On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

Cheers

mark-r

In article ,
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".
"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of Swindon),
Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford & Chiswick, Barking Brassware
Company - and probably many others.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

charles wrote:

"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

A long time ago there was a company called Kent Meters, in turn they
became Kent Taylor Meters, and then ABB Kent Taylor where ABB stood for
ASEA Brown Boveri (the Cie probably got lost at that stage) and ASEA
stood for Allmänna Svenska Elektriska Aktiebolaget.

Eventually, instead of Allmänna Svenska Elektriska Aktiebolaget Brown
Boveri Kent Taylor Meters, they went back to being plain old Kent Meters.

But I notice today that www.kentmeters.co.uk leads to Elster Metering

Could be worse, AquaModus or something ...

On Nov 16, 9:00*am, yaffle53 wrote:
On Nov 15, 9:42*pm, Poldie wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43*pm, "

wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/wikipedia.org

That site isn't working on my PC. Anyone else?
Cheers
Jeff

It's normal with me. AOL/UK

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2010\11\16 14:51, Bruce wrote:
"Jim wrote:

There is a current vogue of denigrating Wikipedia. Whilst its format of
allowing anyone to edit content occasionally leads to erroneous or
mischievous entries, by and large it is an extremely useful reference for
those who haven't the time or knowhow to hunt down original references.


Wikipedia is dramatically better than it was only a couple of years
ago, but some still criticise it on the basis of how it used to be.

I think the improvement is a result of people actively editing
Wikipedia to correct inaccuracies rather than pointing the finger and
passively moaning about it. But some people are still whining ...


I wish someone would edit the article on Superlens... I don't understand
a word of it.


That's a classic. ;-)

On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

In general, articles on people - especially still-living people,
especially if in politics rather than other fields - are liable to be
spoiled, but on uncontroversial subjects, especially difficult science
ones, it's generally good. (IME.)

If you follow the link, and look at the IP address for the edit, you'll
find it was in a range used by the BBC.

If you could read the article, and note that all the previous similar
ones were better worded, and clearly stated things like "Individuals
using computers registered to the Vatican have amended entries on Roman
Catholic saints".

Andy

In message , charles
writes:
In article ,
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

(-: - but anyone over a certain age (who is into technology, at least)
would indeed think of an old B (or Master) on hearing that phrase. (As
at least one other here has agreed!)

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".

I'm not sure it was ever spelt out like that, though I agree it did get
"Microcomputer" when it was being formally addressed (!).

"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

I remember being a little puzzled why the BBC were making 'fridges!

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of Swindon),
Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford & Chiswick, Barking Brassware
Company - and probably many others.

(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A true-born Englishman does not know any language. He does not speak English
too
well either but, at least, he is not proud of this. He is, however, immensely
proud of not knowing any foreign languages. (George Mikes, "How to be
Inimitable" [1960].)

In message , Froot Bat
writes:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:52:06 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:31:08 +0000, Froot Bat wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:57:04 -0000, "Brian Gregory [UK]"

I suppose it makes no difference if you're just going to sit there and do
nothing about it.

And what exactly do you seriously think you can do about it? For all
your mad ping/traceroute/DNS skillz, unless you're actually a tech or
admin where the problem is, the answer is: absolutely sod all.

2) If it is not within your control you can make a better case to
whoever's responsibility it is to get it fixed.

Because only you will be aware of the problem, right?

He didn't say that. But if _everybody_ assumed - as you are implying
that you do - that "someone else" would report it, it would be longer
before it was fixed.

Like I said: it makes no difference.

Like I and he said, it helps to know where the problem lies.

Say it all you like, knowing that other people can access a site
doesn't tell you where the problem lies and doesn't help you access
the site, it just tells you the site isn't down.

Actually, it can help you access the site, if you have access to any
form of rerouter (can you still set some of the translators - like
Google/Babelfish - to "English to English"?). Or, as someone else has
said (if you really need the information in a hurry), going to a friend
who has a different ISP, or a public library: a waste of time if the
site is down. Or you could use your own alternative - a mobile dongle,
perhaps, or even, in extremis, dialup to another ISP.
[]
Your argument rests on the ridiculous premise that you and you alone
are aware that there's a problem and where it is, and without you
saving the day the problem will continue.

And _your_ argument rests on the - not ridiculous, but sad - assumption
that someone else will report/fix it. True, but antisocial.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A true-born Englishman does not know any language. He does not speak English
too
well either but, at least, he is not proud of this. He is, however, immensely
proud of not knowing any foreign languages. (George Mikes, "How to be
Inimitable" [1960].)

