On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:17:59 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:47:22 +0100
> charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > In article <f90816fc-2f22-44b9...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> > T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100 Richard Heathfield
> > > > <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> > > > > Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary to
> > > > > prove masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach adulthood.
> > > > I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem reluctant
> > > > to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee. Still standing up,
> > > > but wasting a flush.
> > > Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it flushes
> > > itself as you leave?)
> > Sometimes, the flushing is done on a timed cycle so you might get more
> > than one user before a flush
>
> Prety much my experience, here in the UK. Another instance of PTD generalising based on limited experience.Or just looking for a fight.

If you just learned that a big nation has urinals that are flushed by
the user after every use, wouldn't you have questions? Would your
questions be suggesting that no arrangement other than the one
you were familiar with was possible?

Do you come up with crap like that "for entertainment"?
>>
So it goes on flushing every N minutes, whether it's ben used in between or not?

That's the second question in this subthread that will doubtless go unanswered.
> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

* Tony Cooper:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:39:14 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> In what I'm about to snip, you've used the word "normal". I don't
>>> think it's "normal" to expect that others do as you would wish them to
>>> do in this area. Those "asshole" coworkers would be acting in a
>>> perfectly normal way in using the pronouns that they see fit in their
>>> conversations away from you and away from the office.
>>
>>I guess transphobic assholery is still pretty "normal". Just look at
>>you.
>
> You are accusing me of being transphobic, meaning that I have a strong
> dislike and predjudice against trans people.
>
> That's a common, and mistaken, defense mechanism in which the accuser
> takes the position that the other person must hate the group because
> the accuser can't be the reason for the conflict. It's the "It can't
> be me, it must be because I'm a ...." defense.
>
> Whatever assholery you see in my posts, they are directed solely at
> you and based on what you write here.
>
> I have no ingrained dislike or prejudices against trans people. Or,
> for that matter, any particularly positive or affirmative thoughts
> about trans people in general. I react and judge people as
> individuals, and not as representitives of a group.

You're wrong again. You don't need to target all trans people to be
transphobic, it suffices that you target some trans people, as long as
you target them for their transness or some aspect thereof.

Discriminating against young black men in saggy pants is racist even
while it doesn't affect the majority of black people directly.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

In article <56932f73-ce60-4651-8961-774946397883n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:17:59 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:47:22 +0100 charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > In article <f90816fc-2f22-44b9...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T.
> > > Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100 Richard Heathfield
> > > > > <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> > > > > > Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary
> > > > > > to prove masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach
> > > > > > adulthood.
> > > > > I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem
> > > > > reluctant to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee.
> > > > > Still standing up, but wasting a flush.
> > > > Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it
> > > > flushes itself as you leave?)
> > > Sometimes, the flushing is done on a timed cycle so you might get
> > > more than one user before a flush
> >
> > Prety much my experience, here in the UK. Another instance of PTD
> > generalising based on limited experience.Or just looking for a fight.

> If you just learned that a big nation has urinals that are flushed by
> the user after every use, wouldn't you have questions? Would your
> questions be suggesting that no arrangement other than the one you were
> familiar with was possible?

we certainly have some like that. But, they tend only to get fitted in new
builds.

> Do you come up with crap like that "for entertainment"?

Indeed. There was, some years ago, a book entitled "A guide to Loos in
London". The most entertaing one was the public one in Shepherds Bush where
the cisterns were glass-sided and you could watch them filling up.

> >>
> So it goes on flushing every N minutes, whether it's ben used in between
> or not?

They certainly used to, but most have an occupancy sensor these days. (for
at least the last 30 years). People started getting worried about waste of
water.

> That's the second question in this subthread that will doubtless go
> unanswered.

No, I've answered it.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:07:44 +0100
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:

> In article <56932f73-ce60-4651-8961-774946397883n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:17:59 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:47:22 +0100 charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > In article <f90816fc-2f22-44b9...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T.
> > > > Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100 Richard Heathfield
> > > > > > <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary
> > > > > > > to prove masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach
> > > > > > > adulthood.
> > > > > > I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem
> > > > > > reluctant to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee.
> > > > > > Still standing up, but wasting a flush.
> > > > > Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it
> > > > > flushes itself as you leave?)
> > > > Sometimes, the flushing is done on a timed cycle so you might get
> > > > more than one user before a flush
> > >
> > > Prety much my experience, here in the UK. Another instance of PTD
> > > generalising based on limited experience.Or just looking for a fight.
>
> > If you just learned that a big nation has urinals that are flushed by
> > the user after every use, wouldn't you have questions? Would your
> > questions be suggesting that no arrangement other than the one you were
> > familiar with was possible?
>
> we certainly have some like that. But, they tend only to get fitted in new
> builds.
>
> > Do you come up with crap like that "for entertainment"?
>
> Indeed. There was, some years ago, a book entitled "A guide to Loos in
> London". The most entertaing one was the public one in Shepherds Bush where
> the cisterns were glass-sided and you could watch them filling up.
>
> > >>
> > So it goes on flushing every N minutes, whether it's ben used in between
> > or not?
>
>
> They certainly used to, but most have an occupancy sensor these days. (for
> at least the last 30 years). People started getting worried about waste of
> water.
>
I guess in New Jersey they don't worry about wasting water.

