Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.acorn.misc > #1275 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-08-01 20:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2011-08-02 22:48 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 219 — 41 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.misc
Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-01 20:50 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Ray Dawson <ray@magray.freeserve.co.uk> - 2011-08-01 22:16 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still SG nws <nwsgrp@ntlworld.com> - 2011-08-01 23:02 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-02 06:54 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dev <spam-addy@no.spam.invalid> - 2011-08-02 14:02 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Alan Dawes <alan.dawes@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-04 14:28 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-04 18:47 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2011-08-04 23:26 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 02:12 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-05 08:48 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 22:31 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Chris Evans <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 11:13 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Alan Dawes <alan.dawes@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 15:31 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "David Holden" <SpamBin@apdl.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 15:21 +0000
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 18:50 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-07 09:07 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-07 09:55 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 10:08 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-07 10:58 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still JTM <usenetbin@free.fr> - 2011-08-07 12:06 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Terry <telpubs@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-07 18:44 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 19:54 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 19:18 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Terry <telpubs@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-08 19:16 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 21:46 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 23:29 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-10 22:38 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-09 17:39 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-09 18:52 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-08-07 19:38 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 20:19 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Steve Fryatt <news@stevefryatt.org.uk> - 2011-08-10 23:44 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-08-11 00:33 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 07:30 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 10:33 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 10:06 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Ray Dawson <ray@magray.freeserve.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 10:20 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 10:46 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Ray Dawson <ray@magray.freeserve.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 10:57 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 11:12 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 20:25 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 23:04 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still JTM <usenetbin@free.fr> - 2011-08-08 08:35 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 10:41 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still JTM <usenetbin@free.fr> - 2011-08-08 11:14 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 21:50 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Ray Dawson <ray@magray.freeserve.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 13:40 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Alan Griffin <ajg@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 17:17 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-09 17:46 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-09 18:54 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Terry <telpubs@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-08 18:33 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 22:02 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 21:20 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Martin Bazley <martin.bazley@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-09 15:27 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-09 17:48 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-09 01:12 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 21:25 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 21:37 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2011-08-08 22:08 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-09 17:54 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Steffen Huber <spam@huber-net.de> - 2011-08-07 20:11 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still David H Wild <dhwild@talktalk.net> - 2011-08-07 19:49 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-09 17:57 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Ray Dawson <ray@magray.freeserve.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 13:37 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2011-08-10 03:04 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-10 07:33 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-10 10:13 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-10 10:58 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-10 13:27 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-10 18:59 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dev <spam-addy@no.spam.invalid> - 2011-08-10 20:53 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-10 23:16 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-10 23:38 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 00:23 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 07:25 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 18:09 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 19:30 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 19:40 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Chris Shepheard <chris.shepheard@chrispics.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 09:01 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 09:15 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-11 10:22 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2011-08-11 19:56 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-11 20:56 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 23:21 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-12 22:49 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still JTM <usenetbin@free.fr> - 2011-08-13 09:49 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 10:19 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-12 08:34 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-09 01:41 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-09 07:48 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-09 09:20 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-09 10:02 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2011-08-06 00:49 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-07 09:14 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 15:49 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> - 2011-08-08 10:51 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 22:20 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 22:20 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-08 22:57 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-09 10:18 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2011-08-09 11:00 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-10 22:53 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Alan Calder <alan_calder@o2.co.uk> - 2011-08-10 22:46 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-10 23:59 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Brian Howlett <news-spamtrap@brianhowlett.me.uk> - 2011-08-10 23:58 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 00:38 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 08:05 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 10:10 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-11 10:27 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 10:49 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Grahame Parish <maillist.parish@millers-way.net> - 2011-08-11 11:02 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-08-11 18:18 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 13:54 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-12 23:03 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still JTM <usenetbin@free.fr> - 2011-08-13 09:54 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 06:38 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 18:38 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 19:51 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 20:32 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 21:08 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-14 00:58 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 20:27 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-13 21:39 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Graham Thurlwell <nospam@jades.org> - 2011-08-24 22:24 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Martin Bazley <martin.bazley@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-24 23:49 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-25 00:05 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Ray Dawson <ray@magray.freeserve.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 10:24 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Michael Finlay <mjf3@orpheusmail.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 20:42 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-08-11 07:59 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Graham Thurlwell <nospam@jades.org> - 2011-08-24 22:26 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-26 11:42 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 12:06 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "David Holden" <SpamBin@apdl.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 11:40 +0000
