first metric century :) [Archive]

dailuggs

June 13th 04, 06:19 PM

Alan Holmes wrote:
> "dailuggs" > wrote in messag
> ..
>> done it, at last, have had to put it off for a month because o
>> weather. actual distance was 106.86, in 5 hours and 5 secs, took i
>> fairly easy cos all the big hills at the end, but aim was 20kph s
>> felling pleased with mysel

> What is that in english

8/5 of a mile :

> And why so slow

because i'd never rode so far in a day, and all the hills! the last 15
i had to climb from sea level to way high, then drop down and do i
again 3 times! dont know the actual height, but the easiest hill was 16

i could have used the totally flat cycle path but its not as satisfyin

i usually average 26kph, although over an 8k journey i have average
36k, which did have a hill init aswell, nothing major but still a dro
down to 20 to go up i

plus ive only had my bike 6 weeks, am aiming for 30kph before i go t
uni and hopefully a bit quicker when i leave 3 years later, well that
the plan :

dyu mind me asking what speed you ride at? miles or km is fine :

cheers to everyone who stood up for my slowness anywa

-

Peter B

June 14th 04, 06:39 AM

"dailuggs" > wrote in message
...
> cheers to everyone who stood up for my slowness anyway

It's not particularly slow for a leisure cyclist, and I think that term
applies to most of us on this NG.
Terrain and weather make a big difference too, for instance where I ride in
SE Leicestershire my average may be about 17mph (used to be a tad higher but
age has slowed me and it's not a race anyway) but riding around the Peak
district this drops to 12.5 mph on the road and into single figures
off-road.

My road bike is the only one fitted with a computer and while it's a point
of interest to see how far and how fast plus a gauge to my fitness, which I
like to keep on top of, at the end of the day the figures are irrelevent to
the wider world and the true measure of the ride is how much I enjoyed it.

Enjoy your riding and ignore ****s.
--
Regards,
Pete

anonymous coward

June 14th 04, 06:55 AM

> What is that in english?

95400 Saxon poles a day

(more /usr/share/units.dat | grep axon)

> And why so slow?

Sounds a nice day out to me.

AC

Fraggle

June 14th 04, 12:57 PM

Congrats!

I did my 1st 100km on Saturday as well! I managed an average of 20.4
km/h.

I managed to work mine so the 1st 50 was uphill against the wind, the
second downhill with wind behind.

Of course the wind dropped at the 1/2 way point, and i still managed
to find a 12% up on the way back!

fragg

Daniel Barlow

June 14th 04, 02:11 PM

"Alan Holmes" > writes:

> And why so slow?

Why so insecure?

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

dailuggs

June 14th 04, 09:33 PM

Fraggle wrote:
> Congrats!
> I did my 1st 100km on Saturday as well! I managed an average of
> 20.4 km/h.
> I managed to work mine so the 1st 50 was uphill against the wind, the
> second downhill with wind behind.
> Of course the wind dropped at the 1/2 way point, and i still managed to
> find a 12% up on the way back!
> fragg

cul, seems like a few of us reached milestones on sat! 1 month and
hopefully a 100miler! i always pla my route so the worst road is at the
start, and love to end riding on the coast with the hills so i have more
time to enjoy it! it was a double milestone for me aswell, firts time
i'd totalled 200 miles in a week, this week the aims 248 (400k) but ill
probably end up doing less, the wind didnt help today, added half an
hour to my usual 2 hour ride so i didnt go that extra 5 miles.

must be confusing for some this going between miles and k's! it onfuses
me sometimes! although i like to know both and it helps me climb those
horrible dual carriageway hills thinking what 5/8's of.., and if i drop
down 2k in pace how will that affect my time over a mile!

all good

must say i dont really post here alot, but get a lot of useful info by
searching through previous threads

Ciao

--

Alan Holmes

June 14th 04, 10:02 PM

"dailuggs" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
> > "dailuggs" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> done it, at last, have had to put it off for a month because of
> >> weather. actual distance was 106.86, in 5 hours and 5 secs, took it
> >> fairly easy cos all the big hills at the end, but aim was 20kph so
> >> felling pleased with myself
> >
> > What is that in english?
>
> 8/5 of a mile :)
>
> > And why so slow?
>
> because i'd never rode so far in a day, and all the hills! the last 15k
> i had to climb from sea level to way high, then drop down and do it
> again 3 times! dont know the actual height, but the easiest hill was 16%
>
> i could have used the totally flat cycle path but its not as satisfying
>
> i usually average 26kph, although over an 8k journey i have averaged
> 36k, which did have a hill init aswell, nothing major but still a drop
> down to 20 to go up it
>
> plus ive only had my bike 6 weeks, am aiming for 30kph before i go to
> uni and hopefully a bit quicker when i leave 3 years later, well thats
> the plan :)
>
> dyu mind me asking what speed you ride at? miles or km is fine :)

Nowadays, not so fast, but about 55 years ago I was cycling home from
work one evening and a motorist started to tail me, after a little while it
was begining to iritate me and I was just about to stop and say something
when he drew anlongside and shorted at me that I was travelling at 30
mph, I didn't know what to say as a response.

Have you noticed that journeys home are always faster than the journey out?

On another occassion I was going on holiday YHAing and I was going
from Ealing to Stow-on-the-Wold, I left home at 2.00 oclock intending
to get there at about 7.00 oclock when I would have prepared my evening
meal then sat for a while and then retired. When I arrived at the hostel
the doors were closed and there was a queue waiting to entre, the
hostels normally opened at 5.00 oclock so I was a bit puzzled. I asked
one of the people why the hostel was not open and I was told that it was
4.50pm when I checked the milage and it was 84 miles, which means I
had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
(if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the bike
was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing for that
time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc, that
wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across the Cotswolds.

I would doubt that with the restrictions on traffic today whether if I was
the
same age and fitness I would be able to make that time.
>
> cheers to everyone who stood up for my slowness anyway

I was being a bit facecious, don't take it to heart!(:-)

Alan

>
>
>
> --
>
>

Alan Holmes

June 14th 04, 10:02 PM

"Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote in
message ...
> In ,
> Alan Holmes > typed:
> > "dailuggs" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> done it, at last, have had to put it off for a month because of
> >> weather. actual distance was 106.86, in 5 hours and 5 secs, took it
> >> fairly easy cos all the big hills at the end, but aim was 20kph so
> >> felling pleased with myself
> >
> > What is that in english?
>
> He wrote it in English.

You may not be aware that this country still measures distance in miles!
>
> > And why so slow?
>
> Don't be rude. You have yet to get the hang of being polite on usenet yet.
> Please do so.

It was not rude, you must have a very short fuse!

Alan
>
> Ambrose
>
>

Alan Holmes

June 14th 04, 10:02 PM

"Peter B" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Holmes" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What is that in english?
>
> You mean in English what?
> RP, Liverpudlian, Mancunian, Cockney?
> Or did you want Imperial measurements? (As used by those older than me who
> can't grasp something as simple as working in units of ten, clue: fingers
> and thumbs).

Well as I've said in another post, in England distances are measured in
miles.

> > And why so slow?
>
> So I'll expect to see you hanging on Lances wheel again this year wearing
> your strip for The Wait At Top club.

Who is Lance?

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

> --
> Regards,
> Pete
>
>

MartinM

June 14th 04, 10:42 PM

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message >...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
> > "dailuggs" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> done it, at last, have had to put it off for a month because of weather.
> >> actual distance was 106.86, in 5 hours and 5 secs, took it fairly easy
> >> cos all the big hills at the end, but aim was 20kph so felling pleased
> >> with myself
> >
> > What is that in english?
> >
>
> 106.86km in 5 hours 5secs.
>
> > And why so slow?

5 h is fairly standard for all the Audax 100's I have done, most of
the field come in at about that time. Well done ;-)

Ambrose Nankivell

June 14th 04, 11:42 PM

In ,
Alan Holmes > typed:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote
> in message ...
>> He wrote it in English.
>
> You may not be aware that this country still measures distance in
> miles!

And plenty of English speaking countries don't.

>>> And why so slow?
>>
>> Don't be rude. You have yet to get the hang of being polite on
>> usenet yet. Please do so.
>
> It was not rude, you must have a very short fuse!

You don't know how you come across. I'm suggesting you try and imagine it,
because you do have to behave differently on usenet to keep it like a
conversation.

A

David Martin

June 15th 04, 12:05 AM

On 14/6/04 10:02 pm, in article , "Alan
Holmes" > wrote:

> Well as I've said in another post, in England distances are measured in
> miles.

And in kilometers as well. Furlongs, chains, poles and perches if you really
want.

In fact I prefer kilometers as they make me feel like I'm going faster than
I probably am when I look at the psycho computer...

...d

James Annan

June 15th 04, 12:32 AM

Alan Holmes wrote:

> I
> had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the bike
> was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing for that
> time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc, that
> wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across the Cotswolds.

Oh, I remember you. You popped in here a few years ago with your
ridiculous exploits, impervious to reason, and insisted that you really
had done this journey at that impossible speed.

You didn't. There neve has been, and probably never will be, a human
capable of that feat. It's not close enough to reality to be remotely
plausible.

Being generous, I suppose it is possible that you simply misremembered
some aspect (either the distance or the time, or the mode of
transport!). Either that, or you just made the whole thing up. Your
call. In any case, it didn't happen.

James

MartinM

June 15th 04, 07:14 AM

dailuggs > wrote in message >...
> Fraggle wrote:
> > Congrats!
> > I did my 1st 100km on Saturday as well! I managed an average of
> > 20.4 km/h.
> > I managed to work mine so the 1st 50 was uphill against the wind, the
> > second downhill with wind behind.
> > Of course the wind dropped at the 1/2 way point, and i still managed to
> > find a 12% up on the way back!
> > fragg
>
>
>
> cul, seems like a few of us reached milestones on sat! 1 month and
> hopefully a 100miler! i always pla my route so the worst road is at the
> start, and love to end riding on the coast with the hills so i have more
> time to enjoy it! it was a double milestone for me aswell, firts time
> i'd totalled 200 miles in a week, this week the aims 248 (400k) but ill
> probably end up doing less, the wind didnt help today, added half an
> hour to my usual 2 hour ride so i didnt go that extra 5 miles.
>
> must be confusing for some this going between miles and k's! it onfuses
> me sometimes!

All Audaxes, most CTC events and a lot of off road events are now
measured in k's, and many riders inluding myself have their computer
set to k's for this purpose. Once you have done a few it becomes
second nature to convert. TT's and other competitive vents stick to
miles mostly. But 100 miles is still a great achievement and there are
occasional 160k events, although 150/200 is more common; go for it,
you'll feel great ;-)

Colin Blackburn

June 15th 04, 08:36 AM

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:02:39 +0100, Alan Holmes
> wrote:

>
> "Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote in
> message ...
>> In ,
>> Alan Holmes > typed:
>> > "dailuggs" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> done it, at last, have had to put it off for a month because of
>> >> weather. actual distance was 106.86, in 5 hours and 5 secs, took it
>> >> fairly easy cos all the big hills at the end, but aim was 20kph so
>> >> felling pleased with myself
>> >
>> > What is that in english?
>>
>> He wrote it in English.
>
> You may not be aware that this country still measures distance in miles!

Tell that to the organisers of road races, orienteering events, mountain
marathons,...

This country measures distances in both units and many of us are happy to
switch between the two.

Colin

Just zis Guy, you know?

June 15th 04, 09:01 AM

Alan Holmes wrote:

> travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the
> bike was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing
> for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk
> and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across
> the Cotswolds.

See what happens when you get the decimal point in the wrong place? You
look like an eejit!

--
Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Victory is ours! Down with Eric the Half A Brain!

Dave Kahn

June 15th 04, 09:51 AM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:36:49 +0100, "Colin Blackburn"
> wrote:

>This country measures distances in both units and many of us are happy to
>switch between the two.

Unlike my Fightdeck computer which switched from miles to kilometres
and refuses to switch back.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

Dave Kahn

June 15th 04, 09:54 AM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:01:44 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>> travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
>> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the
>> bike was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing
>> for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk
>> and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across
>> the Cotswolds.
>
>See what happens when you get the decimal point in the wrong place? You
>look like an eejit!

You mean it was really 295 mph?

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

Dave Kahn

June 15th 04, 09:56 AM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:32:56 +0900, James Annan
> wrote:

>Alan Holmes wrote:

>> I
>> had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
>> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the bike
>> was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing for that
>> time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc, that
>> wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across the Cotswolds.
>
>Oh, I remember you. You popped in here a few years ago with your
>ridiculous exploits, impervious to reason, and insisted that you really
>had done this journey at that impossible speed.
>
>You didn't. There neve has been, and probably never will be, a human
>capable of that feat. It's not close enough to reality to be remotely
>plausible.

I love the understatement in "that wasn't a bad average".

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

Dave Larrington

June 15th 04, 10:00 AM

Colin Blackburn wrote:

> This country measures distances in both units and many of us are
> happy to switch between the two.

Quite. All my computers are set to kilometres, because the numbers are
/way/ more impressive ;-) Well, actually it was because Mrs Larrington
didn't understand miles, and as I would sometimes borrow one of her bicycles
and vice-versa, it was easier for all concerned to have them set that way.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 10:23 AM

In ,
James Annan > typed:
> Alan Holmes wrote:
>> I
>> had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
>> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the
>> bike was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing
>> for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk
>> and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was
>> across the Cotswolds.
>
> Oh, I remember you. You popped in here a few years ago with your
> ridiculous exploits, impervious to reason, and insisted that you
> really had done this journey at that impossible speed.

It was probably 84km. Still, not a bad average.

A

james

June 15th 04, 10:24 AM

James Annan > wrote in message >...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
> > I
> > had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
> > (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the bike
> > was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing for that
> > time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc, that
> > wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across the Cotswolds.

> Oh, I remember you. You popped in here a few years ago with your
> ridiculous exploits, impervious to reason, and insisted that you really
> had done this journey at that impossible speed.
<snip>
> Being generous, I suppose it is possible that you simply misremembered
> some aspect (either the distance or the time, or the mode of
> transport!). Either that, or you just made the whole thing up. Your
> call. In any case, it didn't happen.