> > That's the second question in this subthread that will doubtless go
> > unanswered.
>
> No, I've answered it.
>
You are too kind.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 2022-04-25 06:32, CDB wrote:
> On 4/24/2022 12:36 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>>> Doubtless most people have observed (willy-nilly) the different
>>>> postures of male and female canines doing their business on the
>>>> sidewalk.
>
>>> Two of my male dogs stopped lifting the leg when they got old.
>>> Convenience again. My brother had a female great Pyrenees who did
>>> lift hers about half the time. A terrible bully she was, too.
>
>> A trans bitch, maybe?
>
> No, just a typical Great Pyrenees.  they were bred to guard the flocks
> from wolves.

And a good job they did. We acquired a Great Pyrenees in early 2010, and
until late 2014, she kept the foxes and coyotes at bay. I have seen her
chase a pack of three coyotes.

We lost her this year, 1 day after her 12th birthday, which is a ripe
old age for the breed. We miss her a lot.

>> I thought "willy-nilly" was sort-of clever -- intended
>> etymologically, but also invoking the BrE "willy." (But not intended
>> in the current sense.)
>
> Yes; I missed it because I had started to wonder who would wish or nish
> to observe such a common canine habit.
>

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:09:47 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:39:14 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> In what I'm about to snip, you've used the word "normal". I don't
>>>> think it's "normal" to expect that others do as you would wish them to
>>>> do in this area. Those "asshole" coworkers would be acting in a
>>>> perfectly normal way in using the pronouns that they see fit in their
>>>> conversations away from you and away from the office.
>>>
>>>I guess transphobic assholery is still pretty "normal". Just look at
>>>you.
>>
>> You are accusing me of being transphobic, meaning that I have a strong
>> dislike and predjudice against trans people.
>>
>> That's a common, and mistaken, defense mechanism in which the accuser
>> takes the position that the other person must hate the group because
>> the accuser can't be the reason for the conflict. It's the "It can't
>> be me, it must be because I'm a ...." defense.
>>
>> Whatever assholery you see in my posts, they are directed solely at
>> you and based on what you write here.
>>
>> I have no ingrained dislike or prejudices against trans people. Or,
>> for that matter, any particularly positive or affirmative thoughts
>> about trans people in general. I react and judge people as
>> individuals, and not as representitives of a group.
>
>You're wrong again. You don't need to target all trans people to be
>transphobic, it suffices that you target some trans people, as long as
>you target them for their transness or some aspect thereof.

Which is not the case. You are not being targeted as a trans. You
are being targeted for what you post in this newsgroup.

Anything I've written to you or about you has been in response to
something you've written. You don't get a pass on being called out
for some inanity because you are trans.

An inanity such as considering a coworker who speaks badly of you when
not in your presence as someone who would probably embezzle money.

>Discriminating against young black men in saggy pants is racist even
>while it doesn't affect the majority of black people directly.

Is that something that you are also claiming about me?

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:56:37 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:07:44 +0100
>charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <56932f73-ce60-4651-8961-774946397883n@googlegroups.com>, Peter
>> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 5:17:59 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 09:47:22 +0100 charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > In article <f90816fc-2f22-44b9...@googlegroups.com>, Peter T.
>> > > > Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > > > > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100 Richard Heathfield
>> > > > > > <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary
>> > > > > > > to prove masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach
>> > > > > > > adulthood.
>> > > > > > I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem
>> > > > > > reluctant to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee.
>> > > > > > Still standing up, but wasting a flush.
>> > > > > Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it
>> > > > > flushes itself as you leave?)
>> > > > Sometimes, the flushing is done on a timed cycle so you might get
>> > > > more than one user before a flush
>> > >
>> > > Prety much my experience, here in the UK. Another instance of PTD
>> > > generalising based on limited experience.Or just looking for a fight.
>>
>> > If you just learned that a big nation has urinals that are flushed by
>> > the user after every use, wouldn't you have questions? Would your
>> > questions be suggesting that no arrangement other than the one you were
>> > familiar with was possible?
>>
>> we certainly have some like that. But, they tend only to get fitted in new
>> builds.
>>
>> > Do you come up with crap like that "for entertainment"?
>>
>> Indeed. There was, some years ago, a book entitled "A guide to Loos in
>> London". The most entertaing one was the public one in Shepherds Bush where
>> the cisterns were glass-sided and you could watch them filling up.
>>
>> > >>
>> > So it goes on flushing every N minutes, whether it's ben used in between
>> > or not?
>>
>>
>> They certainly used to, but most have an occupancy sensor these days. (for
>> at least the last 30 years). People started getting worried about waste of
>> water.
>>
>I guess in New Jersey they don't worry about wasting water.
>