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 13:44 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 19:50 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 19:43 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 21:19 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 22:45 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 22:42 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 23:56 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-27 08:43 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-08-26 21:56 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 22:41 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-28 19:19 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-08-28 20:39 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-28 20:56 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-08-28 22:40 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-28 22:56 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still David H Wild <dhwild@talktalk.net> - 2011-08-29 09:41 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "David Holden" <SpamBin@apdl.co.uk> - 2011-08-29 10:17 +0000
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-29 13:39 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-29 14:57 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "David Holden" <SpamBin@apdl.co.uk> - 2011-08-29 06:47 +0000
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-29 09:33 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "David Holden" <SpamBin@apdl.co.uk> - 2011-08-29 09:09 +0000
Re: Monitor Screwing still Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-29 09:36 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-29 02:10 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-28 20:23 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-29 02:09 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2011-08-26 23:08 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-27 09:33 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> - 2011-08-27 15:57 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "David Holden" <SpamBin@apdl.co.uk> - 2011-08-27 16:06 +0000
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-27 17:22 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-08-27 18:17 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-27 21:01 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-27 18:24 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-27 20:33 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Folderol <folderol@ukfsn.org> - 2011-08-27 20:37 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-27 20:44 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-27 22:23 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-28 13:47 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still charles <charles@charleshope.demon.co.uk> - 2011-08-28 13:49 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2011-08-28 21:49 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-29 02:13 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> - 2011-08-26 23:06 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-27 09:59 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-27 11:53 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-10 23:17 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> - 2011-08-10 23:57 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-15 05:46 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> - 2011-08-15 10:02 +0100
Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 08:12 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 11:48 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 22:58 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-06 00:54 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 10:34 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still (now OT) Dr Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 10:09 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still (now OT) Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 11:48 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still (now OT) Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-07 11:01 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-06 10:10 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-07 09:20 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 10:37 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-06 14:57 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-07 10:47 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Chris <decordova@ukgateway.net> - 2011-08-17 11:46 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-17 17:27 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-17 17:55 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-17 19:08 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-17 19:27 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Chris Evans <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> - 2011-08-18 14:35 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Vince M Hudd <vinceh@softrock.co.uk> - 2011-08-19 12:19 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Chris Evans <chris@cjemicros.co.uk> - 2011-08-24 11:20 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-24 17:30 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-24 18:21 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-24 19:03 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Brian Carroll <bric-nospam@argonet.co.uk> - 2011-08-24 18:58 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-25 05:42 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> - 2011-08-26 10:47 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-26 19:57 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still John <newsmcc@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 15:08 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Bryn Evans <d@a.invalid> - 2011-08-05 15:51 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still ChrisF <c.n.l.f@virgin.net> - 2011-08-06 11:07 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> - 2011-08-20 12:07 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still M Harding <riscos@mdharding.org.uk> - 2011-08-20 12:43 +0100
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-05 01:50 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-08-02 23:15 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-08-02 23:34 +0200
Re: Monitor Screwing still Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> - 2011-08-02 22:48 +0100
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
| From | Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 10:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <520103b16esee.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1476 |
In article <e98bfd0052.Matthew@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk>, Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > In message <ba047f0052.barrygray@virginmedia.com> on 10 > Aug 2011 Barry Gray wrote: > > In the same way of course that they rejected making the > > unit of decimal currency the old ten shillings. > Probably a good decision, given the subsequent inflation. > Australia and New Zealand took the route of making their > decimal dollar equal to the previous ten shillings. > The Victorians had already decided long before that > decimalisation should be done by dividing the pound into > 100 new pennies. That was why the two shilling piece > (florin) was introduced as a first step, with the > intention of phasing out crowns and half-crowns. I thought that the florin would have been divided into 100 units. Certainly in Victorian times the purchasing power of 1d (let alone 1/10 florin) was far too great not to have smaller units, hence halfpennies, farthings and half-farthings. 1/100 florin would have been very roughly equivalent to a farthing (1/96 florin). Back in the late 1960s when there was still a debate, my father wrote several letters to the press in favour of dropping the pound and adopting the florin as the basis of our decimal currency. -- Russell http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 19:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <632a380152.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> |
| In reply to | #1480 |
In message <520103b16esee.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>
Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote:
> I thought that the florin would have been divided into 100
> units. Certainly in Victorian times the purchasing power of
> 1d (let alone 1/10 florin) was far too great not to have
> smaller units, hence halfpennies, farthings and
> half-farthings.
Well, that's the first time in my life that I've seen a
reference to a half farthing.