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Jeremy Double
saying something like:

In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference.

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:38:50 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Jeremy Double
saying something like:

In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference.

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.

Ah, now we know who's been messing it up! ;-)
--
Angus Rodgers

"Brian Gregory [UK]" wrote in message
...
....
Making it a bit easier to report repeated vandalism would help too.

Easy to do so at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...st_vanda lism

David Biddulph

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
In message , charles
writes:
In article ,
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based
home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

(-: - but anyone over a certain age (who is into technology, at least)
would indeed think of an old B (or Master) on hearing that phrase. (As at
least one other here has agreed!)

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".

Later versions (of models A and B) were called "British Broadcasting
Corporation Microcomputer System".

Earlier models had "BBC Microcomputer" next to the owl.

The Master had "British Broadcasting Corporation Master Series
Microcomputer".

--
Max Demian

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:28:06 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Froot Bat
writes:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:52:06 +0000, Java Jive
wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 11:31:08 +0000, Froot Bat wrote:
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:57:04 -0000, "Brian Gregory [UK]"

I suppose it makes no difference if you're just going to sit there and do
nothing about it.

And what exactly do you seriously think you can do about it? For all
your mad ping/traceroute/DNS skillz, unless you're actually a tech or
admin where the problem is, the answer is: absolutely sod all.

2) If it is not within your control you can make a better case to
whoever's responsibility it is to get it fixed.

Because only you will be aware of the problem, right?

He didn't say that. But if _everybody_ assumed - as you are implying
that you do - that "someone else" would report it, it would be longer
before it was fixed.

Indeed. It's not the same but street lights around here only get fixed
if /I/ report them. This makes me assume that I am the only one who
does report them.


Like I said: it makes no difference.

Like I and he said, it helps to know where the problem lies.

Say it all you like, knowing that other people can access a site
doesn't tell you where the problem lies and doesn't help you access
the site, it just tells you the site isn't down.

Actually, it can help you access the site, if you have access to any
form of rerouter (can you still set some of the translators - like
Google/Babelfish - to "English to English"?). Or, as someone else has
said (if you really need the information in a hurry), going to a friend
who has a different ISP, or a public library: a waste of time if the
site is down. Or you could use your own alternative - a mobile dongle,
perhaps, or even, in extremis, dialup to another ISP.
[]
Your argument rests on the ridiculous premise that you and you alone
are aware that there's a problem and where it is, and without you
saving the day the problem will continue.

And _your_ argument rests on the - not ridiculous, but sad - assumption
that someone else will report/fix it. True, but antisocial.

Not always true.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.

In message , at 00:38:50 on
Wed, 17 Nov 2010, Grimly Curmudgeon
remarked:
In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference.

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.

That's my experience too. And the website is very biassed towards
published sources, even when they are wrong! Apparently, being there
when it happened, doesn't count.
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:38:50 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.

Problem is, for something on Wikipedia to be considered 'true' it must
be supported by a reliable source - i.e. one of those newspapers or
proper journalists, who (a) don't report everything, and (b) don't
always get it right when they do.

It is a key failing (although possibly unavaoidable) in an otherwise
worthwhile endeavour.
--

On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 00:27:03 +0000, Froot Bat wrote:

A website is reachable if you can reach it. If not, it's unreachable.
It doesn't make any difference if other people can access it or not.

A little like saying "there is a power cut if your lights don't come
on. It doesn't make any difference if your neighbours have power or
not."

--

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:29:19 GMT, Zero Tolerance wrote:

Problem is, for something on Wikipedia to be considered 'true' it must
be supported by a reliable source - i.e. one of those newspapers or
proper journalists, who (a) don't report everything, and (b) don't
always get it right when they do.

Still better than relying on the input from someone off the street
you've never heard of.

--
mechanic

On 2010\11\17 17:29, mechanic wrote:
On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:29:19 GMT, Zero Tolerance wrote:

Problem is, for something on Wikipedia to be considered 'true' it must
be supported by a reliable source - i.e. one of those newspapers or
proper journalists, who (a) don't report everything, and (b) don't
always get it right when they do.

Still better than relying on the input from someone off the street
you've never heard of.

They don't delete stuff that's unverified IME, they just mark it as
unverified, which is an excellent approach. My two sentences about the
ACR song "Winter Hill" at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_...nces_in_son g
were flagged as unverified for a long time, but the qualification has
since been removed and my remarks allowed to stand... maybe they've
realised no-one cares whether it's true or not!

In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Jeremy Double
saying something like:

In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference.

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.