I don't give a lot of attention to urinals other than where they are
when I need them.

I do notice, though, that there are more and more around that don't
require manual flushing. I notice this because after years of using
them I automatically reach for the lever to flush after use because
it's the right thing to do.

As a general observation, any public bathroom that has been re-fitted
in recent years will have a urinal that doesn't require manual
flushing.

While I am quite happy to no longer have to touch that lever, that
same re-fitted public bathroom will probably have a sink that does not
have knobs that turn the water on and off.

I am not happy about that. They generally require waving my hands
under the faucet to find the spot that triggers the flow. That flow
will be not much more than a dribble, and will cut off in too few
seconds to finish the hand washing. More time is spent waving than
washing.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 25-Apr-22 19:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
> While I am quite happy to no longer have to touch that lever, that
> same re-fitted public bathroom will probably have a sink that does not
> have knobs that turn the water on and off.
>
> I am not happy about that. They generally require waving my hands
> under the faucet to find the spot that triggers the flow. That flow
> will be not much more than a dribble, and will cut off in too few
> seconds to finish the hand washing. More time is spent waving than
> washing.

I dislike the "all or nothing" delivery of water from that faucet/tap.
Having collected some soap to wash my hands, it serves little purpose if
a mighty torrent of water sluices the whole lot off before I can work up
a lather.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 2022-04-25 13:57, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 25-Apr-22 19:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> While I am quite happy to no longer have to touch that lever, that
>> same re-fitted public bathroom will probably have a sink that does not
>> have knobs that turn the water on and off.
>>
>> I am not happy about that.  They generally require waving my hands
>> under the faucet to find the spot that triggers the flow.  That flow
>> will be not much more than a dribble, and will cut off in too few
>> seconds to finish the hand washing.  More time is spent waving than
>> washing.
>
> I dislike the "all or nothing" delivery of water from that faucet/tap.
> Having collected some soap to wash my hands, it serves little purpose if
> a mighty torrent of water sluices the whole lot off before I can work up
> a lather.

An air-dryer I saw in a public washroom had directions on it.

Press button.
Hold hands in air stream.

Some wag had written below the instructions, with a Sharpie.

Dry hands on pants.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:56:41 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:07:44 +0100
> charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > In article <56932f73-ce60-4651...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> > T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > > So it goes on flushing every N minutes, whether it's ben used in between
> > > or not?
> > They certainly used to, but most have an occupancy sensor these days. (for
> > at least the last 30 years). People started getting worried about waste of
> > water.
>
> I guess in New Jersey they don't worry about wasting water.

Do you even look at what you're responding to before you type an asinine
comment? You precisely echoed my concern about your urinals that
merrily flush away every N minutes regardless of how much or little
they are used

US urinals are (should be) flushed by the user after they are used
(or by machinery that knows when a user departs).

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 5:06:56 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 9:50:17 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>>>> Wearing a bra is part of the woman things I do, and I do
>>>> it just like women do.
>>> Do they?
>>> Again you're clinging to the 20th-century mode of dress for women
>>> that was designed to encourage the desire for women in heterosexual
>>> men.
>>> The place I most often see women IRL these days is on the local news
>>> and on Colbert. The women on Colbert are usually celebrities with plenty
>>> of disposable income, and they generally wear what's appropriate for a
>>> fairly formal occasion. Even the very well endowed seem rarely to wear
>>> a bra.
>>
>> Are you sure you can judge that? I'm not so sure I can. Plus,
>> celebrities aren't a typical sample.
>
> Jeez. They're nearly popping out of their decolletage.
>
> Celebrity garb provides the model that filters down to the watchers.
> I didn't cite, for instance, the Met Gala.

Ok, I'm probably guilty of studiously avoiding celebrity coverage (or
uncoverage).

