Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.usage.english > #576972 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-12-25 05:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-12-28 10:09 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 156 — 40 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.usage.english
What animals need oiling? Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 05:48 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-26 11:52 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? Jack Campin <bogus@purr.demon.co.uk> - 2015-12-26 01:03 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-25 19:04 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 20:15 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-25 23:26 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? Ross <benlizro@ihug.co.nz> - 2015-12-25 23:14 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2015-12-26 11:13 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-26 11:55 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 05:38 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-26 14:13 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 06:48 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-26 15:28 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2015-12-26 15:45 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-26 15:55 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Paul Wolff <bounceme@two.wolff.co.uk> - 2015-12-27 10:35 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 11:41 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-29 12:28 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-02 14:29 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-03 10:15 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 11:04 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 08:08 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-26 16:41 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 00:36 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2015-12-28 12:03 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? snidely.too@gmail.com - 2015-12-28 12:00 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 11:49 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-26 19:00 -0700
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 11:38 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-26 12:19 +0100
Re: What animals need oiling? Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-26 07:07 -0330
Re: What animals need oiling? msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2015-12-26 16:52 -0600
Re: What animals need oiling? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-27 12:55 +0100
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 09:49 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2016-01-02 18:17 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 10:50 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-02 14:17 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> - 2016-01-02 15:41 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 11:03 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2016-01-04 04:58 -0700
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 13:18 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2016-01-04 08:46 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2016-01-04 17:40 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 23:30 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-05 10:44 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2016-01-03 10:17 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 11:04 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? pensive hamster <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> - 2015-12-27 06:47 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Young <pnyoung@ormail.co.uk> - 2015-12-27 16:16 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 11:58 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 20:18 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 20:16 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-29 06:57 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au> - 2016-01-05 08:43 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) - 2015-12-29 15:33 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-29 19:24 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2015-12-29 20:57 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-30 10:29 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-31 12:08 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-30 18:18 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-31 08:32 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au> - 2016-01-05 09:21 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-04 20:44 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? ErrolC <Errolgc@hotmail.com> - 2016-01-06 00:52 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> - 2016-01-06 16:30 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? bill van <billvan@delete.shaw.ca> - 2015-12-26 00:09 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2015-12-26 09:54 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? "Mr Macaw" <no@spam.com> - 2015-12-26 16:35 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Dingbat <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-26 00:10 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 01:11 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2015-12-26 12:16 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 06:51 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2015-12-26 15:27 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-26 15:31 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 12:03 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 14:14 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2015-12-26 23:31 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au> - 2016-01-05 09:23 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2016-01-05 17:26 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 13:41 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 18:46 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2016-01-05 19:40 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2016-01-05 22:35 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2016-01-05 21:47 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 23:44 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2016-01-05 23:47 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-06 13:48 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2016-01-06 16:19 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-07 09:12 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2015-12-26 22:20 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-27 10:51 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 10:53 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Richard Bollard <richardb@spamt.edu.au> - 2016-01-05 09:24 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? Robin Bignall <docrobin@ntlworld.com> - 2016-01-04 22:51 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 10:43 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? Katy Jennison <katy@spamtrap.kjennison.com> - 2015-12-26 19:21 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 15:38 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 13:19 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 09:10 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 12:17 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-27 18:12 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> - 2015-12-27 18:15 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-27 14:01 -0700
Re: What animals need oiling? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-27 13:14 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? pensive hamster <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> - 2015-12-27 17:42 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-28 02:24 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-28 10:54 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2015-12-28 11:53 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-12-27 00:28 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 12:04 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? Jack Campin <bogus@purr.demon.co.uk> - 2015-12-29 01:43 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-28 20:44 -0700
Re: What animals need oiling? Bertel Lund Hansen <gadekryds@lundhansen.dk> - 2015-12-29 09:28 +0100
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 13:17 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? snidely.too@gmail.com - 2015-12-28 18:03 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? "John Varela" <newlamps@verizon.net> - 2015-12-29 21:47 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? GordonD <g.davie@btinternet.com> - 2015-12-31 09:53 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-12-30 16:43 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> - 2015-12-30 13:13 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-12-29 14:16 +0100
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-29 07:00 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> - 2015-12-29 11:37 -0330
Re: What animals need oiling? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-12-29 21:41 +0100
Re: What animals need oiling? Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> - 2015-12-29 19:21 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> - 2015-12-26 15:28 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? CDB <bellemarecd@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 10:31 -0500
Re: What animals need oiling? Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 11:33 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 12:05 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-26 12:20 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-26 12:44 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Dingbat <ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-27 23:54 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-12-28 14:22 +0100
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 06:20 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-12-28 18:49 +0100
Re: What animals need oiling? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 10:29 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-29 10:42 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-12-29 11:03 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2015-12-30 19:22 +0100
Re: What animals need oiling? Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 07:19 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> - 2015-12-29 20:00 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-31 07:16 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) - 2016-01-01 23:22 -0600
Re: What animals need oiling? musika <mUs1Ka@NOSPAMexcite.com> - 2015-12-29 21:14 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> - 2015-12-29 12:08 +1100
Re: What animals need oiling? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2015-12-29 14:16 +0100
Re: What animals need oiling? Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> - 2016-01-04 10:56 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> - 2015-12-26 19:03 -0700
Re: What animals need oiling? Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 00:21 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> - 2015-12-28 12:30 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? pensive hamster <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> - 2015-12-28 15:52 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? "Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@verizon.net> - 2015-12-28 20:13 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? pensive hamster <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> - 2015-12-30 11:31 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? Janet <nobody@home.org> - 2015-12-29 12:11 +0000
Re: What animals need oiling? pensive hamster <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> - 2015-12-29 08:11 -0800
Re: What animals need oiling? grabber <gr@bb.er> - 2015-12-28 10:09 +0000
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 11:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e70qlcxksv.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> |
| In reply to | #578732 |
On 2016-01-02, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 2016-Jan-03 01:29, Adam Funk wrote:
>> On 2015-12-29, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-Dec-27 21:35, Paul Wolff wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 26 Dec 2015, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> posted:
>>
>>>>> as we did. My father always had a jug of water nearby and a piece of
>>>>> sponge on a stick was kept in it. This was for putting out the candles
>>>>> without blowing on them.