The article on "horse behavior" is pretty poor - there are
numerous gaps, inaccuracies, outdated ideas, perpetuated myths,
and it isn't well referenced. I would overhaul it if I had the
time, but I don't.

Francis

On Nov 17, 4:26*pm, Roland Perry wrote:

That's my experience too. And the website is very biassed towards
published sources, even when they are wrong! Apparently, being there
when it happened, doesn't count.

It's WP policy that verifiability is more important than truth. Most
people can see this as the ridiculous logical implication of a few
overlapping draconian statements and pay no heed to it. However the
interweb exists to provide occupation for obsessional teenagers and as
WP provides them with a power space they wouldn't normally be taken
seriously in, many do latch on to stupidities like this.

Land Speed Record is probably one of the worst articles on there.

On Nov 17, 5:40*pm, Basil Jet wrote:

They don't delete stuff that's unverified IME, they just mark it as
unverified,

On a good day.

which is an excellent approach.

Yes, when it works.

My two sentences about the
ACR song "Winter Hill" athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Hill_(North_West_England)#Referen...
were flagged as unverified for a long time, but the qualification has
since been removed and my remarks allowed to stand... maybe they've
realised no-one cares whether it's true or not!

More likely that they have, since you posted this, been flagged as
[[Citation needed]] and that you've been indef blocked for off-wiki
canvassing...

On 2010\11\17 18:07, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Nov 17, 5:40 pm, Basil wrote:

They don't delete stuff that's unverified IME, they just mark it as
unverified,

On a good day.

which is an excellent approach.

Yes, when it works.

My two sentences about the
ACR song "Winter Hill" athttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Hill_(North_West_England)#Referen...
were flagged as unverified for a long time, but the qualification has
since been removed and my remarks allowed to stand... maybe they've
realised no-one cares whether it's true or not!

More likely that they have, since you posted this, been flagged as
[[Citation needed]] and that you've been indef blocked for off-wiki
canvassing...

I don't understand you.

On 17/11/2010 18:05, Andy Dingley wrote:
On Nov 17, 4:26 pm, Roland wrote:

That's my experience too. And the website is very biassed towards
published sources, even when they are wrong! Apparently, being there
when it happened, doesn't count.

It's WP policy that verifiability is more important than truth. Most
people can see this as the ridiculous logical implication of a few
overlapping draconian statements and pay no heed to it. However the
interweb exists to provide occupation for obsessional teenagers and as
WP provides them with a power space they wouldn't normally be taken
seriously in, many do latch on to stupidities like this.

Land Speed Record is probably one of the worst articles on there.

Yikes. Where's all the entries for Malcolm Campbell?

"David Biddulph" groups [at] biddulph.org.uk wrote in message
...
"Brian Gregory [UK]" wrote in message
...
...
Making it a bit easier to report repeated vandalism would help too.

Easy to do so at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped...st_vanda lism

David Biddulph

It's not at all clear.

I think that's the page I tried to use and initially just got a message
along the lines of "this isn't appropriate in a public area" without any
recognition at all of the fact that I was trying to report vandalism.

But it seems to be saying you shouldn't use it unless the user has already
be warned multiple times (it doesn't say how many).

The user I waw trying to report hadn't been warned recently at all so I
wasted quite a long time trying to find some where else to report it that
looked more appropriate.

--

Brian Gregory. (In the UK)

To email me remove the letter vee.

On 2010\11\15 19:43, wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.


Putting the founder's face on the top of every page was an idea they
didn't really think through.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asshole
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/****

On Nov 17, 6:45*pm, Clive George wrote:

Land Speed Record is probably one of the worst articles on there.

Yikes. Where's all the entries for Malcolm Campbell?

...and the rest.

Read the talk page, for the reasons why Donald Campbell's record in
CN7 had to be deleted,.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:32:54 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:

The whole mess stinks. The closer you get to the wikidrama, the more
toxic it becomes.

Sounds a lot like the Department of Records in the Ministry of Truth.

Constantly updating the records to keep in line with the current
official version of "the truth".

In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon writes:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Jeremy Double
saying something like:

In areas where I have specialist knowledge, Wikipedia is at least as
reliable as other first points of reference.

Yes, well; in a couple of areas where I have definite knowledge of
things that happened, it's bloody wrong. I tried correcting them a
couple of times, but it always got reverted by some effing know-all.

If it involves "things that happened", it's quite likely to be something
involving people. Such pages do get altered ("vandalised" when you don't
agree with the changes) more than purely technical ones. Not that
they're always right either - Bill's Yagi example for example - but
often they are, often enough anyway for me to consider it definitely one
place to look when I'm trying to answer something, especially for
certain kinds of topic (I know what I would and wouldn't look in
Wikipedia for, though would find it difficult to put into words.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Bother," said Pooh, as Eeyore sneezed the crack all over Owl.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Andy Dingley
saying something like:

On Nov 17, 6:45*pm, Clive George wrote:

Land Speed Record is probably one of the worst articles on there.