In case anyone else was curious for the basis of James' dismissal of
Alan's wibbling Alan's "misremembered" average speed (in English units
:) is 47 km/h, the current hour record is 56 km/h. The hour record 50
years ago (assuming a similar vintage to Alan's 30 mph exploit) was 46
km/h.

The site where I got the hour record figures did specify that they
were on tracks (presumably not sited on the Cotswolds) but didn't say
whether any of the riders were loaded for a self catering holiday or
not.

best wishes
james (not the same one)

Simon Brooke

June 15th 04, 10:35 AM

in message >, Just zis Guy, you know?
') wrote:

> Alan Holmes wrote:
>
>> travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
>> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the
>> bike was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing
>> for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk
>> and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across
>> the Cotswolds.
>
> See what happens when you get the decimal point in the wrong place?
> You look like an eejit!

Many years ago I did Kirkcudbright to home - thirteen and a half miles -
in a time I believed to be exactly thirty minutes. Or, I believed, 27
miles per hour. Which is over two hundred metre ridges, at sea level at
both ends and at only about 20m above sea level in the middle.

And I look at the journey now (it normally takes me an hour, even on my
road bike, even when I'm going well and feeling good) and I just don't
believe it. I think the heroic trips of our youth are remembered
through a fog of golden self-delusion. OK, so I was a lot fitter then
and covered a lot more miles and I was certainly faster. But that fast?
I find it hard to believe.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.

Arthur Clune

June 15th 04, 10:35 AM

Alan Holmes > wrote:

: Well as I've said in another post, in England distances are measured in
: miles.

Is it just me, or does anyone else associate the whole "keep the mile,
pound, fulongs/fornight" brigade with blazers, biogitry, little englandism
and supporting football? (these all being bad things in my book).

If someone wants to say they rode 100km, why not. If they rode 60 odd miles,
then cool. Where's the issue? Given that the English are the worst nation in
the world for moving somewhere and then only ever speaking english to other
ex-pats stuff like this always annoys me. I rate it with the "but they move
over here and never learn English" complaints. Ever been to Marbella?

Chill. Though maybe I should take my own advice :)

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

wheelsgoround

June 15th 04, 11:01 AM

Well done Jimmy and Fragg on your 100k rides.

I guess these were both solo attempts ?

If you fancy pushing on for longer rides, check out www.audax.uk.net,
they organise loads of rides from 50k up to several thousand km. Rides
have to be done at an average speed between 15km/h and 30km/h so there's
plenty of scope to go slow or fast(ish). Open to all ages (and all ages
ride them) and you can ride any kind of self-propelled machine you like
(as long as it is road-legal).

Alternatively check out your local branch of CTC. www.ctc.org.uk. They
organise loads of rides of varying lengths.

If I can express an opinion here; the great thing about these organised
rides is that you can ride with a bunch of people who support and
encourage you and respect you whatever your level of fitness or ability.

Ian

--

Peter Clinch

June 15th 04, 11:09 AM

Arthur Clune wrote:

> Is it just me, or does anyone else associate the whole "keep the mile,
> pound, fulongs/fornight" brigade with blazers, biogitry, little englandism
> and supporting football? (these all being bad things in my book).

I tend to think of it more as simply short sighted stupidity. Science
and engineering went metric a long time ago and it'll stay there, so all
the imperial measurements are just a way of making life more complicated
because you have to know 2 sets rather than just 1.

Some fool will probably ponder chiming in with "but imperial
measurements are so much easier for day to day use in typical household
situations having evolved in real use rather than being imposed!", and
for an encore they'll fail to notice how a few billion people, by and
large with relatively low standards of education, manage everyday tasks
in metric quite happily.

But I suppose Britain is still a global force to be reckoned with if it
stands alone. We /must/ be, we have nuclear bombs and the Americans say
it's all right (and they don't use metric either)! ;-/

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 11:39 AM

In ,
Peter Clinch > typed:
>
> But I suppose Britain is still a global force to be reckoned with if
> it stands alone. We /must/ be, we have nuclear bombs and the
> Americans say it's all right (and they don't use metric either)! ;-/
>
We don't even submit to inspections.

http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200406/4718b55f-317c-4b2f-99dc-89eccd91353c
..htm

A

Mark Thompson

June 15th 04, 11:48 AM

> I tend to think of it more as simply short sighted stupidity. Science
> and engineering went metric a long time ago and it'll stay there, so
> all the imperial measurements are just a way of making life more
> complicated because you have to know 2 sets rather than just 1.

Yeah, the buggers. Despite being a child of the metric age I estimate very
short distances in inches, measure them in cm, estimate longer ones in
feet, then measure them in metres, use kg for small weights but stones for
me, cycle/drive in miles and walk in km, and buy beer in pints when I'd
rather a litre!

Mark South

June 15th 04, 12:26 PM

"Mark Thompson" > wrote in message
93.157...
> > I tend to think of it more as simply short sighted stupidity. Science
> > and engineering went metric a long time ago and it'll stay there, so
> > all the imperial measurements are just a way of making life more
> > complicated because you have to know 2 sets rather than just 1.
>
> Yeah, the buggers. Despite being a child of the metric age I estimate very
> short distances in inches, measure them in cm, estimate longer ones in
> feet, then measure them in metres, use kg for small weights but stones for
> me, cycle/drive in miles and walk in km, and buy beer in pints when I'd
> rather a litre!

You are perfectly sane. An inability to cope with a variety of measurements
simply displays lack of mental flexibility, education, or both.
--
"Mango sorbet is clearcut proof that we have progressed beyond the
bare needs of survival and have progressed to the transcendant."
- Marc Goodman in talk.bizarre

James Hodson

June 15th 04, 12:42 PM

On 15 Jun 2004 09:35:36 GMT, "Arthur Clune" > wrote:

>Is it just me, or does anyone else associate the whole "keep the mile,
>pound, fulongs/fornight" brigade with blazers, biogitry, little englandism
>and supporting football? (these all being bad things in my book).
>
>If someone wants to say they rode 100km, why not. If they rode 60 odd miles,
>then cool. Where's the issue? Given that the English are the worst nation in
>the world for moving somewhere and then only ever speaking english to other
>ex-pats stuff like this always annoys me. I rate it with the "but they move
>over here and never learn English" complaints. Ever been to Marbella?
>

Hi Arthur

Horses for courses, IMO. Some things are more sensibly measured in
imperial units whereas others make more sense when metric is used.

Imperial works well for human measurements of height and weight. In my
case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense than ~=80 kg and 1.83m.

Conversely, the system of metric measurments works extremely well in
the scientific field and for currencies. Even I am able to divide and
multiply by factors of ten.

Sometimes neither work particularly well: horses racing on their
shorter courses are best measured in furlongs rather than by metres or
multiples of 220 yards. Jet aircraft thrusts work better in both tons
or tonnes rather than pounds or kilogrammes. Lowish altitudes are
better measured in feet too. A cricket pitch's length is better
understood when quoted in yards rather than metres or a chain.

To be honest, I guess it really depends on when and where one was
brought up and also on ones predilection for the modern versus the
older. A case of "if it ain't bust ... ".

Onto language: How dare you say that the English are bad at
communicating in other tongues. Not so. As long as one speaks VERY
LOUDLY and v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y we can be, if not understood, at least
despised by all.

The attitudes of keeping the mile at all costs and we must convert
completely to metric are simply opposite sides of the same coin. (Not
the Euro, obviously! :-)

Let's hear it for parsec.

James

James Hodson

June 15th 04, 12:43 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:09:11 +0100, Peter Clinch
> wrote:

>I tend to think of it more as simply short sighted stupidity.

You'd better ignore my post thern, Peter :-)

James

Michael MacClancy

June 15th 04, 12:58 PM

On 15 Jun 2004 09:35:36 GMT, Arthur Clune wrote:

> Given that the English are the worst nation in
> the world for moving somewhere and then only ever speaking english to other
> ex-pats stuff like this always annoys me.

I'm so glad you wrote 'English' there. Of course the Scots, Irish and
Welsh have such wonderful reputations for their linguistic skills, don't
they? (Not counting those poor souls who feel oppressed because they have
to speak a foreign language in their own countries, that is.)

;-)

Mind you, do you really think the English are worse than the Merkins?

My experience of living abroad is that many people who speak English,
regardless of their nationality and whether it's their first or second
language, have problems learning the local language. This isn't because
they don't want to but they tend to move in social and work circles where
English is widely spoken and an easier communications medium.

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his
friends." -Oscar Wilde
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 01:29 PM

In ,
James Hodson > typed:
> Imperial works well for human measurements of height and weight. In my
> case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense than ~=80 kg and 1.83m.

Gave my details: 64kg & 1.74m to some medics the other day and they were
already looking it up on their translation table before they realised they
didn't have to.

A

Roger Hughes

June 15th 04, 01:59 PM

James Hodson wrote:

> Horses for courses, IMO. Some things are more sensibly measured in
> imperial units whereas others make more sense when metric is used.
>
> Imperial works well for human measurements of height and weight. In my
> case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense than ~=80 kg and 1.83m.

It is not "more sensible" except in that you are highly familiar with
the specific ranges of figures commonly applied among the people you
interact with for some specific purposes; there's nothing less sensible
about using kilograms to measure body weight than stones - it's just
that you happen to have an instant mental image of, say, a 15 stone man
that you don't have for a 70 Kg man; exactly the same will apply to the
(flagrantly absurd) American use of pounds. I imagine that Brits mostly
have a set of mental weight-images with a granularity of one or two
stones, whereas the Americans think in ten or twenty-pound increments
and the ROW in five or ten Kg ones. The mental processes involved here
don't involve any mathematical processing - it is just a case of looking
up acquired knowledge, so the numbers themselves are not particularly
important (except inasmuch as they will tend to determine psychological
barriers, which is where this century (and that is entryist American
cycling slang, too) thing comes in; likewise with getting under the hour
or indeed, getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)

> The attitudes of keeping the mile at all costs and we must convert
> completely to metric are simply opposite sides of the same coin. (Not
> the Euro, obviously! :-)

I feel that to do the job properly you should be insisting on a return
to pounds, shillings and pence. Shouldn't cause much difficulty in the
computer age, anyway.

Cheers

Roger

Peter Clinch

June 15th 04, 02:10 PM

James Hodson wrote:
>
> Horses for courses, IMO. Some things are more sensibly measured in
> imperial units whereas others make more sense when metric is used.
>
> Imperial works well for human measurements of height and weight. In my
> case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense than ~=80 kg and 1.83m.

Sorry James, but I fail to see why "12.5" is intrinsically easier to get
to grips with than "80". And how is 5'8 1/4" easier intrinsically
easier to work with than 1.73m?

> Sometimes neither work particularly well: horses racing on their
> shorter courses are best measured in furlongs rather than by metres or
> multiples of 220 yards. Jet aircraft thrusts work better in both tons
> or tonnes rather than pounds or kilogrammes.

Though the Kg is the base /ISO/ unit of mass, a tonne is a metric unit
(1000 Kg or 1 Mg), so measuring jet thrust in tonnes is perfectly
acceptable if you want to use metric. I don't see 200m is a difficult
sort of number to get to grips with. Races are run in furlongs because
of tradition, there's nothing peculiar to horse anatomy that you
couldn't measure courses in 200m chunks and not really affect the
racing, or perhaps you find the guinea is an intrinsically easier unit
of currency than the pound or euro if you happen to be buying a horse?

> Lowish altitudes are
> better measured in feet too. A cricket pitch's length is better
> understood when quoted in yards rather than metres or a chain.

The Dutch don't have highish altitudes and manage okay in meters. A
cricket pitch is defined in yards, but I'm sure the amount of people who
actually mark them out could adjust easily enough: there aren't /that/
many of them. Cricket is actually played in places where yards aren't
commonly used, yet they still manage to mark out the pitches and play.

All the examples you've given of where non-metric is "better" are
actually cases of familiarity rather than superiority. You're happier
saying 12.5 stone, but OTOH someone from continental Europe will be
happier saying 80 Kg. Neither is easier, they are both acceptably easy
if you work with them. And same for the others. I have to work with
both, so I do. I'd prefer to work with just 1.

> To be honest, I guess it really depends on when and where one was
> brought up and also on ones predilection for the modern versus the
> older. A case of "if it ain't bust ... ".

But it /is/ bust. If I tell a German I weigh 12.5 stone they don't have
a clue what I'm talking about (in fact an American wouldn't know what I
was talking about!). Why would I want to? Well, my bike is German, and
I may want to talk about it with the manufacturer. If you're only happy
in imperial units you're pretty much snookered if you turn up at a
builders' merchants these days. They don't do Cw bags any more.

> The attitudes of keeping the mile at all costs and we must convert
> completely to metric are simply opposite sides of the same coin.

Not really. One is realising we're in a backward minority and would be
better in the broader picture not to be and one is clinging to the fact
as if it's something to be proud of. With increasing globalisation
we're not doing ourselves any favours clinging to a system that is used
less and less.

> Let's hear it for parsec.

There are good reasons to use parallax seconds of arc if you're an
astronomer. Or AU, or Light Years. Not so much for making stuff for
export to the countries next door.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

James Hodson

June 15th 04, 02:14 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:29:15 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> wrote:

>Gave my details: 64kg & 1.74m to some medics the other day and they were
>already looking it up on their translation table before they realised they
>didn't have to.

Ambrose

You're obviously both too small and too light for the medics'
computors! :-)

Having been practicing my hills recently, I can only be but envious.

James

James Hodson

June 15th 04, 02:20 PM

Hi Both Peter and Roger

You are both, or course, correct. I'm merely more comfortable wih
certain units being used in certain situations.