>>>>>
>>>> I huff them out, so as to preserve a few seconds of aromatic nostalgia
>>>> for recollection again next year.
>>>
>>> It wasn't until I read that that I noticed that "huff" and "puff"
>>> release different amounts of air.
>>>
>>> Should this have gone in the aspiration thread?
>>
>> "Huffing" also means inhaling solvents recreationally. I wouldn't
>> exactly call that something to aspire to.
>
> Aspire? Don't you mean inspire?
I guess some people might find it inspirational.
--
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room.
--- President Muffley
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 08:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4e50ce3-e403-430c-8168-f44b8f1d1582@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577208 |
On Saturday, 26 December 2015 15:45:04 UTC, Katy Jennison wrote:
> On 26/12/2015 15:28, charles wrote:
> > In article <6433bba9-91ff-4af5-bd46-9c8ee8f442c2@googlegroups.com>, Peter
> > T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 9:13:07 AM UTC-5, charles wrote:
> >>> In article <e5106ae2-f4a9-4969-bd06-7265d0142255@googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 6:14:02 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> >>>>> In article <38fb9351-f9dd-49d8-834f-0bf04ff64140@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> benlizro@ihug.co.nz says...
> >>>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:26:22 PM UTC+13, Tony Cooper
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T.
> >>>>>>>> Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:52:57 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>>>> Do all English-speaking countries have the tradition of corny
> >>>>>>>>>> jokes inside the cracker? The ones we had yesterday were
> >>>>>>>>>> scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nobody even bothered
> >>>>>>>>>> groaning. I suppose the merely bad jokes had been used up in
> >>>>>>>>>> previous years.
> >>>>>>>>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have
> >>>>>>>>> corny jokes inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other
> >>>>>>>>> locus for little printed slips of paper.)
> >>>>>>> Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think
> >>>>>>> I've ever seen them for sale here.
> >>>>>> Um, they managed to cross the pond to Canada, on the experience
> >>>>>> of my youth. I don't see wny they shouldn't have been popular
> >>>>>> south of the border, where hand-held explosive devices are
> >>>>>> positively cherished.
> >>>>> :-) For those who have never experienced the joy of crackers,
> >>>>> :usual
> >>>>> practise is to lay one at each place at the Christmas dinner table.
> >>>>> They are seized by two people and pulled in half, detonating a
> >>>>> small explosive device with a loud bang; out falls a rolled up
> >>>>> paper hat, a terrible joke or riddle, and a couple of small toys
> >>>>> or gadgets. The hat is worn throughout the meal. The jokes and
> >>>>> riddles are told round the table.
> >>>> Ah, that would explain why everyone on the Christmas episode of
> >>>> *Vicious*, rebroadcast last night, was wearning a stupid cap while
> >>>> they ate their tiny dinner sandwiches ("rounds" were not mentioned).
> >>>> From the literature, however, I never got the impression that
> >>>> "Christmas crackers" were edible -- they seemed to be something that
> >>>> was pulled at from both ends, made a loud snap, and a bit of paper
> >>>> fell out and a toy. If there's an actual explosive -- like the caps
> >>>> of a cap pistol -- and it's a comestible, isn't there a rather large
> >>>> possibility of a child ingesting some gunpowder? Hm, anything to do
> >>>> with the myth that boarding schools put saltpeter in the food to tame
> >>>> the boys' randy urges?
> >>>
> >>> You are confusing the two different meanings of the word "cracker".
> >>> The Christmas one is NOT a comestible.
> >
> >> Then why would Cheryl's mother have sought them at a bakery?
> >
> >> Oh, she "was surprised to be directed to the bakery when she asked for"
> >> them.
> >
> > Precicely
> >
> >>>>> In my childhood, crackers held far more exciting toys; sea
> >>>>> shells which which when dropped in your water glass, opened, grew,
> >>>>> and blossomed into a beautiful flower. Or indoor fireworks to be
> >>>>> ignited at the dining table with satisfyingly incendiary or loud
> >>>>> results.
> >>>
> >>>> So were Christmas fires an expected phenomenon?
> >
> >> This question is still outstanding ...
> >
> > No, because indoor fireworks were puny things. And also because people
> > appeared to have a lot more common sense in the past. Like : if you have a
> > naked flame - take precautions. Not - nobody told me the wrapping paper
> > would catch fire if I put a match near it.
> >
> We had lighted candles on the Christmas tree back in the day, too.
It was normal when I was a child. Put multiple naked flames into the
middle of one of the most inflammable (combustible) objects
on Earth. What could possibly go wrong :(
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 16:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55381daf43charles@candehope.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #577211 |
In article <d4e50ce3-e403-430c-8168-f44b8f1d1582@googlegroups.com>,
Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 December 2015 15:45:04 UTC, Katy Jennison wrote:
> > On 26/12/2015 15:28, charles wrote:
> > > In article <6433bba9-91ff-4af5-bd46-9c8ee8f442c2@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 9:13:07 AM UTC-5, charles wrote:
> > >>> In article <e5106ae2-f4a9-4969-bd06-7265d0142255@googlegroups.com>,
> > >>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 6:14:02 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> > >>>>> In article
> > >>>>> <38fb9351-f9dd-49d8-834f-0bf04ff64140@googlegroups.com>,
> > >>>>> benlizro@ihug.co.nz says...
> > >>>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:26:22 PM UTC+13, Tony Cooper
> > >>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T.
> > >>>>>>>> Daniels wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:52:57 PM UTC-5, Peter
> > >>>>>>>>> Moylan wrote:
> > >
> > >>>>>>>>>> Do all English-speaking countries have the tradition of corny
> > >>>>>>>>>> jokes inside the cracker? The ones we had yesterday were
> > >>>>>>>>>> scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nobody even bothered
> > >>>>>>>>>> groaning. I suppose the merely bad jokes had been used up in
> > >>>>>>>>>> previous years.
