On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:30:12 PM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

> Nah, he thrives on posting stuff he hopes we'll correct him on, then he can claim the fight was started by the person trying to help him!
> --
> Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Is that meant as a suggestion that you ever "tried to help"?

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 4:41:43 PM UTC-4, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 21:10:06 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> >To avoid encouraging him, we'd all have to stop posting...
>
> No, we should all stop replying to him.

So says someone who turned tail and "killfiled" on probably
his very first day here, when he was called out on a stupid
factual error about New York City based on his experience
sixty years earlier. Since then, he has had no direct knowledge
of the situation, and until very recently refrained from posting
stoogemaster-generated nasty remarks.

> Killfile him and he'll
> eventually get bored and go away.

This one, obviously, has no knowledge of the many civil
conversations with many civil posters who are neither
cowardly nor nasty.

On Tuesday, April 26, 2022 at 7:22:31 PM UTC-4, Sam Plusnet wrote:

> 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.

Still inventing bullshit. Did ANYONE in this thread, or elsewhere,
suggest such a thing?

Provide the quote.

You can't.

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 6:15:50 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 27/04/2022 11:06 am, Peter Moylan wrote:

> > 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.

My God. Clips of Carlson saying bizarre things -- for years -- are readily
available. He is at the moment the principal cheerleader for Putin in the
American media.

But Heathfield isn't interested in learning _anything_ about what he
bloviates about?

In article <cd570614-d386-41ed-b7d1-028680031ab8n@googlegroups.com>,
Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> 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,"

No

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

* Peter Moylan:

> 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.

That people who despise one identifiable group that is an "other" to
them tend to also despise other such groups is a well-known correlation,
so "orthogonal" seems misplaced.

I heard a neat little clip where Carlson said "women score higher on IQ
tests than men" - and he tries to sell that as men being the underdogs.
He sure works on giving the impression that women score higher than him.

--
Where we are, when we are ... nothing but lies told by the senses.
-- Trance Gemini

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:22:02 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:

>
>In article <cd570614-d386-41ed-b7d1-028680031ab8n@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>> 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,"
>
>No

The Y-front configuration of men's briefs was first introduced by a
Kenosha, Wisconsin company, Coopers, Inc, in 1934. The company later
became Jockey International, Inc.

The design was an improvement on Coopers' previous design: the
X-front., which was also known as the "Kenosha Klosed Krotch
undergarment". The X-front included two overlapping flaps and
buttons.

While the term "Y-front", to describe the underwear, is not unknown
in the US, it seems to be in greater use in the UK. This may be
because the British retailer, Simpson of Picadilly, took on the line
in 1938 and it was a rousing success sales-wise. Simpon of Picadilly
boasted of sales of 3,000 pair a week.

We were more circumspect in the US. Some US stores banned the product
from being in window displays. Some stores did not have the product
available on counters, but required sales clerks to retrieve them from
the stockroom when a sale was made.

It wasn't until 1958 that the product was shown in a television
commercial. The advertisement ran on the "Tonight" show, and host
Jack Paar featured the product in his dialog. That led to the product
selling out the next day in stores all over the country.

--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On 2022-04-27, Tony Cooper wrote:

> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:22:02 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>In article <cd570614-d386-41ed-b7d1-028680031ab8n@googlegroups.com>,
>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> 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,"
>>
>>No
>
> The Y-front configuration of men's briefs was first introduced by a
> Kenosha, Wisconsin company, Coopers, Inc, in 1934. The company later
> became Jockey International, Inc.
>
> The design was an improvement on Coopers' previous design: the
> X-front., which was also known as the "Kenosha Klosed Krotch
> undergarment". The X-front included two overlapping flaps and
> buttons.
>
> While the term "Y-front", to describe the underwear, is not unknown
> in the US, it seems to be in greater use in the UK. This may be
> because the British retailer, Simpson of Picadilly, took on the line
> in 1938 and it was a rousing success sales-wise. Simpon of Picadilly
> boasted of sales of 3,000 pair a week.
>
> We were more circumspect in the US. Some US stores banned the product
> from being in window displays. Some stores did not have the product
> available on counters, but required sales clerks to retrieve them from
> the stockroom when a sale was made.

Was this true for men's underpants generally, or were Y-fronts
considered more indecent than the other kinds available at the time?

>
> It wasn't until 1958 that the product was shown in a television
> commercial. The advertisement ran on the "Tonight" show, and host
> Jack Paar featured the product in his dialog. That led to the product
> selling out the next day in stores all over the country.
>

--
Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end.
---Spock

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:37:32 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

> On 2022-04-27, Tony Cooper wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:22:02 +0100, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <cd570614-d386-41ed-b7d1-028680031ab8n@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> 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,"
>>>
>>>No
>>
>> The Y-front configuration of men's briefs was first introduced by a
>> Kenosha, Wisconsin company, Coopers, Inc, in 1934. The company later
>> became Jockey International, Inc.
>>
>> The design was an improvement on Coopers' previous design: the
>> X-front., which was also known as the "Kenosha Klosed Krotch
>> undergarment". The X-front included two overlapping flaps and
>> buttons.
>>
>> While the term "Y-front", to describe the underwear, is not unknown
>> in the US, it seems to be in greater use in the UK. This may be
>> because the British retailer, Simpson of Picadilly, took on the line
>> in 1938 and it was a rousing success sales-wise. Simpon of Picadilly
>> boasted of sales of 3,000 pair a week.
>>
>> We were more circumspect in the US. Some US stores banned the product
>> from being in window displays. Some stores did not have the product
>> available on counters, but required sales clerks to retrieve them from
>> the stockroom when a sale was made.
>
>Was this true for men's underpants generally, or were Y-fronts
>considered more indecent than the other kinds available at the time?
>
My source for this did not mention whether or not other styles of
men's underwear were also relegated to the storeroom or were available
on display.