>>> But if you don't have large breasts, such that it would be uncomfortable
>>> for them not to be supported, then there can be no reason for wearing
>>> a bra other than conforming to the *Mad Men* sort of stereotype of
>>> female "attractiveness."
>>
>> They didn't even have push-up bras back then, so ideas on attractiveness
>> have changed many times since then and aren't perceived as men's
>> expectations any more.
>
> ! What's "any more" got to do with it? At least one of your "waves" must
> have pointed out that the only purpose of mammaries is to nourish babies,
> and enhancing their prominence serves no purpose other than inflaming
> the "male gaze," a hot topic these days.

One reason to wear a bra is to keep the male gaze away from one's
nipples.

Yes, there are other ways to do that.

> Why did the non-practice of "bra-burning" attract so much attention back
> when it didn't happen? Because it threatened the male libido!

Yes, back then, for sure. It would do you good to take in a little more
culture from the last 20 or 30 years, though.

And categorizing what lesbians do as catering to the male gaze is just
laughable.

Why not accept that you're one of the people least equipped to comment
on women's behavior? It's understandable.

Most of all, please give trans feminine people a rest. They are put into
a double bind by society: if they don't conform to societal expectations
of femininity, they're accused of not trying hard enough to earn the
status of woman or feminine person, and if they do, they're accused of
upholding outdated stereotypes. There's just no way to win if society
doesn't want to give you a place at the table. Thus, either one of these
complaints is transphobic.

--
CW: Historical misogyny
.... gurve nirentr fvmr erznvaf fb zhpu fznyyre; fb gung gur fhz
gbgny bs sbbq pbairegrq vagb gubhtug ol jbzra pna arire rdhny
[gung bs] zra. Vg sbyybjf gurersber, gung zra jvyy nyjnlf guvax
zber guna jbzra. -- M.A. Hardaker in Popular Science (1881)

* CDB:

> On 4/24/2022 12:36 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
>>>> Doubtless most people have observed (willy-nilly) the different
>>>> postures of male and female canines doing their business on the
>>>> sidewalk.
>
>>> Two of my male dogs stopped lifting the leg when they got old.
>>> Convenience again. My brother had a female great Pyrenees who did
>>> lift hers about half the time. A terrible bully she was, too.
>
>> A trans bitch, maybe?
>
> No, just a typical Great Pyrenees.

Maybe fallen from the transpyrenan railroad?

--
Kira: Any luck?
Garak: Plenty, major. Unfortunately, all of it bad.

* Tony Cooper:

> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:09:47 -0400, Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>
>>* Tony Cooper:
>>
>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:39:14 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>
>>>>> In what I'm about to snip, you've used the word "normal". I don't
>>>>> think it's "normal" to expect that others do as you would wish them to
>>>>> do in this area. Those "asshole" coworkers would be acting in a
>>>>> perfectly normal way in using the pronouns that they see fit in their
>>>>> conversations away from you and away from the office.
>>>>
>>>>I guess transphobic assholery is still pretty "normal". Just look at
>>>>you.
>>>
>>> You are accusing me of being transphobic, meaning that I have a strong
>>> dislike and predjudice against trans people.
>>>
>>> That's a common, and mistaken, defense mechanism in which the accuser
>>> takes the position that the other person must hate the group because
>>> the accuser can't be the reason for the conflict. It's the "It can't
>>> be me, it must be because I'm a ...." defense.
>>>
>>> Whatever assholery you see in my posts, they are directed solely at
>>> you and based on what you write here.
>>>
>>> I have no ingrained dislike or prejudices against trans people. Or,
>>> for that matter, any particularly positive or affirmative thoughts
>>> about trans people in general. I react and judge people as
>>> individuals, and not as representitives of a group.
>>
>>You're wrong again. You don't need to target all trans people to be
>>transphobic, it suffices that you target some trans people, as long as
>>you target them for their transness or some aspect thereof.
>
> Which is not the case. You are not being targeted as a trans.

Yes I am.

