On 4/29/2022 8:36 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> Tony Cooper:
>> Quinn C <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>> Ken Blake:
>>>> Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.

>>>> You say "old school," but isn't that still most common? Ours are
>>>> single valve, but I had to choose and pay extra for them when the
>>>> house was built.

>>>> I know at least one person (my brother-in law) who prefers separate
>>>> hot and cold valves.

>>> I was confused the first time I was in a hotel in North America, because
>>> the shower was such that one couldn't regulate water flow and
>>> temperature separately: one handle to turn, from off to cold to hot. It
>>> didn't help that any markings that might have been there originally were
>>> worn off.

>>> Over time, I learned that this, with variations, is standard in hotels
>>> and inns, and also common in homes. How common exactly in homes, I can't
>>> say, but the majority of the places I've lived had something like that.

>> I don't think I've ever lived anywhere with a shower where the water
>> flow is adjustable other than by not fully opening the taps. Our
>> current shower has a single knob that is pulled out to start the water
>> (and turned to adjust the mix of hot and cold) flow. I could pull it
>> out partially, I suppose. That would reduce flow, but it would
>> require standing directly under the shower head to get wet.

>> I don't understand why anyone would want to adjust the flow.

> Depends on your water pressure. When I visited a friend in Arizona, I
> felt the water was attacking me, it came down so hard - and it wasn't
> adjustable. I found this particularly bad in a place where you should be
> ready to make do with a drizzle. I ended up only turning it on for a few
> seconds at a time.

> In that hotel where I first used such a valve, that was also the problem
> - I turned the knob to near the middle, it was already giving me too
> much water for my taste, but it still wasn't getting hot.

When the House of Commons took over the nearby Met Life Building and my
office was moved there, the exercise facilities in the basement had
(brass-fitted) showers with a water-pressure that would push you up
against the (marble) back wall of your stall. I loved them while they
lasted, but that wasn't long. Too luxurious for the likes of us.

When they installed misting showers to save the planet, I went back to
the Y.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 08:36:15 -0400, Quinn C
<lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:

>* Tony Cooper:
>
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:10:01 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>>* Ken Blake:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:04:23 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
>>>>
>>>> You say "old school," but isn't that still most common? Ours are
>>>> single valve, but I had to choose and pay extra for them when the
>>>> house was built.
>>>>
>>>> I know at least one person (my brother-in law) who prefers separate
>>>> hot and cold valves.
>>>
>>>I was confused the first time I was in a hotel in North America, because
>>>the shower was such that one couldn't regulate water flow and
>>>temperature separately: one handle to turn, from off to cold to hot. It
>>>didn't help that any markings that might have been there originally were
>>>worn off.
>>>
>>>Over time, I learned that this, with variations, is standard in hotels
>>>and inns, and also common in homes. How common exactly in homes, I can't
>>>say, but the majority of the places I've lived had something like that.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think I've ever lived anywhere with a shower where the water
>> flow is adjustable other than by not fully opening the taps. Our
>> current shower has a single knob that is pulled out to start the water
>> (and turned to adjust the mix of hot and cold) flow. I could pull it
>> out partially, I suppose. That would reduce flow, but it would
>> require standing directly under the shower head to get wet.
>>
>> I don't understand why anyone would want to adjust the flow.
>
>Depends on your water pressure. When I visited a friend in Arizona, I
>felt the water was attacking me, it came down so hard - and it wasn't
>adjustable. I found this particularly bad in a place where you should be
>ready to make do with a drizzle. I ended up only turning it on for a few
>seconds at a time.

As a guest you would not have any control over that. As the homeower
or renter, you could replace the shower head with one of those that
has adjustable settings that determine which and how many holes in the
showerhead the water flows through. More holes over a wider area
would reduce the stinging effect.

>
>In that hotel where I first used such a valve, that was also the problem
>- I turned the knob to near the middle, it was already giving me too
>much water for my taste, but it still wasn't getting hot.
--

Tony Cooper - Orlando Florida

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

On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:10:11 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 12:43:30 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >> * Peter T. Daniels:
> >>> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 8:40:59 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> >>>> There was a they on Jeopardy this week (I don't know which specific
> >>>> gender identity word they accept, if any)!
> >>> There were TWO theys! The boy with pink hair and brown beard,
> >>> who was dedicating his $1000 to a migraine-support group, and
> >>> next to him the girl with no memorable characteristics who came
> >>> in second.
> >> Really - when did that come up? I'm only sure regarding the
> >> male-presenting one after I checked out the extra content on
> >> jeopardy.com.
> > Ken said "they" referring to each of them -- I think in the intros to
> > the conversations.
>
> I caught that in only one of the conversations, but even then I wasn't
> totally sure until I had it re-confirmed.
>
> >> The clue (about the Adetokunbo family) had me completely stumped, so it
> >> was no surprise it was a "sports question in disguise".
> > I think Ken said that before going to the answers.
>
> Yes, hence the quotation marks.

