On 27/04/22 01:48, Tony Cooper wrote:

> Frankly, I think there are more important questions to be asked on
> this subject. Why, for example, do the British pronounce the word
> "your rhine all" instead of the correct way of "yourin ell"?
> Assuming, of course, that our way is the right way, and I'm sure
> you're simpatico to that. No nation without a written Constitution
> can be said to be doing things right.

This is the same question as the one about the name of a planet. Is it
"urine us" or "your anus"?

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

On 27/04/22 06:10, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:33:49 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
> wrote:

>> Isn't the term "y-front" used to refer to a type of underpants?
>
> Depends. To me, "underpants" are something young females wore.
> Young females of the age where a young male would sing out: I see
> London, I see France. I see (name's) underpants."
>
> Also very young males, although underpants for very young males are
> often just smaller Y-fronts. They don't really need the opening
> because most young males lower their underware to pee, but it's
> probably one of those gender identification things.

Not just young males. Mine are jockey-style but with no opening, and my
impression from seeing what are on the racks in shops is that that is
now the most common style, at least here.

The lack of a y-front makes them more comfortable, and it's easy to hook
a thumb in to lower the top when needed.

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

On 27/04/22 06:30, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 21:10:06 +0100 Richard Heathfield
> <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>> When it comes to urinals he might even be right. I can't swear to
>> it, of course, but in <cough> decades of living here and having
>> worked and lived in many parts of the country, I have never once
>> encountered a manually flushed urinal. Is your experience
>> different?
>>
> I may have seen one somewhere - a down pipe with a silver circle push
> button with a red centre, I took a while wondering what it was for. I
> did use it after some contemplation.

I've seen the sort where you push a handle sideways, but it was many
years ago. I was probably still in school at the time.

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

On 27/04/22 09:22, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 26-Apr-22 21:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> When it comes to urinals he might even be right. I can't swear to it,
>> of course, but in <cough> decades of living here and having worked and
>> lived in many parts of the country, I have never once encountered a
>> manually flushed urinal. Is your experience different?
>
> No. I first encountered that type on a naval base in Germany.
> My comment was addressed to the idea that each and every urinal must
> have exactly the same system, which of course they do not - even if they
> all aim to maximise hygiene and water economy.

It's been a while since I saw the sort that used a picture of a fly to
mark the aiming point. I first saw that at the airport in Schiphol. An
excellent idea, so I'm surprised that it hasn't become more common by now.

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

On 27/04/22 00:50, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 07:08:09 -0400, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>> 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.
>
> I, too, wore a tee shirt under my buttoned shirt in high school.
> For reasons of conforming to style, though. Nipple notice was not a
> consideration.

And I did it (with a singlet rather than a t-shirt) because that was the
ways boys dressed in those days. It would never have occurred to us that
hiding the nipples would have been a motive. After all, our nipples were
on clear display, without embarrassment, when we went swimming.

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

On 2022-04-26 20:34, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 27/04/22 01:48, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> Frankly, I think there are more important questions to be asked on
>> this subject.  Why, for example, do the British pronounce the word
>> "your rhine all" instead of the correct way of "yourin ell"?
>> Assuming, of course, that our way is the right way, and I'm sure
>> you're simpatico to that.  No nation without a written Constitution
>> can be said to be doing things right.
>
> This is the same question as the one about the name of a planet. Is it
> "urine us" or "your anus"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19d4T8LMBEo

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:32:58 +1000
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> On 27/04/22 01:48, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
> > Even if was in position, I would follow the conventional practice of
> > men at the urinals in public toilets studiously avoiding looking at
> > other men at the urinals.
>
> Recently I was talking about the protocol for using a row of urinals,
> which evolved from the protocol used when the urinals were a single
> continuous trough.
>
> The first man to arrive goes as far to the left as possible. The second
> one goes as far to the right as possible. Then the third goes exactly
> halfway in between, and so on. The goal in all cases is to maximise the
> distance from one's neighbours. (At rush hour, of course, standing
> shoulder-to-shoulder is the only possibility.)
>
> "Eyes front" is of course part of the rule.
>
> The men who were present agreed with me that that's the way it works.
> For the women, though, it was a revelation, causing much laughter.

I'm sure this has been done on usenet before; aha:

https://www.funnyshit.com.au/urinal_quiz.html

(Quinn might find it too binary)

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 05/04/2022 23:54, Lewis wrote:

> This is fantastic news and I hope he never gives in because on less
> shitbag racist fascist cunt on Twitter will improve the smell.

What part of refusing to call a man her is racist ?