> > >>>>>>>>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have
> > >>>>>>>>> corny jokes inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other
> > >>>>>>>>> locus for little printed slips of paper.)
> > >>>>>>> Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think
> > >>>>>>> I've ever seen them for sale here.
> > >>>>>> Um, they managed to cross the pond to Canada, on the experience
> > >>>>>> of my youth. I don't see wny they shouldn't have been popular
> > >>>>>> south of the border, where hand-held explosive devices are
> > >>>>>> positively cherished.
> > >>>>> :-) For those who have never experienced the joy of crackers,
> > >>>>> :usual
> > >>>>> practise is to lay one at each place at the Christmas dinner table.
> > >>>>> They are seized by two people and pulled in half, detonating a
> > >>>>> small explosive device with a loud bang; out falls a rolled up
> > >>>>> paper hat, a terrible joke or riddle, and a couple of small toys
> > >>>>> or gadgets. The hat is worn throughout the meal. The jokes and
> > >>>>> riddles are told round the table.
> > >>>> Ah, that would explain why everyone on the Christmas episode of
> > >>>> *Vicious*, rebroadcast last night, was wearning a stupid cap while
> > >>>> they ate their tiny dinner sandwiches ("rounds" were not
> > >>>> mentioned). From the literature, however, I never got the
> > >>>> impression that "Christmas crackers" were edible -- they seemed to
> > >>>> be something that was pulled at from both ends, made a loud snap,
> > >>>> and a bit of paper fell out and a toy. If there's an actual
> > >>>> explosive -- like the caps of a cap pistol -- and it's a
> > >>>> comestible, isn't there a rather large possibility of a child
> > >>>> ingesting some gunpowder? Hm, anything to do with the myth that
> > >>>> boarding schools put saltpeter in the food to tame the boys' randy
> > >>>> urges?
> > >>>
> > >>> You are confusing the two different meanings of the word "cracker".
> > >>> The Christmas one is NOT a comestible.
> > >
> > >> Then why would Cheryl's mother have sought them at a bakery?
> > >
> > >> Oh, she "was surprised to be directed to the bakery when she asked
> > >> for" them.
> > >
> > > Precicely
> > >
> > >>>>> In my childhood, crackers held far more exciting toys; sea
> > >>>>> shells which which when dropped in your water glass, opened, grew,
> > >>>>> and blossomed into a beautiful flower. Or indoor fireworks to be
> > >>>>> ignited at the dining table with satisfyingly incendiary or loud
> > >>>>> results.
> > >>>
> > >>>> So were Christmas fires an expected phenomenon?
> > >
> > >> This question is still outstanding ...
> > >
> > > No, because indoor fireworks were puny things. And also because
> > > people appeared to have a lot more common sense in the past. Like :
> > > if you have a naked flame - take precautions. Not - nobody told me
> > > the wrapping paper would catch fire if I put a match near it.
> > >
> > We had lighted candles on the Christmas tree back in the day, too.
>
> It was normal when I was a child. Put multiple naked flames into the
> middle of one of the most inflammable (combustible) objects
> on Earth. What could possibly go wrong :(
very little in comparision with the fires that appeared to have been caused
by electric lights. I even once bought some made by the "High Tat" company
of Hong Kong.
But, a couple of weeks ago, someone wanted to bring some Chritmas lights
onto a nearby Village Hall. The Hall insited on them being PAT tested
first. I failed 2 out of 5 sets.
--
Please note new email address:
charles@CandEhope.me.uk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snidely <snidely.too@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 00:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <mn.e0247dfcc8861406.127094@snitoo> |
| In reply to | #577218 |
charles noted that:
> In article <d4e50ce3-e403-430c-8168-f44b8f1d1582@googlegroups.com>,
> Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, 26 December 2015 15:45:04 UTC, Katy Jennison wrote:
>>> On 26/12/2015 15:28, charles wrote:
>>>> In article <6433bba9-91ff-4af5-bd46-9c8ee8f442c2@googlegroups.com>,
>>>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 9:13:07 AM UTC-5, charles wrote:
>>>>>> In article <e5106ae2-f4a9-4969-bd06-7265d0142255@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 6:14:02 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>> <38fb9351-f9dd-49d8-834f-0bf04ff64140@googlegroups.com>,
>>>>>>>> benlizro@ihug.co.nz says...
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:26:22 PM UTC+13, Tony Cooper
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T.
>>>>>>>>>>> Daniels wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:52:57 PM UTC-5, Peter
>>>>>>>>>>>> Moylan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do all English-speaking countries have the tradition of corny
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jokes inside the cracker? The ones we had yesterday were
>>>>>>>>>>>>> scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nobody even bothered
>>>>>>>>>>>>> groaning. I suppose the merely bad jokes had been used up in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> previous years.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>> corny jokes inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other
>>>>>>>>>>>> locus for little printed slips of paper.)
>>>>>>>>>> Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think
>>>>>>>>>> I've ever seen them for sale here.
>>>>>>>>> Um, they managed to cross the pond to Canada, on the experience
>>>>>>>>> of my youth. I don't see wny they shouldn't have been popular
>>>>>>>>> south of the border, where hand-held explosive devices are
>>>>>>>>> positively cherished.
>>>>>>>> :-) For those who have never experienced the joy of crackers,
>>>>>>>> :usual
>>>>>>>> practise is to lay one at each place at the Christmas dinner table.
>>>>>>>> They are seized by two people and pulled in half, detonating a
>>>>>>>> small explosive device with a loud bang; out falls a rolled up
>>>>>>>> paper hat, a terrible joke or riddle, and a couple of small toys
>>>>>>>> or gadgets. The hat is worn throughout the meal. The jokes and
>>>>>>>> riddles are told round the table.