My point was the inappropriate placement of the remark, instead
of after the answer was known. He's grown awfully chatty -- Mayim
("the host of *Jeopardy!*) wouldn't have done that, let aloe Alex --
and may be reaching his Sell By date.

> Yesterday, Mattea said she wanted to "get sports out of the way", but
> her real weak spot was again science. Her American history seems pretty
> good, for something she might naturally have a handicap in.

And one of the Daily Doubles was about Canadian provinces. They may
have an idea that long, long streaks increase viewership, so they do
things that encourage them. However, I got bored with Ken's streak
(never mind the creep Matt Ammodio or Amy Schneider) well before it
was halfway over and didn't go back until Alex went on NPR and suggested
that people should watch that evening's show in particular.

The more Mattea gesticulates, the more I notice how tiny her hands are,
like that dreadful Kristen Wiig character who infested Fred Armisen's
Lawrence Welk Shows and far too many other sketches.

(I flipped over during commercial breaks in *Niagara* but only got
commercials in *Jeopardy!*.)

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:34:46 AM UTC-4, lar3ryca wrote:

> Not quite relevant to this discussion, but speaking of Jeopardy, I have
> noticed that quite a few times, Ken Jennings has 'helped' a contestant
> in a way that (I think) Alex never did. He has, when someone has just
> spoken the answer, reminded them to phrase it in the form of a question.

That's licit during the Jeopardy! round but not during the Double Jeopardy!
round, when he has to silently wait for them to correct it on their own
before their time is up.

> And once, either tonight or last night, has accepted the answer without
> the contestant having to repeat it in the form of a question.

I think that did happen.

On 27/04/2022 15:08, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> 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?

As I had heard of Carlson but had never seen him I decided to watch some
YouTube clips of him. I do not like his sanctimonious ways (all that
sniggering) but I doI agree with SOME of what he said.

Watchiing him led me down the rabbithole of watching a fair amount of
classic liberal/right leaning stuff.

My big takeaway was 'American politics' are F'ed.
watched some Libs of TikTok, where unedited/uncommented upon videos
of the US' left wing are shown.

This was a real eyeopener for me, these people are mental.

On 29/04/2022 2:49 pm, soup wrote:
> On 27/04/2022 15:08, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> 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?
>
> As I had heard of Carlson but had never seen him I decided to watch some
> YouTube clips of him.  I do not like his sanctimonious ways (all that
> sniggering) but I doI agree with SOME of what he said.

If Daniels knew of a smoking gun for Carlson he'd have linked to it.
Conclusion: he doesn't. What you'll find when you look is a
right-leaning commentator that says some sensible stuff and some stupid
stuff, as with most commentators, be they left-leaning or right-leaning.

>  Watchiing him led me down the rabbithole of watching a fair amount of
> classic liberal/right leaning stuff.
>
>   My big takeaway was 'American politics' are F'ed.
>   watched some Libs of TikTok, where unedited/uncommented upon videos
> of the US' left wing are shown.
>
>   This was a real eyeopener for me, these people are mental.

Did you find a smoking gun? I'm guessing 'no', or you'd have linked to it.

--
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

* Peter T. Daniels:

> On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:10:11 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
[...]
> My point was the inappropriate placement of the remark, instead
> of after the answer was known.

Well, it didn't help the candidates at that point. You object to
spoilering the audience a few seconds early?

>> Yesterday, Mattea said she wanted to "get sports out of the way", but
>> her real weak spot was again science. Her American history seems pretty
>> good, for something she might naturally have a handicap in.
>
> And one of the Daily Doubles was about Canadian provinces. They may
> have an idea that long, long streaks increase viewership, so they do
> things that encourage them.

The questions should be decided long before they know who will answer
them.

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

* Janet:

> In article <mn.e86d7e64a5826ce5.127094@snitoo>, snidely.too@gmail.com
> says...
>>
>> On Thursday, Tony Cooper exclaimed wildly:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:10:01 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:04:23 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say "old school," but isn't that still most common? Ours are
>>>>> single valve, but I had to choose and pay extra for them when the
>>>>> house was built.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know at least one person (my brother-in law) who prefers separate
>>>>> hot and cold valves.
>>>>
>>>> I was confused the first time I was in a hotel in North America, because
>>>> the shower was such that one couldn't regulate water flow and
>>>> temperature separately: one handle to turn, from off to cold to hot. It
>>>> didn't help that any markings that might have been there originally were
>>>> worn off.
>>
>> That's the "single axis" design in my descriptions.
>>
>>>> Over time, I learned that this, with variations, is standard in hotels
>>>> and inns, and also common in homes. How common exactly in homes, I can't
>>>> say, but the majority of the places I've lived had something like that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think I've ever lived anywhere with a shower where the water
>>> flow is adjustable other than by not fully opening the taps. Our
>>> current shower has a single knob that is pulled out to start the water
>>> (and turned to adjust the mix of hot and cold) flow. I could pull it
>>> out partially, I suppose. That would reduce flow, but it would
>>> require standing directly under the shower head to get wet.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why anyone would want to adjust the flow.
>>
>> No, I can see you don't.
>>
>> I happen to not want to fill the tub in 5 minutes while showering.
>
> Tub? You climb in the bath to have a shower?