Yikes. Where's all the entries for Malcolm Campbell?

..and the rest.

Read the talk page, for the reasons why Donald Campbell's record in
CN7 had to be deleted,.

Jeez, that Trekphiler is an arsehole.

In article ,
Angus Rodgers writes:
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 12:19:40 -0800 (PST), D7666
wrote:

On Nov 15, 7:43*pm, "
wrote:
What's happened to Wikipedia? Have they gone bust? If you try to go to
it now the browser hangs or you get a blank page.

Good.

Perhaps people will stop quoting it in here and do some real research.

People are always making a joke of Wikipedia, but I don't know
why. I'm usually impressed by the quality of the pages there.
It's pretty reliable for articles on mathematics, and, as far
as I can tell, for other subjects, too. Are there some famous
examples of bad pages, which might explain this widespread
notion that it is unreliable? (Yes, of course I know that any-
one can edit it, so that it can never have final authority.)

I have been a contributor to some pages where I have specialist
knowledge, such as the fluorescent lighting ones. I would say it
peaked around 4 years ago - there were several people, all clearly
specialists and knowlegable, developing the pages. Then more and
more dross would start appearing - such as people knowing nothing
about the field citing a piece garbage they read in one of the
red-tops, and the task slowly turned into continual dross-repair
activity. I got bored with doing that (although I do occasionally
return and do a bit). But most significantly, if I look through
contributions nowadays, there are no longer the same level of
specialists contributing. This isn't just my experience - I'm
hearing it from many others too. This means that when I use
Wikipedia to research something I don't know, I am aware that
the data comes without guarantees, and almost certainly some
level of errors.

I think it's probably inevitable too. As you encourage more and
more people to contribute, you are going to attract less accurate
information, and the signal to noise ratio will drop.

You are right that pages such as deep mathematical ones are still
excellent - these aren't going to get dammaged by folks who, with
the best intentions, think they became a lighting expert because
of some inaccurate article they read in their dummed-down comic.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In message
charles wrote:

In article ,
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based home
computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".
"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of Swindon),
Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford & Chiswick, Barking Brassware
Company - and probably many others.

Bush Bedding Centre - in Shepherds Bush market, overlooked by Lime Grove
Studios.

Bursledon Brick Company, I've one of their bricks, stamped BBC, somewhere.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:23:27 +0000, Graeme wrote:

In message
charles wrote:

In article ,
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based
home computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".
"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of
Swindon), Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford & Chiswick,
Barking Brassware Company - and probably many others.

Bush Bedding Centre - in Shepherds Bush market, overlooked by Lime Grove
Studios.

Bursledon Brick Company, I've one of their bricks, stamped BBC,
somewhere.

Boston Beer Company, Boston Borough Council, Ballet British Columbia,
Bergen Brunswick Corporation, Berkeley Biodiesel Collective, Balham Bowls
Club, Belper Baptist Church, Bournemouth Borough Council.,.. etc.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 16:18:47 -0000, Bob Eager wrote:

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:23:27 +0000, Graeme wrote:

In message
charles wrote:

In article ,
Mark Robinson wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based
home computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".
"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of
Swindon), Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford & Chiswick,
Barking Brassware Company - and probably many others.

Bush Bedding Centre - in Shepherds Bush market, overlooked by Lime Grove
Studios.

Bursledon Brick Company, I've one of their bricks, stamped BBC,
somewhere.

Boston Beer Company, Boston Borough Council, Ballet British Columbia,
Bergen Brunswick Corporation, Berkeley Biodiesel Collective, Balham Bowls
Club, Belper Baptist Church, Bournemouth Borough Council.,.. etc.






--
http://www.madgetwits.tk Madges Links

http://home2.btconnect.com/kibo/PhotoAlbums/madgesphoto

On 2010\11\21 16:18, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:23:27 +0000, Graeme wrote:

In
wrote:

In ,
Mark wrote:
On 15/11/2010 22:23, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

I read that as people using a "BBC computer" - i. e. the 6502-based
home computer of the 1980s (-:!

Well, you shouldn't have done, because that was a "BBC Micro" ;-}

or, more accurately a "British Broadcasting Corporation Microcomputer".
"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of
Swindon), Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford& Chiswick,
Barking Brassware Company - and probably many others.