I'm going to go with the assumption that the tighter fitting,
bulge-revealing product that featured easy access was singled out.

>
>>
>> It wasn't until 1958 that the product was shown in a television
>> commercial. The advertisement ran on the "Tonight" show, and host
>> Jack Paar featured the product in his dialog. That led to the product
>> selling out the next day in stores all over the country.
>>
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:34:16 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>I heard a neat little clip where Carlson said "women score higher on IQ
>tests than men" - and he tries to sell that as men being the underdogs.
>He sure works on giving the impression that women score higher than him

My impression is female children generally receive more attention from
their mother/etc., than male children. Upshot being, females tend to
be more verbal, which assists in brain development... I suspect this
female has/had a high IQ, but her actions show a high IQ doesn't mean
Jack Schmidt.
=============

Lisa Nowak: Why the Astronaut Drove 900 Miles to Attack Her Ex's
Girlfriend

During her trip to confront Colleen Shipman, Nowak reportedly wore
diapers to avoid bathroom breaks. Her actions inspired the 2019 movie
'Lucy in the Sky.'
....
....
Nowak pled insanity and her criminal case is now sealed

Nowak was charged with attempted kidnapping and burglary with assault,
making her the first active-duty astronaut to face felony charges.
NASA let Nowak go a month after she confronted Shipman; Oefelein was
released by the agency in June 2007. NASA ended up instituting annual
psychological screenings for astronauts.

As her case moved to trial, Nowak's legal counsel filed the paperwork
for an insanity plea, claiming she'd suffered from
obsessive-compulsive disorder, insomnia and depression. Then came a
ruling that Nowak had not been fully advised of her rights and
therefore her police interview was inadmissible in court. In the end,
Nowak entered into an agreement that saw her plead guilty to burglary
and misdemeanor battery. The judge, taking her status as a first-time
offender into account, gave her a year of probation, community
service, and directed her to write Shipman a letter of apology.

https://www.biography.com/news/lisa-nowak-lucy-in-the-sky

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:46:49 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>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.

I've seen it in several places in Europe (sorry, I don't remember
where). It wasn't in a majority of places, but it was pretty common
the last time I was there.

I never saw it in the US, though.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 21:27:12 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>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.

Sam, I thought I told you never to play...

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 06:48:14 -0700 (PDT)
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:

> 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.

Fights galore!

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

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.

I ran the NY Marathon three times--in 1985, 1986, and 1987.

Before the race began, there was a large continuous trough of a
urinal, made of two long planks of wood covered with plastic wrap,
with a hose pouring water into one end, washing out of the other.

Do they still do that? I don't know.

The race began on the Verrezano-Narrows bridge. However even though
there was the urinal I described, and almost all men used it, many of
us (including me) were often nervous enough that when the race started
we went to the side of the bridge and peed over the edge.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 08:56:11 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>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

Very good. Accurate and I liked it a lot.

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:34:30 +1000, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> 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"

Do they? I never realized that before.

>> 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"?

In my experience, most people say "urine us," but as far as I'm
concerned it's "your anus."

On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 12:27:53 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 16:37:32 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
> wrote:
> > On 2022-04-27, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 15:22:02 +0100, charles <cha...@candehope.me.uk>
> >> wrote:
> >>>In article <cd570614-d386-41ed...@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> 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,"
> >>>No

Some explanation would be appropriate.

> >> The Y-front configuration of men's briefs was first introduced by a
> >> Kenosha, Wisconsin company, Coopers, Inc, in 1934. The company later
> >> became Jockey International, Inc.
> >> The design was an improvement on Coopers' previous design: the
> >> X-front., which was also known as the "Kenosha Klosed Krotch
> >> undergarment". The X-front included two overlapping flaps and
> >> buttons.
> >> While the term "Y-front", to describe the underwear, is not unknown
> >> in the US, it seems to be in greater use in the UK. This may be
> >> because the British retailer, Simpson of Picadilly, took on the line
> >> in 1938 and it was a rousing success sales-wise. Simpon of Picadilly
> >> boasted of sales of 3,000 pair a week.
> >> We were more circumspect in the US. Some US stores banned the product
> >> from being in window displays. Some stores did not have the product
> >> available on counters, but required sales clerks to retrieve them from
> >> the stockroom when a sale was made.
> >Was this true for men's underpants generally, or were Y-fronts
> >considered more indecent than the other kinds available at the time?
>
> My source for this did not mention whether or not other styles of
> men's underwear were also relegated to the storeroom or were available
> on display.
>
> I'm going to go with the assumption that the tighter fitting,
> bulge-revealing product that featured easy access was singled out.