>>>>>>> Ah, that would explain why everyone on the Christmas episode of
>>>>>>> *Vicious*, rebroadcast last night, was wearning a stupid cap while
>>>>>>> they ate their tiny dinner sandwiches ("rounds" were not
>>>>>>> mentioned). From the literature, however, I never got the
>>>>>>> impression that "Christmas crackers" were edible -- they seemed to
>>>>>>> be something that was pulled at from both ends, made a loud snap,
>>>>>>> and a bit of paper fell out and a toy. If there's an actual
>>>>>>> explosive -- like the caps of a cap pistol -- and it's a
>>>>>>> comestible, isn't there a rather large possibility of a child
>>>>>>> ingesting some gunpowder? Hm, anything to do with the myth that
>>>>>>> boarding schools put saltpeter in the food to tame the boys' randy
>>>>>>> urges?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are confusing the two different meanings of the word "cracker".
>>>>>> The Christmas one is NOT a comestible.
>>>>> Then why would Cheryl's mother have sought them at a bakery?
>>>>> Oh, she "was surprised to be directed to the bakery when she asked
>>>>> for" them.
>>>>
>>>> Precicely
>>>>
>>>>>>>> In my childhood, crackers held far more exciting toys; sea
>>>>>>>> shells which which when dropped in your water glass, opened, grew,
>>>>>>>> and blossomed into a beautiful flower. Or indoor fireworks to be
>>>>>>>> ignited at the dining table with satisfyingly incendiary or loud
>>>>>>>> results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So were Christmas fires an expected phenomenon?
>>>>> This question is still outstanding ...
>>>>
>>>> No, because indoor fireworks were puny things. And also because
>>>> people appeared to have a lot more common sense in the past. Like :
>>>> if you have a naked flame - take precautions. Not - nobody told me
>>>> the wrapping paper would catch fire if I put a match near it.
>>>>
>>> We had lighted candles on the Christmas tree back in the day, too.
>>
>> It was normal when I was a child. Put multiple naked flames into the
>> middle of one of the most inflammable (combustible) objects
>> on Earth. What could possibly go wrong :(
>
> very little in comparision with the fires that appeared to have been caused
> by electric lights.
So that's why there were no house fires in the 19th century.
(Serously, Christmas tree fires seem to be part of literature, though
it's been a long while since I was reading those stories, so I can't
point to any particular one.)
> I even once bought some made by the "High Tat" company
> of Hong Kong.
> But, a couple of weeks ago, someone wanted to bring some Chritmas lights
> onto a nearby Village Hall. The Hall insited on them being PAT tested
> first. I failed 2 out of 5 sets.
In the US, Christmas lights that don't have a UL rating are difficult
to sell. Over the years, the requirements for those ratings have
gotten more stringent (no fabric insulation anymore, polarized plugs,
and now fuzes in every string). Of course, /used/ Christmas lights may
no longer be able to pass a UL inspection that they passed when new,
but we're supposed to inspect all our strings when digging them out of
the attic.
Minature lights also reduced the heat applied to branches (compared to
4-7 watt C7 sizes, and the bigger C9 (which were more often used
outside anyway)). And now LED lights reduce the heat more.
ObNostalgia: I remember the first set of minature lights my family
decorated with. My brother had sent them from Paris, and /they/
weren't UL listed. I kept a careful eye on them.
/dps
--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Janet <nobody@home.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 12:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.30eb3589e6fd8f91964@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #577589 |
In article <mn.e0247dfcc8861406.127094@snitoo>, snidely.too@gmail.com
says...
>
> charles noted that:
> > In article <d4e50ce3-e403-430c-8168-f44b8f1d1582@googlegroups.com>,
> > Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Saturday, 26 December 2015 15:45:04 UTC, Katy Jennison wrote:
> >>> On 26/12/2015 15:28, charles wrote:
> >>>> In article <6433bba9-91ff-4af5-bd46-9c8ee8f442c2@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 9:13:07 AM UTC-5, charles wrote:
> >>>>>> In article <e5106ae2-f4a9-4969-bd06-7265d0142255@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 6:14:02 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>> <38fb9351-f9dd-49d8-834f-0bf04ff64140@googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>>>>> benlizro@ihug.co.nz says...
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:26:22 PM UTC+13, Tony Cooper
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Daniels wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:52:57 PM UTC-5, Peter
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Moylan wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do all English-speaking countries have the tradition of corny
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> jokes inside the cracker? The ones we had yesterday were
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nobody even bothered
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> groaning. I suppose the merely bad jokes had been used up in
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> previous years.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have
> >>>>>>>>>>>> corny jokes inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other
> >>>>>>>>>>>> locus for little printed slips of paper.)
> >>>>>>>>>> Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think
> >>>>>>>>>> I've ever seen them for sale here.
> >>>>>>>>> Um, they managed to cross the pond to Canada, on the experience
> >>>>>>>>> of my youth. I don't see wny they shouldn't have been popular
> >>>>>>>>> south of the border, where hand-held explosive devices are
> >>>>>>>>> positively cherished.
> >>>>>>>> :-) For those who have never experienced the joy of crackers,
> >>>>>>>> :usual
> >>>>>>>> practise is to lay one at each place at the Christmas dinner table.
> >>>>>>>> They are seized by two people and pulled in half, detonating a
> >>>>>>>> small explosive device with a loud bang; out falls a rolled up
> >>>>>>>> paper hat, a terrible joke or riddle, and a couple of small toys
> >>>>>>>> or gadgets. The hat is worn throughout the meal. The jokes and
> >>>>>>>> riddles are told round the table.
> >>>>>>> Ah, that would explain why everyone on the Christmas episode of
> >>>>>>> *Vicious*, rebroadcast last night, was wearning a stupid cap while
> >>>>>>> they ate their tiny dinner sandwiches ("rounds" were not
> >>>>>>> mentioned). From the literature, however, I never got the
> >>>>>>> impression that "Christmas crackers" were edible -- they seemed to
> >>>>>>> be something that was pulled at from both ends, made a loud snap,
> >>>>>>> and a bit of paper fell out and a toy. If there's an actual
> >>>>>>> explosive -- like the caps of a cap pistol -- and it's a
> >>>>>>> comestible, isn't there a rather large possibility of a child
> >>>>>>> ingesting some gunpowder? Hm, anything to do with the myth that
> >>>>>>> boarding schools put saltpeter in the food to tame the boys' randy
> >>>>>>> urges?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You are confusing the two different meanings of the word "cracker".