And since I explained it approximately seventy-two times (for which I
only get more flak), I'm not wasting more of my time to get it into your
thick head.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:13:20 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:09:47 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:39:14 -0400, Quinn C
>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In what I'm about to snip, you've used the word "normal". I don't
>>>>>> think it's "normal" to expect that others do as you would wish them to
>>>>>> do in this area. Those "asshole" coworkers would be acting in a
>>>>>> perfectly normal way in using the pronouns that they see fit in their
>>>>>> conversations away from you and away from the office.
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess transphobic assholery is still pretty "normal". Just look at
>>>>>you.
>>>>
>>>> You are accusing me of being transphobic, meaning that I have a strong
>>>> dislike and predjudice against trans people.
>>>>
>>>> That's a common, and mistaken, defense mechanism in which the accuser
>>>> takes the position that the other person must hate the group because
>>>> the accuser can't be the reason for the conflict. It's the "It can't
>>>> be me, it must be because I'm a ...." defense.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever assholery you see in my posts, they are directed solely at
>>>> you and based on what you write here.
>>>>
>>>> I have no ingrained dislike or prejudices against trans people. Or,
>>>> for that matter, any particularly positive or affirmative thoughts
>>>> about trans people in general. I react and judge people as
>>>> individuals, and not as representitives of a group.
>>>
>>>You're wrong again. You don't need to target all trans people to be
>>>transphobic, it suffices that you target some trans people, as long as
>>>you target them for their transness or some aspect thereof.
>>
>> Which is not the case. You are not being targeted as a trans.
>
>Yes I am.

I'm not Tony, but I'll point out that although I disagree with many
things you say, that has nothing to do with what you are, what sex you
are, or what your sexual preferences are. I don't care. I only care
about what you post.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 17:13:20 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 13:09:47 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 08:39:14 -0400, Quinn C
>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>* Tony Cooper:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In what I'm about to snip, you've used the word "normal". I don't
>>>>>> think it's "normal" to expect that others do as you would wish them to
>>>>>> do in this area. Those "asshole" coworkers would be acting in a
>>>>>> perfectly normal way in using the pronouns that they see fit in their
>>>>>> conversations away from you and away from the office.
>>>>>
>>>>>I guess transphobic assholery is still pretty "normal". Just look at
>>>>>you.
>>>>
>>>> You are accusing me of being transphobic, meaning that I have a strong
>>>> dislike and predjudice against trans people.
>>>>
>>>> That's a common, and mistaken, defense mechanism in which the accuser
>>>> takes the position that the other person must hate the group because
>>>> the accuser can't be the reason for the conflict. It's the "It can't
>>>> be me, it must be because I'm a ...." defense.
>>>>
>>>> Whatever assholery you see in my posts, they are directed solely at
>>>> you and based on what you write here.
>>>>
>>>> I have no ingrained dislike or prejudices against trans people. Or,
>>>> for that matter, any particularly positive or affirmative thoughts
>>>> about trans people in general. I react and judge people as
>>>> individuals, and not as representitives of a group.
>>>
>>>You're wrong again. You don't need to target all trans people to be
>>>transphobic, it suffices that you target some trans people, as long as
>>>you target them for their transness or some aspect thereof.
>>
>> Which is not the case. You are not being targeted as a trans.
>
>Yes I am.
>
>And since I explained it approximately seventy-two times (for which I
>only get more flak), I'm not wasting more of my time to get it into your
>thick head.

You have offered at least 72 mostly repetitive commentaries, but none
of them have cited any instance of any comments I have made about
trans people or you as a trans person.

Go ahead, cite one if you think they've been made.

The comments have been directed at statements you have made. It's not
that a trans person has made the statement, but that the statement
itself was anything from ludicrous to wrong in my opinion.

One of our latest contretemps was about the subject that if your
coworkers when away from you and in conversations with their friends
don't use the pronouns that you require in referring to you, or refer
to you as a "man", that they are "assholes" and probably the type
that would embezzle money if they could get away with it.

To point that out as a ludicrous comment is not targeting you as a
trans. It's targeting you as an intolerant individual who has
unreasonable expectations and vilifies people who don't conform to
your requirements even when they're on the own time away from you and
the office.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On 26/04/22 02:43, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:05:59 PM UTC-4, Anders D. Nygaard
> wrote:
>> Den 24-04-2022 kl. 21:51 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
>>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100 Richard Heathfield
>>>> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>> Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary
>>>>> to prove masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach
>>>>> adulthood.
>>>> I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem
>>>> reluctant to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee.
>>>> Still standing up, but wasting a flush.
>>> Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it
>>> flushes itself as you leave?)
>>
>> Waterless urinals haven't crossed the pond?
>
> Uh -- don't they smell?

Not in my experience. They are designed to conduct liquid away without
leaving a residue. A big improvement over the older designs.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On 26/04/22 05:57, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 25-Apr-22 19:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> While I am quite happy to no longer have to touch that lever, that
>> same re-fitted public bathroom will probably have a sink that
>> does not have knobs that turn the water on and off.
>>
>> I am not happy about that. They generally require waving my hands
>> under the faucet to find the spot that triggers the flow. That
>> flow will be not much more than a dribble, and will cut off in too
>> few seconds to finish the hand washing. More time is spent waving
>> than washing.
>
> I dislike the "all or nothing" delivery of water from that
> faucet/tap. Having collected some soap to wash my hands, it serves
> little purpose if a mighty torrent of water sluices the whole lot
> off before I can work up a lather.