James

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 02:21 PM

In ,
James Hodson > typed:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:29:15 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> > wrote:
>
>> Gave my details: 64kg & 1.74m to some medics the other day and they
>> were already looking it up on their translation table before they
>> realised they didn't have to.
>
> Ambrose
>
> You're obviously both too small and too light for the medics'
> computors! :-)

I've actually grown over the past 18 months or so from 1.72m. I have, but
the GP I mentioned it to told me that was impossible at the age of 26. Most
annoying, as I already had bikes that were on the small side.

I need to put on weight, too, without a doubt.

> Having been practicing my hills recently, I can only be but envious.

I'm envious of you having hills, but I guess I've not been trying on the
bike recently. Now to go and fix that shifter.

A

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 02:22 PM

In ,
Roger Hughes
> typed:
> the numbers themselves are not particularly important (except
> inasmuch as they will tend to determine psychological barriers, which
> is where this century (and that is entryist American cycling slang,
> too) thing comes in; likewise with getting under the hour or indeed,
> getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)

More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing) should be 144
miles or something like that anyway.

A

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 02:24 PM

In ,
Peter Clinch > typed:
> There are good reasons to use parallax seconds of arc if you're an
> astronomer. Or AU, or Light Years. Not so much for making stuff for
> export to the countries next door.
>
Not got the cycle computer set to attoparsecs per microfortnight, then?

A

Roos Eisma

June 15th 04, 02:35 PM

Peter Clinch > writes:

>The Dutch don't have highish altitudes and manage okay in meters.

We do need negative numbers though :)

Roos

Just zis Guy, you know?

June 15th 04, 02:46 PM

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> I've actually grown over the past 18 months or so from 1.72m. I have,
> but the GP I mentioned it to told me that was impossible at the age
> of 26. Most annoying, as I already had bikes that were on the small
> side.

Absolutely impossible, As was the fact that I grew nearly two inches in
height after the age of 21.

My current doctor says late growth is actually quite common in asthmatics.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Peter Clinch

June 15th 04, 02:47 PM

James Hodson wrote:
> Hi Both Peter and Roger
>
> You are both, or course, correct. I'm merely more comfortable wih
> certain units being used in certain situations.

I'm happier with miles if I'm driving, km walking, switch fairly
interchangeably on the bike!

I grant you it would be a major PITA for everyone to have to convert to
"speaking" metric, but in the longer term it would cease to be a
recurrent minor PITA on a regular basis, especially if you go anywhere
else bar the USA (though if you go there don't forget their idea of a
pint is 16 floz and not 20, they don't use stones, volume is in cubic
inches while we flit between gallons and litres, and so on, and they
don't play cricket either!).

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Just zis Guy, you know?

June 15th 04, 02:47 PM

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Sorry James, but I fail to see why "12.5" is intrinsically easier to
> get to grips with than "80". And how is 5'8 1/4" easier intrinsically
> easier to work with than 1.73m?

And anyway, shouldn't weight be expressed in Newtons?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 02:58 PM

In ,
Just zis Guy, you know? > typed:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>
>> I've actually grown over the past 18 months or so from 1.72m. I have,
>> but the GP I mentioned it to told me that was impossible at the age
>> of 26. Most annoying, as I already had bikes that were on the small
>> side.
>
> Absolutely impossible, As was the fact that I grew nearly two inches
> in height after the age of 21.

Particularly when it comes after an operation and serious illness involving
my weight dropping beneath 40kg. That wouldn't confuse my body at all, would
it?

> My current doctor says late growth is actually quite common in
> asthmatics.

I imagine my current doctor will agree when I see him tomorrow about an
issue which is peripherally related. The previous one was incompetent and
refused to prescribe me the drugs which would have avoided the above illness
completely over a period of 3 months, preferring to spend the consultations
accusing me of being an alcoholic instead. Because I mentioned I was too ill
to drink any beer, a relevant symptom, IMHO.

Anyway, I'm not bitter, honest.

A

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 02:59 PM

In ,
Just zis Guy, you know? > typed:
> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> Sorry James, but I fail to see why "12.5" is intrinsically easier to
>> get to grips with than "80". And how is 5'8 1/4" easier
>> intrinsically easier to work with than 1.73m?
>
> And anyway, shouldn't weight be expressed in Newtons?
>
I believe people are more interested in their mass, even if that's not what
they call it.

A

Michael MacClancy

June 15th 04, 03:03 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:47:36 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> Peter Clinch wrote:
>
>> Sorry James, but I fail to see why "12.5" is intrinsically easier to
>> get to grips with than "80". And how is 5'8 1/4" easier intrinsically
>> easier to work with than 1.73m?
>
> And anyway, shouldn't weight be expressed in Newtons?
>

..... in contrast to Oldtons?

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "A modest little person, with much to be modest about."-
Winston Churchill
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Daniel Barlow

June 15th 04, 03:07 PM

"Ambrose Nankivell" > writes:

> accusing me of being an alcoholic instead. Because I mentioned I was too ill
> to drink any beer, a relevant symptom, IMHO.
>
> Anyway, I'm not bitter, honest.

Just lager than you were? I hop this doesn't tun into another pun
thread; that would ale be a bit much.

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

James Hodson

June 15th 04, 03:08 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:46:25 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> wrote:

>Absolutely impossible, As was the fact that I grew nearly two inches in
>height after the age of 21.

I was 6'00" at 13 and still am the same height. My weight, however,
may have altered up and down over the years.

James

James Hodson

June 15th 04, 03:10 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:59:40 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> wrote:

>I believe people are more interested in their mass, even if that's not what
>they call it.

********. It's their size that that interests them.

James

Daniel Barlow

June 15th 04, 03:15 PM

James Hodson > writes:

> ********. It's their size that that interests them.

While not wishing to downplay the importance of regular
self-examination in the early detection of testicular cancer, I have
to say that other than that I've never really worried about the size
of mine; they seem to be big enough.

-dan

--
"please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 03:19 PM

In ,
James Hodson > typed:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:59:40 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> > wrote:
>
>> I believe people are more interested in their mass, even if that's
>> not what they call it.
>
> ********. It's their size that that interests them.

I'm not hugely concerned about the size of my ********, thanks :) Spammers
please take note.

Yeah, it's more size than weight. I was just anti-pedanting Guy for slight
amusement value.

A

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 03:20 PM

In ,
Daniel Barlow > typed:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" >
> writes:
>
>> accusing me of being an alcoholic instead. Because I mentioned I was
>> too ill to drink any beer, a relevant symptom, IMHO.
>>
>> Anyway, I'm not bitter, honest.
>
> Just lager than you were? I hop this doesn't tun into another pun
> thread; that would ale be a bit much.

I was going to draught you a reply, but I'm bottling it up now. Can't see
the pint.

A

Arthur Clune

June 15th 04, 03:30 PM

James Hodson > wrote:

: I was 6'00" at 13 and still am the same height. My weight, however,
: may have altered up and down over the years.

I grew about 2" between 18 and 22.

Arthur (in imperial for now)

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

Andy Leighton

June 15th 04, 03:38 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:42:19 +0100,
James Hodson > wrote:

> A cricket pitch's length is better understood when quoted in yards
> rather than metres or a chain.

Well most people say 22 yards, but 1 chain is just as acceptable
and very easy to understand - most people can count to one.

--
Andy Leighton =>
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Colin Blackburn

June 15th 04, 03:44 PM

On 15 Jun 2004 14:38:29 GMT, Andy Leighton > wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:42:19 +0100,
> James Hodson > wrote:
>
>> A cricket pitch's length is better understood when quoted in yards
>> rather than metres or a chain.
>
> Well most people say 22 yards, but 1 chain is just as acceptable
> and very easy to understand - most people can count to one.

Yes, but the point was about understanding rather than measuring. I can
count to one but a chain is meaningless unless I know it is 22 yards. I
can visualise a yard and therefore understand 22 of them joined together.
I don't visualise a chain as anything other than the length of a cricket
pitch which is a bit circular (not the pitch, the visualisation.)

Colin

Peter Clinch

June 15th 04, 04:10 PM

Colin Blackburn wrote:

> Yes, but the point was about understanding rather than measuring. I can
> count to one but a chain is meaningless unless I know it is 22 yards. I
> can visualise a yard and therefore understand 22 of them joined
> together. I don't visualise a chain as anything other than the length
> of a cricket pitch which is a bit circular (not the pitch, the
> visualisation.)

I think if you can visualise a cricket pitch as the size of a cricket
pitch then that is the most innate understanding of size possible. If
I'm deciding if I'll fit through a space without bending down I gauge it
in "me-size", I don't think if it's more than 1.73m/5'8" or not.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Danny Colyer

June 15th 04, 07:25 PM

Roger Hughes wrote:
> I feel that to do the job properly you should be insisting on a return
> to pounds, shillings and pence. Shouldn't cause much difficulty in the
> computer age, anyway.

Except for those of us who would have to add extra fields to several
dozen programs, and change the way several hundred programs calculate
costs, and test that it all works OK with all the relevant parameter
combinations ... :-/

At least we already have customers trading in Euros, so if we ever
accept the Euro the conversion routines are already in place.

--
Danny Colyer (the UK company has been laughed out of my reply address)
<URL:http://www.speedy5.freeserve.co.uk/danny/>
"He who dares not offend cannot be honest." - Thomas Paine

Roger Hughes

June 15th 04, 07:26 PM

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing) should be 144
> miles or something like that anyway.

Naah, that would be just gross. However, a proper century should be in
Roman miles.

Dave Kahn

June 15th 04, 07:30 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:23:08 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> wrote:

>It was probably 84km. Still, not a bad average.

No, it is around 80 miles according to MapQuest.

--
Dave...

Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

Ambrose Nankivell

June 15th 04, 07:46 PM

In ,
Dave Kahn > typed:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:23:08 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> > wrote:
>
>> It was probably 84km. Still, not a bad average.
>
> No, it is around 80 miles according to MapQuest.

Oh, so he must have done it 2.5 metric hours, whatever they are.
Sounds like quarter of a day to me.

:)

A

Roger Hughes

June 15th 04, 07:54 PM

Danny Colyer wrote:

> Roger Hughes wrote:
>
>>I feel that to do the job properly you should be insisting on a return
>>to pounds, shillings and pence. Shouldn't cause much difficulty in the
>>computer age, anyway.
>
>
> Except for those of us who would have to add extra fields to several
> dozen programs, and change the way several hundred programs calculate
> costs, and test that it all works OK with all the relevant parameter
> combinations ... :-/

Naah. You just do all the accounting in longint pennies and knock up a
quick display formatting routine.

> At least we already have customers trading in Euros, so if we ever
> accept the Euro the conversion routines are already in place.

All our invoices are in euros already, bar a couple of sterling
customers and one USD. Get paid into a sterling account, though.

Cheers

Roger

Nick Kew

June 15th 04, 08:28 PM

In article >,
"Ambrose Nankivell" > writes:

> More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing) should be 144
> miles or something like that anyway.

Ugh. That's gross!

--
Nick Kew

dailuggs

June 15th 04, 09:17 PM

>Originally posted by Just Zis Guy

>And anyway, shouldn't weight be expressed in Newtons?

>Guy
--

but then everyone would be 9.81 times "bigger"!

--

Fraggle

June 15th 04, 09:40 PM

wheelsgoround > wrote in message >...

> Alternatively check out your local branch of CTC. www.ctc.org.uk. They
> organise loads of rides of varying lengths.

I have just joined the CTC, have not received any physical evidence of
this yet though! I shall certainly try and go on some of there rides.
I looked at the audax site and there dont seem to be many around here
(NE England) especially as I have no transported except bike and
public.

Just zis Guy, you know?

June 15th 04, 09:50 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:17:25 GMT, dailuggs
> wrote in message
>:

>>And anyway, shouldn't weight be expressed in Newtons?
>but then everyone would be 9.81 times "bigger"!

Ah, but by being 780N instead of 80kg, I'd be fully 2.5% lighter than
all those people who couldn't be bothered with the mental arithmetic
and just multiplied by ten :-P

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

MartinM

June 15th 04, 10:07 PM

MartinM

June 15th 04, 10:07 PM

"Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote in message >...
> In ,
> Roger Hughes
> > typed:
> > the numbers themselves are not particularly important (except
> > inasmuch as they will tend to determine psychological barriers, which
> > is where this century (and that is entryist American cycling slang,
> > too) thing comes in; likewise with getting under the hour or indeed,
> > getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)
>
> More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing) should be 144
> miles or something like that anyway.
>
> A

112 actually after all that is what a hundredweight is.

BTW things the US don't seem to have include yards and stones. I
remember the back of an old log table book(when the revolution comes
all Maths teachers should have their calculators taken away and have
to use them for the rest of their lives!) which had the SI unit
definitive measurements, something like a metre being exactly
5.3421421424 squillion wavelengths of ultra purple light, and a kg
was so many molecules of strontium 455.

MartinM

June 15th 04, 10:12 PM

MartinM

June 15th 04, 10:45 PM

Mark South

June 16th 04, 12:01 AM

"MartinM" > wrote in message
om...
> "Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote in
message >...
> > In ,
> > Roger Hughes
> > > typed:
> > > the numbers themselves are not particularly important (except
> > > inasmuch as they will tend to determine psychological barriers, which
> > > is where this century (and that is entryist American cycling slang,
> > > too) thing comes in; likewise with getting under the hour or indeed,
> > > getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)
> >
> > More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing) should be 144
> > miles or something like that anyway.
> >
> > A
>
> Also, why do we still think there are 12 hours in a day?

Solar or sidereal?
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen

Peter B

June 16th 04, 06:54 AM

"Arthur Clune" > wrote in message
...
>
> Is it just me, or does anyone else associate the whole "keep the mile,
> pound, fulongs/fornight" brigade with blazers, biogitry, little englandism
> and supporting football? (these all being bad things in my book).

In the mid 70's I lived for a while in Manitoba (Canada) where miles were in
use. In '77 we moved to Ontario, a nice drive of 1400 miles, where
kilometres were already in use. I bought a new stick-on face (no dual faces
like here in the UK) for the car speedo and life carried on.
Weights were also in metric and as an aside consumer packaging was
bi-lingual across Canada. Life carried on.<1>
Some 20 years after returning to the UK we are still struggling to fully
accept the metric system simply because of pussy-footing.