> 1/100 florin would have been very roughly equivalent to a
> farthing (1/96 florin).
>
> Back in the late 1960s when there was still a debate, my
> father wrote several letters to the press in favour of
> dropping the pound and adopting the florin as the basis of
> our decimal currency.
It's an idea that wouldn't have dated very well, isn't it?
Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 20:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <52013db8aesee.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1496 |
In article <632a380152.davehigton@dsl.pipex.com>, Dave Higton <davehigton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote: > In message <520103b16esee.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> > Russell Hafter News > <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid> wrote: > > I thought that the florin would have been divided into > > 100 units. Certainly in Victorian times the purchasing > > power of 1d (let alone 1/10 florin) was far too great > > not to have smaller units, hence halfpennies, farthings > > and half-farthings. > Well, that's the first time in my life that I've seen a > reference to a half farthing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half_farthing_(British_coin) > > 1/100 florin would have been very roughly equivalent to > > a farthing (1/96 florin). > > Back in the late 1960s when there was still a debate, > > my father wrote several letters to the press in favour > > of dropping the pound and adopting the florin as the > > basis of our decimal currency. > It's an idea that wouldn't have dated very well, isn't it? Why? The Swedish Kronor is worth 9.5p, the Danish a little more at 11.8p and the Norwegian in between at 11.2p. The South African Rand is worth about 8.6p, the Chinese Yuan 9.6p. The Czech Korun is only about 3.6p. The pound sterling is still one of the largest currency units in use, even after many years inflation. -- Russell http://www.russell-hafter-holidays.co.uk Russell Hafter Holidays E-mail to enquiries at our domain Need a hotel? <http://www.hrs.com/?client=en__blue&customerId=416873103>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 23:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <e9f54a0152.barrygray@virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #1497 |
In message <52013db8aesee.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>
Russell Hafter News <see.sig@walkingingermany.invalid>
wrote:
[huge snip]
> The pound sterling is still one of the largest currency
> units in use, even after many years inflation.
Good news of course, but I do not think it is relevant to the way in
which the choice of a pound or ten shillings as the base unit of
decimal currency affected inflation in this country at the time.
There were 240d (for denarii) in a pound, so dividing the pound into
100 units meant that 1p = 2.4d. This was almost universally condemned
as too large for the smallest unit of currency so the 1/2p was
introduced. This made nonsense of a decimal system, but the Government
pledged that the 1/2p was to be a permanent feature. They lied of
course.
In a decimal system, in order to be able to make any amount with the
smallest number of coins, for the second decade we need 10, 20, 50 and
100 coins. For the first decade, without 1/2, we need 1, 2, 5 and 10.
If we also have 1/2 we need 1/2, 1, either 2 or 2+1/2 (the either or
is important), 5 and 10. The old 6d was 2+1/2p, so the introduction of
a 2p coin when we already had a 2+1/2p coin meant that even from the
start the 1/2p was never intended to be a permanent feature of the
currency. All of this was well argued at the time.
As far as inflation is concerned, 3s was 36d. In 1971 you could buy
quite a lot of basic foods for 3s. In a system based upon 100p = £1
this converts to 15p. In a system based upon 100c = 10s 1d = 1.2c so
36d converts to 30c. Putting up something costing 15p by 1p amounts to
more than 6%, putting up something costing 30c by 1c amounts to only
about 3%.
HTH
Barry
--
Barry Gray
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
A child is a fire to be lit not a vessel to be filled
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-12 22:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e4591c5$0$30750$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #1497 |
On 11/08/2011 21:56, Russell Hafter News wrote: [...snip...] > The Czech Korun is only about 3.6p. > The pound sterling is still one of the largest currency > units in use, even after many years inflation. Google: 1 Japanese yen = 0.00799680668 British pounds ;-) Best wishes, Rick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JTM <usenetbin@free.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-13 09:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5202084478usenetbin@free.fr> |
| In reply to | #1507 |
In article <4e4591c5$0$30750$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>, Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 11/08/2011 21:56, Russell Hafter News wrote: > [...snip...] > > The Czech Korun is only about 3.6p. > > The pound sterling is still one of the largest currency > > units in use, even after many years inflation. Paid for some flights yesterday. 1 euro = 93 pence (or perhaps it was 1 GBP = 93 centimes) > Google: 1 Japanese yen = 0.00799680668 British pounds > ;-) I remember the euro changeover. We changed some Fr francs into euro, but we were in Spain on changeover day. The French had no problems with the new currency (10 Fr f = 1GBP) but the Spaniards (over 200 pesetas = 1GBP) couldn't get their heads around the *small* numbers. John Probably similar in Italy I guess -- John Mulrooney NOTE Email address IS correct but might not be checked for a while. All's fair in love, war and car parking!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-11 10:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5201036780dave@davenoise.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #1476 |
In article <e98bfd0052.Matthew@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk>,
Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The Victorians had already decided long before that decimalisation
> should be done by dividing the pound into 100 new pennies. That was why
> the two shilling piece (florin) was introduced as a first step, with the
> intention of phasing out crowns and half-crowns.