When I wash my hands at home, I adjust the tap for the smallest possible
stream of water. That lets me add water only gradually as needed. A
side benefit is that I need far less soap that way. Many people fail to
understand the logic here, so they wash away the soap before it's had a
chance to do its job.

I agree that the sensor-controlled taps are faulty in that respect.
However, the trend for the last many years has been to avoid the need
for anyone to touch the equipment in public facilities, because user
controls are a common way of transmitting disease. That's why
user-operated flushing controls on urinals were abandoned (at least in
this country) decades ago.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 13:06:35 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 26/04/22 05:57, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 25-Apr-22 19:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> While I am quite happy to no longer have to touch that lever, that
>>> same re-fitted public bathroom will probably have a sink that
>>> does not have knobs that turn the water on and off.
>>>
>>> I am not happy about that. They generally require waving my hands
>>> under the faucet to find the spot that triggers the flow. That
>>> flow will be not much more than a dribble, and will cut off in too
>>> few seconds to finish the hand washing. More time is spent waving
>>> than washing.
>>
>> I dislike the "all or nothing" delivery of water from that
>> faucet/tap. Having collected some soap to wash my hands, it serves
>> little purpose if a mighty torrent of water sluices the whole lot
>> off before I can work up a lather.
>
>When I wash my hands at home, I adjust the tap for the smallest possible
>stream of water. That lets me add water only gradually as needed. A
>side benefit is that I need far less soap that way. Many people fail to
>understand the logic here, so they wash away the soap before it's had a
>chance to do its job.
>
>I agree that the sensor-controlled taps are faulty in that respect.
>However, the trend for the last many years has been to avoid the need
>for anyone to touch the equipment in public facilities, because user
>controls are a common way of transmitting disease. That's why
>user-operated flushing controls on urinals were abandoned (at least in
>this country) decades ago.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 1:56:41 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:07:44 +0100
> > charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > > In article <56932f73-ce60-4651...@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> > > T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > So it goes on flushing every N minutes, whether it's ben used in between
> > > > or not?
> > > They certainly used to, but most have an occupancy sensor these days. (for
> > > at least the last 30 years). People started getting worried about waste of
> > > water.
> >
> > I guess in New Jersey they don't worry about wasting water.
>
> Do you even look at what you're responding to before you type an asinine
> comment? You precisely echoed my concern about your urinals that

Do you ever wonder that people "start" fights with you?

> merrily flush away every N minutes regardless of how much or little
> they are used
>
> US urinals are (should be) flushed by the user after they are used
> (or by machinery that knows when a user departs).

Ah, the thing is you see, we don't have that system; some things aren't the same all over the world:
"a pint's a pound the world around" is, to use your phrase, "a lie".

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:56:29 +1000
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 26/04/22 02:43, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 6:05:59 PM UTC-4, Anders D. Nygaard
> > wrote:
> >> Den 24-04-2022 kl. 21:51 skrev Peter T. Daniels:
> >>> On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:24:33 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 14:23:00 +0100 Richard Heathfield
> >>>> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it necessary
> >>>>> to prove masculinity by peeing standing up has yet to reach
> >>>>> adulthood.
> >>>> I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem
> >>>> reluctant to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee.
> >>>> Still standing up, but wasting a flush.
> >>> Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it
> >>> flushes itself as you leave?)
> >>
> >> Waterless urinals haven't crossed the pond?
> >
> > Uh -- don't they smell?
>
Yes they do, of whatever perfume they put in the toilet mat.
Here; JLMGITFY
https://clickserve.dartsearch.net/link/click?lid=92700069984673500&ds_s_kwgid=58700007523379896&ds_s_inventory_feed_id=97700000002359724&&ds_e_adid=74492061875220&ds_e_target_id=pla-4578091608228102&ds_e_product_group_id=4578091608228102&ds_e_product_id=1011887&ds_e_product_country=GB&ds_e_product_language=EN&ds_e_product_channel=Online&ds_e_network=s&ds_url_v=2&ds_dest_url=https://www.viking-direct.co.uk/en/bio-production-urinal-mat-apple-pack-of-12-p-1011887?customerType=consumer&cm_mmc=Bing-_-PLA_BING_GEN_2_Furniture-Facilities-Categories_GOSC-_-Furniture+%26+Presentation+%2B+Facilities+%26+Home-_-PRODUCT_GROUP&gclid=8242e2e26b8b190215bb8085d8424fc6&gclsrc=3p.ds&msclkid=8242e2e26b8b190215bb8085d8424fc6&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=PLA_BING_GEN_2_Furniture-Facilities-Categories_GOSC&utm_term=4578091608228102&utm_content=Furniture%20%26%20Presentation%20%2B%20Facilities%20%26%20Home

Ah, redirects doncha luv'em?