No problem to me being an old git and working in engineering, I know that a
km is approx. 0.6 miles, a quarter of an inch = 6.4mm, 1kg = 2.2lbs , etc.
(yeah, our tolerances are a bit slack ;-) and that I'm 5feet 10 and a half
inches and weigh 79kgs ;-)

<1>Except when confusing lbs and kgs when re-fuelling aircraft :-(

--
Regards,
Pete

Peter B

June 16th 04, 06:57 AM

"Alan Holmes" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter B" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So I'll expect to see you hanging on Lances wheel again this year
wearing
> > your strip for The Wait At Top club.
>
> Who is Lance?

You got that new-fangled 'lectric out your way yet? ;-)
--
Regards,
Pete

Peter B

June 16th 04, 07:20 AM

"Alan Holmes" > wrote in message
...
> Nowadays, not so fast, but about 55 years ago I was cycling home from
> work one evening and a motorist started to tail me, after a little while
it
> was begining to iritate me and I was just about to stop and say something
> when he drew anlongside and shorted at me that I was travelling at 30
> mph, I didn't know what to say as a response.

Oh, a ****ing contest!
Nowadays at 50 years old I travel downhill on a road bike at up to 40 mph
with a tail wind in Leicestershire and 42 mph downhill on rough tarmac roads
in Derbyshire on an mtb. I once rode downhill at 50mph in Yorkshire.
Speeds verified in 2 cases on 2 different bike computers on my bikes and in
the other case with a computer on a friends mtb. These are easier to use at
40mph than working it out with a map and stopwatch.

>
> Have you noticed that journeys home are always faster than the journey
out?

Only when I get the route and wind direction to work in unison.

> which means I
> had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the bike
> was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing for that
> time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc, that
> wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across the Cotswolds.

And then the alarm clock woke you up and it was a wet Monday morning ;-)
--
Regards,
Pete

Peter B

June 16th 04, 07:29 AM

A picture in yesterdays local rag showed a greengrocer leaning over some
bananas on scales with the heading stating "Fed up with being pushed around
by Brussels".

Had this appeared in The Stun I'd have assumed it deliberate but I imagine
it went over the heads of most at the local rag :-)
(Or it was some sublety like "Roger the cabin boy" which went over my head
when I was five).

--
Regards,
Pete

Graeme

June 16th 04, 07:41 AM

"Peter B" > wrote in
:

> A picture in yesterdays local rag showed a greengrocer leaning over
> some bananas on scales with the heading stating "Fed up with being
> pushed around by Brussels".

Lost me a bit there.

<snip>
> (Or it was some sublety like "Roger the cabin boy" which went over my
> head when I was five).

There was no subtlety there to miss, the cabin boy was called Tom. Urban
myth time I'm afraid.

http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/tv/kids/pugwash.htm

Cheers!

Graeme

Jon Senior

June 16th 04, 07:42 AM

Michael MacClancy opined the following...
> I'm so glad you wrote 'English' there. Of course the Scots, Irish and
> Welsh have such wonderful reputations for their linguistic skills, don't
> they? (Not counting those poor souls who feel oppressed because they have
> to speak a foreign language in their own countries, that is.)

The Scots don't tend to move that far from their homeland... after all,
nowhere else in the world could be better! ;-)

When backpacking in Italy last summer, I was horrified by the lack of
language skills possessed by many of the people we met. The non-native
English speakers we met, all spoke reasonable-to-perfect English, yet
the native English speakers often knew nothing of Italian (Or the
language of any other country they visited!). While I wouldn't expect to
be fluent before entering a country, I aim to have "Please", "Thankyou",
"Hello", Goodbye" and at least 1-10, if not 1-100. For any European
country this can't possibly take more than a few days to master, and in
return you have at least put in some effort (You can also usually ask
for things in a shop and thus survive!).

> ;-)
>
> Mind you, do you really think the English are worse than the Merkins?

No. But given we are a part of Europe, it'd be nice to be setting an
example.

> My experience of living abroad is that many people who speak English,
> regardless of their nationality and whether it's their first or second
> language, have problems learning the local language. This isn't because
> they don't want to but they tend to move in social and work circles where
> English is widely spoken and an easier communications medium.

It's true that you can travel to most places and speak English, and
you'll be understood (Often as an arrogant **** but hey...). That said,
in suburban Verona we managed to find a Tratoria in which not only
didn't the staff speak English, but none of the other customers did
either. Some furious hand waving and very broken Italian managed to get
us a bowl of pasta, despite the kitchen being closed (We think the owner
took pity on the obviously stupid foreigners!).

Jon

Graeme

June 16th 04, 08:04 AM

Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in
:

> The Scots don't tend to move that far from their homeland... after all,
> nowhere else in the world could be better! ;-)

Oh I don't know. The Scots played a very large part in colonising the
empire (not that that is anything to shout about).

I'm writing this from Australia, which is pretty far away. But yes, I think
you're on to something with "nowhere else in the world could be better" ;-)

Graeme

Peter B

June 16th 04, 08:24 AM

"Graeme" > wrote in message
4.51...
> "Peter B" > wrote in
> :
>
> > A picture in yesterdays local rag showed a greengrocer leaning over
> > some bananas on scales with the heading stating "Fed up with being
> > pushed around by Brussels".
>
> Lost me a bit there.

I pictured the brussel sprouts intimidating the greengrocer.
>
> <snip>
> > (Or it was some sublety like "Roger the cabin boy" which went over my
> > head when I was five).
>
> There was no subtlety there to miss, the cabin boy was called Tom. Urban
> myth time I'm afraid.
>
> http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/tv/kids/pugwash.htm

Thanks for the link.

--
Regards,
Pete

Michael MacClancy

June 16th 04, 08:29 AM

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:42:16 +0100, Jon Senior wrote:

> When backpacking in Italy last summer, I was horrified by the lack of
> language skills possessed by many of the people we met. The non-native
> English speakers we met, all spoke reasonable-to-perfect English, yet
> the native English speakers often knew nothing of Italian (Or the
> language of any other country they visited!). While I wouldn't expect to
> be fluent before entering a country, I aim to have "Please", "Thankyou",
> "Hello", Goodbye" and at least 1-10, if not 1-100. For any European
> country this can't possibly take more than a few days to master, and in
> return you have at least put in some effort (You can also usually ask
> for things in a shop and thus survive!).
>

I share your opinion that it's not difficult to learn a few simple words
but I also have a theory that provides a degree of forgiveness for native
English speakers.

This is that whatever foreign language native English speakers learn it's
nearly always the wrong one. I learnt French and Spanish at school but I
ended up living in Germany and having to learn German from scratch. I'd
have to do the same with most countries I might live in - or I wouldn't
bother and just get by in English (actually this isn't really an option
because I like learning languages).

It's a lot easier for people who don't speak English as their mother
tongue. The default second language is normally English and with this they
can get by in most places.

If a German visits Sweden s/he might be complimented on his/her excellent
English. If a Brit visits Sweden s/he isn't going to be complimented on
the excellent Italian that the Swedish host has never heard him/her speak!

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's
nothing trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Whingin' Pom

June 16th 04, 08:49 AM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:20:53 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> () wrote:

>In ,
>Daniel Barlow > typed:
>> "Ambrose Nankivell" >
>> writes:
>>
>>> accusing me of being an alcoholic instead. Because I mentioned I was
>>> too ill to drink any beer, a relevant symptom, IMHO.
>>>
>>> Anyway, I'm not bitter, honest.
>>
>> Just lager than you were? I hop this doesn't tun into another pun
>> thread; that would ale be a bit much.
>
>I was going to draught you a reply, but I'm bottling it up now. Can't see
>the pint.

Stout fella! I'm getting browned off with this punning. Anything
geuze, or so it seems.

--
Matt K
Dunedin, NZ

Simon Brooke

June 16th 04, 09:35 AM

in message >, Graeme
') wrote:

> "Peter B" > wrote in
> :
>
>> A picture in yesterdays local rag showed a greengrocer leaning over
>> some bananas on scales with the heading stating "Fed up with being
>> pushed around by Brussels".
>
> Lost me a bit there.
>
> <snip>
>> (Or it was some sublety like "Roger the cabin boy" which went over my
>> head when I was five).
>
> There was no subtlety there to miss, the cabin boy was called Tom.
> Urban myth time I'm afraid.

Not strictly. Roger the Ship's Boy is indeed there in children's
literature, merely misplaced into Pugwash. He appears in Swallows and
Amazons.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; 99% of browsers can't run ActiveX controls. Unfortunately
;; 99% of users are using the 1% of browsers that can...
[seen on /. 08:04:02]

MartinM

June 16th 04, 09:47 AM

"Mark South" > wrote in message >...
> "MartinM" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote in
> message >...
> > > In ,
> > > Roger Hughes
> > > > typed:
> > > > the numbers themselves are not particularly important (except
> > > > inasmuch as they will tend to determine psychological barriers, which
> > > > is where this century (and that is entryist American cycling slang,
> > > > too) thing comes in; likewise with getting under the hour or indeed,
> > > > getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)
> > >
> > > More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing) should be 144
> > > miles or something like that anyway.
> > >
> > > A
> >
> > Also, why do we still think there are 12 hours in a day?
>
> Solar or sidereal?

Who's been listening to Albedo 0.39 by Vangelis? ;-)

Mark South

June 16th 04, 09:47 AM

"Peter B" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Holmes" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nowadays, not so fast, but about 55 years ago I was cycling home from
> > work one evening and a motorist started to tail me, after a little while
> it
> > was begining to iritate me and I was just about to stop and say something
> > when he drew anlongside and shorted at me that I was travelling at 30
> > mph, I didn't know what to say as a response.
>
> Oh, a ****ing contest!

All you need to win one of those is a bigger waterbottle than anyone else.

> Nowadays at 50 years old I travel downhill on a road bike at up to 40 mph
> with a tail wind in Leicestershire and 42 mph downhill on rough tarmac roads
> in Derbyshire on an mtb. I once rode downhill at 50mph in Yorkshire.
> Speeds verified in 2 cases on 2 different bike computers on my bikes and in
> the other case with a computer on a friends mtb. These are easier to use at
> 40mph than working it out with a map and stopwatch.

I regularly break the 60 km/h speed limit on roads near where I live. The local
drivers are somewhat law-abiding, so they don't attempt to overtake. Except for
black Audis - some things are the same everywhere.

Of course, that's because there are Big Hills around here :-)
--
"Since you must keep improving, a $5 bike offers a lot more opportunities
to improve it, and can be improved cheaper. It's expensive to improve on
a $2000 bike." - Rick Onanian in rec.bicycles.tech

Tony W

June 16th 04, 10:07 AM

"Peter B" > wrote in message
...
>
> A picture in yesterdays local rag showed a greengrocer leaning over some
> bananas on scales with the heading stating "Fed up with being pushed
around
> by Brussels".

As a child I was sometimes admonished for 'playing with my food' when
pushing cold and soggy brussels round my plate.

They never, as far as I can remember, fought back.

Is this a new GM strain?

> Had this appeared in The Stun I'd have assumed it deliberate but I imagine
> it went over the heads of most at the local rag :-)
> (Or it was some sublety like "Roger the cabin boy" which went over my head
> when I was five).

Is that like Muffin the Mule?

T

Mark South

June 16th 04, 10:08 AM

"MartinM" > wrote in message
om...
> "Mark South" > wrote in message
>...
> > "MartinM" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote in
> > message >...
> > > > In ,
> > > > Roger Hughes
> > > > > typed:
> > > > > the numbers themselves are not particularly important (except
> > > > > inasmuch as they will tend to determine psychological barriers, which
> > > > > is where this century (and that is entryist American cycling slang,
> > > > > too) thing comes in; likewise with getting under the hour or indeed,
> > > > > getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)
> > > >
> > > > More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing) should be 144
> > > > miles or something like that anyway.
> > > >
> > > Also, why do we still think there are 12 hours in a day?
> >
> > Solar or sidereal?
>
> Who's been listening to Albedo 0.39 by Vangelis? ;-)

Not grokked. !?
--
"To ... just not care that there are naked triathletes running
across your lawn, that's just a waste of exhibitionism."
- Kibo, in alt.religion.kibology

Roger Hughes

June 16th 04, 10:48 AM

Whingin' Pom wrote:

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:20:53 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
> > () wrote:
>
>
>>In ,
>>Daniel Barlow > typed:
>>
>>>"Ambrose Nankivell" >
>>>writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>accusing me of being an alcoholic instead. Because I mentioned I was
>>>>too ill to drink any beer, a relevant symptom, IMHO.
>>>>
>>>>Anyway, I'm not bitter, honest.
>>>
>>>Just lager than you were? I hop this doesn't tun into another pun
>>>thread; that would ale be a bit much.
>>
>>I was going to draught you a reply, but I'm bottling it up now. Can't see
>>the pint.
>
>
> Stout fella! I'm getting browned off with this punning. Anything
> geuze, or so it seems.

Well, it is starting to kriek at the seams a bit.

Graeme

June 16th 04, 11:07 AM

(MartinM) wrote in news:3cf5c6dc.0406160047.2ce42214
@posting.google.com:

> Who's been listening to Albedo 0.39 by Vangelis? ;-)
>

I've not heard that in about 15 years! I must dig it out. "Length of the
solar year, equinox to equinox, 365.something or other"

That really takes me back, plus it had the theme tune to "Horses Galore"
(crap programme, good music).