Or is calling people racist fascists your way of insulting people who
are not drawn in to others fantasies.

On 27/04/2022 10:23 am, soup wrote:
> On 05/04/2022 23:54, Lewis wrote:
>
>> This is fantastic news and I hope he never gives in because on less
>> shitbag racist fascist cunt on Twitter will improve the smell.
>
> What part of refusing to call a man her is racist ?

Logic doesn't work on the woke.

Killfiles work on the woke.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

On 27/04/22 19:23, soup wrote:
> On 05/04/2022 23:54, Lewis wrote:
>
>> This is fantastic news and I hope he never gives in because on
>> less shitbag racist fascist cunt on Twitter will improve the
>> smell.
>
> What part of refusing to call a man her is racist ?
>
> Or is calling people racist fascists your way of insulting people
> who are not drawn in to others fantasies.

I don't know Tucker Carlson myself, but a bit of googling suggests that
he is known for promoting racist views.

The transgender issues in this thread appear to be orthogonal to that.

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

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, at 12:46:49, Peter Moylan posted:
>On 27/04/22 09:22, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> On 26-Apr-22 21:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
>>> When it comes to urinals he might even be right. I can't swear to it,
>>> of course, but in <cough> decades of living here and having worked and
>>> lived in many parts of the country, I have never once encountered a
>>> manually flushed urinal. Is your experience different?
>>
>> No. I first encountered that type on a naval base in Germany.
>> My comment was addressed to the idea that each and every urinal must
>> have exactly the same system, which of course they do not - even if they
>> all aim to maximise hygiene and water economy.
>
>It's been a while since I saw the sort that used a picture of a fly to
>mark the aiming point. I first saw that at the airport in Schiphol. An
>excellent idea, so I'm surprised that it hasn't become more common by
>now.
>
It used to be a bee, didn't it? I forget why. Oh yes, the Latin. Apis.
--
Paul

On 27/04/2022 11:06 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 27/04/22 19:23, soup wrote:
>> On 05/04/2022 23:54, Lewis wrote:
>>
>>> This is fantastic news and I hope he never gives in because on
>>> less shitbag racist fascist cunt on Twitter will improve the
>>> smell.
>> >
>>
>> The transgender issues in this thread appear to be orthogonal to that.
>>

>> What part of refusing to call a man her is racist ?
>>
>> Or is calling people racist fascists your way of insulting people
>> who are not drawn in to others fantasies.
>
> I don't know Tucker Carlson myself, but a bit of googling suggests that
> he is known for promoting racist views.

I don't know him either, but experience suggests that it is commonplace
for people to ascribe extremist views to public figures who don't hold
those views. For example, J K Rowling is "known" in some quarters as a
transphobe, even though she clearly isn't one.

Take potential libels with a pinch of salt, and remember that the woke
don't give a damn about facts; it's *all* about agenda.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

Paul Wolff <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, at 12:46:49, Peter Moylan posted:
> >On 27/04/22 09:22, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >> On 26-Apr-22 21:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>>
> >>> When it comes to urinals he might even be right. I can't swear to it,
> >>> of course, but in <cough> decades of living here and having worked and
> >>> lived in many parts of the country, I have never once encountered a
> >>> manually flushed urinal. Is your experience different?
> >>
> >> No. I first encountered that type on a naval base in Germany.
> >> My comment was addressed to the idea that each and every urinal must
> >> have exactly the same system, which of course they do not - even if they
> >> all aim to maximise hygiene and water economy.
> >
> >It's been a while since I saw the sort that used a picture of a fly to
> >mark the aiming point. I first saw that at the airport in Schiphol. An
> >excellent idea, so I'm surprised that it hasn't become more common by
> >now.
> >
> It used to be a bee, didn't it? I forget why. Oh yes, the Latin. Apis.

Alas, a great theory slain by an ugly fact,

Jan

On 4/26/2022 10:52 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote:
>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> 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.

>> I, too, wore a tee shirt under my buttoned shirt in high school.
>> For reasons of conforming to style, though. Nipple notice was not
>> a consideration.

> And I did it (with a singlet rather than a t-shirt) because that was
> the ways boys dressed in those days. It would never have occurred to
> us that hiding the nipples would have been a motive. After all, our
> nipples were on clear display, without embarrassment, when we went
> swimming.

Swimming parties were a rare event in my life then, and not associated
with my school. There was something I didn't like about having two
little pointy bits on my shirt. Kids, eh?

