's.

The only name we have which is unchangeable without difficulty is our given
or baptismal name, the surname is a clan or family name, that's all.

Mary

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 15 Dec 2006 10:58:52 GMT someone who may be "Brian Sharrock"
wrote this:-

Actually; Great Britian consists of England ... which was a country until
sacked by the Welsh (Tudor) monarchs then sacked by the Scottish monarchs
(Stuarts) ....

The latter didn't last too long. The current royal family are a
mixture of Germans, Greeks and Scots.

Not true - unless you decide where in history to stop - and how you define
nationality..

Mary

"Owain" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:
The latter didn't last too long. The current royal family are a
mixture of Germans, Greeks and Scots.
So deep fried gyros with sauerkraut for Christmas lunch then?

The Duke of Edinburgh is reported to be very fond of his glass-lidded
electric frying pan.

I suppose such naffness in the ruling classes is "eccentricity"

It's not naff, it's sensible. My frying pans aren't electric but glass lids
mean that I can see what's going on in the pan yet don't have splashing fat.

Mary

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
Ms means Meaningless, both Miss and Mrs are shortened forms of Mistress.
Pointless political ploys by early feminists have caused irritation in
this house at least.

But I can see the point. 'Mr' in correspondence etc doesn't denote marital
status. Mrs or Miss does. Hence emphasising the principle that a wife is a
man's property.

--
*One of us is thinking about sex... OK, it's me.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:17:45 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

I'm happy to be called Mary among friends, Mrs Fisher isn't unacceptable.
Darling, Mam, Grandam, Madame, Mistress, Auntie etc. are fine where
appropriate and I respond to all of them in those circumstances. What I
don't like is nurses calling me 'Sweetheart' and the like when I've been
asked how I'd like to be addressed. It shows laziness.

To get back to the original point, if someone called you Fisher on
this newsgroup what would you think?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 2006-12-17 11:04:41 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article ,
Mary Fisher wrote:
Ms means Meaningless, both Miss and Mrs are shortened forms of Mistress.
Pointless political ploys by early feminists have caused irritation in
this house at least.

But I can see the point. 'Mr' in correspondence etc doesn't denote marital
status. Mrs or Miss does. Hence emphasising the principle that a wife is a
man's property.

I think that the German solution is better - Fraulein up to a certain
age and then Frau after that.

In article ,
Andy Hall wrote:
On 2006-12-17 11:04:41 +0000, "Dave Plowman (News)"
said:

In article , Mary
Fisher wrote:
Ms means Meaningless, both Miss and Mrs are shortened forms of
Mistress. Pointless political ploys by early feminists have caused
irritation in this house at least.

But I can see the point. 'Mr' in correspondence etc doesn't denote
marital status. Mrs or Miss does. Hence emphasising the principle that
a wife is a man's property.

I think that the German solution is better - Fraulein up to a certain
age and then Frau after that.

If it were to differentiate between child and adult, fair enough. But it
discriminates between young and older - presumably for the titillation of
men originally. Unless such a naming exists for males.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:39:35 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Unless such a naming exists for males.

When I worked in Wiesbaden I used to amuse myself by referring to young
males at work as "Herrlein" at least the women on the team saw the funny
side of it.

On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:39:35 +0000 (GMT) someone who may be "Dave
Plowman (News)" wrote this:-

But I can see the point. 'Mr' in correspondence etc doesn't denote
marital status. Mrs or Miss does. Hence emphasising the principle that
a wife is a man's property.

I think that the German solution is better - Fraulein up to a certain
age and then Frau after that.

If it were to differentiate between child and adult, fair enough. But it
discriminates between young and older - presumably for the titillation of
men originally. Unless such a naming exists for males.

Whether one considers age or marital status a solution to this very
minor "problem" is either the Ms approach, or to re-adopt Master
(abbreviated to Ma perhaps) for young/unmarried persons of the male
persuasion and reserve Mr for married/older ones.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 10:17:45 -0000 someone who may be "Mary Fisher"
wrote this:-

I'm happy to be called Mary among friends, Mrs Fisher isn't unacceptable.
Darling, Mam, Grandam, Madame, Mistress, Auntie etc. are fine where
appropriate and I respond to all of them in those circumstances. What I
don't like is nurses calling me 'Sweetheart' and the like when I've been
asked how I'd like to be addressed. It shows laziness.

To get back to the original point, if someone called you Fisher on
this newsgroup what would you think?

It's impolite. I wouldn't reply.

I remember once calling (i.e. shouting to) our school caretaker across the
playing field. He came up to me and told me off, he hadn't heard the "Mr"
and explained that the rest of the staff thought it was OK to call
non-teaching staff just by their surname. He felt that his job - and that of
the boiler man and gardener - were just as important as theirs and should be
given as much respect. So did I.

Mary