Graeme

Graeme

June 16th 04, 11:19 AM

Graeme > wrote in
4.51:

> I've not heard that in about 15 years! I must dig it out. "Length of
> the solar year, equinox to equinox, 365.something or other"
>

Oops, memory fading a bit. Just found the lyrics on a web site -

Maximum distance from the sun: 94 million 537 thousand miles
Minimum distance from the sun: 91 million 377 thousand miles
Mean distance from the sun: 92 million 957 thousand and 200 miles
Mean Orbital velocity: 66000 miles per hour
0rbital eccentricity: 0.017
Obliquity of the ecliptic: 23 degrees 27 minutes 8.26 seconds
Length of the tropical year: equinox equinox 365.24 days
Lenght of the sidereal year: fixed star fixed star 365.26 days
Length of the mean solar day: 24 hours and 3 minutes and 56.5555 seconds
at mean solar time Length of the mean sidereal day: 23 hours and 56
minutes and 4.091 seconds at mean sederial time Mass: 6600 milion milion
milion tons Equatorial diameter: 7927 miles
Polar diameter: 7900 miles
Oblateness: one 298th
Density: 5.41
Mean surface gravitational acceleration of the rotating earth: 32.174
feet per second per second Escape velocity: 7 miles per second

Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39
Albedo: 0.39

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, thos are the words to a "song" (in the
loosest possible sense)

Graeme

Dave Larrington

June 16th 04, 11:31 AM

Roger Hughes wrote:
> Whingin' Pom wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:20:53 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
>> > () wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In ,
>>> Daniel Barlow > typed:
>>>
>>>> "Ambrose Nankivell" >
>>>> writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> accusing me of being an alcoholic instead. Because I mentioned I
>>>>> was too ill to drink any beer, a relevant symptom, IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, I'm not bitter, honest.
>>>>
>>>> Just lager than you were? I hop this doesn't tun into another pun
>>>> thread; that would ale be a bit much.
>>>
>>> I was going to draught you a reply, but I'm bottling it up now.
>>> Can't see the pint.
>>
>>
>> Stout fella! I'm getting browned off with this punning. Anything
>> geuze, or so it seems.
>
> Well, it is starting to kriek at the seams a bit.

Yer not wrong there. I'm going to Hoe the gaarden...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Dave Larrington

June 16th 04, 11:32 AM

Tony W wrote:
> "Peter B" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> A picture in yesterdays local rag showed a greengrocer leaning over
>> some bananas on scales with the heading stating "Fed up with being
>> pushed around by Brussels".
>
> As a child I was sometimes admonished for 'playing with my food' when
> pushing cold and soggy brussels round my plate.
>
> They never, as far as I can remember, fought back.
>
> Is this a new GM strain?
>

Yes. They are a Work of Stan.

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Tony W

June 16th 04, 11:48 AM

"James Hodson" > wrote in message
...
>
> ********. It's their size that that interests them.

I can forward lots of spam that may help you with this problem.

T

James Annan

June 16th 04, 12:19 PM

Michael MacClancy wrote:

>
> This is that whatever foreign language native English speakers learn it's
> nearly always the wrong one.

Wot e sed.

James

(If someone had told me 20 years ago that I was going to spend several
years working in Japan, I certainly wouldn't have wasted my time on poxy
French.)

Nick Kew

June 16th 04, 12:21 PM

In article >,
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> writes:

> When backpacking in Italy last summer, I was horrified by the lack of
> language skills possessed by many of the people we met. The non-native
> English speakers we met, all spoke reasonable-to-perfect English,

You evidently never went off the beaten track.

Outside the honeypots, few Italians speak any english at all.

> (We think the owner
> took pity on the obviously stupid foreigners!).

Broadly speaking, Italians have a much more laid-back/flexible attitude
than Brits.

--
Nick Kew (who lived&worked nearly six years in Italy)

Gawnsoft

June 16th 04, 01:26 PM

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 07:42:16 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

>Michael MacClancy opined the following...
>> I'm so glad you wrote 'English' there. Of course the Scots, Irish and
>> Welsh have such wonderful reputations for their linguistic skills, don't
>> they? (Not counting those poor souls who feel oppressed because they have
>> to speak a foreign language in their own countries, that is.)
>
>The Scots don't tend to move that far from their homeland... after all,
>nowhere else in the world could be better! ;-)

No - they tend to move then start mythologising about how no place
could be better.

....
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Gawnsoft

June 16th 04, 01:26 PM

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 12:58:29 +0100, Michael MacClancy
> wrote (more or less):

>On 15 Jun 2004 09:35:36 GMT, Arthur Clune wrote:
>
>> Given that the English are the worst nation in
>> the world for moving somewhere and then only ever speaking english to other
>> ex-pats stuff like this always annoys me.
>
>I'm so glad you wrote 'English' there. Of course the Scots, Irish and
>Welsh have such wonderful reputations for their linguistic skills, don't
>they? (Not counting those poor souls who feel oppressed because they have
>to speak a foreign language in their own countries, that is.)
>
>;-)
>
>Mind you, do you really think the English are worse than the Merkins?

There are substanytial parts of the US which are bi-lingual, and other
parts which are monolingual but not in English.

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Brendan Halpin

June 16th 04, 01:31 PM

Michael MacClancy > writes:

> I'm so glad you wrote 'English' there. Of course the Scots, Irish and
> Welsh have such wonderful reputations for their linguistic skills, don't
> they? (Not counting those poor souls who feel oppressed because they have
> to speak a foreign language in their own countries, that is.)

Speak for yourself. In my experience the Irish have a much better
attitude to other languages than the average UKian. Certainly
languages are in a much stronger position in Irish universities
than in British.

Brendan
--
Brendan Halpin, Department of Sociology, University of Limerick, Ireland
Tel: w +353-61-213147 f +353-61-202569 h +353-61-390476; Room F2-025 x 3147
http://www.ul.ie/sociology/brendan.halpin.html

Michael MacClancy

June 16th 04, 01:50 PM

On 16 Jun 2004 13:31:36 +0100, Brendan Halpin wrote:

> Michael MacClancy > writes:
>
>> I'm so glad you wrote 'English' there. Of course the Scots, Irish and
>> Welsh have such wonderful reputations for their linguistic skills, don't
>> they? (Not counting those poor souls who feel oppressed because they have
>> to speak a foreign language in their own countries, that is.)
>
> Speak for yourself. In my experience the Irish have a much better
> attitude to other languages than the average UKian. Certainly
> languages are in a much stronger position in Irish universities
> than in British.
>
> Brendan

I stand corrected.

Might that be because many Irish expect to continue the tradition of
leaving Ireland for distant lands? ('Getting on your bike' a la Norman
Tebbit, to bring this vaguely back OT.)

;-)
--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "He loves nature in spite of what it did to him." -
Forrest Tucker
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Nick Kew

June 16th 04, 01:56 PM

>> This is that whatever foreign language native English speakers learn it's
>> nearly always the wrong one.

Nah. I learned all my languages when I lived in countries where they
are natively spoken. So they were all the right one for the time.

Oh, except french, which we supposedly did at school. But since our
french teacher never turned up for lessons, we just played bridge
instead, so nothing lost.

> (If someone had told me 20 years ago that I was going to spend several
> years working in Japan,

during which you presumably learned japanese.

--
Nick Kew

MartinM

June 16th 04, 03:18 PM

Graeme > wrote in message >...
> Graeme > wrote in
> 4.51:
>
> > I've not heard that in about 15 years! I must dig it out. "Length of
> > the solar year, equinox to equinox, 365.something or other"
> >
>
> Oops, memory fading a bit. Just found the lyrics on a web site -
>
> Maximum distance from the sun: 94 million 537 thousand miles
> Minimum distance from the sun: 91 million 377 thousand miles
> Mean distance from the sun: 92 million 957 thousand and 200 miles
> Mean Orbital velocity: 66000 miles per hour
> 0rbital eccentricity: 0.017
> Obliquity of the ecliptic: 23 degrees 27 minutes 8.26 seconds
> Length of the tropical year: equinox equinox 365.24 days
> Lenght of the sidereal year: fixed star fixed star 365.26 days
> Length of the mean solar day: 24 hours and 3 minutes and 56.5555 seconds
> at mean solar time Length of the mean sidereal day: 23 hours and 56
> minutes and 4.091 seconds at mean sederial time Mass: 6600 milion milion
> milion tons Equatorial diameter: 7927 miles
> Polar diameter: 7900 miles
> Oblateness: one 298th
> Density: 5.41
> Mean surface gravitational acceleration of the rotating earth: 32.174
> feet per second per second Escape velocity: 7 miles per second
>
> Albedo: 0.39
> Albedo: 0.39
> Albedo: 0.39
> Albedo: 0.39
> Albedo: 0.39
> Albedo: 0.39
> Albedo: 0.39
>
>
> Yes, ladies and gentlemen, thos are the words to a "song" (in the
> loosest possible sense)
>
> Graeme

Brilliant, second only to The Bounty soundtrack.
Who spoke the "lyrics" not credited? ps available on various 5.99
bests of Vangelis CD's

Michael MacClancy

June 16th 04, 04:02 PM

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:56:59 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:

>>> This is that whatever foreign language native English speakers learn it's
>>> nearly always the wrong one.
>
> Nah. I learned all my languages when I lived in countries where they
> are natively spoken. So they were all the right one for the time.
>
> Oh, except french, which we supposedly did at school. But since our
> french teacher never turned up for lessons, we just played bridge
> instead, so nothing lost.
>

What sort of elitist school did you go to that you played bridge? We
played brag - and plenty was lost.

Anyway, don't you think that doing Italian in school would have been a more
useful application of your time (than French or bridge)?

;-)

--
Michael MacClancy
Random putdown - "I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter
saying I approved of it." - Mark Twain
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
www.macclancy.co.uk

Nick Kew

June 16th 04, 06:19 PM

In article >,
Michael MacClancy > writes:

> What sort of elitist school did you go to that you played bridge?

Prompted by that comment, I just googled ...
http://www.priory.e-sussex.sch.uk/

They must've had some serious rebuilding since my day. And a split ...

> We
> played brag - and plenty was lost.

By whom?

> Anyway, don't you think that doing Italian in school would have been a more
> useful application of your time (than French or bridge)?

Nope:-)

--
Nick Kew

Alan Holmes

June 16th 04, 07:09 PM

"Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote in
message ...
> In ,
> Alan Holmes > typed:
> > "Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote
> > in message ...
> >> He wrote it in English.
> >
> > You may not be aware that this country still measures distance in
> > miles!
>
> And plenty of English speaking countries don't.

Have you bothered to read the title of this newsgroup, it starts
with the letters 'uk' which implies that it is directed primarily
to the occupants of a small island just off the west coast of europe,
otherwise known as Great Britain!

Alan

Alan Holmes

June 16th 04, 07:11 PM

"David Martin" > wrote in message
...
> On 14/6/04 10:02 pm, in article , "Alan
> Holmes" > wrote:
>
> > Well as I've said in another post, in England distances are measured in
> > miles.
>
> And in kilometers as well. Furlongs, chains, poles and perches if you
really
> want.
>
> In fact I prefer kilometers as they make me feel like I'm going faster
than
> I probably am when I look at the psycho computer...

ROTFL

Thank you.

Alan

Alan Holmes

June 16th 04, 07:33 PM

"Nick Kew" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> writes:
>
> > When backpacking in Italy last summer, I was horrified by the lack of
> > language skills possessed by many of the people we met. The non-native
> > English speakers we met, all spoke reasonable-to-perfect English,
>
> You evidently never went off the beaten track.
>
> Outside the honeypots, few Italians speak any english at all.
>
> > (We think the owner
> > took pity on the obviously stupid foreigners!).
>
> Broadly speaking, Italians have a much more laid-back/flexible attitude
> than Brits.

When I was in Italy I was always being asked if I was American!

But I did try to learn the basics!

Alan

>
> --
> Nick Kew (who lived&worked nearly six years in Italy)

Alan Holmes

June 16th 04, 07:41 PM

"Dave Kahn" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:01:44 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
> >Alan Holmes wrote:
> >
> >> travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
> >> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the
> >> bike was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing
> >> for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk
> >> and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across
> >> the Cotswolds.
> >
> >See what happens when you get the decimal point in the wrong place? You
> >look like an eejit!

I must have missed this, but if you try pacing a few cyclists when
out in you car, you will be surprised at the speeds they do travel at.

25 is often a speed that some travel at and I have followed one
or two at 30.

MPH of course.

Alan

Alan Holmes

June 16th 04, 07:49 PM

"Peter B" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Alan Holmes" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nowadays, not so fast, but about 55 years ago I was cycling home from
> > work one evening and a motorist started to tail me, after a little while
> it
> > was begining to iritate me and I was just about to stop and say
something
> > when he drew anlongside and shorted at me that I was travelling at 30
> > mph, I didn't know what to say as a response.
>
> Oh, a ****ing contest!
> Nowadays at 50 years old I travel downhill on a road bike at up to 40 mph
> with a tail wind in Leicestershire and 42 mph downhill on rough tarmac
roads
> in Derbyshire on an mtb. I once rode downhill at 50mph in Yorkshire.
> Speeds verified in 2 cases on 2 different bike computers on my bikes and
in
> the other case with a computer on a friends mtb. These are easier to use
at
> 40mph than working it out with a map and stopwatch.
>
> >
> > Have you noticed that journeys home are always faster than the journey
> out?
>
> Only when I get the route and wind direction to work in unison.
>
> > which means I
> > had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
> > (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the
bike
> > was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing for that
> > time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc, that
> > wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across the Cotswolds.
>
> And then the alarm clock woke you up and it was a wet Monday morning ;-)

Oh, you are a synic!

But I forgive you.

Alan

> --
> Regards,
> Pete
>
>
>

Alan Holmes

June 16th 04, 07:51 PM

"Daniel Barlow" > wrote in message
...
> "Alan Holmes" > writes:
>
> > And why so slow?
>
> Why so insecure?

Who is insecure?

Alan
>
>
> -dan
>
> --
> "please make sure that the person is your friend before you confirm"

MartinM

June 16th 04, 09:24 PM

"Tony W" > wrote in message >...
> "Peter B" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > A picture in yesterdays local rag showed a greengrocer leaning over some
> > bananas on scales with the heading stating "Fed up with being pushed
> around
> > by Brussels".
>
> As a child I was sometimes admonished for 'playing with my food' when
> pushing cold and soggy brussels round my plate.
>
> They never, as far as I can remember, fought back.
>
> Is this a new GM strain?
>
>
> > Had this appeared in The Stun I'd have assumed it deliberate but I imagine
> > it went over the heads of most at the local rag :-)
> > (Or it was some sublety like "Roger the cabin boy" which went over my head
> > when I was five).
>
> Is that like Muffin the Mule?
>
> T

Cue Smirnoff joke.

