On 25 Nov 2011 22:56:21 GMT
Huge wrote:

On 2011-11-25, Davey wrote:
On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 09:45:40 -0800 (PST)
Martin Bonner wrote:

On Nov 24, 11:13Â*pm, Davey wrote:
"TonyB" wrote:
Later she attended my department so I asked why she was going
so fast in the snow. She was from Florida she said and "Nobody
told me the Goddam stuff was slippery".

TonyB

Now that one I agree with. Even in Michigan, the first snow
catches hundreds of motorists out, with subsequent involuntary
trips to the repair shop.

Yup, and nobody in Michigan uses winter tyres despite the fact they
get months of sub-zero temperatures!

True. I never did!
My best drive was in heavy snow, from some town near Fraser, Ontario
(NW of Guelph) back to Suburban Detroit, in 6 hours, for about 300
miles. The long country roads were empty, and as long as I kept
driving smoothly, I was in control, just. I had to get back, there
was a Burns Night party to go to!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zirXvjxXqzw

(I *think* it's Walter Rohrl.)


Yeah, but he was on an empty racetrack, I was on public roads, passing
little old ladies hunched over their steering wheels!
--
Davey.

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 01:14:26 -0000, Frank Erskine wrote:

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:51:20 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:19:26 -0000, Frank Erskine wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 23:06:15 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 22:54:22 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

How would you rewrite the following anyway?:
"Tom's cock was three times longer than Jim's, but Jim's nose was five times smaller than Tom's."

Jim was jealous but he was pretty.

Envious rather than jealous?

Synonym?

Not at all.

Envious is what you may be when you haven't something that somebody
else has. "I'm envious of John because of his gorgeous wife" sort of
thing.

Jealous is that you want to keep something to yourself (think - "a
jealously-guarded trade secret").

I've only ever heard jealous used in your first example in place of envious.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Do not adjust your mind - the fault is with reality.

On 26/11/2011 22:23, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

snip

Envious is what you may be when you haven't something that somebody
else has. "I'm envious of John because of his gorgeous wife" sort of
thing.

Jealous is that you want to keep something to yourself (think - "a
jealously-guarded trade secret").

I've only ever heard jealous used in your first example in place of
envious.

If you have any doubt about the real meaning of any word you could
always consult a dictionary. If words get abused by casual indifference
to their established meanings then language loses its ability to
discriminate between different situations. For instance frequently seen
these days is the use of disinterested when what is meant is
uninterested and as for niggardly ...

In the cited example its seems to me that envious is the correct word to
use but if you look at the situation from John's perspective any close
attention paid to John's wife could well make him jealous.

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 16 Nov 2011 10:48:45 -0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

On 16/11/2011 01:00, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

snip

Probably, but possibly just finless. The radiator I am sitting next to
is a single panel with no fins. Fins make a substantial difference -
about 42% greater output according to one site I checked.

I've never seen a finless one, what a strange idea! Even my slimline
single panel hall radiator has fins at the back.

This house had central heating fitted in about 1975, 3 years before I
moved in.

Oh, my house was BUILT in 79.

This house was built some time before 1851, the date of the first
Ordnance Survey map of the area.

No fins on any of the original radiators. I have a catalogue
which I think dates to the early 1980s (gas fired CH boilers from £75)
with not a single finned rad in sight except for Finrad skirting
radiators which was referred to as "this new concept". The section on
'Comfort' ends with:
"For these reasons perimeter skirting radiators provide fullest comfort
at lower air temperatures then are required by other forms of central
heating which have less efficient heat distribution. Even on the coldest
days there is no need to set the thermostat in the 70s to feel warm;
with perimeter skirting radiators the mid 60's produce that healthy
sense of comfort, at a present to breathe air temperatures."

What a strange idea. 70C is 70C, you can't have a more comfortable 70C.

I don't think 70C would be a comfortable temperature in any circumstances.

Oops. Severe typo?

70F would be the temperature the room thermostat would be set to as
would 65F back in 1965 when that was the recommended temperature for
living rooms.

Where did this sudden need to be warmer come from? The recommended temperature now is 21C, which I find uncomfortably warm unless I'm naked.

There is some anecdotal evidence that underfloor heating produces a
comfortable environment at a lower air temperature than panel radiators
and skirting radiators might possibly have a slight effect in that
direction as well.

A more even air temperature perhaps.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Dear Diary,
I've had this odd feeling for a little while. It's a surrealistically subconscious feeling that I was abducted by aliens and thoroughly probed.
Then a friend of mine told me they got me really drunk and dropped me off at a gay bar.
The *******s.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:24:37 -0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 06:43:16 -0000, harry wrote:

On Nov 10, 8:29 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:38:57 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 09/11/2011 20:20, dennis@home wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...

It is a corollary of the famous E = mc^2 equation.

And where does that say that if you increase the energy in a
system you
increase its mass?

