"Was she worth it?"
Sara Moffat Lorimer
people say American newspapers don't cover world events! -- the
reporter writes that callers used to shout out "Was she worth it?" for
the number 76. I'm lost. What's the significance of 76?
Arcadian Rises
>SML
>http://www.pirate-women.com
>
>
>
By pure accident I went to the above address. I can't believe that a book about
"pirate-women" was actually written. That's the epitome of political
correctness; one cannot run out of ideas in this respect.
Meanwhile, there are so many talented writers, with real ideas, who cannot
afford vanity publishing...
Frances Kemmish
> In an article on the increasing popularity of bingo in Britain -- and
> people say American newspapers don't cover world events! -- the
> reporter writes that callers used to shout out "Was she worth it?" for
> the number 76. I'm lost. What's the significance of 76?
>
I don't know. I'm not too well up on these codes, never having been a
bingo fan - the only one I can remember is 22 two little ducks (and I'm
not sure about that).
There are plenty of sites that will list the calls, and some of them
have 56 as the "was she worth it" call, but none of them explain it. The
only guess I can come up with is that it must be a reference to
pre-decimalisation prices. The numbers are first called separately -
five and six, fifty-six - so that the "five and six" or "seven and six"
are being interpreted as so many shillings and pence.
There - that's probably worth seven and six of anybody's money.
Fran
Frances Kemmish
I can only conclude that you have not read Sara's work.
Arcadian Rises
>> By pure accident I went to the above address. I can't believe that a book
>about
>> "pirate-women" was actually written. That's the epitome of political
>> correctness; one cannot run out of ideas in this respect.
>>
>> Meanwhile, there are so many talented writers, with real ideas, who cannot
>> afford vanity publishing...
>
>I can only conclude that you have not read Sara's work.
You're absolutely right. Actually, I didn't know that the persobn who
advertized that book is the actual writer. Are you sure about that?
Sara Moffat Lorimer
I'm positive. And Chronicle isn't a vanity press, by the way.
What suddenly brought all this anger on? I've been using this .sig in
AUE for over a year.
Harvey V
> In an article on the increasing popularity of bingo in Britain --
> and people say American newspapers don't cover world events! --
> the reporter writes that callers used to shout out "Was she worth
> it?" for the number 76. I'm lost. What's the significance of 76?
>
It's undoubtedly a reference to "seven and six" -- seven shillings and
sixpence -- which was written 7/6.
My guess is that it was a common amount to pay for a prostitute.
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
John Davies
Lorimer <radi...@nyc.rr.com> writes
>In an article on the increasing popularity of bingo in Britain -- and
>people say American newspapers don't cover world events! -- the
>reporter writes that callers used to shout out "Was she worth it?" for
>the number 76. I'm lost. What's the significance of 76?
>
for a marriage certificate. In today's money, £0.375.
There's quite a full list of Bingo calls (listed under "Tombola",
another name for the same game) in the appendix to:
Paul BEALE (ed). A Concise dictionary of slang and
unconventional English, from A Dictionary of slang and
unconventional English, by Eric Partridge. Routledge, 1989. 0
415 06352 3.
Among the best known are:
1 Kelly's eye
9 Doctor's friend (from the laxative used by naval doctors)
22 Two little ducks
59 The Brighton line
66 Clickety click
88 Two fat ladies
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Arcadian Rises
>
>What suddenly brought all this anger on?
Because I went to the advertized site unwittingly, and we were not amused.
>I've been using this .sig in
>AUE for over a year.
That's your First Amendment right to advertize yourself. It's also mine, to
opine that it's cheap and in extremely poor taste.
To answer the titled question: No!
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> In article <1fsby3f.1iq4ljx10kxd3mN%radi...@nyc.rr.com>, Sara Moffat
> Lorimer <radi...@nyc.rr.com> writes
> >In an article on the increasing popularity of bingo in Britain -- and
> >people say American newspapers don't cover world events! -- the
> >reporter writes that callers used to shout out "Was she worth it?" for
> >the number 76. I'm lost. What's the significance of 76?
> >
> Seven shillings and sixpence was, a very long time ago, the fee charged
> for a marriage certificate. In today's money, £0.375.
How obscure! Thank you.
Sara Moffat Lorimer
Ah. Well, here's my other website, if you'd like to see photos of my
cute lil' baby, instead. They always cheer me up when I'm cranky:
http://www.chatteringmind.com/photos/
M. J. Powell
<harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
All wrong.
7/6 used to be the cost of a Marriage Licence, a long time ago.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Skitt
> Ah. Well, here's my other website, if you'd like to see photos of my
> cute lil' baby, instead. They always cheer me up when I'm cranky:
> http://www.chatteringmind.com/photos/
That's all very nice, but the choice of a black background is an unfortunate
one. The link names, which most users see in dark blue, are almost
unreadable. In fact, I could not read them without great effort, so I
didn't bother, not that I care much for baby pictures anyway -- babies
pretty much look alike.
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel (Fawlty Towers)
Harvey V
>> It's undoubtedly a reference to "seven and six" -- seven
>> shillings and sixpence -- which was written 7/6.
>> My guess is that it was a common amount to pay for a prostitute.
> All wrong.
> 7/6 used to be the cost of a Marriage Licence, a long time ago.
/puts on pouting face/
Not *all* wrong: the bit about it being short for 7/6 was
correct......