If Brussels' are so nice why do we only ever eat them at Xmas?

Just zis Guy, you know?

June 16th 04, 10:02 PM

On 16 Jun 2004 13:24:55 -0700, (MartinM) wrote in
message >:

>If Brussels' are so nice why do we only ever eat them at Xmas?

Just so. And everybody hates getting presents, as well...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Simon Brooke

June 16th 04, 10:05 PM

in message >, MartinM
') wrote:

> "Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote
> in message >...
>> In ,
>> Roger Hughes
>> >
>> typed:
>> > the numbers themselves are not particularly important (except
>> > inasmuch as they will tend to determine psychological barriers,
>> > which is where this century (and that is entryist American cycling
>> > slang, too) thing comes in; likewise with getting under the hour or
>> > indeed, getting one's weight back down below 15 stone)
>>
>> More to the point, surely an imperial century(style thing) should be
>> 144 miles or something like that anyway.
>
> 112 actually ;-)

Have you posted this a gross of times?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GP/CS s++: a+ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++ W+++ N++ K w--(---)
M- !d- PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

James Annan

June 16th 04, 10:30 PM

Nick Kew wrote:

>
>>(If someone had told me 20 years ago that I was going to spend several
>>years working in Japan,
>
>
> during which you presumably learned japanese.

Am learning, slowly, but it is hard going and will be absolutely no use
to me unless I stay here for a very long time (which is not likely, but
possible). More likely, I will go somewhere else, and have to start
again...meanwhile the whole scientific world communicates in english so
there is really no purpose in learning anything else.

James

Ambrose Nankivell

June 16th 04, 10:47 PM

In ,
James Annan > typed:
> Nick Kew wrote:
>>> (If someone had told me 20 years ago that I was going to spend
>>> several years working in Japan,
>>
>> during which you presumably learned japanese.
>
> Am learning, slowly, but it is hard going and will be absolutely no
> use to me unless I stay here for a very long time (which is not
> likely, but possible). More likely, I will go somewhere else, and
> have to start again

Presumably it's easier the second time round. Especially given that most of
the research world speaks germanic or romance languages, unlike Japan.

a

Keith Willoughby

June 16th 04, 10:52 PM

Dave Larrington wrote:

> Roger Hughes wrote:
>> Whingin' Pom wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 15:20:53 +0100, "Ambrose Nankivell"
>>> > () wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In ,
>>>> Daniel Barlow > typed:
>>>>
>>>>> "Ambrose Nankivell" >
>>>>> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> accusing me of being an alcoholic instead. Because I mentioned I
>>>>>> was too ill to drink any beer, a relevant symptom, IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, I'm not bitter, honest.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just lager than you were? I hop this doesn't tun into another pun
>>>>> thread; that would ale be a bit much.
>>>>
>>>> I was going to draught you a reply, but I'm bottling it up now.
>>>> Can't see the pint.
>>>
>>>
>>> Stout fella! I'm getting browned off with this punning. Anything
>>> geuze, or so it seems.
>>
>> Well, it is starting to kriek at the seams a bit.
>
> Yer not wrong there. I'm going to Hoe the gaarden...

What are you witte'ring on about? I think you're kwaking up.

--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Taffy was a Welshman, Taffy was a thief"

James Annan

June 16th 04, 11:01 PM

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> Presumably it's easier the second time round. Especially given that most of
> the research world speaks germanic or romance languages, unlike Japan.

It'll be easier because just about anywhere is easier than Japan!

James

Ambrose Nankivell

June 16th 04, 11:05 PM

In ,
James Annan > typed:
> Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
>> Presumably it's easier the second time round. Especially given that
>> most of the research world speaks germanic or romance languages,
>> unlike Japan.
>
> It'll be easier because just about anywhere is easier than Japan!
>
Well, I bet it's easier to do research there than Kyrgyzystan.

A

James Annan

June 16th 04, 11:27 PM

Ambrose Nankivell wrote:

> Well, I bet it's easier to do research there than Kyrgyzystan.

Since (a) the employees all speak english and (b) the lab is well
funded, it's easier to do research here than most other places,
including the UK.

James

Graeme

June 17th 04, 04:46 AM

(MartinM) wrote in news:3cf5c6dc.0406160618.3c860072
@posting.google.com:

> Who spoke the "lyrics" not credited? ps available on various 5.99
> bests of Vangelis CD's
>

According to one of the web sites I found, it was the sound engineer Keith
Spencer-Allen.

I'll have a look round the record shops as I think the only copy I had was
a cassette copied from a friend many years ago that has no doubt
disappeared.

Graeme

Arthur Clune

June 17th 04, 09:00 AM

Alan Holmes > wrote:

: I must have missed this, but if you try pacing a few cyclists when
: out in you car, you will be surprised at the speeds they do travel at.

Remember most car speedos are 10% over.

: 25 is often a speed that some travel at and I have followed one
: or two at 30.

25 - 10% = 22-23mph. Much easier to sustain.

30 mph is achivable for a very good athlete on level ground for a few miles.
(say 10 miles without traffic assistance, more if you are a pro).

For the rest of us it needs a downhill or a tailwind. That said, for a reasonably
stong cyclist it takes only a very small gradient or medium wind.

This assumes you aren't in a group.

: MPH of course.

*However*, this is a very different kettle of fish to averaging 30mph.

Arthur

--
Arthur Clune http://www.clune.org
"Technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect"
- Paulina Borsook

Just zis Guy, you know?

June 17th 04, 09:21 AM

Arthur Clune wrote:

>> I must have missed this, but if you try pacing a few cyclists when
>> out in you car, you will be surprised at the speeds they do travel
>> at.

> Remember most car speedos are 10% over.

Car speedos are meant to be within +/- 10% at 30mph, and most manufacturers
(not Mercedes, I understand) err on the high side to avoid being sued when
someone is caught speeding, but I'd be surprised if the over-read is as high
as 10% on many cars these days.

--
Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

Ian G Batten

June 17th 04, 09:38 AM

In article >,
Just zis Guy, you know? > wrote:
> > Remember most car speedos are 10% over.
>
> Car speedos are meant to be within +/- 10% at 30mph, and most manufacturers

From Hansard, 12 Mar 2001:

Lord Allen of Abbeydale asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether, in the light of the increasing importance of speed
limits, they have any plans to make it easier for the private
motorist to have his speedometer tested for accuracy.[HL839]

Lord Whitty: The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986,
as amended, allows the use of speedometers that meet the requirements of
EC Community Directive 75/443(97/39) or ECE Regulation 39. Both the EC
Directive and the ECE Regulation lay down accuracy requirements to be
applied at the time of vehicle approval for speedometers. These
requirements are that the indicated speed must not be more than 10 per
cent of the true speed plus 4 km/h. In production, however, a slightly
different tolerance of 5 per cent plus 10 km/h is applied. The
requirements are also that the indicated speed must never be less than
the true speed.

A vehicle meeting these requirements would not be able to travel at a
greater speed than that shown on the speedometer and a driver could not,
therefore, inadvertently exceed speed restrictions. Her Majesty's
Government have no plans to introduce instrument tests.

MartinM

June 17th 04, 12:17 PM

Graeme > wrote in message >...
> (MartinM) wrote in news:3cf5c6dc.0406160618.3c860072
> @posting.google.com:
>
> > Who spoke the "lyrics" not credited? ps available on various 5.99
> > bests of Vangelis CD's
> >
>
> According to one of the web sites I found, it was the sound engineer Keith
> Spencer-Allen.
>
> I'll have a look round the record shops as I think the only copy I had was
> a cassette copied from a friend many years ago that has no doubt
> disappeared.
>
> Graeme

I have it on CD, but no use to you in these days of Napster ;-(

MartinM

June 17th 04, 12:27 PM

Graeme > wrote in message >...
> (MartinM) wrote in news:3cf5c6dc.0406160618.3c860072
> @posting.google.com:
>
> > Who spoke the "lyrics" not credited? ps available on various 5.99
> > bests of Vangelis CD's
> >
>
> According to one of the web sites I found, it was the sound engineer Keith
> Spencer-Allen.
>
> I'll have a look round the record shops as I think the only copy I had was
> a cassette copied from a friend many years ago that has no doubt
> disappeared.
>
> Graeme

For the benefit of anyone wondering what all this is about you can
hear a sample here:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B000005S1U/qid=1087471500/sr=1-27/ref=sr_1_2_27/202-0835062-2003831

Just zis Guy, you know?

June 17th 04, 07:05 PM

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:33:27 +0100, "Alan Holmes"
> wrote in message
>:

>When I was in Italy I was always being asked if I was American!

Tch! Never ask a man if he is American. If he is, he will tell you
soon enough; if he is not, why offend him?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Martin Törnsten

June 18th 04, 11:49 AM

Captain's log. On StarDate Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:05:02 +0100 received comm from
"Just zis Guy, you know?" > on channel
uk.rec.cycling:

: On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:33:27 +0100, "Alan Holmes"
: > wrote in message
: >:
:
: >When I was in Italy I was always being asked if I was American!
:
: Tch! Never ask a man if he is American. If he is, he will tell you
: soon enough; if he is not, why offend him?

My experience from Italians is that their mostly found of America and american
things, so I don't think you should feel offended in that situation (as a matter
of fact I like USA and many americans as well on a general basis)!

Distinti saluti,

martin törnsten

- who really likes England *a lot* (especially would love to live in London),
but perhaps USA (epecially NYC) and Italy even a bit more.

--
http://82.182.73.126/

Mark South

June 18th 04, 12:00 PM

"Martin Törnsten" > wrote in message
...
> Captain's log. On StarDate Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:05:02 +0100 received comm from
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" > on channel
> uk.rec.cycling:
>
> : On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:33:27 +0100, "Alan Holmes"
> : > wrote in message
> : >:
> :
> : >When I was in Italy I was always being asked if I was American!
> :
> : Tch! Never ask a man if he is American. If he is, he will tell you
> : soon enough; if he is not, why offend him?
>
> My experience from Italians is that their mostly found of America and american
> things, so I don't think you should feel offended in that situation (as a
matter
> of fact I like USA and many americans as well on a general basis)!

The trouble with this advice is that it seems a little dated. Most of Europe is
becoming far more anti-America than it has been for several decades.

Individuals may get by just fine, but being taken for American can get in the
way of having a pleasant trouble-free time.

> - who really likes England *a lot* (especially would love to live in London),

Not exactly the cyclist's dream though.

> but perhaps USA (epecially NYC) and Italy even a bit more.

Good luck. To cycle in the first you need big tough locks. To cycle in the
last you need the same, but put "bol" in fron of the last word.
--
"Do stairs, stairs, and more stairs,
wherever you can find them."
- Jim Roberts in rec.backcountry

Eugenio Mastroviti

June 18th 04, 01:37 PM

On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:00:12 +0200, Mark South wrote:

> Good luck. To cycle in the first you need big tough locks. To cycle in the
> last you need the same, but put "bol" in fron of the last word.

LOL too true, especially in the south. I may be one of the few who find
cycling in London a relaxing experience, after some 15 years spent cycling
in Bari, Italy.

Eugenio

Eugenio Mastroviti

June 18th 04, 01:46 PM

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:21:11 +0100, Nick Kew wrote:

>> (We think the owner
>> took pity on the obviously stupid foreigners!).
>
> Broadly speaking, Italians have a much more laid-back/flexible attitude
> than Brits.

Well, the first time I came to England, many years ago, on vacation, my
English was very poor and my accent appalling, but I found the Brits to
be extremely helpful and kind, on average - except for an extremely drunk
elderly gentleman in Cambridge, who apparently mistook me for an Arab,
judging from his repeated use of the term "raghead", which was about the
only thing I understood of his somewhat long rant.

Eugenio

Nick Kew

June 18th 04, 07:09 PM

In article >,
Eugenio Mastroviti > writes:

> LOL too true, especially in the south. I may be one of the few who find
> cycling in London a relaxing experience, after some 15 years spent cycling
> in Bari, Italy.

I've not done Bari, but I cycled several years in the Roma area, and in
other parts including Sicilia. It's just a different style of driving.
And I've cycled in London. I have to say I've found London easier in
many ways than other parts of the UK. The drivers may be aggressive,
but at least they look where they're going.

--
Nick Kew

Ambrose Nankivell

June 18th 04, 11:29 PM

In ,
Alan Holmes > typed:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote
> in message ...
>> In ,
>> Alan Holmes > typed:
>>> "Ambrose Nankivell" >
>>> wrote in message ...
>>>> He wrote it in English.
>>>
>>> You may not be aware that this country still measures distance in
>>> miles!
>>
>> And plenty of English speaking countries don't.
>
> Have you bothered to read the title of this newsgroup, it starts
> with the letters 'uk' which implies that it is directed primarily
> to the occupants of a small island just off the west coast of europe,
> otherwise known as Great Britain!

Good geography. Great Britain is actually a strict subset of the UK, and is
the combination of Britain, the 9th largest island in the world and its
surrounding islands.

You're the one who asked for it in English. How was I to know you meant in
UKian?

A

Martin Törnsten

June 19th 04, 01:41 AM

Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:00:12 +0200 received comm from
"Mark South" > on channel uk.rec.cycling:

: The trouble with this advice is that it seems a little dated. Most of Europe is
: becoming far more anti-America than it has been for several decades.

Unfortunately. Personally I'm almost the other way around and becoming far more
anti-french and anti-German than ever before (but only on a general level -- I
try to see individuals as the individuals they are and judge them first after
knowing more about them).

: Individuals may get by just fine, but being taken for American can get in the
: way of having a pleasant trouble-free time.

I'm sure that some (I absolutely don't) view English the same in many parts of
the world.

We Swedes used to not be very welcome as well in some areas (mainly in some
resorts who have had to many drunk youngster from Sweden being destructive).