Let's try elsewhere:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_idzsaV6c7aM/S85r_V9OMsI/AAAAAAAAGgE/lKO3hLkTsxY/s1600/IMG_4285.JPG

> Not in my experience. They are designed to conduct liquid away without
> leaving a residue. A big improvement over the older designs.
>
> --
> Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 4/25/2022 5:13 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels:
>> Quinn C wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> Quinn C wrote:

>>>>> Wearing a bra is part of the woman things I do, and I do it
>>>>> just like women do.
>>>> Do they? Again you're clinging to the 20th-century mode of
>>>> dress for women that was designed to encourage the desire for
>>>> women in heterosexual men. The place I most often see women IRL
>>>> these days is on the local news and on Colbert. The women on
>>>> Colbert are usually celebrities with plenty of disposable
>>>> income, and they generally wear what's appropriate for a fairly
>>>> formal occasion. Even the very well endowed seem rarely to
>>>> wear a bra.

>>> Are you sure you can judge that? I'm not so sure I can. Plus,
>>> celebrities aren't a typical sample.

>> Jeez. They're nearly popping out of their decolletage.

>> Celebrity garb provides the model that filters down to the
>> watchers. I didn't cite, for instance, the Met Gala.

> Ok, I'm probably guilty of studiously avoiding celebrity coverage
> (or uncoverage).

>>>> But if you don't have large breasts, such that it would be
>>>> uncomfortable for them not to be supported, then there can be
>>>> no reason for wearing a bra other than conforming to the *Mad
>>>> Men* sort of stereotype of female "attractiveness."

>>> They didn't even have push-up bras back then, so ideas on
>>> attractiveness have changed many times since then and aren't
>>> perceived as men's expectations any more.

>> ! What's "any more" got to do with it? At least one of your "waves"
>> must have pointed out that the only purpose of mammaries is to
>> nourish babies, and enhancing their prominence serves no purpose
>> other than inflaming the "male gaze," a hot topic these days.

> One reason to wear a bra is to keep the male gaze away from one's
> nipples.

In high school I wore a T-shirt under my buttoned shirt to keep
everybody's eyes away from my nipples. So did most of my male classmates.

> Yes, there are other ways to do that.

>> Why did the non-practice of "bra-burning" attract so much attention
>> back when it didn't happen? Because it threatened the male libido!

My eyes are up here, Buster.

> Yes, back then, for sure. It would do you good to take in a little
> more culture from the last 20 or 30 years, though.

> And categorizing what lesbians do as catering to the male gaze is
> just laughable.

> Why not accept that you're one of the people least equipped to
> comment on women's behavior? It's understandable.

> Most of all, please give trans feminine people a rest. They are put
> into a double bind by society: if they don't conform to societal
> expectations of femininity, they're accused of not trying hard enough
> to earn the status of woman or feminine person, and if they do,
> they're accused of upholding outdated stereotypes. There's just no
> way to win if society doesn't want to give you a place at the table.
> Thus, either one of these complaints is transphobic.
>

On 4/25/2022 5:13 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * CDB:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>>>> Doubtless most people have observed (willy-nilly) the
>>>>> different postures of male and female canines doing their
>>>>> business on the sidewalk.

>>>> Two of my male dogs stopped lifting the leg when they got old.
>>>> Convenience again. My brother had a female great Pyrenees who
>>>> did lift hers about half the time. A terrible bully she was,
>>>> too.

>>> A trans bitch, maybe?

>> No, just a typical Great Pyrenees.

> Maybe fallen from the transpyrenan railroad?

A fallen woman? ISWYDT.

On 4/25/2022 12:49 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>> Richard Heathfield <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>>>>>> Quite. Regardless of their age, anyone who feels it
>>>>>> necessary to prove masculinity by peeing standing up has
>>>>>> yet to reach adulthood.
>>>>> I often see^w hear it the other way around; a lot of men seem
>>>>> reluctant to use the urinal, they go into a cubicle to pee.
>>>>> Still standing up, but wasting a flush.
>>>> Don't you flush the urinal? (Or step away from the sensor so it
>>>> flushes itself as you leave?)
>>> Sometimes, the flushing is done on a timed cycle so you might get
>>> more than one user before a flush

>> Prety much my experience, here in the UK. Another instance of PTD
>> generalising based on limited experience.Or just looking for a
>> fight.