Martin Ambuhl
> Ah. Well, here's my other website, if you'd like to see photos of my
> cute lil' baby, instead. They always cheer me up when I'm cranky:
> http://www.chatteringmind.com/photos/
You're right. That lil' baby is cute, indeed. BTW, is RebeccaWeasel a
nickname or did I just miss a space before the 'W'? Is Tara the baby?
Who's Virginia?
On a technical note, are you using a film camera with type A or B film,
or did you just have the light balance on your digital camera set for
tungsten?
http://chatteringmind.com/photos/01_4th_week/I_need_tungsten_to_live.jpg
Laura F Spira
Lovely pics, Sara.
And there's nothing wrong with your .sig.
Paul Rooney
Not quite so obscure if you remember old money and also bear in mind
that it's called out as 'Seven and six', which is exactly how people
referred to that amount of money.
--
Paul
http://www.paulrooney.connectfree.co.uk/myweb/index.htm
(Under construction)
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> BTW, is RebeccaWeasel a
> nickname or did I just miss a space before the 'W'? Is Tara the baby?
> Who's Virginia?
Rebecca Weasel is a nickname and there should be a space. Tara is the
adult. Virginia is my friend. The site is made with grandparents in
mind, thus the "insider" tone.
>
> On a technical note, are you using a film camera with type A or B film,
> or did you just have the light balance on your digital camera set for
> tungsten?
> http://chatteringmind.com/photos/01_4th_week/I_need_tungsten_to_live.jpg
It's digital. I'd forgotten to reset the white balance when I went
outside.
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> Lovely pics, Sara.
>
> And there's nothing wrong with your .sig.
Aw, thanks and thanks.
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> In fact, I could not read them without great effort, so I
> didn't bother, not that I care much for baby pictures anyway -- babies
> pretty much look alike.
Even babies who are one-quarter Baltic-American? No, I know what you
mean. The grandparents complain if we don't update the site frequently,
however.
Mike Lyle
Prone as I am to occasional dyspeptic outbursts, I can recognise, and
(when eupeptic) sympathise with, a fellow-sufferer. Let me assure you
that there were women pirates, that the subject is interesting, and
that Sara's perfectly capable of writing her own books. And even if
none of these were true, your remarks would be distinctly bizarre.
Mike.
Arcadian Rises
>Let me assure you
>that there were women pirates, that the subject is interesting,
Did you write that book?
>and
>that Sara's perfectly capable of writing her own books.
LOL
And even if
>none of these were true, your remarks would be distinctly bizarre.
>
>Mike.
>
That's your nom de plume?
You know what gave you away?
Any decent human being would have liked to end this type of conversation.
But not a self-promoter because, as you know, there is no such thing as bad
publicity.
I'm sure you have many friends who would've loved to jump in your defense, but
that would have been very untactful, because it would have only prolongued this
embarassing discussion.
Aparently, a self-promoter is shameless.
Arcadian Rises
>not that I care much for baby pictures anyway -- babies
>pretty much look alike.
I know what you mean. My secretary has recently became a grandmother and almost
everyday she is 'regaling' me with a new set of pictures. However, to her
credit, she will never expose the 'precious one' to total strangers on the
Internet.
Lars Eighner
<3fa4d950.03032...@posting.google.com>, the lovely and
talented Mike Lyle broadcast on alt.usage.english:
> Prone as I am to occasional dyspeptic outbursts, I can recognise, and
> (when eupeptic) sympathise with, a fellow-sufferer. Let me assure you
> that there were women pirates, that the subject is interesting, and
> that Sara's perfectly capable of writing her own books. And even if
> none of these were true, your remarks would be distinctly bizarre.
Publication seems to produce bizarre reactions in the
unpublished -- almost always from those who are at pains to
assure that they haven't read the work in question.
--
Lars Eighner -finger for geek code- eig...@io.com http://www.io.com/~eighner/
The US Constitution wasn't perfect,
But it was better than what we have now.
The Asses of Evil: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft
Arcadian Rises
>Lovely pics, Sara.
>
>And there's nothing wrong with your .sig.
>
Birds of a feather ...
What is this, the unread writers' club?
Jacqui
> Seven shillings and sixpence was, a very long time ago, the fee
> charged for a marriage certificate. In today's money, £0.375.
Today's price, by contrast, is £30 per person to give Notice of
Marriage (so £60 total), plus church or registry office fees.
(We didn't get charged any church fees for ours, but did need to obtain
a licence first as it was not CofE.)
Jac
Arcadian Rises
>Publication seems to produce bizarre reactions in the
> unpublished -- almost always from those who are at pains to
> assure that they haven't read the work in question.
>
What's so great about being published? Unless you're a James Joyce, Shakespeare
or the like, being published is an exercise in exhibitionism. It's like sharing
the pics of your infant baby with a room full of strangers.
Dena Jo
> By pure accident I went to the above address. I can't believe that
> a book about "pirate-women" was actually written.
The book is totally cool. I bought it.
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> Rebecca Weasel is a nickname and there should be a space. Tara is the
> adult. Virginia is my friend. The site is made with grandparents in
> mind, thus the "insider" tone.
Sounds like a good pirate name to me. I would suggest video or software
piracy instead of the old fashioned kind. Unless of course she doesn't
like the sea, then there's always banditry or cattle rustling.
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
Dena Jo
> That's all very nice, but the choice of a black background is an
> unfortunate one.
I agree about the background. Cute pictures. What was baby's first
march about?
tomca...@yanospamhoo.com
> The book is totally cool. I bought it.