: > - who really likes England *a lot* (especially would love to live in London),
:
: Not exactly the cyclist's dream though.

I can imagine that.

: > but perhaps USA (epecially NYC) and Italy even a bit more.
:
: Good luck. To cycle in the first you need big tough locks. To cycle in the
: last you need the same, but put "bol" in fron of the last word.

You know, even if I like cycling, it's much more to life than that. To decide at
which place I want to live it's not going to be the main factor. I'm sorry if I
disappoint any fellow cyclists in this group by saying that.

On the other hand on of the very good thing with cycling is that it's almost
possible to do almost everywhere in the world, in one form or another. :-)

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

Alan Holmes

June 20th 04, 01:37 PM

"Mark Thompson" > wrote in message
93.157...
> > I tend to think of it more as simply short sighted stupidity. Science
> > and engineering went metric a long time ago and it'll stay there, so
> > all the imperial measurements are just a way of making life more
> > complicated because you have to know 2 sets rather than just 1.
>
> Yeah, the buggers. Despite being a child of the metric age I estimate
very
> short distances in inches, measure them in cm, estimate longer ones in
> feet, then measure them in metres, use kg for small weights but stones for
> me, cycle/drive in miles and walk in km, and buy beer in pints when I'd
> rather a litre!

And we buy plywood in metric thicknesses but in 8 X 4 foot sheets!

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

Alan Holmes

June 20th 04, 01:44 PM

"Roger Hughes"
> wrote in
message ...
> James Hodson wrote:
>
> > Horses for courses, IMO. Some things are more sensibly measured in
> > imperial units whereas others make more sense when metric is used.
> >
> > Imperial works well for human measurements of height and weight. In my
> > case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense than ~=80 kg and 1.83m.
>
Stuff deleted:-

> > The attitudes of keeping the mile at all costs and we must convert
> > completely to metric are simply opposite sides of the same coin. (Not
> > the Euro, obviously! :-)
>
> I feel that to do the job properly you should be insisting on a return
> to pounds, shillings and pence. Shouldn't cause much difficulty in the
> computer age, anyway.

I never have any problems with LSD even without the use of computers,
in fact some people have problems with metric, some time ago I bought
some fish and chips, the bill came to £2.20 I presented a £10 note and a
20 pence piece, the operator could not work out the difference without
a computer!

I do wonder how many people today would cope with 960 farthings to
the pound.

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

Alan Holmes

June 20th 04, 01:45 PM

"James Hodson" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:46:25 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > wrote:
>
> >Absolutely impossible, As was the fact that I grew nearly two inches in
> >height after the age of 21.
>
> I was 6'00" at 13 and still am the same height. My weight, however,
> may have altered up and down over the years.

You're lucky it's been going down, mine won't whatever I do.

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

Alan Holmes

June 20th 04, 01:52 PM

"Alan Holmes" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Kahn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:01:44 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >Alan Holmes wrote:
> > >
> > >> travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
> > >> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the
> > >> bike was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing
> > >> for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk
> > >> and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across
> > >> the Cotswolds.
> > >
> > >See what happens when you get the decimal point in the wrong place?
You
> > >look like an eejit!
>
> I must have missed this, but if you try pacing a few cyclists when
> out in you car, you will be surprised at the speeds they do travel at.
>
> 25 is often a speed that some travel at and I have followed one
> or two at 30.

Today I was travelling along the A4 when I paced one or two cyclists,
the first two were travelling at about 30mph the third was doing 35
mph, when I got up close to the third cyclist I saw it was a GIRL, can
you imagine a FEMALE cycling at that speed?

The first two were men and I came to the conclusion that the
speedometer had detected the third was a female and got all hot and
othered, (as I do), and registered a speed about 20mph faster than
she was actually travelling!

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

Alan Holmes

June 20th 04, 01:58 PM

> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:32:56 +0900, James Annan
> > wrote:
>
> >Alan Holmes wrote:
>
> >> I
> >> had travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
> >> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the
bike
> >> was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing for
that
> >> time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk and etc,
that
> >> wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across the Cotswolds.
> >
> >Oh, I remember you. You popped in here a few years ago with your
> >ridiculous exploits, impervious to reason, and insisted that you really
> >had done this journey at that impossible speed.
> >
> >You didn't. There neve has been, and probably never will be, a human
> >capable of that feat. It's not close enough to reality to be remotely
> >plausible.

I also cycled to a town called Carnforth in Lancaster about 260
miles in about 10 hours, just to go to a folk dance.

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

Ambrose Nankivell

June 20th 04, 02:06 PM

In ,
Alan Holmes > typed:
> "Alan Holmes" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Dave Kahn" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:01:44 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
>>>>> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that
>>>>> the bike was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and
>>>>> clothing for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water
>>>>> container, milk and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as
>>>>> the trip was across the Cotswolds.
>>>>
>>>> See what happens when you get the decimal point in the wrong
>>>> place? You look like an eejit!
>>
>> I must have missed this, but if you try pacing a few cyclists when
>> out in you car, you will be surprised at the speeds they do travel
>> at.
>>
>> 25 is often a speed that some travel at and I have followed one
>> or two at 30.
>
> Today I was travelling along the A4 when I paced one or two cyclists,
> the first two were travelling at about 30mph the third was doing 35
> mph, when I got up close to the third cyclist I saw it was a GIRL, can
> you imagine a FEMALE cycling at that speed?
>
> The first two were men and I came to the conclusion that the
> speedometer had detected the third was a female and got all hot and
> othered, (as I do), and registered a speed about 20mph faster than
> she was actually travelling!

BUYBT

Tony Raven

June 20th 04, 04:00 PM

Alan Holmes wrote:
>
> I also cycled to a town called Carnforth in Lancaster about 260
> miles in about 10 hours, just to go to a folk dance.
>

Now we know you're mad. Nobody in their right mind goes to a folk dance.

Tony ;-)

Jon Senior

June 21st 04, 12:13 AM

Alan Holmes opined the following...
> I never have any problems with LSD even without the use of computers,
> in fact some people have problems with metric, some time ago I bought
> some fish and chips, the bill came to =A32.20 I presented a =A310 note an=
d a
> 20 pence piece, the operator could not work out the difference without
> a computer!

That's not a problem with metric... that's a problem with maths. Anyone=20
who needs assistance for 10 - 2 is going to struggle whatever the=20
numerical base.

> I do wonder how many people today would cope with 960 farthings to
> the pound.

Fewer than cope with 100 pence. Given the whole "10 digits on two=20
hands" thing, base 10 does tend to be a simple one for us.

Jon

Jon Senior

June 21st 04, 12:13 AM

Alan Holmes opined the following...
> And we buy plywood in metric thicknesses but in 8 X 4 foot sheets!

No. We buy it in 2440mm x 1220mm sheets. This may happen to coincide
with 8' x 4' but it still sold in mm.

Jon

Jon Senior

June 21st 04, 12:13 AM

Alan Holmes opined the following...
> Today I was travelling along the A4 when I paced one or two cyclists,
> the first two were travelling at about 30mph the third was doing 35
> mph, when I got up close to the third cyclist I saw it was a GIRL, can
> you imagine a FEMALE cycling at that speed?
>
> The first two were men and I came to the conclusion that the
> speedometer had detected the third was a female and got all hot and
> othered, (as I do), and registered a speed about 20mph faster than
> she was actually travelling!

Come on. Whoever's alter-ego this is should probably own up. :-)

Jon

Gawnsoft

June 21st 04, 04:39 AM

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:13:52 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

>Alan Holmes opined the following...
>> And we buy plywood in metric thicknesses but in 8 X 4 foot sheets!
>
>No. We buy it in 2440mm x 1220mm sheets. This may happen to coincide
>with 8' x 4' but it still sold in mm.

Depends where you buy your sheets. Some sell 2444mm x 1222mm sheets,
labelled as " 8' x 4' "

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Jon Senior

June 21st 04, 08:11 AM

Gawnsoft opined the
following...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 00:13:52 +0100, Jon Senior
> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):
>
> >Alan Holmes opined the following...
> >> And we buy plywood in metric thicknesses but in 8 X 4 foot sheets!
> >
> >No. We buy it in 2440mm x 1220mm sheets. This may happen to coincide
> >with 8' x 4' but it still sold in mm.
>
> Depends where you buy your sheets. Some sell 2444mm x 1222mm sheets,
> labelled as " 8' x 4' "

Then if you don't like them, you can report them. ;-) The place that
they source the board from may label them as such, but they are
technically sold in mm not feet. Just as it is possible to buy goods
(usually from markets) by the pound, they are sold in kilos. In a few
years all the die-hard imperial lovers will have passed on, and those of
us who think that multiples of 10 are sensible will happily buy our
sheets of wood in mm.

Jon (A child of the metric age!)

David Martin

June 21st 04, 09:51 AM

On 21/6/04 12:13 am, in article ,
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

> Fewer than cope with 100 pence. Given the whole "10 digits on two
> hands" thing, base 10 does tend to be a simple one for us.

Two dozen on two hands surely? Far easier to keep tabs on as you can use the
thumbs to point to the relevant number?

Dozens make perfect sense, far more than tens..

1 gross (+12) is the largest number you can count to on two hands in base
12.

...d

Simon Brooke

June 21st 04, 11:35 AM

in message >, Alan Holmes
') wrote:

>
> "Roger Hughes"
> >
> wrote in message ...
>> James Hodson wrote:
>>
>> > Horses for courses, IMO. Some things are more sensibly measured in
>> > imperial units whereas others make more sense when metric is used.
>> >
>> > Imperial works well for human measurements of height and weight. In
>> > my case, 12.5 stones and 6'00" makes more sense than ~=80 kg and
>> > 1.83m.
>>
> Stuff deleted:-
>
>> > The attitudes of keeping the mile at all costs and we must convert
>> > completely to metric are simply opposite sides of the same coin.
>> > (Not the Euro, obviously! :-)
>>
>> I feel that to do the job properly you should be insisting on a
>> return
>> to pounds, shillings and pence. Shouldn't cause much difficulty in
>> the computer age, anyway.
>
> I never have any problems with LSD even without the use of computers,
> in fact some people have problems with metric, some time ago I bought
> some fish and chips, the bill came to £2.20 I presented a £10 note and
> a 20 pence piece, the operator could not work out the difference
> without a computer!
>
> I do wonder how many people today would cope with 960 farthings to
> the pound.

Or thirteen shillings and fourpence to the Merk Scots.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; All in all you're just another hick in the mall
-- Drink C'lloid

James Hodson

June 21st 04, 12:35 PM

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 13:45:53 +0100, "Alan Holmes"
> wrote:

>You're lucky it's been going down, mine won't whatever I do.

uk.rec.cycling.liposuction or uk.rec.cycling.body-part-sales ?

Mine goes up when I slob and down when I don't. However, most of the
time, Alan, I do carry around some spare capacity so losing weight
isn't necessarily too hard. It just takes a bit of effort on my part.

James

Ambrose Nankivell

June 21st 04, 12:43 PM

In ,
Alan Holmes > typed:
> "James Hodson" > wrote in
> message ...
>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:46:25 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutely impossible, As was the fact that I grew nearly two
>>> inches in height after the age of 21.
>>
>> I was 6'00" at 13 and still am the same height. My weight, however,
>> may have altered up and down over the years.
>
> You're lucky it's been going down, mine won't whatever I do.

Why not pop out to do a century ride for an hour or three?

A

Alan Holmes

June 21st 04, 01:03 PM

"Tony Raven" > wrote in message
...
> Alan Holmes wrote:
> >
> > I also cycled to a town called Carnforth in Lancaster about 260
> > miles in about 10 hours, just to go to a folk dance.
> >
>
> Now we know you're mad. Nobody in their right mind goes to a folk dance.

I'm begining to realise that now, but 50 years too late!(:-)

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

Simon Brooke

June 21st 04, 01:05 PM

in message >, David Martin
') wrote:

> On 21/6/04 12:13 am, in article
> , "Jon Senior"
> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:
>
>> Fewer than cope with 100 pence. Given the whole "10 digits on two
>> hands" thing, base 10 does tend to be a simple one for us.
>
> Two dozen on two hands surely? Far easier to keep tabs on as you can
> use the thumbs to point to the relevant number?

Oh, come on. You can easily count to 32 on the fingers of one hand, or
1024 on the fingers of two.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; It appears that /dev/null is a conforming XSL processor.

Alan Holmes

June 21st 04, 01:06 PM

"Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
...
> in message >, Just zis Guy, you know?
> ') wrote:
>
> > Alan Holmes wrote:
> >
> >> travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
> >> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that the
> >> bike was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and clothing
> >> for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water container, milk
> >> and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as the trip was across
> >> the Cotswolds.
> >
> > See what happens when you get the decimal point in the wrong place?
> > You look like an eejit!
>
> Many years ago I did Kirkcudbright to home - thirteen and a half miles -
> in a time I believed to be exactly thirty minutes. Or, I believed, 27
> miles per hour. Which is over two hundred metre ridges, at sea level at
> both ends and at only about 20m above sea level in the middle.

Quite good for that journey.

And I see nothing wrong with that sort of time, there used to be a very
large number of cyclists in Scotland, and they managed good times.
>
> And I look at the journey now (it normally takes me an hour, even on my
> road bike, even when I'm going well and feeling good) and I just don't
> believe it. I think the heroic trips of our youth are remembered
> through a fog of golden self-delusion. OK, so I was a lot fitter then
> and covered a lot more miles and I was certainly faster. But that fast?
> I find it hard to believe.

Why do you find it hard to believe, you knew how far it was and how long it
took.

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

>
> --
> (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
>
> Hobbit ringleader gives Sauron One in the Eye.

Alan Holmes

June 21st 04, 01:06 PM

"Michael MacClancy" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:47:36 +0100, Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
> > Peter Clinch wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry James, but I fail to see why "12.5" is intrinsically easier to
> >> get to grips with than "80". And how is 5'8 1/4" easier intrinsically
> >> easier to work with than 1.73m?
> >
> > And anyway, shouldn't weight be expressed in Newtons?
> >
>
> .... in contrast to Oldtons?