Is there any documentation to support this?
In Victorian times the old penny still had considerable value, so you'd
have needed a further set of coins based on parts of that new pence, so no
savings would be made.
--
*Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines *
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-12 08:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <95957d0152.Matthew@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #1481 |
In message <5201036780dave@davenoise.co.uk> on 11 Aug 2011 Dave Plowman (News) wrote: > In article <e98bfd0052.Matthew@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk>, > Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > The Victorians had already decided long before that decimalisation > > should be done by dividing the pound into 100 new pennies. That was why > > the two shilling piece (florin) was introduced as a first step, with the > > intention of phasing out crowns and half-crowns. > > Is there any documentation to support this? Various web sites seem to agree that the florin was introduced as part of a decimalisation scheme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12346083 http://gwydir.demon.co.uk/jo/units/money.htm http://www.predecimal.com/p11decimalisation.htm > In Victorian times the old penny still had considerable value, so you'd > have needed a further set of coins based on parts of that new pence, so no > savings would be made. I agree with Russell Hafter that it would have made more sense to divide the florin into 100. Never having used the pre-decimal currency it's hard to remember that a pound could be divided into 960 parts! The web sites I've listed above don't actually say how the Victorians envisaged the pound being divided. -- Matthew Phillips Durham
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 01:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <51ffcc3f76Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #1361 |
In article <51fe1b1bb9dave@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote: > 2 x 1 timber is the size of the sawn original stock, and can be bought as > such. > 2 x 1 prepared is a quite different product and named/described > differently (PAR planed all round, PSE planed square edge, depends where > you are in the country) is the full size stock, planed to equal the > measurement it ends up as. Whilst on the subject of timber Dave, perhaps you could enlighten me. I require some 75x50 and rough sawn finish would be fine. My local timber merchant lists "sawn carcassing" 47x75 (KD Carc C16) but apparently this is PAR and eased four corners (whatever KD and C16 mean) and because of planing is under-size. They also list 50x75 "CLS Studding", what is this? -- Stuart Winsor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 07:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <51ffede619dave@triffid.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #1430 |
In article <51ffcc3f76Spambin@argonet.co.uk>, Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> wrote: > In article <51fe1b1bb9dave@triffid.co.uk>, > Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote: > > 2 x 1 timber is the size of the sawn original stock, and can be bought > > as such. 2 x 1 prepared is a quite different product and > > named/described differently (PAR planed all round, PSE planed square > > edge, depends where you are in the country) is the full size stock, > > planed to equal the measurement it ends up as. > Whilst on the subject of timber Dave, perhaps you could enlighten me. > I require some 75x50 and rough sawn finish would be fine. My local timber > merchant lists "sawn carcassing" 47x75 (KD Carc C16) but apparently this > is PAR and eased four corners (whatever KD and C16 mean) and because of > planing is under-size. > They also list 50x75 "CLS Studding", what is this? Gordon Bennett, it was so much easier in the old days... I've been out of construction for a while Stuart, but I'll do my best... KD = Kiln Dried Carc = Carcassing timber. C16 Relates to the grade of the timber it is. (** End note) C grade 14 to 40 are for softwoods, and can be sub graded as GS = General Structural and SS = Special structural... Where for example you might need a better quality of timber for particular joist work. You might also see EW/ER European Whitewood or European Redwood or similar stamps. Hardwoods are IIRC. D number graded (30 to 70) and also have sub grades. Standard softwood sizes are now: 47mm x 75mm 47mm x 100mm And so on... CLS Studding... Canadian Lumber Sizes. It was decided some years ago, when more and more studding was being used in buildings, to re-work the stud timbers for two reasons. 1) Easier to use if it is rough planed. 2) Consistency in size making it easier to fit sheet/board materials. This is a rough planed timber with eased radius edges (We used to called them eased Arris edges) and a lot smaller dims as you can see. 38mm x 63mm 38mm x 89mm Hope that helps a bit Dave (**) It was a system devised to enable softwoods (and hardwoods D) from different tree varieties to be graded according to the strength properties of the timber... Higher number stronger timber. D. -- Dave Triffid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 09:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <51fff650cbSpambin@argonet.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #1434 |
In article <51ffede619dave@triffid.co.uk>, Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> wrote: > Hope that helps a bit Yes it does, thanks. Life seems to be even more complicated by terms such as "Saw falling redwood" and "Scandinavian fifths". All I want is some sawn timber which is 75x50 to match into some existing work. B&Q list it, and I believe they sell marked actual sizes, (all their planed timber is sold at actual finished sizing e.g 44x44 for "2x2") but I hate that place. I would much rather buy from a proper timber merchant - for a start their timber seems to be cheaper and of better quality. -- Stuart Winsor
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dave Plowman (News)" <dave@davenoise.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 10:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <51fffa222bdave@davenoise.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #1430 |
In article <51ffcc3f76Spambin@argonet.co.uk>,
Stuart <Spambin@argonet.co.uk> wrote:
> They also list 50x75 "CLS Studding", what is this?