Aren't you supposed to steal a book about pirates? Or download it from a
warez file? I have been put off pirates since watching "The Wiggles".
The short guy in the purple shirt also scares me.
M. J. Powell
<sk...@attbi.com> writes
>Sara Moffat Lorimer wrote:
>
>> Ah. Well, here's my other website, if you'd like to see photos of my
>> cute lil' baby, instead. They always cheer me up when I'm cranky:
>> http://www.chatteringmind.com/photos/
>
>That's all very nice, but the choice of a black background is an unfortunate
>one. The link names, which most users see in dark blue, are almost
>unreadable. In fact, I could not read them without great effort, so I
>didn't bother, not that I care much for baby pictures anyway -- babies
>pretty much look alike.
Like Winston Churchill?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
M. J. Powell
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:51:26 GMT, M. J. Powell wrote
>> In message <Xns9348CDB0...@194.168.222.41>, Harvey V
>><harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>
>>> It's undoubtedly a reference to "seven and six" -- seven
>>> shillings and sixpence -- which was written 7/6.
>
>>> My guess is that it was a common amount to pay for a prostitute.
>
>> All wrong.
>
>> 7/6 used to be the cost of a Marriage Licence, a long time ago.
>
>
>
>/puts on pouting face/
>
>Not *all* wrong: the bit about it being short for 7/6 was
>correct......
OK 5/10
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Jacqui
> Ah. Well, here's my other website, if you'd like to see photos of
> my cute lil' baby, instead. They always cheer me up when I'm
> cranky: http://www.chatteringmind.com/photos/
Works for me, and I was feeling particularly cranky this evening. :-)
It also seems to have woken SC up too... I know babies like looking at
other babies, but I didn't realise this worked in utero.
Jac
Frances Kemmish
> In message <Xns9348D5D8...@62.253.162.114>, Harvey V
> <harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>
>> On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 20:51:26 GMT, M. J. Powell wrote
>>
>>> In message <Xns9348CDB0...@194.168.222.41>, Harvey V
>>> <harve...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>>> It's undoubtedly a reference to "seven and six" -- seven
>>>> shillings and sixpence -- which was written 7/6.
>>>
>>
>>>> My guess is that it was a common amount to pay for a prostitute.
>>>
>>
>>> All wrong.
>>
>>
>>> 7/6 used to be the cost of a Marriage Licence, a long time ago.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> /puts on pouting face/
>>
>> Not *all* wrong: the bit about it being short for 7/6 was
>> correct......
>
>
> OK 5/10
>
What's that, a pensioner's discount?
Fran
Tony Cooper
wrote:
Hey, Sara! Does Grace O'Malley do house calls? BYOP?
--
Tony Cooper aka: tony_co...@yahoo.com
Provider of Jots, Tittles, and Oy!s
Lars Eighner
<20030324172733...@mb-df.aol.com>,
the lovely and talented Arcadian Rises
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>>From: Lars Eighner
>>Publication seems to produce bizarre reactions in the
>> unpublished -- almost always from those who are at pains to
>> assure that they haven't read the work in question.
>>
> What's so great about being published?
Well, you know, you get money for it.
> Unless you're a James Joyce, Shakespeare or the like, being
> published is an exercise in exhibitionism. It's like sharing the
> pics of your infant baby with a room full of strangers.
All businesses have their downside, and I guess, the
notoriety is the downside of the publishing business.
Irwell
Dug out our old marriage certficate, the fee is 2s6d, back in
the dark ages, when the Queen was a slip of a girl.
Robert Bannister
No, but most of us here like Sara.
--
Rob Bannister
richard.chambers7
"Arcadian Rises" <arcadi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030324172733...@mb-df.aol.com...
> >
>
> What's so great about being published? Unless you're a James Joyce,
Shakespeare
> or the like, being published is an exercise in exhibitionism. It's like
sharing
> the pics of your infant baby with a room full of strangers.
1. Being published is a good thing. That is an effective means by which
knowledge can be transferred from one person to another. To a large extent,
modern civilisation depends upon it.
2. Exhibitionism is a good thing. Without it, we would have no actors on
stage, no humourists or comedians, no television, no "local characters", no
entertainment of any sort (except perhaps Shakespeare or James Joyce). In
short, we would all have the very drab life that you seem to be advocating,
in which no one dares to stick out a bit from the dull crowd.
3. Showing pictures of your infant baby is a good thing. It is thoroughly
human. Sara has simply given a web address, which you can choose to click if
you are interested. Unlike the proud mother who shows her pictures to "a
room full of strangers", you can shun Sara's offerings with absolutely no
embarassment. Having read several of her contributions during the last few
years, and having got into a brief exchange with her on this board (or
alt.folklore.urban) a couple of times, I must admit that I am more
interested in the photograph of her than of her baby. She does seem to
feature in at least one of the photos. Have you got a bigger photograph of
yourself somewhere on your website, Sara?
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
John Dean
Winston Churchill looked alike?
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
John Davies
<paulr...@aol.com> writes
>On Mon, 24 Mar 2003 15:28:43 -0500, radi...@nyc.rr.com (Sara Moffat
>Lorimer) wrote:
>
>>John Davies wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1fsby3f.1iq4ljx10kxd3mN%radi...@nyc.rr.com>, Sara Moffat
>>> Lorimer <radi...@nyc.rr.com> writes
>>> >In an article on the increasing popularity of bingo in Britain -- and
>>> >people say American newspapers don't cover world events! -- the
>>> >reporter writes that callers used to shout out "Was she worth it?" for
>>> >the number 76. I'm lost. What's the significance of 76?