Or Oldkilos!

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

>
> --
> Michael MacClancy
> Random putdown - "A modest little person, with much to be modest about."-
> Winston Churchill
> www.macclancy.demon.co.uk
> www.macclancy.co.uk

Alan Holmes

June 21st 04, 01:10 PM

"Martin Törnsten" > wrote in message
...
> Captain's log. On StarDate Fri, 18 Jun 2004 13:00:12 +0200 received comm
from
> "Mark South" > on channel uk.rec.cycling:
>
> : The trouble with this advice is that it seems a little dated. Most of
Europe is
> : becoming far more anti-America than it has been for several decades.
>
> Unfortunately. Personally I'm almost the other way around and becoming far
more
> anti-french and anti-German than ever before (but only on a general
level -- I
> try to see individuals as the individuals they are and judge them first
after
> knowing more about them).

The french as individuals are lovely, it's when they act as a race they
become objectionable!

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

Alan Holmes

June 21st 04, 01:12 PM

"Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote in message
...
> In ,
> Alan Holmes > typed:
> > "Alan Holmes" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Dave Kahn" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 09:01:44 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Alan Holmes wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
> >>>>> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that
> >>>>> the bike was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and
> >>>>> clothing for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water
> >>>>> container, milk and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as
> >>>>> the trip was across the Cotswolds.
> >>>>
> >>>> See what happens when you get the decimal point in the wrong
> >>>> place? You look like an eejit!
> >>
> >> I must have missed this, but if you try pacing a few cyclists when
> >> out in you car, you will be surprised at the speeds they do travel
> >> at.
> >>
> >> 25 is often a speed that some travel at and I have followed one
> >> or two at 30.
> >
> > Today I was travelling along the A4 when I paced one or two cyclists,
> > the first two were travelling at about 30mph the third was doing 35
> > mph, when I got up close to the third cyclist I saw it was a GIRL, can
> > you imagine a FEMALE cycling at that speed?
> >
> > The first two were men and I came to the conclusion that the
> > speedometer had detected the third was a female and got all hot and
> > othered, (as I do), and registered a speed about 20mph faster than
> > she was actually travelling!
>
> BUYBT

That's a new one on me!

What does it mean?

Alan
--
Reply to alan(at)windsor-berks(dot)freeserve(dot)co(dot)uk

>
>

David Martin

June 21st 04, 01:19 PM

On 21/6/04 1:05 pm, in article
, "Simon Brooke"
> wrote:

> in message >, David Martin
> ') wrote:

>> On 21/6/04 12:13 am, in article
>> , "Jon Senior"
>> <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

>>> Fewer than cope with 100 pence. Given the whole "10 digits on two
>>> hands" thing, base 10 does tend to be a simple one for us.

>> Two dozen on two hands surely? Far easier to keep tabs on as you can
>> use the thumbs to point to the relevant number?

> Oh, come on. You can easily count to 32 on the fingers of one hand, or
> 1024 on the fingers of two.

Given that 24 units is possible, you could in theory do 16 million on two
hands...

<marvin>Brain the size of a planet and I'm counting with my fingers</marvin>

...d

Pat Norton

June 21st 04, 03:22 PM

Jon Senior wrote
>>Some sell 2444mm x 1222mm sheets,
>>labelled as " 8' x 4' "
>
>The place that they source the board from may label
>them as such, but they are technically sold in
>mm not feet.

No. Trading Standards explain the law as follows:
*****************************************
http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/sub/tsd/busleaf/carpets.htm
You can use imperial measurements to describe the size of [an item] so
long as you indicate the selling price of the item and do not
calculate the price from the measurements.

If the price is calculated from the measurements then you must
indicate the unit price in metric units.
*****************************************

Units used in price rates must be metric. Descriptions do not have to
be. The word 'per' usually indicates a price rate. Thus they can say:
"8 ft by 4 ft sheets. £32 per sheet".
There is no measurement unit in the price rate. You have to buy the
whole item. The length and width units are descriptive and not a price
rate.

If you can buy it any length you want, they need to say:
"plank 1 ft wide. 50p per metre". The length unit is a price rate and
must be metric. The width unit is descriptive, not a price rate, so it
can be metric or imperial.

Simon Brooke

June 21st 04, 03:35 PM

in message >, Ambrose Nankivell
') wrote:

> In ,
> Alan Holmes > typed:
>> "James Hodson" > wrote in
>> message ...
>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:46:25 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Absolutely impossible, As was the fact that I grew nearly two
>>>> inches in height after the age of 21.
>>>
>>> I was 6'00" at 13 and still am the same height. My weight, however,
>>> may have altered up and down over the years.
>>
>> You're lucky it's been going down, mine won't whatever I do.
>
> Why not pop out to do a century ride for an hour or three?

A century in three hours is 33mph, which seems to me indecently quick.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; this is not a .sig

Ambrose Nankivell

June 21st 04, 05:30 PM

In ,
Simon Brooke > typed:
> in message >, Ambrose Nankivell
> ') wrote:
>
>> In ,
>> ***Alan Holmes > typed:***
>>> "James Hodson" > wrote in
>>> message ...
>>>> On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:46:25 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely impossible, As was the fact that I grew nearly two
>>>>> inches in height after the age of 21.
>>>>
>>>> I was 6'00" at 13 and still am the same height. My weight, however,
>>>> may have altered up and down over the years.
>>>
>>> You're lucky it's been going down, mine won't whatever I do.
>>
>> Why not pop out to do a century ride for an hour or three?
>
> A century in three hours is 33mph, which seems to me indecently quick.

The PP seems to think it's about average.

I'm not saying it's impossible. After all, I was accosted (when I was) on a
(classic) tandem once by someone who'd done London to Brighton and back in
an hour back in the day.

A

Ambrose Nankivell

June 21st 04, 06:12 PM

In ,
Alan Holmes > typed:
> "Ambrose Nankivell" > wrote in
> message ...
>>
>> BUYBT
>
> That's a new one on me!
>
> What does it mean?

It means that you generate so many responses to your posts with your thought
provoking comments that it's good for the telecommunications network, and
thus recommending that people buy shares in BT [1]

Ambrose
[1] The value of shares may go down as well as up. Author is not a qualified
investment consultant or regulated by the FSA, share price of
telecommunications companies may be affected by factors other than Usenet
traffic. This message is confidential and only for the readership of the
general public to which it is addressed. Always consult with passersby on
the street before making investments, etc, etc,

Simon Brooke

June 21st 04, 09:35 PM

in message >, Alan Holmes
') wrote:

>
> "Simon Brooke" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in message >, Just zis Guy, you know?
>> ') wrote:
>>
>> > Alan Holmes wrote:
>> >
>> >> travelled 84 miles in 2 hours 50 minutes, which was an average of
>> >> (if my arithmetic is up to date) 29.5 mph. Bearing in mind that
>> >> the bike was loaded for a fortnights holiday, self catering and
>> >> clothing for that time, primus stove, paraffin, meths, water
>> >> container, milk and etc, that wasn't a bad average, especially as
>> >> the trip was across the Cotswolds.
>> >
>> > See what happens when you get the decimal point in the wrong place?
>> > You look like an eejit!
>>
>> Many years ago I did Kirkcudbright to home - thirteen and a half
>> miles - in a time I believed to be exactly thirty minutes. Or, I
>> believed, 27 miles per hour. Which is over two hundred metre ridges,
>> at sea level at both ends and at only about 20m above sea level in
>> the middle.
>
> Quite good for that journey.
>
> And I see nothing wrong with that sort of time, there used to be a
> very large number of cyclists in Scotland, and they managed good
> times.

Dear boy, I'm not surprised that you see nothing odd about this sort of
time, seeing that on your own evidence we know that you are the holder
of several cycling speed records. I, however, am a mere mortal, and the
idea that at any age and any state of fitness I could have achieved
that sort of sustained speed over that sort of terrain is frankly
preposterous.

>> And I look at the journey now (it normally takes me an hour, even on
>> my road bike, even when I'm going well and feeling good) and I just
>> don't believe it. I think the heroic trips of our youth are
>> remembered through a fog of golden self-delusion. OK, so I was a lot
>> fitter then and covered a lot more miles and I was certainly faster.
>> But that fast? I find it hard to believe.
>
> Why do you find it hard to believe, you knew how far it was and how
> long it took.

I know how far it is and I know how long I remember I believed I had
taken. My comment was attempting to indicate that it is possible for
human memory to, uhhmmm, somewhat enhance one's recollections of one's
own achievements. As, indeed, your own posts bear eloquent testimony.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; my other religion is Emacs

Mark South

June 21st 04, 09:37 PM

"Alan Holmes" > wrote in message
...

> The french as individuals are lovely, it's when they act as a race they
> become objectionable!

A French person said the same to me last week.

Except they said "English" in place of "French".
--
"You are the most stupid asshole I have yet encountered on this newsgroup.
Congratulations. That is no small achievement as there are many other
stupid assholes on this newsgroup. But they can't hold a candle to you."
- Ed Dolan in alt.rec.bicycles.recumbent

Jon Senior

June 21st 04, 10:05 PM

David Martin opined the following...
> Two dozen on two hands surely? Far easier to keep tabs on as you can use the
> thumbs to point to the relevant number?
>
> Dozens make perfect sense, far more than tens..
>
> 1 gross (+12) is the largest number you can count to on two hands in base
> 12.

I'm obviously missing the joke here, but... how!

Jon

Jon Senior

June 21st 04, 10:06 PM

Mark South opined the following...
> "Alan Holmes" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > The french as individuals are lovely, it's when they act as a race they
> > become objectionable!
>
> A French person said the same to me last week.
>
> Except they said "English" in place of "French".

Or "American" instead of "English".

Jon

Martin Törnsten

June 22nd 04, 02:08 AM

Captain's log. On StarDate Mon, 21 Jun 2004 13:10:45 +0100 received comm from
"Alan Holmes" > on channel uk.rec.cycling:

: The french as individuals are lovely, it's when they act as a race they
: become objectionable!

I absolutely agree (I know many very nice and friendly french persons!)...

Best regards,

martin törnsten

--
http://82.182.73.126/

David Martin

June 22nd 04, 09:43 AM

On 21/6/04 10:05 pm, in article ,
"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote:

> David Martin opined the following...
>> Two dozen on two hands surely? Far easier to keep tabs on as you can use the
>> thumbs to point to the relevant number?
>>
>> Dozens make perfect sense, far more than tens..
>>
>> 1 gross (+12) is the largest number you can count to on two hands in base
>> 12.
>
> I'm obviously missing the joke here, but... how!

Assuming you have a complete set of fingers..

Each joint on the finger acts as a reference point so you can count three on
the first finger, three on the second, three on the third and three on the
fourth making a round dozen.

With the other hand you count dozens.

1 dozen, 2 dozen etc. till you get to a dozen dozen = 1 gross and you still
have a hand free to add 12 more.

Having the units divided into four groups allows a quick reckoning of eg. 5
and a half dozen..

Definitely not SI..

...d

Dave Larrington

June 22nd 04, 12:41 PM

Simon Brooke wrote:

> A century in three hours is 33mph, which seems to me indecently quick.

It is. Especially considering the RTTC hundred mile record currently stands
at 3:23:33...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
================================================== =========
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
================================================== =========

Simon Brooke

June 22nd 04, 05:35 PM

in message >, Dave Larrington
') wrote:

> Simon Brooke wrote:
>
>> A century in three hours is 33mph, which seems to me indecently
>> quick.
>
> It is. Especially considering the RTTC hundred mile record currently
> stands at 3:23:33...

That would be Alan Holmes, I presume?

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

'Victories are not solutions.'
;; John Hume, Northern Irish politician, on Radio Scotland 1/2/95
;; Nobel Peace Prize laureate 1998; few have deserved it so much

Just zis Guy, you know?

June 22nd 04, 06:15 PM

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 16:35:19 GMT, Simon Brooke >
wrote in message >:

>>> A century in three hours is 33mph, which seems to me indecently
>>> quick.

>> It is. Especially considering the RTTC hundred mile record currently
>> stands at 3:23:33...

>That would be Alan Holmes, I presume?

With full panniers for a week's tour, obv.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Jon Senior

June 22nd 04, 08:33 PM

David Martin opined the following...
> Assuming you have a complete set of fingers..
>
> Each joint on the finger acts as a reference point so you can count three on
> the first finger, three on the second, three on the third and three on the
> fourth making a round dozen.
>
> With the other hand you count dozens.
>
> 1 dozen, 2 dozen etc. till you get to a dozen dozen = 1 gross and you still
> have a hand free to add 12 more.
>
> Having the units divided into four groups allows a quick reckoning of eg. 5
> and a half dozen..

Depending on flexibility of the thumb, one could also count using the
base of each finger, thus taking it to base 16. A convenient alpha-
numerical system has already been worked out for this one. Thus one can
count to FF.

> Definitely not SI..

Definately not.

Jon

Mark South

June 22nd 04, 10:31 PM

"Jon Senior" <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote in message
...
> David Martin opined the following...
> > Assuming you have a complete set of fingers..
> >
> > Each joint on the finger acts as a reference point so you can count three on
> > the first finger, three on the second, three on the third and three on the
> > fourth making a round dozen.
> >
> > With the other hand you count dozens.
> >
> > 1 dozen, 2 dozen etc. till you get to a dozen dozen = 1 gross and you still
> > have a hand free to add 12 more.
> >
> > Having the units divided into four groups allows a quick reckoning of eg. 5
> > and a half dozen..
>
> Depending on flexibility of the thumb, one could also count using the
> base of each finger, thus taking it to base 16. A convenient alpha-
> numerical system has already been worked out for this one. Thus one can
> count to FF.

And if one uses one's elbows, and add the fact that one can wrinkle one's nose,
bend one's knees, and clench one's butt?

Don't say there isn't a description on a website somewhere!

> > Definitely not SI..
>
> Definately not.

Could I just add, definitely not SI?

:-)

OBTW, Jon, you have mail.
--
Mark South: World Citizen, Net Denizen