Canadian Lumber Standard. It's a finished timber rather than the usual UK
rough sawn used for studding - most easily identified by the 'rounded'
corners.
--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat
Dave Plowman dave@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-06 00:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mpro.lphbiw008xnqy01ig@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid> |
| In reply to | #1345 |
Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Please quote a source where "23" is taken to mean 22.5 - 23.5 ? ... Rick you've missed the point. Of course I wasn't saying that Dave's expectations were unreasonable. What I was giving, and it was how I introduced what I wrote, was an explanation of the point that a previous poster has made. -- Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own. Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply to newsreplyaaa@wingsandbeaks.org.uk replacing "aaa" by "284".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-07 09:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <51feee1ed7tim@invalid.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #1366 |
In article <mpro.lphbiw008xnqy01ig@wingsandbeaks.org.uk.invalid>, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts <jn.nntp.scrap007@wingsandbeaks.org.uk> wrote: > Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > > Please quote a source where "23" is taken to mean 22.5 - 23.5 ? ... > Rick you've missed the point. Of course I wasn't saying that Dave's > expectations were unreasonable. > What I was giving, and it was how I introduced what I wrote, was an > explanation of the point that a previous poster has made. Yup, and that may have applied in math classes but not in the Real World where we expect to get what we pay for, whether two, five, eight or 22 inches. Where 22 =/= 21.5. Ask trading standards. A litre of fuel has to be that, not close to it. Mustn't forget though that with the old CRT the size was often given as the size of the tube, not of the visible screen. Some of that tube was hidden behind a bezel. Perhaps Dave is measuring the visible display, rather than the physical size of the actual panel, which will be slightly bigger and the edges hidden behind the bezel. My 22" display panel was quoted as 21.5" visible so no problems there. -- Tim Hill of timil.com . . . * supports TFT & shares in cheaper ethical telecoms http://tjrh.eu/phone * has a genuine & spam-proof address for Usenet http://www.invalid.org.uk/ * accepts incoming email: substitute postmaster@ for tim@ ... "Better three hours too soon than a minute too late" M W of W, Act ii, Sc.2
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Symes <dave@triffid.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-07 15:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <51ff123a7fdave@triffid.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #1372 |
In article <51feee1ed7tim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote: [Snippy] > Mustn't forget though that with the old CRT the size was often given as > the size of the tube, not of the visible screen. Some of that tube was > hidden behind a bezel. Perhaps Dave is measuring the visible display, > rather than the physical size of the actual panel, which will be slightly > bigger and the edges hidden behind the bezel. My 22" display panel was > quoted as 21.5" visible so no problems there. Indeedy, if I allow a bit of waste for behind the bezel I can make it up to 22 inches. Literature though say 22 inch display. This (Same manufacturer) 17 inch monitor attached to this RPC (Exact same bezel) has, as it said on the box, a 17 inch display... Exactly 17 inches. Dave -- Dave Triffid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-08 10:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <51ff7ad8b8richtnews@uwclub.net> |
| In reply to | #1372 |
In article <51feee1ed7tim@invalid.org.uk>, Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote: > A litre of fuel has to be that, not close to it. So you are expecting the metering device inside a petrol pump to be so accurate that it dispenses exactly 1.000000000000000000000000000.... litre for every litre claimed? Or a metre rule, for example, to be exactly 1000.000000000000000... mm long? Dream on! Of course you don't. And trading standards certainly don't have instruments that measure to that degree of (perfect) accuracy. Whatever we say about expecting a litre to be a litre, in the real world what we actually expect is something that we can't readily distinguish from a litre. That is still a litre +/- a small amount, the only argument being over what that small amount should be. R. -- Richard Travers richtnews@uwclub.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-08 22:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e404506$0$18778$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #1407 |
On 08/08/2011 11:51, Richard Travers wrote: > the only argument being over what that small amount should be. Don't forget the argument over: €24,98 <small squeeze> €24,99 <small squeeze> €25,01 Grr! Best wishes, Rick.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-08 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <40e6b9ff51.barrygray@virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #1407 |
In message <51ff7ad8b8richtnews@uwclub.net>
Richard Travers <richtnews@uwclub.net> wrote:
> In article <51feee1ed7tim@invalid.org.uk>,
> Tim Hill <tim@invalid.org.uk> wrote:
>> A litre of fuel has to be that, not close to it.