>>> >
>>> Seven shillings and sixpence was, a very long time ago, the fee charged
>>> for a marriage certificate. In today's money, £0.375.
>>
>
>
>Not quite so obscure if you remember old money and also bear in mind
>that it's called out as 'Seven and six', which is exactly how people
>referred to that amount of money.
>
Quite so.
Incidentally, someone else in this thread pointed out that their
marriage certificate cost 2/6, and on looking at mine, issued in 1959, I
see it cost 3/9. Given that most of these bingo calls date back to WW2
or before, I'm inclined to doubt the accuracy of Beale (cited in my
original response). I suspect that 7/6 was in fact the cost of a
*licence* to marry, which allows one to wed in one's local church with
less than the normal waiting period required for the banns to be called
on 3 successive Sundays. Alternatively, it might have been the cost of a
special licence, obtained from the Archbishop of Canterbury, which
allows one to marry in any parish and at any time. If anyone has a
pre-war edition of Whitaker's Almanack we could know for sure!
During the war, of course, when Bingo/Tombola was very popular in the
forces, and lots of servicemen would (for a variety of reasons) get
married in a hurry, the cost of a licence would be pretty widely known.
(The rules for civil marriages are a bit different, but I've already
written more than anyone probably wants to know about the subject.)
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
Irwell
What were those banns all about anyway?
I remember had to go to the vicar and talk about it,
we were the only ones in the church and it was Evensong, had to kneel down
and pray ( and me an atheist, but the old Dutch had insisted on a church wedding),
never did show up to hear if anyone objected. Richmond Parish Church, a lot of
actors and other reprobates had married there so we were in good company.
Maria Conlon
>> Sara Moffat Lorimer said:
>>
>> What suddenly brought all this anger on?
>
> Because I went to the advertized site unwittingly, and we were not
> amused.
>
>> I've been using this .sig in
>> AUE for over a year.
>
> That's your First Amendment right to advertize yourself. It's also
> mine, to opine that it's cheap and in extremely poor taste.
>
And it's your First Amendment right to act like a total jerk.
By the way, your mention of the First Amendment makes me think you might
be an American. But Americans spell "advertise" with an "s," not a "z."
What's the story?
Note that Sara is one of the nicest people here, and that your remarks
to her are exceedingly rude. Why is that? Jealousy? A bad day? A
rejection notice? Maybe just a rejection?
You seem out of character today, but ICBW.
Maria Conlon
Tony Cooper
He's a lawyer, isn't he? Seems like he said he was in some post. If
so, I like the irony of someone making a living on other people's
misery criticizing someone that writes about someone causing other
people misery.
If not a lawyer, then I like the irony of someone that takes a name
relating to poetry and criticizes a writer. Simple does not always
mean plain.
R F
> But not a self-promoter because, as you know, there is no such thing as bad
> publicity.
Tell that to Kyle Baker. (Say, where *is* that fellow Edwin, his
brother, anyway?)
Richard
Derek Turner
Lorimer) wrote:
>In an article on the increasing popularity of bingo in Britain -- and
>people say American newspapers don't cover world events! -- the
>reporter writes that callers used to shout out "Was she worth it?" for
>the number 76. I'm lost. What's the significance of 76?
sarah, to answer the original question:
first you need to know that bingo numbers are always called thus:
'nine and one, ninety-one, six and four, sixty-four', you get the
idea?
OK, so: seven and six, seventy-six. Seven and six (seven shillings and
six pence in our pre-decimal currency) was for a long time the price
of a marriage licence, which the man always paid. hence 'was she worth
it?'
now, was the rather lame joke worth the long involved explanation?
--
Derek Turner
Outlook Express is worth precisely what you paid for it.
david56
For completeness, and to increase the sum of human knowledge, I can
report that the total cost for marrying in a register office in 1984 was
£18. £6 down and £12 on the day.
I occasionally remind Wife that she cost me £12 (she paid the deposit).
--
David
... some are gonna rob you with a six gun, some'll do it with a fountain
pen.
=====
The address is valid today, but I will change it to keep ahead of the
spammers.
Matti Lamprhey
> M. J. Powell wrote:
> > Skitt <sk...@attbi.com> writes
> >>
> >> anyway -- babies pretty much look alike.
> >
> > Like Winston Churchill?
>
> Winston Churchill looked alike?
No -- all the Winston Churchills looked alike.
Matti
Charles Riggs
>In an article on the increasing popularity of bingo in Britain -- and
>people say American newspapers don't cover world events! -- the
>reporter writes that callers used to shout out "Was she worth it?" for
>the number 76. I'm lost. What's the significance of 76?
1776, perhaps? The year the Americans declared, sadly, their freedom
from Great Britain.
69 + 7? Nah.
--
Charles Riggs
For email, take the air out of aircom and
replace it with eir
Charles Riggs
>>From: Laura F Spira la...@DRAGONspira.u-net.com
>
>>Lovely pics, Sara.
>>
>>And there's nothing wrong with your .sig.
>>
>
>Birds of a feather ...
>
>What is this, the unread writers' club?
With you amongst us, it should be called the lone asshole club.
Charles Riggs
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> made history, by writing:
>On 24 Mar 2003 22:18:03 GMT, arcadi...@aol.com (Arcadian Rises)
>wrote:
>
>>>From: Laura F Spira la...@DRAGONspira.u-net.com
>>
>>>Lovely pics, Sara.