Are you really so thick that you cannot rearrange the equation?

m = E/c^2

c^2 being a rather large number makes the change in mass effect
small for
modest energies but it is not always negligible.

So if you move an object on Earth to a larger distance you increase
the
potential energy.
Which one actually increases in mass, the Earth or the object?

I'd say neither. That's POTENTIAL energy.

--http://petersparrots.comhttp://petersphotos.com

If trains stop at train stations, what happens at workstations?- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If you move an object away from Earth you increase its potential
energy.

Yes, but I don't see why that means it's mass has to increase. It has
POTENTIAL energy, and not the same as the kinetic energy from a fast
moving object as below.

What happens is that the earth and the object gain mass, and whoever is
doing the pushing loses it.

Energy and mass are conserved, but you are moving teeny bits around.

Nonsense. How would this mass be transported?


--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Caller: "I'd like the RSPCA please".
Operator: "Where are you calling from?"
Caller: "The living room".

On 27/11/2011 09:43, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

snip


70F would be the temperature the room thermostat would be set to as
would 65F back in 1965 when that was the recommended temperature for
living rooms.

Where did this sudden need to be warmer come from? The recommended
temperature now is 21C, which I find uncomfortably warm unless I'm naked.

I don't think it is particularly sudden. Just a gradual drift over the
years driven by three factors.

The first is what is possible. Before central heating became the norm
open coal fires were the popular heat source and a coal fire in an
uninsulated and probably draughty room left the occupants feeling
toasted on one side and freezing on the other. Rooms without fires were
cold in winter. People of my generation will well remember ice on the
inside of bedroom windows in winter when they were young.

The second and third factors are related. Most people are physically
much less active these days and they also spend very little time out in
the elements when the weather is less than ideal. Sitting around
generates very little body heat and coming indoors after becoming
acclimatised to cold conditions outside makes even a relatively cold
house feel warm.

There is some anecdotal evidence that underfloor heating produces a
comfortable environment at a lower air temperature than panel radiators
and skirting radiators might possibly have a slight effect in that
direction as well.

A more even air temperature perhaps.

Part of the answer certainly but perhaps the fact that all of the
furniture in the room is also more likely to be up to air temp with
under floor heating than in a radiator warmed room also plays a part.
However I can't see skirting radiators doing much at all in that direction.

--
Roger Chapman

On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:36:54 -0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:

On 17/11/2011 22:56, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

What you want to say is that Jim's nose is one fifth the size of
Tom's. "Five
times smaller" is meaningless.

It's bloody obvious what five times smaller means to anyone with half a
brain.

Quite right. 5 times smaller clearly means 500% smaller. Since 100%
smaller is zero, 500% smaller is thus meaningless as it doesn't even
translate as a negative concept.

What the user means may also be obvious but that doesn't make it right
or a usage that should be encouraged in any way.

Buffoon.

Yes you are.

Think of ratios. A ratio of 5 times is 1 to 5. The other way is 5:1.

In order to communicate we use certain symbols (an observation that
applies equally to words and figures). You are quite correct to say that
1:5 and 5:1 are two instantly recognisable ratios but you are not using
that symbol in your 'five times less'. 'Times' in a arithmetic sense
means multiply. Multiply and divide are two sides of the same coin. If
the size of an answer to a calculation is less than the number you
started with then the action is division, not multiplication. You could
of course multiply by a fraction to get your answer but that merely
transfers the division from the main calculation to the fraction. In
words 5:1 and 1:5 are five times and one fifth. Introduce 'less' into
the equation and the fraction is not one fifth less but four fifths less.

Yes. We really need a new expression: "five divide less" to go with
"five times more".

Of course, it's part of the illiteracy of the age that people cannot
distinguish between multiply and divide.

Your first paragraph explains my point well. Five times less is easy to understand, five divide less sounds stupid and is not required anyway. The word less obviously means you are LOWERING the number. Five indicates by how much. Times does not have to mean multiply. It can mean the number of times you do something. I divide a piece of apple pie into 5 parts. I have created a part FIVE TIMES.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill because they ****ed me off.

On 03/12/2011 03:14, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Of course, it's part of the illiteracy of the age that people cannot
distinguish between multiply and divide.

Your first paragraph explains my point well. Five times less is easy to
understand, five divide less sounds stupid and is not required anyway.
The word less obviously means you are LOWERING the number. Five
indicates by how much. Times does not have to mean multiply. It can
mean the number of times you do something. I divide a piece of apple
pie into 5 parts. I have created a part FIVE TIMES.

Would you care to construct a meaningful sentence linking 'five times'
and 'pie' and meaning divided (or dividing) the pie into five equal
portions.

Time like many words can have more than one meaning. My Collins
dictionary actually lists 62 distinct meanings, most in the singular,
but none implying divide.