Most of the regulars here have their own house, and in that case, it
surprises me not to have a separate shower. Even in the 3-bedroom family
condo, we had one, and a large (corner) bathtub (with jets.) In a small
apartment like mine now, with its 5 square meters bathroom, it's of
course expected that the only place to shower is in the bathtub.

In the Japanese student dorm I lived in, the bathroom (shower, sink and
toilet) was one square meter. Genius!

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

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:31:33 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 29/04/2022 2:49 pm, soup wrote:
> > On 27/04/2022 15:08, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> >> 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?
> > As I had heard of Carlson but had never seen him I decided to watch some
> > YouTube clips of him. I do not like his sanctimonious ways (all that
> > sniggering) but I doI agree with SOME of what he said.
>
> If Daniels knew of a smoking gun for Carlson he'd have linked to it.
> Conclusion: he doesn't.

Can anyone claim that that is not a lie?

"Daniels" has never seen a single broadcast by Carlson, except for
the damning excerpts presented for laughs by Colbert (and satire
on SNL) and in occasional horrors within news stories about rightwing
misuse of media on NPR, NBC, or CBS.

If Heathfield knew anything at all about "Daniels," he would know that
Daniels has no access to cable television.

> What you'll find when you look is a
> right-leaning commentator that says some sensible stuff and some stupid
> stuff, as with most commentators, be they left-leaning or right-leaning.

Quote something ":sensible" that he said, and estimate what proportion
if any) of what he says is "sensible."

Maybe it makes sense to fellow racists, homophobes, and Putin-lovers.
Russian television rebroadcasts Carlson commentaries.

Is anyone here as ignorant as Heathfield?

> > Watchiing him led me down the rabbithole of watching a fair amount of
> > classic liberal/right leaning stuff.
> > My big takeaway was 'American politics' are F'ed.
> > watched some Libs of TikTok, where unedited/uncommented upon videos
> > of the US' left wing are shown.
> > This was a real eyeopener for me, these people are mental.
>
> Did you find a smoking gun? I'm guessing 'no', or you'd have linked to it.

Looks like Heathfield is incapable of recognizing racist, homophobic,
Putin-loving bullshit.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 07:44:45 -0400, CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 4/28/2022 12:58 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
>> CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Ken Blake wrote:
>>>> Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> 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.
>
>>>> 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.
>
>>> And what of poor Rosie Ruiz?
>
>> There were portapotties for women's use.
>
>And lines in front of them, no doubt.

Yes.

On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 10:46:03 AM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Peter T. Daniels:
> > On Thursday, April 28, 2022 at 11:10:11 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> > My point was the inappropriate placement of the remark, instead
> > of after the answer was known.
>
> Well, it didn't help the candidates at that point. You object to
> spoilering the audience a few seconds early?

It's just not when comments are interjected. Alex wouldn't approve
of any comments anyway.

(But he was far better here than in many of the other shows he emceed.
Currently Buzzr is showing *Classic Concentration*, and he was always
flirting with the ladies and kibitzing.)

> >> Yesterday, Mattea said she wanted to "get sports out of the way", but
> >> her real weak spot was again science. Her American history seems pretty
> >> good, for something she might naturally have a handicap in.
> > And one of the Daily Doubles was about Canadian provinces. They may
> > have an idea that long, long streaks increase viewership, so they do
> > things that encourage them.
>
> The questions should be decided long before they know who will answer
> them.

They have to come up with 605 questions every week, so there doesn't
seem to be much leeway for a stockpile.

But not long ago it became clear that they tape at least two months
before broadcast, because a Zelensky question was at the bottom
of a column, not the top, and the answerer used "The Ukraine" in
her answer.