30s and 40s movies usually had gentlemen in boxer shorts. With
the fly sewn shut. And garters for their socks.

In article <c2ti6hp4oa9dbh8eu7sk4t8inhoqrfcqns@4ax.com>, Ken Blake
<Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:46:49 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

> >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.

> I've seen it in several places in Europe (sorry, I don't remember where).
> It wasn't in a majority of places, but it was pretty common the last time
> I was there.

I seem to remember reading that it was trademark of one manufacturer.

> I never saw it in the US, though.

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

On 27-Apr-22 3:21, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 27/04/22 05:56, lar3ryca wrote:
>> On 2022-04-26 13:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> On 26-Apr-22 4:06, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> We have soft water so a very little soap goes a long way.
>>> My wife turns the tap full on, leaves it running, gets a huge squirt
>>> of (liquid) soap and puts her hands into the flow - thus washing off
>>> 95% of the soap she just collected - and then washes her hands.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>> Taps need a more controllable controller - something akin to a Theramin.
>>
>> Did you ever get that feeling that you have invented something, only to
>> find out that someone else has already invented it?
>>
>> You should have that feeling right now, but I have no idea if it's
>> already patented and/or in production. That's a GREAT idea!
>
> The electronics for capacitive control would be cheap. The main cost
> would be in the valve that controls the flow.
>
I'm not sure how the system could interpret a demand for more or less
water - and distinguish that from the user simply sticking their hands
under the tap.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 27-Apr-22 15:34, Quinn C wrote:

> That people who despise one identifiable group that is an "other" to
> them tend to also despise other such groups is a well-known correlation,
> so "orthogonal" seems misplaced.

A necessary part of despising some group is to say:

"Those people are all alike!"

Don't your words echo a similar sentiment?

--
Sam Plusnet

Den 26-04-2022 kl. 00:36 skrev Tony Cooper:
> 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.

There is a subtle but important difference between "being targeted as
a trans", and being disgreed with for comments and opinions relating
to transness. In my reading, Tony has stayed in the latter department,
and not given any evidence of transphobia in this exchange.

But I suppose it may be easier to confuse the two, when you have skin
in the game.

/Anders, Denmark

In message <t4b233$qo4$1@dont-email.me> soup <invalid@invalid.com> 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 ?

Fucker Carlson is exactly as I described him.

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

I call racists racists and fascists fascists. These words have meaning,
and the entire staff of Fox news and the GOP caucus fits these words'
meanings.

--
Secondly, the Earth's a Libra

On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:09:04 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:34:30 +1000, Peter Moylan
><peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> 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"
>
>Do they? I never realized that before.

Yes, they do, although the word "they" is used to mean "every Brit
I've heard pronouncing the word".

For substantiation, view and listen to:

https://www.google.com/search?q=urinal+pronounced+by+british&oq=urinal+pronounced+by+british&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30j0i390l4.13343j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#kpvalbx=_OJRpYtXBPNXjkvQP2LiCkAY25
>
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On 2022-04-27 12:07, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> On 27-Apr-22 3:21, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 27/04/22 05:56, lar3ryca wrote:
>>> On 2022-04-26 13:45, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> On 26-Apr-22 4:06, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> We have soft water so a very little soap goes a long way.
>>>> My wife turns the tap full on, leaves it running, gets a huge squirt
>>>> of (liquid) soap and puts her hands into the flow - thus washing off
>>>> 95% of the soap she just collected - and then washes her hands.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>> Taps need a more controllable controller - something akin to a
>>>> Theramin.
>>>
>>> Did you ever get that feeling that you have invented something, only to
>>> find out that someone else has already invented it?
>>>
>>> You should have that feeling right now, but I have no idea if it's
>>> already patented and/or in production. That's a GREAT idea!
>>
>> The electronics for capacitive control would be cheap. The main cost
>> would be in the valve that controls the flow.
>>
> I'm not sure how the system could interpret a demand for more or less
> water - and distinguish that from the user simply sticking their hands
> under the tap.

SMOP.

Imagine you put your hand near the faucet, adjusting it to the desired
flow by hand position. You then hold it in that spot for, say, 2
seconds. That sets the flow, and moving your hands under the faucet does
not change the flow. You finish washing, and retracting your hands shuts
off the flow and resets it to await the next customer. If you put your
hands under the faucet immediately, it would act the same way the normal
activation now works.

There would need to be some testing, of course, and there might be some
changes required to suit what the average person does with the
(provided) instructions.

Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind having a control like that on my
bathroom faucet, but expanded to include both flow and temperature, and
activated by proximity sensors on a panel.

On 27/04/2022 6:09 pm, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 12:34:30 +1000, Peter Moylan
> <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> 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"
>
> Do they?
No. Not much of the "or" in either the "your" or the "all".

It's more like "yuh - rye' - nool" where the "oo" is as in "book":

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/File:LL-Q1860_(eng)-Vealhurl-urinal.wav

--
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