>>>
>>>And there's nothing wrong with your .sig.
>>>
>>
>>Birds of a feather ...
>>
>>What is this, the unread writers' club?
>
>Hey, Sara! Does Grace O'Malley do house calls?
Does for me. I live a few short miles from her castle on Clare Island.
>BYOP?
Nah. This is Ireland, where whiskey is in abundance. No offense, PB.
Charles Riggs
made history, by writing:
>>From: mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle)
>
>>Let me assure you
>>that there were women pirates, that the subject is interesting,
>
>Did you write that book?
Why don't you go piss off? Asshole.
mickwick
>For completeness, and to increase the sum of human knowledge, I can
>report that the total cost for marrying in a register office in 1984 was
>£18. £6 down and £12 on the day.
>
>I occasionally remind Wife that she cost me £12 (she paid the deposit).
Does she ever remind you that you cost her half as much?
--
Mickwick
david56
> In alt.usage.english, david56 wrote:
>
>>For completeness, and to increase the sum of human knowledge, I can
>>report that the total cost for marrying in a register office in 1984 was
>>
>>I occasionally remind Wife that she cost me Ł12 (she paid the deposit).
>
> Does she ever remind you that you cost her half as much?
Certainly; we live in an egalitarian household. I note that I was
obviously a bargain!
In practice we'd had a joint mortgage and all our money had been in a
joint bank account for years before we bothered to get married, so there
was no "my money" or "her money", but it's a good story.
Mike Lyle
> >From: mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle)
>
> >Let me assure you
> >that there were women pirates, that the subject is interesting,
>
> Did you write that book?
>
> >that Sara's perfectly capable of writing her own books.
>
> LOL
Arcadian, that crack was just mean.
>
> And even if
> >none of these were true, your remarks would be distinctly bizarre.
> >
> >Mike.
> >
> That's your nom de plume?
>
[...]
> Any decent human being would have liked to end this type of conversation.
[...]
What, on humanitarian grounds? Sorry, but you should know by now that
when you make a tit of yourself on AUE there's usually some merciless
comrade ready to soothe you with a pie full of Massé cream. I have
little doubt that you'll get me soon enough, but this isn't it.
I do, nevertheless, like the name Sara, and am distantly related to
some people called Moffat; so I won't guarantee *not* to adopt some
part or parts thereof as a pen-name at some juncture: but it seems
pretty unlikely at present. I'll let you know.
Mike.
M. J. Powell
<john...@frag.lineone.net> writes
I suppose he did. I wonder who he resembled when a baby?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
M. J. Powell
<fkem...@optonline.net> writes
There's an idea...
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
richard.chambers7
"Harvey V" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9348CDB0...@194.168.222.41...
>
> > In an article on the increasing popularity of bingo in Britain --
> > and people say American newspapers don't cover world events! --
> > the reporter writes that callers used to shout out "Was she worth
> > it?" for the number 76. I'm lost. What's the significance of 76?
> >
>
> sixpence -- which was written 7/6.
>
> My guess is that it was a common amount to pay for a prostitute.
>
It's possible that you might be right. In the thread "The word quid", Peter
Prictoe on 17/8/02 offered the following reply to a posting that I had made
ealier:-
<quote> I recollect too walking around the West End of London during the
wartime
blackout and girls whispered as you passed "seven and six" so I reckon that
ten bob must have been a classy one. <unquote>.
Richard Chambers Leeds UK.
Harvey V
>
> "Harvey V" <harve...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9348CDB0...@194.168.222.41...
>>
>>> In an article on the increasing popularity of bingo in Britain
>>> -- and people say American newspapers don't cover world events!
>>> -- the reporter writes that callers used to shout out "Was she
>>> worth it?" for the number 76. I'm lost. What's the significance
>>> of 76?
snip re: "Was she worth it" as a bingo call for "76"
>>
>> It's undoubtedly a reference to "seven and six" -- seven
>> shillings and sixpence -- which was written 7/6.
>> My guess is that it was a common amount to pay for a prostitute.
> ------------------------------------------
> It's possible that you might be right. In the thread "The word
> quid", Peter Prictoe on 17/8/02 offered the following reply to a
> posting that I had made ealier:-
>
> <quote> I recollect too walking around the West End of London
> during the wartime blackout and girls whispered as you passed
> "seven and six" so I reckon that ten bob must have been a classy
> one. <unquote>.
Well, Mike seems to think I'm out to lunch on the guess -- but it *did*
seem a reasonable possibility!
What prompted me to make the surmise was the similar tradition --
probably an urban myth -- that the reason western Canadians were averse
to using two-dollar bills was that it looked too much like you were
carrying around cash in a convenient form to pay for two-dollar
hookers.
Whatever the reason, the difference was quite marked. Where I grew up,
in Ottawa, two-dollar bills were in wide circulation; when I lived in
Edmonton, though, (late 1970s), one very seldom saw them. (If somebody
had a two-dollar bill you could pretty well guess they'd recently been
east.)
I'm not sure, but I imagine the prairie aversion to two-dollar bills
survived until the notes were abolished.
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
Padraig Breathnach
>Nah. This is Ireland, where whiskey is in abundance. No offense, PB.
No offense -- or even rightpondian offence -- taken. Pass the Bush.
PB
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>>Hey, Sara! Does Grace O'Malley do house calls?