> >>>>>> The Christmas one is NOT a comestible.
> >>>>> Then why would Cheryl's mother have sought them at a bakery?
> >>>>> Oh, she "was surprised to be directed to the bakery when she asked
> >>>>> for" them.
> >>>>
> >>>> Precicely
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>> In my childhood, crackers held far more exciting toys; sea
> >>>>>>>> shells which which when dropped in your water glass, opened, grew,
> >>>>>>>> and blossomed into a beautiful flower. Or indoor fireworks to be
> >>>>>>>> ignited at the dining table with satisfyingly incendiary or loud
> >>>>>>>> results.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So were Christmas fires an expected phenomenon?
> >>>>> This question is still outstanding ...
> >>>>
> >>>> No, because indoor fireworks were puny things. And also because
> >>>> people appeared to have a lot more common sense in the past. Like :
> >>>> if you have a naked flame - take precautions. Not - nobody told me
> >>>> the wrapping paper would catch fire if I put a match near it.
> >>>>
> >>> We had lighted candles on the Christmas tree back in the day, too.
> >>
> >> It was normal when I was a child. Put multiple naked flames into the
> >> middle of one of the most inflammable (combustible) objects
> >> on Earth. What could possibly go wrong :(
> >
> > very little in comparision with the fires that appeared to have been caused
> > by electric lights.
>
> So that's why there were no house fires in the 19th century.
>
> (Serously, Christmas tree fires seem to be part of literature, though
> it's been a long while since I was reading those stories, so I can't
> point to any particular one.)
Christmas is the peak period for accidental housefires in UK.
Janet
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | snidely.too@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-28 12:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <f2891b24-6def-4414-828b-8d8858b4b42d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577626 |
On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 4:04:04 AM UTC-8, Janet wrote:
> In article <mn.e0247dfcc8861406.127094@snitoo>, snidely.too@gmail.com
> says...
> >
> > charles noted that:
> > > In article <d4e50ce3-e403-430c-8168-f44b8f1d1582@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Harrison Hill <harrisonhill2345@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Saturday, 26 December 2015 15:45:04 UTC, Katy Jennison wrote:
> > >>> On 26/12/2015 15:28, charles wrote:
> > >>>> In article <6433bba9-91ff-4af5-bd46-9c8ee8f442c2@googlegroups.com>,
> > >>>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 9:13:07 AM UTC-5, charles wrote:
> > >>>>>> In article <e5106ae2-f4a9-4969-bd06-7265d0142255@googlegroups.com>,
> > >>>>>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 6:14:02 AM UTC-5, Janet wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> In article
> > >>>>>>>> <38fb9351-f9dd-49d8-834f-0bf04ff64140@googlegroups.com>,
> > >>>>>>>> benlizro@ihug.co.nz says...
> > >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:26:22 PM UTC+13, Tony Cooper
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T.
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Daniels wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:52:57 PM UTC-5, Peter
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Moylan wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do all English-speaking countries have the tradition of corny
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> jokes inside the cracker? The ones we had yesterday were
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> scraping the bottom of the barrel. Nobody even bothered
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> groaning. I suppose the merely bad jokes had been used up in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> previous years.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> corny jokes inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> locus for little printed slips of paper.)
> > >>>>>>>>>> Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think
> > >>>>>>>>>> I've ever seen them for sale here.
> > >>>>>>>>> Um, they managed to cross the pond to Canada, on the experience
> > >>>>>>>>> of my youth. I don't see wny they shouldn't have been popular
> > >>>>>>>>> south of the border, where hand-held explosive devices are
> > >>>>>>>>> positively cherished.
> > >>>>>>>> :-) For those who have never experienced the joy of crackers,
> > >>>>>>>> :usual
> > >>>>>>>> practise is to lay one at each place at the Christmas dinner table.
> > >>>>>>>> They are seized by two people and pulled in half, detonating a
> > >>>>>>>> small explosive device with a loud bang; out falls a rolled up
> > >>>>>>>> paper hat, a terrible joke or riddle, and a couple of small toys
> > >>>>>>>> or gadgets. The hat is worn throughout the meal. The jokes and
> > >>>>>>>> riddles are told round the table.
> > >>>>>>> Ah, that would explain why everyone on the Christmas episode of
> > >>>>>>> *Vicious*, rebroadcast last night, was wearning a stupid cap while
> > >>>>>>> they ate their tiny dinner sandwiches ("rounds" were not
> > >>>>>>> mentioned). From the literature, however, I never got the
> > >>>>>>> impression that "Christmas crackers" were edible -- they seemed to
> > >>>>>>> be something that was pulled at from both ends, made a loud snap,
> > >>>>>>> and a bit of paper fell out and a toy. If there's an actual
> > >>>>>>> explosive -- like the caps of a cap pistol -- and it's a
> > >>>>>>> comestible, isn't there a rather large possibility of a child
> > >>>>>>> ingesting some gunpowder? Hm, anything to do with the myth that
> > >>>>>>> boarding schools put saltpeter in the food to tame the boys' randy
> > >>>>>>> urges?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> You are confusing the two different meanings of the word "cracker".
> > >>>>>> The Christmas one is NOT a comestible.
> > >>>>> Then why would Cheryl's mother have sought them at a bakery?
> > >>>>> Oh, she "was surprised to be directed to the bakery when she asked
> > >>>>> for" them.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Precicely
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>>>> In my childhood, crackers held far more exciting toys; sea
> > >>>>>>>> shells which which when dropped in your water glass, opened, grew,
> > >>>>>>>> and blossomed into a beautiful flower. Or indoor fireworks to be
> > >>>>>>>> ignited at the dining table with satisfyingly incendiary or loud
> > >>>>>>>> results.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> So were Christmas fires an expected phenomenon?
> > >>>>> This question is still outstanding ...