On 2022-04-29 05:37, CDB wrote:
> On 4/29/2022 12:34 AM, lar3ryca wrote:
>> Quinn C wrote:
>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>>>>> * Peter T. Daniels:
>>>>>> Quinn C wrote:
>
>>>>>>> There was a they on Jeopardy this week (I don't know which
>>>>>>> specific gender identity word they accept, if any)!
>>>>>> There were TWO theys! The boy with pink hair and brown
>>>>>> beard, who was dedicating his $1000 to a migraine-support
>>>>>> group, and next to him the girl with no memorable
>>>>>> characteristics who came in second.
>
>>>>> Really - when did that come up? I'm only sure regarding the
>>>>> male-presenting one after I checked out the extra content on
>>>>> jeopardy.com.
>
>>>> Ken said "they" referring to each of them -- I think in the
>>>> intros to the conversations.
>
>>> I caught that in only one of the conversations, but even then I
>>> wasn't totally sure until I had it re-confirmed.
>>>>> The clue (about the Adetokunbo family) had me completely
>>>>> stumped, so it was no surprise it was a "sports question in
>>>>> disguise".
>
>>>> I think Ken said that before going to the answers.
>
>>> Yes, hence the quotation marks.
>
>>> Yesterday, Mattea said she wanted to "get sports out of the way",
>>> but her real weak spot was again science. Her American history
>>> seems pretty good, for something she might naturally have a
>>> handicap in.
>
>> Not quite relevant to this discussion, but speaking of Jeopardy, I
>> have noticed that quite a few times, Ken Jennings has 'helped' a
>> contestant in a way that (I think) Alex never did. He has, when
>> someone has just spoken the answer, reminded them to phrase it in the
>> form of a question.
>
>> And once, either tonight or last night, has accepted the answer
>> without the contestant having to repeat it in the form of a
>> question.
>
> Alex did that in "single" Jeopardy sometimes.  In the second stage it
> was sudden death.
>
> I got more answers last night than Mattea Roach did.  Of course, I
> didn't have to ring in.

As did I.
One that surprised me (may not have been last night's) was the clue that
included something like "how many fit on the head of a pin), which none
of the contestants got.

On 2022-04-29 02:49, Snidely wrote:
> On Thursday, Tony Cooper exclaimed wildly:
>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:10:01 -0400, Quinn C
>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>
>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:04:23 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
>>>>
>>>> You say "old school," but isn't that still most common? Ours are
>>>> single valve, but I had to choose and pay extra for them when the
>>>> house was built.
>>>>
>>>> I know at least one person (my brother-in law) who prefers separate
>>>> hot and cold valves.
>>>
>>> I was confused the first time I was in a hotel in North America, because
>>> the shower was such that one couldn't regulate water flow and
>>> temperature separately: one handle to turn, from off to cold to hot. It
>>> didn't help that any markings that might have been there originally were
>>> worn off.
>
> That's the "single axis" design in my descriptions.
>
>>> Over time, I learned that this, with variations, is standard in hotels
>>> and inns, and also common in homes. How common exactly in homes, I can't
>>> say, but the majority of the places I've lived had something like that.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think I've ever lived anywhere with a shower where the water
>> flow is adjustable other than by not fully opening the taps.  Our
>> current shower has a single knob that is pulled out to start the water
>> (and turned to adjust the mix of hot and cold) flow.  I could pull it
>> out partially, I suppose.  That would reduce flow, but it would
>> require standing directly under the shower head to get wet.
>>
>> I don't understand why anyone would want to adjust the flow.
>
> No, I can see you don't.
>
> I happen to not want to fill the tub in 5 minutes while showering.

While shower/bathtub combinations are common, I don't understand why you
would shower with the stopper in the tub closed.

On 2022-04-29 05:21, CDB wrote:
> On 4/28/2022 2:40 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>> 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?
>
>>> Yabbut, the group in question is defined only by its behaviour.  In
>>> that sense, its members are all alike, and it isn't improbable that
>>> they would share a related tendency.
>
>> That's worded as though you are introducing some distinction, but I'm
>>  d@mned if I can actually see an effective distinction in what you
>> said.
>
> Your use of "those people are all alike" in that context implied to me
> that you saw it as an unfair characterisation.  I was pointing out that
> grouping people according to their (objectionable) behaviour is not
> always unfair.  Hitler was a vegetarian and kind to dogs, apparently,
> but in a more cogent sense he, Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels were all
> alike.  Mengele too.

Careful. If you agree with Hitler's treatment of dogs, someone might
rake you over the coals for being pro-Nazi.

Ask me how I know.

On 29/04/2022 6:56 pm, lar3ryca wrote:
> On 2022-04-29 05:21, CDB wrote:
>> On 4/28/2022 2:40 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:
>>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>>> 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?
>>
>>>> Yabbut, the group in question is defined only by its behaviour.  In
>>>> that sense, its members are all alike, and it isn't improbable that
>>>> they would share a related tendency.
>>
>>> That's worded as though you are introducing some distinction, but I'm
>>>  d@mned if I can actually see an effective distinction in what you
>>> said.
>>
>> Your use of "those people are all alike" in that context implied to me
>> that you saw it as an unfair characterisation.  I was pointing out that
>> grouping people according to their (objectionable) behaviour is not
>> always unfair.  Hitler was a vegetarian and kind to dogs, apparently,
>> but in a more cogent sense he, Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels were all
>> alike.  Mengele too.
>
> Careful. If you agree with Hitler's treatment of dogs, someone might
> rake you over the coals for being pro-Nazi.
>
> Ask me how I know.

It's what passes for woke logic.