Bush Bedding Centre - in Shepherds Bush market, overlooked by Lime Grove
Studios.

Bursledon Brick Company, I've one of their bricks, stamped BBC,
somewhere.

Boston Beer Company, Boston Borough Council, Ballet British Columbia,
Bergen Brunswick Corporation, Berkeley Biodiesel Collective, Balham Bowls
Club, Belper Baptist Church, Bournemouth Borough Council.,.. etc.


http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&t=...,0.004823&z=18

In message , Basil Jet
writes:
On 2010\11\21 16:18, Bob Eager wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 15:23:27 +0000, Graeme wrote:

In
wrote:
[]
BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of
[]
http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&t=...73,-0.230742&p
anoid=x3GI2WA5fsJmKT02atTUEQ&cbp=12,281.81,,2,-8.5&ll=51.567504,-0.23048
2&spn=0.001944,0.004823&z=18

Methinks they probably tacked on the "British" to commercialise, though
- their website being only www.bathcentre.com. (If they were really keen
on their Britishness, they'd at least have been .co.uk, if not put the
British into it.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

God must love the common man; He made so many of them.

In message , at 16:26:23 on
Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Basil Jet remarked:
"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of
Swindon), Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford& Chiswick,
Barking Brassware Company - and probably many others.

Bush Bedding Centre - in Shepherds Bush market, overlooked by Lime Grove
Studios.

Bursledon Brick Company, I've one of their bricks, stamped BBC,
somewhere.

Boston Beer Company, Boston Borough Council, Ballet British Columbia,
Bergen Brunswick Corporation, Berkeley Biodiesel Collective, Balham Bowls
Club, Belper Baptist Church, Bournemouth Borough Council.,.. etc.

You appear to have omitted: the Broken Biscuit Corporation (an insider's
nickname).
--
Roland Perry

In message
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:26:23 on
Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Basil Jet remarked:
"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field) of
"Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of
Swindon), Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford& Chiswick,
Barking Brassware Company - and probably many others.

Bush Bedding Centre - in Shepherds Bush market, overlooked by Lime Grove
Studios.

Bursledon Brick Company, I've one of their bricks, stamped BBC,
somewhere.

Boston Beer Company, Boston Borough Council, Ballet British Columbia,
Bergen Brunswick Corporation, Berkeley Biodiesel Collective, Balham Bowls
Club, Belper Baptist Church, Bournemouth Borough Council.,.. etc.

You appear to have omitted: the Broken Biscuit Corporation (an insider's
nickname).

a pedant speaks

Broken Biscuit Company, as an ex-insider.

/pedant

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:54:41 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:26:23 on
Sun, 21 Nov 2010, Basil Jet remarked:
"BBC" was the Registered Trademark (in the electrical sales field)
of "Brown, Boverie et Cie" - a Swiss based manufacturer.

BBC also, in various fields stood for: British Bacon Company (of
Swindon), Barnes Borough Council, Borough of Brentford& Chiswick,
Barking Brassware Company - and probably many others.

Bush Bedding Centre - in Shepherds Bush market, overlooked by Lime
Grove Studios.

Bursledon Brick Company, I've one of their bricks, stamped BBC,
somewhere.

Boston Beer Company, Boston Borough Council, Ballet British Columbia,
Bergen Brunswick Corporation, Berkeley Biodiesel Collective, Balham
Bowls Club, Belper Baptist Church, Bournemouth Borough Council.,..
etc.

You appear to have omitted: the Broken Biscuit Corporation (an insider's
nickname).

(I had heard that one but it didn't come to mind...)

I was just being sad and adding a few for fun! Rather passed by an
earlier poster..



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org

*lightning protection* - a w_tom conductor

In message , at 18:57:50 on Sun, 21
Nov 2010, Graeme remarked:
You appear to have omitted: the Broken Biscuit Corporation (an insider's
nickname).

a pedant speaks

Broken Biscuit Company, as an ex-insider.

/pedant

Thanks, I couldn't remember which it was.
--
Roland Perry

In message , Roland Perry
writes:
In message , at 18:57:50 on Sun,
21 Nov 2010, Graeme remarked:
You appear to have omitted: the Broken Biscuit Corporation (an insider's
nickname).

a pedant speaks

Broken Biscuit Company, as an ex-insider.

/pedant

Thanks, I couldn't remember which it was.

ISTR that was actually used as the name of a prog. - actually I think it
was "club", and was a children's programme. (Or possibly a spoof such in
something. But no, I think it was genuine, as I think the music to it
was a track on an LP I had of the Radiophonic Workshop's output.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

God must love the common man; He made so many of them.