On 4/26/2022 5:09 PM, Quinn C wrote:
> * CDB:
>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:
>>>> 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 suspect that it takes extra testosterone to face down a hungry
>> wolf. In other respects, though, Sophie was a girly girl.

>>>>> 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

>> Willy nilly, wish nish.

> I nant to hear more.

Then you non't.

On 27/04/22 21:02, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Paul Wolff <bounceme@thiswontwork.wolff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022, at 12:46:49, Peter Moylan posted:
>>> On 27/04/22 09:22, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 26-Apr-22 21:10, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes to urinals he might even be right. I can't swear to it,
>>>>> of course, but in <cough> decades of living here and having worked and
>>>>> lived in many parts of the country, I have never once encountered a
>>>>> manually flushed urinal. Is your experience different?
>>>>
>>>> No. I first encountered that type on a naval base in Germany.
>>>> My comment was addressed to the idea that each and every urinal must
>>>> have exactly the same system, which of course they do not - even if they
>>>> all aim to maximise hygiene and water economy.
>>>
>>> It's been a while since I saw the sort that used a picture of a fly to
>>> mark the aiming point. I first saw that at the airport in Schiphol. An
>>> excellent idea, so I'm surprised that it hasn't become more common by
>>> now.
>>>
>> It used to be a bee, didn't it? I forget why. Oh yes, the Latin. Apis.
>
> Alas, a great theory slain by an ugly fact,

You must remember this
Apis is still apis
A fly is just a fly
The fundamental things apply
As time goes by.

And when we aim to please
And not squirt on our knees
It helps to hit the fly
And keep the toilet cleaner
As time goes by.

It's still the same old goal
You have to hit the bowl
It doesn't matter why
Just aim to drown that insect
You have to try.

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

On 4/26/2022 10:32 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote:

>> Even if was in position, I would follow the conventional practice
>> of men at the urinals in public toilets studiously avoiding
>> looking at other men at the urinals.

> Recently I was talking about the protocol for using a row of urinals,
> which evolved from the protocol used when the urinals were a single
> continuous trough.

> The first man to arrive goes as far to the left as possible. The
> second one goes as far to the right as possible. Then the third goes
> exactly halfway in between, and so on. The goal in all cases is to
> maximise the distance from one's neighbours. (At rush hour, of
> course, standing shoulder-to-shoulder is the only possibility.)

> "Eyes front" is of course part of the rule.

> The men who were present agreed with me that that's the way it works.
> For the women, though, it was a revelation, causing much laughter.

There's also the avoidance of backsplash to consider.

And at least men don't have to hover.

>

On 4/27/2022 3:56 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>> On 27/04/22 01:48, Tony Cooper wrote:

>>> Even if was in position, I would follow the conventional practice
>>> of men at the urinals in public toilets studiously avoiding
>>> looking at other men at the urinals.

>> Recently I was talking about the protocol for using a row of
>> urinals, which evolved from the protocol used when the urinals were
>> a single continuous trough.

>> The first man to arrive goes as far to the left as possible. The
>> second one goes as far to the right as possible. Then the third
>> goes exactly halfway in between, and so on. The goal in all cases
>> is to maximise the distance from one's neighbours. (At rush hour,
>> of course, standing shoulder-to-shoulder is the only possibility.)

>> "Eyes front" is of course part of the rule.

>> The men who were present agreed with me that that's the way it
>> works. For the women, though, it was a revelation, causing much
>> laughter.

> I'm sure this has been done on usenet before; aha:

> https://www.funnyshit.com.au/urinal_quiz.html

> (Quinn might find it too binary)

Not so sure about question 5. It would depend on whether I thought the
dudes in 5 and 6 were getting to know each other.

On 4/26/2022 10:34 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> Tony Cooper wrote:

>> Frankly, I think there are more important questions to be asked on
>> this subject. Why, for example, do the British pronounce the word
>> "your rhine all" instead of the correct way of "yourin ell"?
>> Assuming, of course, that our way is the right way, and I'm sure
>> you're simpatico to that. No nation without a written
>> Constitution can be said to be doing things right.

> This is the same question as the one about the name of a planet. Is
> it "urine us" or "your anus"?

No connection. Latin "urina" had a long "i", so stressing the "i" as in
Latin is perfectly defensible. But English is not Latin, so it's up to you.