--
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 Fri, 29 Apr 2022 21:20:33 +0100
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> On 29/04/2022 6:56 pm, lar3ryca wrote:
> > On 2022-04-29 05:21, CDB wrote:
> >> On 4/28/2022 2:40 PM, Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >>> CDB wrote:
> >>>> Sam Plusnet wrote:
> >>>>> 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?
> >>
> >>>> Yabbut, the group in question is defined only by its behaviour.  In
> >>>> that sense, its members are all alike, and it isn't improbable that
> >>>> they would share a related tendency.
> >>
> >>> That's worded as though you are introducing some distinction, but I'm
> >>>  d@mned if I can actually see an effective distinction in what you
> >>> said.
> >>
> >> Your use of "those people are all alike" in that context implied to me
> >> that you saw it as an unfair characterisation.  I was pointing out that
> >> grouping people according to their (objectionable) behaviour is not
> >> always unfair.  Hitler was a vegetarian and kind to dogs, apparently,
> >> but in a more cogent sense he, Himmler, Goering, and Goebbels were all
> >> alike.  Mengele too.
> >
> > Careful. If you agree with Hitler's treatment of dogs, someone might
> > rake you over the coals for being pro-Nazi.
> >

Time for Goodwin

> > Ask me how I know.
>
> It's what passes for woke logic.
>
xpost dropped.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

Janet presented the following explanation :
> In article <mn.e86d7e64a5826ce5.127094@snitoo>, snidely.too@gmail.com
> says...
>>
>> On Thursday, Tony Cooper exclaimed wildly:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:10:01 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:04:23 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say "old school," but isn't that still most common? Ours are
>>>>> single valve, but I had to choose and pay extra for them when the
>>>>> house was built.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know at least one person (my brother-in law) who prefers separate
>>>>> hot and cold valves.
>>>>
>>>> I was confused the first time I was in a hotel in North America, because
>>>> the shower was such that one couldn't regulate water flow and
>>>> temperature separately: one handle to turn, from off to cold to hot. It
>>>> didn't help that any markings that might have been there originally were
>>>> worn off.
>>
>> That's the "single axis" design in my descriptions.
>>
>>>> Over time, I learned that this, with variations, is standard in hotels
>>>> and inns, and also common in homes. How common exactly in homes, I can't
>>>> say, but the majority of the places I've lived had something like that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think I've ever lived anywhere with a shower where the water
>>> flow is adjustable other than by not fully opening the taps. Our
>>> current shower has a single knob that is pulled out to start the water
>>> (and turned to adjust the mix of hot and cold) flow. I could pull it
>>> out partially, I suppose. That would reduce flow, but it would
>>> require standing directly under the shower head to get wet.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why anyone would want to adjust the flow.
>>
>> No, I can see you don't.
>>
>> I happen to not want to fill the tub in 5 minutes while showering.
>
> Tub? You climb in the bath to have a shower?

Yes. Common in The West.

> I shower in the walk-in wetroom. On-off + water temperature set is on
> one easy to adjust dial, unaffected by other water use elsewhere in the
> property.

nice. I have the "one easy to set" feature (see above), but with tub
walls. On the other hand, the tub spout is handy for filling buckets.

> The four shower stream functions (rainfall to high-intensity jet) are
> equally easy to adjust, on the shower itself.
>
> This is all set up for our future decrepitude, when we could either, sit
> on a seat with mobility aids, or drive in on a wheel chair, with or
> without a personal care assistant who could hose us down while remaining
> dressed and dry. (I've often done this to the grandkids).
>
> Rainfall is ideal to occasionally rinse dust off the larger
> houseplants. Jet-power-blast is useful when cleaning the walls and
> floor. Husband also uses it for sluicing the salt and sand off his
> wetsuit.
>
> Janet

I don't think my landlord would be happy if I did those things here.

/dps

--
Rule #0: Don't be on fire.
In case of fire, exit the building before tweeting about it.
(Sighting reported by Adam F)

In message <MPG.3cd5f2118f61256f989680@news.individual.net> Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:
> In article <mn.e86d7e64a5826ce5.127094@snitoo>, snidely.too@gmail.com
> says...
>>
>> On Thursday, Tony Cooper exclaimed wildly:
>> > On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:10:01 -0400, Quinn C
>> > <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>> >
>> >> * Ken Blake:
>> >>
>> >>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:04:23 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
>> >>>
>> >>> You say "old school," but isn't that still most common? Ours are
>> >>> single valve, but I had to choose and pay extra for them when the
>> >>> house was built.
>> >>>
>> >>> I know at least one person (my brother-in law) who prefers separate
>> >>> hot and cold valves.
>> >>
>> >> I was confused the first time I was in a hotel in North America, because
>> >> the shower was such that one couldn't regulate water flow and
>> >> temperature separately: one handle to turn, from off to cold to hot. It
>> >> didn't help that any markings that might have been there originally were
>> >> worn off.
>>
>> That's the "single axis" design in my descriptions.
>>
>> >> Over time, I learned that this, with variations, is standard in hotels
>> >> and inns, and also common in homes. How common exactly in homes, I can't
>> >> say, but the majority of the places I've lived had something like that.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't think I've ever lived anywhere with a shower where the water
>> > flow is adjustable other than by not fully opening the taps. Our
>> > current shower has a single knob that is pulled out to start the water
>> > (and turned to adjust the mix of hot and cold) flow. I could pull it
>> > out partially, I suppose. That would reduce flow, but it would
>> > require standing directly under the shower head to get wet.
>> >
>> > I don't understand why anyone would want to adjust the flow.
>>
>> No, I can see you don't.
>>
>> I happen to not want to fill the tub in 5 minutes while showering.