> So you are expecting the metering device inside a petrol pump to be so
> accurate that it dispenses exactly 1.000000000000000000000000000.... litre
> for every litre claimed? Or a metre rule, for example, to be exactly
> 1000.000000000000000... mm long? Dream on!
> Of course you don't. And trading standards certainly don't have instruments
> that measure to that degree of (perfect) accuracy. Whatever we say about
> expecting a litre to be a litre, in the real world what we actually expect
> is something that we can't readily distinguish from a litre. That is still a
> litre +/- a small amount, the only argument being over what that small
> amount should be.
In fact it is not always +/- a small amount. When you are buying
something it is, legally, + a small amount, - 0. If you are fitting a
round peg into a round hole the hole is + a small amount, - 0, while
the peg is + 0, - a small amount.
What the "small amount" is depends upon what it is you are buying or
selling, for example gold or potatoes.
In fact, like it or not, the metric system is used by almost everyone
almost everywhere for almost everything except mass and length, and
the units derived from them such as area, volume and velocity. And
time of course. The French revolutionaries did introduce a decimal
system of time but Napoleon refused to enforce it so it never caught
on.
More about this, in fact more about many things maths and science and
Ancient Egyptian, on my web site, mainly for confused or badly taught
young people.
--
Barry Gray
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
A child is a fire to be lit not a vessel to be filled
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-08 22:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0550bdff51.Matthew@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #1426 |
In message <40e6b9ff51.barrygray@virginmedia.com> on 8 Aug 2011 Barry Gray wrote: > In fact it is not always +/- a small amount. When you are buying something > it is, legally, + a small amount, - 0. Not if the goods are pre-packaged and sold under the European average weight regulations (European directives as implemented by national legislation such as the Weights and Measures Act 1985). Pre-packaged goods sold under these regulations are indicated by the "e" after the weight or volume. For example: "454 g e". See http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/label/i-1.htm The regulations set out tolerances which become progressively stricter in percentage terms as the quantity increases. On average the quantities have to match that stated on the packaging. A certain proportion must be within a certain tolerance, and none exceed twice the tolerable variation. -- Matthew Phillips Durham
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Barry Gray <barrygray@blueyonder.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-08-09 10:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1d9ffbff51.barrygray@virginmedia.com> |
| In reply to | #1427 |
In message <0550bdff51.Matthew@sinenomine.freeserve.co.uk>
Matthew Phillips <spam2011m@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <40e6b9ff51.barrygray@virginmedia.com>
> on 8 Aug 2011 Barry Gray wrote:
>> In fact it is not always +/- a small amount. When you are buying something
>> it is, legally, + a small amount, - 0.
> Not if the goods are pre-packaged and sold under the European average weight
> regulations (European directives as implemented by national legislation such
> as the Weights and Measures Act 1985).
> Pre-packaged goods sold under these regulations are indicated by the "e"
> after the weight or volume. For example: "454 g e".
> See http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/label/i-1.htm
> The regulations set out tolerances which become progressively stricter in
> percentage terms as the quantity increases. On average the quantities have
> to match that stated on the packaging. A certain proportion must be within a
> certain tolerance, and none exceed twice the tolerable variation.
Thanks for this. What continues to amaze me is the breadth and depth
of the knowledge of the Acorn community and their great courtesy and
helpfulness.
On reflection my last posting was too much like a plug. Sorry.
--
Barry Gray
http://www.barrygray.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk
A child is a fire to be lit not a vessel to be filled
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.misc
csiph-web