Uranus, OTOH, had a short "a" and a long "u", so was stressed on the
first syllable. Saying "urine us" (approx) will also short-circuit the
kind of cartoon joke they wouldn't have shown kids WIWAK.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:39:22 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>On 27/04/22 06:10, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:33:49 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Isn't the term "y-front" used to refer to a type of underpants?
>>
>> Depends. To me, "underpants" are something young females wore.
>> Young females of the age where a young male would sing out: I see
>> London, I see France. I see (name's) underpants."
>>
>> Also very young males, although underpants for very young males are
>> often just smaller Y-fronts. They don't really need the opening
>> because most young males lower their underware to pee, but it's
>> probably one of those gender identification things.
>
>Not just young males. Mine are jockey-style but with no opening, and my
>impression from seeing what are on the racks in shops is that that is
>now the most common style, at least here.
>
>The lack of a y-front makes them more comfortable, and it's easy to hook
>a thumb in to lower the top when needed.

My underwear drawer contains some boxers and some boxer briefs ... and
one pair of briefs with no Y opening.

If I happen to pull out the briefs as today's choice, it will be a
difficult day to follow. I am accustomed to reaching in, finding the
opening that provides access, and withdrawing the necessary anatomical
bit.

If I forget there's no opening in those briefs, the reaching in and
finding becomes an extended search. An extended search combined with
the effect of age on urgency is not a good combination.

It also presents an odd appearance to others if I'm in a public
bathroom where there are other men. Extensive scrabbling around
inside one's trousers could cause unwanted attention.

I should discard that item, but frugality makes it difficult to throw
out something that is still in excellent condition, still fits, and is
not an item that is visibibly out-of-fashion.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 2:50:28 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 06:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:16:26 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > On Mon, 25 Apr 2022 14:12:48 -0700 (PDT)
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@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?
> > I certainly wonder in this case, where you pretended you were
> > "correcting" me when you stated exactly the same thing.

> But you could have pointed it out nicely, instead you chose 'asinine'.

You chose to write a knee-jerk stoogemaster-inspired false insult of New Jersey.
That was nothing if not asinine.

> I refer you to:
> "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".
> > A urinal that doesn't waste water is better than one that does.
>
> Hurrah, on this much, we agree.

Yet you tried, again stoogemaster-inspired, to start a fight about it.
> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 3:00:38 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 11:39:25 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 10:14:03 AM UTC-4, CDB wrote:
> >> On 4/26/2022 9:31 AM, lar3ryca wrote:
> >
> >[no, he did not]
> >> [perving]
> >> >>>> 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
> >>
> >> A cameraman's lot.
> >
> >?
> >
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL4z-nKmTgI
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> But my favourite is
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL4z-nKmTgI
> >
> >Your favorite Fugs (new to me) song? It doesn't seem to have to
> >do with boobs.
> It helps to listen to lyrics. They are:

Wrong song, idiot.
> Do you like boobs a lot?
> (Yes, I like boobs a lot)
> Why d'you like boobs a lot?
> (You gotta like boobs a lot)
> Do you like boobs a lot?
> (Yes, I like boobs a lot)
> Why d'you like boobs a lot?
> (You gotta like boobs a lot)
>
> >What was Ginsberg's contribution to the album?
>
> Will it offend you if tell you that finger-activated research answers
> that question?

Who asked you to intervene in a conversation about boob-songs
and Fugs songs? You are clearly not competent in either, if you
were incapable of comprehending the lyrics of "Boobs-a-Lot"
without looking them up.

And Ginsberg had nothing to do with "Boobs-a-Lot."

Though he too doubtless appreciated the _second_ stanza.

> The answer is howling clear if you do.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida
> I read and post to this group as a form of entertainment.

Truly pathetic.

Go sing it at your biker bar. "Entertain" them.

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:00:21 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> Only someone like PTD would assume/demand that _all_ urinals in a given
> country should rigidly adhere to one exact method of operation.

You have become truly pathetic.
I hope there is not the slightest chance of your ever becoming involved
in any legal or judicial activity. Your ability to invent absurdities and
ascribe them to others is truly damaging to civility.

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:08:00 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 12:33:49 -0700
> Ken Blake <K...@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 19:55:20 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
> > <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote:

> > >(Y-fronts and underpants are up next)
> >
> > Isn't the term "y-front" used to refer to a type of underpants?
> Only in some quarters. Maybe not NJ.

What the bloody fucking hell does "NJ" have to do with it?

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Briefs#Terminology
> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

AIUI, "Y-front" is Brit for "briefs," and in AmE "briefs" are commonly
referred to as "jockey shorts," which is from the manufacturer Jockey,
not from some connection with horseracing.

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:10:11 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> To avoid encouraging him, we'd all have to stop posting... which may
> even be his goal.

Heathfield stopping posting would certainly be an improvement.