> Tub? You climb in the bath to have a shower?

Generally speaking, yes.

> I shower in the walk-in wetroom. On-off + water temperature set is on
> one easy to adjust dial, unaffected by other water use elsewhere in the
> property.

Most bathrooms (and ALL bathrooms I ever saw in the US up until sometime
in the 1990s) have had a bathtub with a shower in the tub. Before then
the only time I saw showers without tubs was in locker rooms (mostly in
TV and movies), at least in the US.

--
Knowledge equals power... --... Power equals energy... People were
stupid, sometimes. They thought the Library was a dangerous place
because of all the magical books, which was true enough, but what
made it really one of the most dangerous places there could ever
be was the simple fact that it was a library. Energy equals
matter... --... Matter equals mass. And mass distorts space. It
distorts it into polyfractal L-Space. --Guards! Guards!

On Friday, Lewis exclaimed wildly:
> In message <ul1h4iq4mrn8.dlg@mid.crommatograph.info> Quinn C
> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>> * Ken Blake:
>
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:04:23 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
>>>
>>> You say "old school," but isn't that still most common? Ours are
>>> single valve, but I had to choose and pay extra for them when the
>>> house was built.
>>>
>>> I know at least one person (my brother-in law) who prefers separate
>>> hot and cold valves.
>
>> I was confused the first time I was in a hotel in North America, because
>> the shower was such that one couldn't regulate water flow and
>> temperature separately: one handle to turn, from off to cold to hot. It
>> didn't help that any markings that might have been there originally were
>> worn off.
>
> Odd. Most of the single handle showers I've seen have two movement
> directions, turning to adjust the temperature as you describe, and
> pulling down or up to regulate the flow of water. That is what is in our
> bathroom, and in most bathrooms I've seen.
>
> The hospital room had the sort of mechanism you describe, with no ability
> to regulate the flow, but the glow was so low there would be no way
> anyone would want to reduce it.
>
>> Over time, I learned that this, with variations, is standard in hotels
>> and inns, and also common in homes. How common exactly in homes, I can't
>> say, but the majority of the places I've lived had something like that.
>
> It's been quite a number of years since we stayed in a hotel that didn't
> have a shower you could adjust to the flow in, but we also haven't styed
> in any chains or motels in a long time.

IME very limited experience, non-chain motels and even non-chain hotels
are often older places that spare any expense on remodeling. I admit
have limited experience with ski resort areas and with 5 star hotels of
any type.

The chains I have stayed in include reasonable ones like Holiday Inn
Express, Residence Inn, other Marriot properties, and some nice Best
Westerns. Some have tubs, some have shower stalls, most use the
horrible single-axis valves Quinn and I have described.

Motel 6 usually has shower stalls with curtains, and I'm not
remembering the controls.

>
>> In Germany, for decades at this point, most showers have had either
>> separate flow and temperature handles or one combined one. In my current
>> Canadian apartment, I have one of these: turn for temperature, lift for
>> flow.
>
> I think these are pretty much the usual anymore.

Not in the hotel/motel business, it seems.

> Our current house was built in 1963 and the original bathroom has two
> knobs in the shower. An addition was put on the house in 1974-ish, and
> that bathroom has a single handle with a dual axis. A standalone shower
> was added to the basement at the same time, and it also has a dual axis
> handle.
>
>> I was quite happy to pay $150 or so extra for a one-handle design on the
>> two bathroom sinks in my condo, so I associate separate cold and hot
>> valves with extreme parsimony.
>
> I can't imagine why.

The clue is "pay extra"

> If anything, these older taps are more wasteful.

How so? You have separate control over flow, and it should be easy to
get a trickle.