>
>Does for me. I live a few short miles from her castle on Clare Island.
>
>>BYOP?
>
>Nah. This is Ireland, where whiskey is in abundance. No offense, PB.
In this case, the "P" was plank and not Powers.
John Davies
richard.chambers7 <richard....@ntlworld.com> writes
>>
>------------------------------------------
>It's possible that you might be right. In the thread "The word quid", Peter
>Prictoe on 17/8/02 offered the following reply to a posting that I had made
>ealier:-
>
><quote> I recollect too walking around the West End of London during the
>wartime
>blackout and girls whispered as you passed "seven and six" so I reckon that
>ten bob must have been a classy one. <unquote>.
Interesting. I suppose that in every trade there is a standard price for
a (more or less) standard product, so it could well be that 7/6 might
have been the going rate (or should that be the coming rate?) in the
war-time West End. All I know of such matters (honest!) is that in the
mid 50s an extremely unalluring Glaswegian lady offered me a hand-job
for ten shillings. As News of the World reporters used to say, I made my
excuses and left.
That was, incidentally, the going rate for a prostitute in Nigeria in
1974: expressed of course in the local currency, i.e. 50 kobos. I am
indebted for this information to one of the most brilliant popular
newspapers I've ever come across, the Lagos Weekend, owned at that time
by the British Daily Mirror Group. It made today's Sunday Sport look
conservatively intellectual, and was one of the funniest reads you could
want on a hot Saturday afternoon. It ran a long series of reports about
a strike by the Nigerian Union of Prostitutes, who were demanding on
grounds of runaway inflation a price increase. I still don't know if
there really was such a union, or if they succeeded in their aim, but
the price itself was attested by a court case in the same paper,
involving a dispute between a hooker and one of her clients. Having
handed over his 50 kobos, to quote the paper, "he sexed her one round"
then proceeded to do the deed a second time, refusing to pay any more.
Quite how the case came to court I don't know -- she probably beat him
up -- but I believe the learned judge found in her favour.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
M. J. Powell
Breathnach <padr...@iol.ie> writes
>Charles Riggs <chr...@aircom.net> wrote:
>
>>Nah. This is Ireland, where whiskey is in abundance. No offense, PB.
>
>No offense -- or even rightpondian offence -- taken. Pass the Bush.
The father of a girl friend always drank Bushmills. The 20 year-old
stuff. When I went to work in Dublin I thought that I could get some,
but everywhere they told me that it was 'Export Only'. Curses!
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> On 24 Mar 2003, Skitt posted thus:
>
> > That's all very nice, but the choice of a black background is an
> > unfortunate one.
>
> I agree about the background. Cute pictures. What was baby's first
> march about?
Diplomacy. We're in favor of it. He had no say in the matter.
Sorry about the background -- it's green on all the computers we have
here. I'll forward your comments to the relevant person.
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> Arcadian Rises wrote:
> >>From: Laura F Spira la...@DRAGONspira.u-net.com
> >
> >
> >>Lovely pics, Sara.
> >>
> >>And there's nothing wrong with your .sig.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Birds of a feather ...
> >
> > What is this, the unread writers' club?
>
> No, but most of us here like Sara.
You like me! You really like me!
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> She does seem to
> feature in at least one of the photos. Have you got a bigger photograph of
> yourself somewhere on your website, Sara?
No, sorry -- the site is for the grandparents, and they (obAUE) could
care less what I look like.
Sara Moffat Lorimer
> first you need to know that bingo numbers are always called thus:
> 'nine and one, ninety-one, six and four, sixty-four', you get the
> idea?
Ah! I was missing that.
>
> OK, so: seven and six, seventy-six. Seven and six (seven shillings and
> six pence in our pre-decimal currency) was for a long time the price
> of a marriage licence, which the man always paid. hence 'was she worth
> it?'
>
> now, was the rather lame joke worth the long involved explanation?
Yes, because it was bugging me. Now I can sleep.
Arcadian Rises
writes:
> All businesses have their downside, and I guess, the
> notoriety is the downside of the publishing business.
>
It comes with the territory of being a public figure, vulnerable to all kind of
criticism.
Arcadian Rises
writes:
>No, but most of us here like Sara.
De gustibus non disputandum.
Arcadian Rises
<rf...@sparky.cs.nyu.edu> writes:
>
>Tell that to Kyle Baker. (Say, where *is* that fellow Edwin, his
>brother, anyway?)
?
Arcadian Rises
mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk (Mike Lyle) writes:
>
>What, on humanitarian grounds? Sorry, but you should know by now that
>when you make a tit of yourself on AUE there's usually some merciless
>comrade ready to soothe you with a pie full of Massé cream.
You call it comradery but I call it conspiracy of the mediocre. They always
stick to their own kind. None of the heavy weight intelectuals of aue has
indulged in a personal attack against me, in order to "defend" some
exhibitionistic tendencies of one of the contributors.
Arcadian Rises
<mcon...@sprynet.com> writes:
>And it's your First Amendment right to act like a total jerk.
So is yours, grandma.
>
>By the way, your mention of the First Amendment makes me think you might
>be an American. But Americans spell "advertise" with an "s," not a "z."
>What's the story?
I don't remember, ask my secretary.
>
>Note that Sara is one of the nicest people here, and that your remarks
>to her are exceedingly rude. Why is that? Jealousy? A bad day? A
>rejection notice? Maybe just a rejection?