The definition you are ignoring is:

17 (pl.) indicating a degree or amount calculated by multiplication with
the number specified: ten times three is thirty; he earns four times as
much as me."

--
Roger Chapman

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:18:28 -0000, charles wrote:

In article op.v5ehvgdaytk5n5@i7-940,
Lieutenant Scott wrote:


[Snip]

courts martial = lots of military courts

Surely "martial courts"?

Not what they are called.

It is customary to then say what they ARE called.

court martials = many attened by the the same person.



--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Dancing cheektocheek is really a form of floor play.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:09:13 -0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

On 23/11/2011 13:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Lieutenant Scott wrote:

I suppose you'd write courts-martial hahahaha!


Yes.
As would anyone who wrote English correctly.

For once Lieutenant Scott is not totally wrong about English usage.
Collins dictionary gives both plurals as correct and likewise for
attorney general and governor general. However on the subject of
mothers-in-law, etc. it does not offer an alternative.

A "mother in law" can be made plural to "mother in law"s. Just add the s to the end of the entire unit.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Dancing cheektocheek is really a form of floor play.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:58:29 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

A "mother in law" can be made plural to "mother in law"s. Just add the s to the end of the entire unit.

That would be "mothers-in-law".

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:29:58 -0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

On 26/11/2011 22:23, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

snip

Envious is what you may be when you haven't something that somebody
else has. "I'm envious of John because of his gorgeous wife" sort of
thing.

Jealous is that you want to keep something to yourself (think - "a
jealously-guarded trade secret").

I've only ever heard jealous used in your first example in place of
envious.

If you have any doubt about the real meaning of any word you could
always consult a dictionary. If words get abused by casual indifference
to their established meanings then language loses its ability to
discriminate between different situations. For instance frequently seen
these days is the use of disinterested when what is meant is
uninterested and as for niggardly ...

In the cited example its seems to me that envious is the correct word to
use but if you look at the situation from John's perspective any close
attention paid to John's wife could well make him jealous.

The trouble is, using a word correctly can cause confusion if 90% of the population use it differently.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Never have I seen a word as accurate as politics.
Poly meaning many, and tic being a blood-sucking thing.

On Sat, 03 Dec 2011 19:31:08 -0000, Roger Chapman wrote:

On 03/12/2011 03:14, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
Of course, it's part of the illiteracy of the age that people cannot
distinguish between multiply and divide.

Your first paragraph explains my point well. Five times less is easy to
understand, five divide less sounds stupid and is not required anyway.
The word less obviously means you are LOWERING the number. Five
indicates by how much. Times does not have to mean multiply. It can
mean the number of times you do something. I divide a piece of apple
pie into 5 parts. I have created a part FIVE TIMES.

Would you care to construct a meaningful sentence linking 'five times'
and 'pie' and meaning divided (or dividing) the pie into five equal
portions.

The piece of pie I was given was five times smaller than the original I baked, which started an argument with my wife.

Time like many words can have more than one meaning. My Collins
dictionary actually lists 62 distinct meanings, most in the singular,
but none implying divide.

The definition you are ignoring is:

17 (pl.) indicating a degree or amount calculated by multiplication with
the number specified: ten times three is thirty; he earns four times as
much as me."

Any word can mean the opposite by adding words around it.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Computers can never replace human stupidity.

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:55:26 -0000, wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:58:29 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

A "mother in law" can be made plural to "mother in law"s. Just add the s to the end of the entire unit.

That would be "mothers-in-law".

Who gives a ****? It's obvious what it means.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Joey's teacher sent a note home to his Mother saying, "Joey seems to be a very bright boy, but spends too much of his time thinking about sex and girls."
The Mother wrote back the next day, "If you find a solution, please advise. I have the same problem with his Father."

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:36:49 +0000
Tim Streater wrote:

In article op.v75if6fqytk5n5@i7-940, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 20:55:26 -0000, wrote:

On Tue, 27 Dec 2011 04:58:29 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

A "mother in law" can be made plural to "mother in law"s. Just
add the s to the end of the entire unit.

That would be "mothers-in-law".

Who gives a ****? It's obvious what it means.

It means that the writer is an ignorant **** whose views, ideas,
comments, may be safely ignored.


Indeed. Quote pulled from a different NG:
"
................... but I have known
another RJ11 plug or even a RJ11 socket to be fitted, but the
proscribed standard is a RJ45 data socket.

Sometimes spelling matters.

Proscribed (prohibited) or did you perhaps mean prescribed (set down
authoritatively)? "

An error of one letter completely reverses the meaning of the sentence.
--
Davey.

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:32:20 -0000, "Lieutenant Scott"
wrote:

That would be "mothers-in-law".

Who gives a ****? It's obvious what it means.

Anyone who isn't an ignoramus gives a ****. That doesn't include you,
obviously.

On 16/01/2012 09:58, Davey wrote:
Indeed. Quote pulled from a different NG:

waves

Andy