/dps

--
And the Raiders and the Broncos have life now in the West. I thought
they were both nearly dead if not quite really most sincerely dead. --
Mike Salfino, fivethirtyeight.com

lar3ryca scribbled something on Friday the 4/29/2022:
> On 2022-04-29 02:49, Snidely wrote:
>> On Thursday, Tony Cooper exclaimed wildly:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:10:01 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:04:23 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say "old school," but isn't that still most common? Ours are
>>>>> single valve, but I had to choose and pay extra for them when the
>>>>> house was built.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know at least one person (my brother-in law) who prefers separate
>>>>> hot and cold valves.
>>>>
>>>> I was confused the first time I was in a hotel in North America, because
>>>> the shower was such that one couldn't regulate water flow and
>>>> temperature separately: one handle to turn, from off to cold to hot. It
>>>> didn't help that any markings that might have been there originally were
>>>> worn off.
>>
>> That's the "single axis" design in my descriptions.
>>
>>>> Over time, I learned that this, with variations, is standard in hotels
>>>> and inns, and also common in homes. How common exactly in homes, I can't
>>>> say, but the majority of the places I've lived had something like that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think I've ever lived anywhere with a shower where the water
>>> flow is adjustable other than by not fully opening the taps.  Our
>>> current shower has a single knob that is pulled out to start the water
>>> (and turned to adjust the mix of hot and cold) flow.  I could pull it
>>> out partially, I suppose.  That would reduce flow, but it would
>>> require standing directly under the shower head to get wet.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why anyone would want to adjust the flow.
>>
>> No, I can see you don't.
>>
>> I happen to not want to fill the tub in 5 minutes while showering.
>
> While shower/bathtub combinations are common, I don't understand why you
> would shower with the stopper in the tub closed.

You don't need to use the stopper when the water is flowing in faster
than the drain can remove it. And with the single-axis valve, that
happens at any temperature not associated with pain.

/dps

--
There's nothing inherently wrong with Big Data. What matters, as it
does for Arnold Lund in California or Richard Rothman in Baltimore, are
the questions -- old and new, good and bad -- this newest tool lets us
ask. (R. Lerhman, CSMonitor.com)

In message <hsnn6h5vbgei9mjg45atea6v6c3lt87hq1@4ax.com> Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as my knowledge of shower head mechanics goes, a shower head
> cannot produce more flow than the pipe delivering the water to the
> head produces. The shower head design can concentrate the flow or
> disperse the flow, but it cannot increase or decrease the flow.

Shower heads constrict the flow in a misguided "water saving" measure
that prevents you getting the full amount of water out of the pipe,
making showers take longer since you have to stand there for much longer
to get all the soap rinsed off and the shampoo out of your hair.

It takes several minutes to fill the kitchen sink, long enough that the
water has cooled considerably by the time the sink fills up.

Maybe Florida doesn't required low-flow showers and sinks like the rest of
the country?

--
Some people are like a Slinky toy - not really good for anything, but
you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the
stairs.

Tony Cooper suggested that ...
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 01:49:27 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, Tony Cooper exclaimed wildly:
>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:10:01 -0400, Quinn C
>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:04:23 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say "old school," but isn't that still most common? Ours are
>>>>> single valve, but I had to choose and pay extra for them when the
>>>>> house was built.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know at least one person (my brother-in law) who prefers separate
>>>>> hot and cold valves.
>>>>
>>>> I was confused the first time I was in a hotel in North America, because
>>>> the shower was such that one couldn't regulate water flow and
>>>> temperature separately: one handle to turn, from off to cold to hot. It
>>>> didn't help that any markings that might have been there originally were
>>>> worn off.
>>
>> That's the "single axis" design in my descriptions.
>>
>>>> Over time, I learned that this, with variations, is standard in hotels
>>>> and inns, and also common in homes. How common exactly in homes, I can't
>>>> say, but the majority of the places I've lived had something like that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think I've ever lived anywhere with a shower where the water
>>> flow is adjustable other than by not fully opening the taps. Our
>>> current shower has a single knob that is pulled out to start the water
>>> (and turned to adjust the mix of hot and cold) flow. I could pull it
>>> out partially, I suppose. That would reduce flow, but it would
>>> require standing directly under the shower head to get wet.
>>>
>>> I don't understand why anyone would want to adjust the flow.
>>
>> No, I can see you don't.
>>
>> I happen to not want to fill the tub in 5 minutes while showering.
>
> I have never been in a shower that regulates water flow,

Really? Not even in a motel or hotel?

> and never
> been in a shower where the water accumulates enough to cover my pinky
> toe during a shower.

It's not hard to find examples; quite common in places I've
overnighted.

>> Ther are times when a stinging shower is good, but some shower heads
>> manage that with low flow. It's very easy to find shower heads that
>> give a full shower without requiring full flow.
>
> As far as my knowledge of shower head mechanics goes, a shower head
> cannot produce more flow than the pipe delivering the water to the
> head produces. The shower head design can concentrate the flow or
> disperse the flow, but it cannot increase or decrease the flow.

The constrictor design is a fixed decrease; this was often available as
an adapter a few years ago to save water with older shower heads.
Newer shower heads generally have this built in. The "rain" style
shower heads may still omit it.