> > >>>>
> > >>>> No, because indoor fireworks were puny things. And also because
> > >>>> people appeared to have a lot more common sense in the past. Like :
> > >>>> if you have a naked flame - take precautions. Not - nobody told me
> > >>>> the wrapping paper would catch fire if I put a match near it.
> > >>>>
> > >>> We had lighted candles on the Christmas tree back in the day, too.
> > >>
> > >> It was normal when I was a child. Put multiple naked flames into the
> > >> middle of one of the most inflammable (combustible) objects
> > >> on Earth. What could possibly go wrong :(
> > >
> > > very little in comparision with the fires that appeared to have been caused
> > > by electric lights.
> >
> > So that's why there were no house fires in the 19th century.
> >
> > (Serously, Christmas tree fires seem to be part of literature, though
> > it's been a long while since I was reading those stories, so I can't
> > point to any particular one.)
>
> Christmas is the peak period for accidental housefires in UK.
Nothing to do with cold weather keeping people indoors,
consuming convivial spirits and lapses of judgement,
with oodles of clutter?
Including candles on the table,
often for people who have no other experience with candles?
Or did housefires have a different peak period 150 years ago?
/dps
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 11:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n5sl50$ppb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #577706 |
On 2015-Dec-29 07:00, snidely.too@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, December 28, 2015 at 4:04:04 AM UTC-8, Janet wrote: >> Christmas is the peak period for accidental housefires in UK. > > Nothing to do with cold weather keeping people indoors, > consuming convivial spirits and lapses of judgement, > with oodles of clutter? > > Including candles on the table, > often for people who have no other experience with candles? > > Or did housefires have a different peak period 150 years ago? There's another factor that's changed within my lifetime. My present house doesn't even have a fireplace. That would have been unthinkable when I was a child, when a log fire was the primary source of winter warmth. It was not unusual to see burn marks on the carpet in front of the fireplace. And if someone should happen to put a tree within spark-popping distance of the fireplace ... -- Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Newcastle, NSW, Australia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RH Draney <dadoctah@cox.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n5ngrm08qb@news6.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #577211 |
On 12/26/2015 9:08 AM, Harrison Hill wrote: > On Saturday, 26 December 2015 15:45:04 UTC, Katy Jennison wrote: >> On 26/12/2015 15:28, charles wrote: >>> In article <6433bba9-91ff-4af5-bd46-9c8ee8f442c2@googlegroups.com>, Peter >>> T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >>>> On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 9:13:07 AM UTC-5, charles wrote: >>>>> In article <e5106ae2-f4a9-4969-bd06-7265d0142255@googlegroups.com>, >>>>> Peter T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> So were Christmas fires an expected phenomenon? >>> >>>> This question is still outstanding ... >>> >>> No, because indoor fireworks were puny things. And also because people >>> appeared to have a lot more common sense in the past. Like : if you have a >>> naked flame - take precautions. Not - nobody told me the wrapping paper >>> would catch fire if I put a match near it. >>> >> We had lighted candles on the Christmas tree back in the day, too. > > It was normal when I was a child. Put multiple naked flames into the > middle of one of the most inflammable (combustible) objects > on Earth. What could possibly go wrong :( That's why, around the time I first started to notice the holiday, most families switched over to plastic or aluminum trees...a few years later, an even younger child was heard to express surprise over a neighbor who had put up a tree made of *wood*!... I don't remember whether the model train sets that circled the tree were considered a fire hazard...the "smoke" that came out of the engine may have been dangerous for other reasons, but it was produced by a pellet as it dissolved in water....r
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-29 11:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <n5skgd$n29$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #577180 |
On 2015-Dec-27 01:13, charles wrote: > In article <e5106ae2-f4a9-4969-bd06-7265d0142255@googlegroups.com>, Peter > T. Daniels <grammatim@verizon.net> wrote: >> If there's an actual explosive -- like the caps of a cap pistol -- and >> it's a comestible, isn't there a rather large possibility of a child >> ingesting some gunpowder? Hm, anything to do with the myth that boarding >> schools put saltpeter in the food to tame the boys' randy urges? > > You are confusing the two different meanings of the word "cracker". The > Christmas one is NOT a comestible. This is the source of the "Polly want a cracker" joke that we used to see in some animated films. The poor parrot would end up with a blackened face, or worse. -- Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org Newcastle, NSW, Australia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 12:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <de7behFthqpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #577133 |
On 2015-12-26 07:14:57 +0000, Ross said: > On Saturday, December 26, 2015 at 5:26:22 PM UTC+13, Tony Cooper wrote: >> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:15:28 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke >> <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote: >>>> On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:52:57 PM UTC-5, Peter Moylan wrote: >>>>> On 2015-Dec-26 00:48, Harrison Hill wrote: >>>>>> Christmas as we experience it here in England, was invented >>>>>> by the Victorians. You can mark the transition (I am told) >>>>>> by comparing Christmas in "The Pickwick Papers" with Christmas >>>>>> in "A Christmas Carol" - a transition related directly to >>>>>> Albert marrying Victoria. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are all at various stages of your Christmas Day. We no >>>>>> longer have Victorian "Parlour Games" in our Christmas >>>>>> routine - "Consequences" anyone? - otherwise Christmas >>>>>> is as it has always been. That include the crackers and >>>>>> mottos :) Please test us with your best: >>>>>> >>>>>> What animals need oiling? >>>>> >>>>> Do all English-speaking countries have the tradition of corny jokes >>>>> inside the cracker? The ones we had yesterday were scraping the bottom >>>>> of the barrel. Nobody even bothered groaning. I suppose the merely bad >>>>> jokes had been used up in previous years. >>>> >>>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have corny jokes >>>> inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other locus for little printed >>>> slips of paper.) >>> >>> Help - I'm trapped in Chinese cookie factory. >> >> What brand was it? Bazooka? Some bubble gum wrappers used to have a >> corny joke on each piece. > > Dubble Bubble actually had a (corny) comic strip wrapped around each piece. > >> Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think I've >> ever seen them for sale here. > > Um, they managed to cross the pond to Canada, on the experience of my youth. > I don't see wny they shouldn't have been popular south of the border, where > hand-held explosive devices are positively cherished. Yes, but when you've got real explosives in almost every house why would you bother with pretend ones? -- athel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Cheryl <cperkins@mun.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 07:07 -0330 |
| Message-ID | <de78ulFst47U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #577122 |