> If you just learned that a big nation has urinals that are flushed
> by the user after every use, wouldn't you have questions? Would your
> questions be suggesting that no arrangement other than the one you
> were familiar with was possible?

> Do you come up with crap like that "for entertainment"?

> So it goes on flushing every N minutes, whether it's ben used in
> between or not?

I like the ones with a flush handle that I can refuse to pull in order
to save the planet.

> That's the second question in this subthread that will doubtless go
unanswered.

Tony may have found a new way to madden you.

>> -- Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Monday, April 25, 2022 at 8:32:48 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> On 4/24/2022 12:36 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > CDB wrote:
> >> Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> >>> Doubtless most people have observed (willy-nilly) the different
> >>> postures of male and female canines doing their business on the
> >>> sidewalk.
> >> Two of my male dogs stopped lifting the leg when they got old.
> >> Convenience again. My brother had a female great Pyrenees who did
> >> lift hers about half the time. A terrible bully she was, too.
> > A trans bitch, maybe?
>
> No, just a typical Great Pyrenees. they were bred to guard the flocks
> from wolves.

That explains both the alternating pose and the bullying?

> > I thought "willy-nilly" was sort-of clever -- intended
> > etymologically, but also invoking the BrE "willy." (But not intended
> > in the current sense.)
>
> Yes; I missed it because I had started to wonder who would wish or nish
> to observe such a common canine habit.

It meant they would see it whether they wanted to or not

On 2022-04-26 05:08, CDB wrote:
> On 4/25/2022 5:13 PM, Quinn C wrote:
>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>> Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>
>>>>>> Wearing a bra is part of the woman things I do, and I do it
>>>>>> just like women do.
>>>>> Do they? Again you're clinging to the 20th-century mode of
>>>>> dress for women that was designed to encourage the desire for
>>>>> women in heterosexual men. The place I most often see women IRL
>>>>> these days is on the local news and on Colbert. The women on
>>>>> Colbert are usually celebrities with plenty of disposable
>>>>> income, and they generally wear what's appropriate for a fairly
>>>>> formal occasion. Even the very well endowed seem rarely to
>>>>> wear a bra.
>
>>>> Are you sure you can judge that? I'm not so sure I can. Plus,
>>>> celebrities aren't a typical sample.
>
>>> Jeez. They're nearly popping out of their decolletage.
>
>>> Celebrity garb provides the model that filters down to the
>>> watchers. I didn't cite, for instance, the Met Gala.
>
>> Ok, I'm probably guilty of studiously avoiding celebrity coverage
>> (or uncoverage).
>
>>>>> But if you don't have large breasts, such that it would be
>>>>> uncomfortable for them not to be supported, then there can be
>>>>> no reason for wearing a bra other than conforming to the *Mad
>>>>> Men* sort of stereotype of female "attractiveness."
>
>>>> They didn't even have push-up bras back then, so ideas on
>>>> attractiveness have changed many times since then and aren't
>>>> perceived as men's expectations any more.
>
>>> ! What's "any more" got to do with it? At least one of your "waves"
>>> must have pointed out that the only purpose of mammaries is to
>>> nourish babies, and enhancing their prominence serves no purpose
>>> other than inflaming the "male gaze," a hot topic these days.
>
>> One reason to wear a bra is to keep the male gaze away from one's
>> nipples.
>
> In high school I wore a T-shirt under my buttoned shirt to keep
> everybody's eyes away from my nipples.  So did most of my male classmates.
>
>> Yes, there are other ways to do that.
>
>>> Why did the non-practice of "bra-burning" attract so much attention
>>> back when it didn't happen? Because it threatened the male libido!
>
> My eyes are up here, Buster.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7DniRWRA7s

>> Yes, back then, for sure. It would do you good to take in a little
>> more culture from the last 20 or 30 years, though.
>
>> And categorizing what lesbians do as catering to the male gaze is
>> just laughable.
>
>> Why not accept that you're one of the people least equipped to
>> comment on women's behavior? It's understandable.
>
>> Most of all, please give trans feminine people a rest. They are put
>> into a double bind by society: if they don't conform to societal
>> expectations of femininity, they're accused of not trying hard enough
>> to earn the status of woman or feminine person, and if they do,
>> they're accused of upholding outdated stereotypes. There's just no
>> way to win if society doesn't want to give you a place at the table.
>> Thus, either one of these complaints is transphobic.
>>
>