>> The relatively
>> inexpensive shower head the landlord provided me can reach the far end
>> of the tub even at the lower flow I prefer.
>
> At the far end of the tub, the water from a properly aimed shower head
> would be directed at your feet if you are standing as one normally
> does when taking a shower. When I shower, I prefer that the water be
> directed higher on my body, so I don't stand at the far end.

I can have the spray reaching my glutes and even my lower back when I
stand at the far end of the tub. Convenient because the shaving mirror
is at that end, and my lower back is full of knots.

>
>> But I suppose in Florida, having too much water is normal.
>
> You do understand that while Florida is bounded by water on three
> sides, that we do not obtain our bathwater from those sources?

Are your wells empty already?

> Drifting a bit...we have been reliably informed that standing to
> urinate is done to prove one's masculinity. Is standing to shower a
> similar indicator?

You like to be annoying, don't you? Did you ask your wife about this?

/dps

--
"This is all very fine, but let us not be carried away be excitement,
but ask calmly, how does this person feel about in in his cooler
moments next day, with six or seven thousand feet of snow and stuff on
top of him?"
_Roughing It_, Mark Twain.

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 20:52:51 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@kreme.dont-email.me> wrote:

>Most bathrooms (and ALL bathrooms I ever saw in the US up until sometime
>in the 1990s) have had a bathtub with a shower in the tub. Before then
>the only time I saw showers without tubs was in locker rooms (mostly in
>TV and movies), at least in the US.

I now live in the fifth house I've owned. I moved into the first house
in 1965. All five houses had two bathrooms, one in the hall and one in
the master bedroom All five hall bathrooms had a shower in the tub,
and all five master bedroom bathrooms had a shower without a tub.

Before those five houses I lived in apartments. The first apartment
was a one-bedroom and it had a shower in the tub. In 1961 I moved into
a bigger apartment with two bathrooms. It was the same there. The hall
bathrooms had a shower in the tub, and the master bedroom bathroom had
a shower without a tub.

My parents moved into their house in 1958. I lived there for almost a
year. It also had two bathrooms; the hall bathrooms had a shower in
the tub, and the master bedroom bathroom had a shower without a tub.

I can't remember any bathrooms before 1958.

So my experience, based on *seven* examples well before the 1990s, is
the opposite of yours. The only place I ever lived in that I can
remember that didn't have a shower without a tub was a small
one-bedroom apartment with a single bathroom.

On 29/04/2022 15:31, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 29/04/2022 2:49 pm, soup wrote:
>> On 27/04/2022 15:08, Peter T. Daniels wrote:

>>    This was a real eyeopener for me, these people are mental.
>
> Did you find a smoking gun? I'm guessing 'no', or you'd have linked to it.

What that leftists are mental?

https://www.tiktok.com/@libsoftiktok_/video/7082992595915345157?is_copy_url=1&is_from_webapp=v1&lang=en

>

On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:54:56 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
wrote:

>lar3ryca scribbled something on Friday the 4/29/2022:
>> On 2022-04-29 02:49, Snidely wrote:
>>> On Thursday, Tony Cooper exclaimed wildly:
>>>> On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 23:10:01 -0400, Quinn C
>>>> <lispamateur@crommatograph.info> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> * Ken Blake:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 18:04:23 -0700, Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The shower in question was old-school: seperate hot and cold valves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say "old school," but isn't that still most common? Ours are
>>>>>> single valve, but I had to choose and pay extra for them when the
>>>>>> house was built.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I know at least one person (my brother-in law) who prefers separate
>>>>>> hot and cold valves.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was confused the first time I was in a hotel in North America, because
>>>>> the shower was such that one couldn't regulate water flow and
>>>>> temperature separately: one handle to turn, from off to cold to hot. It
>>>>> didn't help that any markings that might have been there originally were
>>>>> worn off.
>>>
>>> That's the "single axis" design in my descriptions.
>>>
>>>>> Over time, I learned that this, with variations, is standard in hotels
>>>>> and inns, and also common in homes. How common exactly in homes, I can't
>>>>> say, but the majority of the places I've lived had something like that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I've ever lived anywhere with a shower where the water
>>>> flow is adjustable other than by not fully opening the taps.  Our
>>>> current shower has a single knob that is pulled out to start the water
>>>> (and turned to adjust the mix of hot and cold) flow.  I could pull it
>>>> out partially, I suppose.  That would reduce flow, but it would
>>>> require standing directly under the shower head to get wet.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand why anyone would want to adjust the flow.
>>>
>>> No, I can see you don't.
>>>
>>> I happen to not want to fill the tub in 5 minutes while showering.
>>
>> While shower/bathtub combinations are common, I don't understand why you
>> would shower with the stopper in the tub closed.
>
>You don't need to use the stopper when the water is flowing in faster
>than the drain can remove it. And with the single-axis valve, that
>happens at any temperature not associated with pain.

That's never been my experience in any in-tub shower I've ever used,
whether in hotels, apartments, or houses.