On 2015-12-26 12:56 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: > > What brand was it? Bazooka? Some bubble gum wrappers used to have a > corny joke on each piece. > > Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think I've > ever seen them for sale here. > They're available in Canada. My mother was surprised when she moved to the US to be directed to the bakery when she asked for Christmas crackers. -- Cheryl --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | msb@vex.net (Mark Brader) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-26 16:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <NOCdnRfpeIish-LLnZ2dnUU7-KWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #577149 |
Cheryl Perkins: > They [Christmas cracker]'re available in Canada. My brother-in-law and his wife get them every year. The ones they get include three things: a paper hat, some sort of gift, and a little sheet with old jokes or riddles -- and this year they also included some trivia questions. My gift yesterday was a notebook about 1x2 inches, with covers made of glittery foil paper. Usually the joke sheet has three in English and three in French, but not necessarily the same three. Some years there has been Spanish as well. I don't remember any of mine from this year. -- Mark Brader | "This was the ancient Greek equivalent Toronto | of 'citation needed'." msb@vex.net | --Matt Parker My text in this article is in the public domain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-12-27 12:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dea1t7Fj6gvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #577337 |
On 2015-12-26 22:52:33 +0000, Mark Brader said: > Cheryl Perkins: >> They [Christmas cracker]'re available in Canada. > > My brother-in-law and his wife get them every year. The ones they > get include three things: a paper hat, some sort of gift, and a > little sheet with old jokes or riddles -- and this year they also > included some trivia questions. My gift yesterday was a notebook > about 1x2 inches, with covers made of glittery foil paper. > > Usually the joke sheet has three in English and three in French, > but not necessarily the same three. Some years there has been > Spanish as well. I don't remember any of mine from this year. We don't get crackers in France (at least, not since they closed the Marks & Spencers in Marseilles, which used to be an Aladdin's cave of stuff you couldn't otherwise find, like marmite, Christmas pudding, sherry, decent marmalade, Carr's water biscuits, clothes that fitted, etc. It also had the merit over Marks & Spencers in England that you could easily move around without feeling you'd remain upright if you lifted your feet off the ground). However, we get papillotes, which are wrapped chocolates with uplifting thoughts on the slips of paper inside: for example, one I opened today informs me that Abraham Lincoln said that if he was given six hours to cut down a tree he'd spend four of them preparing the axe. -- athel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oa3llcxfq5.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> |
| In reply to | #577122 |
On 2015-12-26, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:15:28 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
><dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have corny jokes
>>> inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other locus for little printed
>>> slips of paper.)
>>
>>Help - I'm trapped in Chinese cookie factory.
>
> What brand was it? Bazooka? Some bubble gum wrappers used to have a
> corny joke on each piece.
>
> Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think I've
> ever seen them for sale here.
I dunno if this is still the case, but a few years ago you couldn't
mail them to the USA --- the small explosive charges (!) were
prohibited.
--
You're a brave man. Go and break through the lines. And remember,
while you're out there risking your life and limb through shot and
shell, we'll be in be in here thinking what a sucker you are.
--- President Rufus T Firefly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 09:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1d7a722e-0bea-4cac-9d47-d143c66646bc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578569 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 6:30:07 AM UTC-8, Adam Funk wrote: > On 2015-12-26, Tony Cooper wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:15:28 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke > ><dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > > >>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have corny jokes > >>> inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other locus for little printed > >>> slips of paper.) > >> > >>Help - I'm trapped in Chinese cookie factory. > > > > What brand was it? Bazooka? Some bubble gum wrappers used to have a > > corny joke on each piece. > > > > Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think I've > > ever seen them for sale here. > > I dunno if this is still the case, but a few years ago you couldn't > mail them to the USA --- the small explosive charges (!) were > prohibited. Costco was selling a big fancy box of what the box called "poppers". The boxer, I observed, was a fireworks company. I concluded I was looking at what Brits call "crackers". Then from my memory I dredged up a memory of such things. The ones I remember from the old days were about six inches long and you pulled on both ends. Nothing in the Costco box looked like that but I gather British crackers come in a variety of shapes. I did not buy one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Peter Duncanson [BrE]" <mail@peterduncanson.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 18:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ti4g8b9nkt3tn7nbsk38cg9kr500jojkej@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #578622 |
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 09:49:43 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote: >On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 6:30:07 AM UTC-8, Adam Funk wrote: >> On 2015-12-26, Tony Cooper wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:15:28 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke >> ><dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >>On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> >> >>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have corny jokes >> >>> inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other locus for little printed >> >>> slips of paper.) >> >> >> >>Help - I'm trapped in Chinese cookie factory. >> > >> > What brand was it? Bazooka? Some bubble gum wrappers used to have a >> > corny joke on each piece. >> > >> > Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think I've >> > ever seen them for sale here. >> >> I dunno if this is still the case, but a few years ago you couldn't >> mail them to the USA --- the small explosive charges (!) were >> prohibited. > >Costco was selling a big fancy box of what the box called "poppers". >The boxer, I observed, was a fireworks company. I concluded I was >looking at what Brits call "crackers". Then from my memory I dredged >up a memory of such things. The ones I remember from the old days were >about six inches long and you pulled on both ends. Nothing in the >Costco box looked like that but I gather British crackers come in a >variety of shapes. I did not buy one. British Christmas Crackers are typically longer than six inches. A "normal" sized one is 12 to 14 inches. You might have been looking at a box of "party poppers": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_popper -- Peter Duncanson, UK (in alt.usage.english)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 10:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0cf78f1e-93af-4796-b53e-e588d8d4847c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #578626 |