>
>You seem out of character today, but ICBW.
That's what I call neighborhood watch.
Arcadian Rises
"richard.chambers7" <richard....@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>1. Being published is a good thing. That is an effective means by which
>knowledge can be transferred from one person to another. To a large extent,
>modern civilisation depends upon it.
I agree, provided that what is published, is true knowledge, or is trully
entertaining.
>
>2. Exhibitionism is a good thing. Without it, we would have no actors on
>stage, no humourists or comedians, no television, no "local characters", no
>entertainment of any sort (except perhaps Shakespeare or James Joyce). In
>short, we would all have the very drab life that you seem to be advocating,
>in which no one dares to stick out a bit from the dull crowd.
Well, if you prefer a homely, middle-aged boring women, who aspires to become a
writer, to Sharon Stone, then everybody should be an exhibitionist, not only
the professionals. Also, every bored housewife, who practice writing on the
Internet should be a writer.
Simon R. Hughes
> they (obAUE) could
> care less
There goes your popularity.
--
Simon R. Hughes
War is peace!
Simon R. Hughes
>
> > On 24 Mar 2003, Skitt posted thus:
> >
> > > That's all very nice, but the choice of a black background is an
> > > unfortunate one.
> >
> > I agree about the background. Cute pictures. What was baby's first
> > march about?
>
> Diplomacy. We're in favor of it. He had no say in the matter.
Nor did anyone else.
Or are you talking about going on the march?
Did you ask him if he wanted to go?
Simon R. Hughes
> In article <9mOfa.467$3j5.2...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
> "richard.chambers7" <richard....@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
> >1. Being published is a good thing. That is an effective means by which
> >knowledge can be transferred from one person to another. To a large extent,
> >modern civilisation depends upon it.
>
> I agree, provided that what is published, is true knowledge, or is trully
> entertaining.
Hey, we gotta real-live arbiter of taste over here!
> >2. Exhibitionism is a good thing. Without it, we would have no actors on
> >stage, no humourists or comedians, no television, no "local characters", no
> >entertainment of any sort (except perhaps Shakespeare or James Joyce). In
> >short, we would all have the very drab life that you seem to be advocating,
> >in which no one dares to stick out a bit from the dull crowd.
>
> Well, if you prefer a homely, middle-aged boring women, who aspires to become a
> writer, to Sharon Stone, then everybody should be an exhibitionist, not only
> the professionals.
Are you still talking about Sara? You should look at the baby
pictures -- you catch the odd glimpse of her in a couple of them (or
go to the AUE gallery). She ain't middle-aged, or "homely" (horrible
Americanism!); and she is a published writer, not a wannabe.
How about you? Let's see your picture, unravel that Really Clever
anagram you post under, reproduce for us the long list of best-
selling publications you have under your belt.
Yeah: put up or shut up!
> Also, every bored housewife, who practice writing on the
> Internet should be a writer.
Bring 'em on. Everyone who can write should.
Simon R. Hughes
Who can answer this without being perceived as big-headed?
My head's huge already, and I'm a certified intellectual (or should
be), and I'm overweight, so I'll run the gauntlet (besides, Robert
Fontana is moving to New Jersey or somewhere); it deserves
answering.
Sara's .sig is is not symptomatic of exhibitionism. Nor was her
lighthearted response with her baby-pictures site. Any balanced
person will agree.
It looks to the casual observer as if you resent her acheivement. (I
had my psychology licence revoked a little while back, so I won't go
any deeper.) The support for Sara, which you also appear to resent,
has its root in the fact that she is well-liked around here, as
Robert Bannister said.
This whole little bee in your bonnet appears to stem from your
inability to take the responsibility for clicking on links.
I suggest you stop this while people will still talk to you.
Laura F Spira
Who are these "heavyweight intelectuals of aue"?
Your petulance can't be doing your health any good. I suggest that you
should follow the example of Mr Riggs and never click on links, if they
upset you in this way.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Arcadian Rises
<shu...@tromso.online.no> writes:
>
>How about you? Let's see your picture, unravel that Really Clever
>anagram you post under,
Oh, c'mon, I have a REAL life.
>reproduce for us the long list of best-
>selling publications you have under your belt.
zero, zilch.
And I'm very proud of it.
>Yeah: put up or shut up!
>
>> Also, every bored housewife, who practice writing on the
>> Internet should be a writer.
>
>Bring 'em on. Everyone who can write should.
You don't knowwhat you're talking about. There are at least 30,000 books
published every year.
>--
Arcadian Rises
<shu...@tromso.online.no> writes:
>
>It looks to the casual observer as if you resent her acheivement.
You're jesting, aren't you? Not even in my nightmares I was ever writing a book
on that subject. It's like a caricature of some aspiring writer who ran out of
ideas.
>(I
>had my psychology licence revoked a little while back, so I won't go
>any deeper.)
Why not? It's much more interesting than...you know what.
>The support for Sara, which you also appear to resent,
>has its root in the fact that she is well-liked around here, as
>Robert Bannister said.
True, that's what I resent the most. Because, in real life I had to read lots
of crap written by very nice people. In my school years I also had to read crap
written by our professors' friends. Nowadays I take great pains in avoiding one
of my neighbors (a great fellow) because I still didn't read his autographed
book.
My doctor has also recently published a semi-autobiographic book on ethics and
I keep postponing my annual check up because he expects some meaningful
feedback from me.
>
>This whole little bee in your bonnet appears to stem from your
>inability to take the responsibility for clicking on links.