On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 10:17:37 AM UTC-8, PeterWD wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 09:49:43 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke > <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 6:30:07 AM UTC-8, Adam Funk wrote: > >> On 2015-12-26, Tony Cooper wrote: > >> > >> > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:15:28 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke > >> ><dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >>On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote: > >> > >> >>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have corny jokes > >> >>> inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other locus for little printed > >> >>> slips of paper.) > >> >> > >> >>Help - I'm trapped in Chinese cookie factory. > >> > > >> > What brand was it? Bazooka? Some bubble gum wrappers used to have a > >> > corny joke on each piece. > >> > > >> > Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think I've > >> > ever seen them for sale here. > >> > >> I dunno if this is still the case, but a few years ago you couldn't > >> mail them to the USA --- the small explosive charges (!) were > >> prohibited. > > > >Costco was selling a big fancy box of what the box called "poppers". > >The boxer, I observed, was a fireworks company. I concluded I was > >looking at what Brits call "crackers". Then from my memory I dredged > >up a memory of such things. The ones I remember from the old days were > >about six inches long and you pulled on both ends. Nothing in the > >Costco box looked like that but I gather British crackers come in a > >variety of shapes. I did not buy one. > > British Christmas Crackers are typically longer than six inches. A > "normal" sized one is 12 to 14 inches. > > You might have been looking at a box of "party poppers": > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_popper The crackers I remember might have been a foot long. I assumed that because I was young things were smaller than I saw them as being back then. The box at Costco did contain some of those little things in the Wiki picture but it also had other things of other larger sizes. There was no indication that you had to be an adult to buy one but then Costco probably gets no child customers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 14:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <qa8g8bdqovbmsub9ft0fepjo4t3qpchq84@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #578622 |
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 09:49:43 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote: >On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 6:30:07 AM UTC-8, Adam Funk wrote: >> On 2015-12-26, Tony Cooper wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:15:28 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke >> ><dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >>On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote: >> >> >>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have corny jokes >> >>> inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other locus for little printed >> >>> slips of paper.) >> >> >> >>Help - I'm trapped in Chinese cookie factory. >> > >> > What brand was it? Bazooka? Some bubble gum wrappers used to have a >> > corny joke on each piece. >> > >> > Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think I've >> > ever seen them for sale here. >> >> I dunno if this is still the case, but a few years ago you couldn't >> mail them to the USA --- the small explosive charges (!) were >> prohibited. > >Costco was selling a big fancy box of what the box called "poppers". >The boxer, I observed, was a fireworks company. I concluded I was >looking at what Brits call "crackers". Then from my memory I dredged >up a memory of such things. The ones I remember from the old days were >about six inches long and you pulled on both ends. Nothing in the >Costco box looked like that but I gather British crackers come in a >variety of shapes. I did not buy one. "Poppers", in this area, are small pellets that, when thrown onto a hard surface, "pop" with a noise like a cap gun. I don't know if Costco sells them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjluSkF_mrc -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charles Bishop <ctbishop@earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-02 15:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ctbishop-8D42D2.15410002012016@news.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #578662 |
In article <qa8g8bdqovbmsub9ft0fepjo4t3qpchq84@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 09:49:43 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke > <dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote: > > >On Saturday, January 2, 2016 at 6:30:07 AM UTC-8, Adam Funk wrote: > >> On 2015-12-26, Tony Cooper wrote: > >> > >> > On Fri, 25 Dec 2015 20:15:28 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke > >> ><dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >>On Friday, December 25, 2015 at 7:04:55 PM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels > >> >>wrote: > >> > >> >>> The US doesn't have "crackers," so _a fortiori_ it doesn't have corny > >> >>> jokes > >> >>> inside them. (Nor in fortune cookies, the other locus for little > >> >>> printed > >> >>> slips of paper.) > >> >> > >> >>Help - I'm trapped in Chinese cookie factory. > >> > > >> > What brand was it? Bazooka? Some bubble gum wrappers used to have a > >> > corny joke on each piece. > >> > > >> > Crackers never, to my knowledge, crossed the pond. I don't think I've > >> > ever seen them for sale here. > >> > >> I dunno if this is still the case, but a few years ago you couldn't > >> mail them to the USA --- the small explosive charges (!) were > >> prohibited. > > > >Costco was selling a big fancy box of what the box called "poppers". > >The boxer, I observed, was a fireworks company. I concluded I was > >looking at what Brits call "crackers". Then from my memory I dredged > >up a memory of such things. The ones I remember from the old days were > >about six inches long and you pulled on both ends. Nothing in the > >Costco box looked like that but I gather British crackers come in a > >variety of shapes. I did not buy one. > > "Poppers", in this area, are small pellets that, when thrown onto a > hard surface, "pop" with a noise like a cap gun. I don't know if > Costco sells them. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjluSkF_mrc Costco does not sell those poppers. You can usually get them in the local Chinatown. ObHellinaHandbasket: when we were younger, they were available with colored paper and they seemed to be better made. Now, while they still give a satisfactory "SNAP" the quality of yore just isn't there. I didn't buy any of the Costco Poppers either but they did remind me of BrE "crackers". Chlres
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-01-04 11:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <r40qlcxksv.ln2@news.ducksburg.com> |
| In reply to | #578662 |
On 2016-01-02, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 09:49:43 -0800 (PST), David Kleinecke
><dkleinecke@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Costco was selling a big fancy box of what the box called "poppers".
>>The boxer, I observed, was a fireworks company. I concluded I was
>>looking at what Brits call "crackers". Then from my memory I dredged
>>up a memory of such things. The ones I remember from the old days were
>>about six inches long and you pulled on both ends. Nothing in the
>>Costco box looked like that but I gather British crackers come in a
>>variety of shapes. I did not buy one.
>
> "Poppers", in this area, are small pellets that, when thrown onto a
> hard surface, "pop" with a noise like a cap gun. I don't know if
> Costco sells them.
Weren't "poppers" some kind of recreational drug for a while?
--
A book lying idle on a shelf is wasted ammunition.
--- Henry Miller
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.usage.english
csiph-web