You're absolutely right, it was my fault that I visited that commercial.
>I suggest you stop this while people will still talk to you.
I think I am doing that so called writer a great favor. I don't believe that
anyone here took her seriously, but I did. My reaction was genuine, not a
polite platitude dictated by conventions. Besides, it brought about all those
messages who defended her and her writing, more than any decent and realistic
editor can hope for such prose.
Mark Brader
> Whatever the reason, the difference was quite marked. Where I grew up,
> in Ottawa, two-dollar bills were in wide circulation; when I lived in
>
> I'm not sure, but I imagine the prairie aversion to two-dollar bills
> survived until the notes were abolished.
What I've heard is that it survived until *$1* bills were abolished in
1989. ($2 bills lasted until 1996; I didn't visit western Canada very
much during the intervening period.)
--
Mark Brader, Toronto Don't put all your X in one window.
m...@vex.net -- Peter Neumann
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>You call it comradery but I call it conspiracy of the mediocre. They always
>stick to their own kind. None of the heavy weight intelectuals of aue has
>indulged in a personal attack against me, in order to "defend" some
>exhibitionistic tendencies of one of the contributors.
>
First you are against published authors, then babies, now overweight
people. I see you got the ell out of intellectual. It was no place
for you anyway.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>In article <MPG.18eae8207...@news.online.no>, Simon R. Hughes
><shu...@tromso.online.no> writes:
>
>>
>>It looks to the casual observer as if you resent her acheivement.
>
>You're jesting, aren't you? Not even in my nightmares I was ever writing a book
>on that subject. It's like a caricature of some aspiring writer who ran out of
>ideas.
If you don't like R.L. Stevenson, why not just say so?
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>In article <9mOfa.467$3j5.2...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>,
>"richard.chambers7" <richard....@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>>
>>1. Being published is a good thing. That is an effective means by which
>>knowledge can be transferred from one person to another. To a large extent,
>>modern civilisation depends upon it.
>
>I agree, provided that what is published, is true knowledge, or is trully
>entertaining.
Just because you found the ell you left out of "intellectual" doesn't
mean you can stick it willy-nilly in some word in the next post. I
take it you are very thin.
Arcadian Rises
<la...@spira.u-net.com> writes:
>Who are these "heavyweight intelectuals of aue"?
Evidently not you. Only people who didn't have the urge to indulge in answering
this kind of messages.
>
>Your petulance can't be doing your health any good. I suggest that you
>should follow the example of Mr Riggs and never click on links, if they
>upset you in this way.
Thanks for your concern. I may also make some suggestions about your mental
health, drawn from the frequency of your postings (no life=no healthy
relationship with your environment) but I shall refrain from it.
Simon R. Hughes
> >> Also, every bored housewife, who practice writing on the
> >> Internet should be a writer.
> >
> >Bring 'em on. Everyone who can write should.
>
> You don't knowwhat you're talking about. There are at least 30,000 books
> published every year.
The US alone published 122,108 books in 2000 (Richard Powers'
numbers in _Galatea 2.2_ are conservative, in an effort to remain
credible, whereas my number comes from R. R. Bowker). So what?
Assuming that each of those editions sold only in the US, and
assuming that each person in the US (approx. 260,000,000) bought one
book that year, the average book would have sold 2,129 copies. Back
in the beginnings of commercial publication (up to the time of
Walter Scott's _Waverley_), a book was considered a great success if
it sold 2,000 copies.
The average demand for a book these days is the same as it was back
then, apparently.
My opinion is that everyone who can (and wants to) write should.
Why? Because our writings are our testimony to future generations.
With our increased literacy, we have the opportunity of giving
posterity insight into all aspects of our society (whereas we have
insight only into the lives of the literate elite of yesteryear).
My father-in-law is a retired air force mechanic. He comes from a
place that has been deserted for years -- it's too remote for the
liking of modern society, and everyone has moved away, using their
old homes as holiday residences. He spends his retirement doing
what he loves to do. He paints, he takes pictures, and he writes.
Nothing incredibly important, but he writes the odd memoir, which is
often "published" in the magazine of the church that is closest to
where he comes from.
What was life there like in the middle of the twentieth century? How
was it to have to hide in the caves from the occupying Nazis (he was
captured and relocated -- others of his family and friends escaped
to the Shetlands, others drowned trying, or were murdered on the
spot)?
We have had storms all up the coast here for a couple of weeks. This
morning we heard that my father-in-law's old boat house was blown
down in the night, along with some of the oldest trees on the fjord.
The house "next door" blew down a few years back. The heirs to my
father-in-law's generation have little or no interest in maintaining
the place. It is in the process of being reclaimed by nature.
Should we leave it to the vague science of archeology to describe
life up there -- when there was life up there -- or are his memoirs
valuable in this regard? They're not publishable, saleable, but they
are valuable.
So let every bored housewife write. If nothing else, the future will
understand how boring housewifery was in the beginning of the 21st
century.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> I think I am doing that so called writer a great favor. I don't believe that
> anyone here took her seriously, but I did.
I don't know what you mean by "seriously." I clicked on Sara's sig
a while back, viewed the result, and went right back to AUE. I'm so
many hundreds of books behind already (and AUE takes time that could
be spent reading) that my wife won't let me bring any more into the
house. (I sneak in a few every now and then anyway. Please don't
call and tell her -- I think she knows and is indulging me, and I
wouldn't want our little truce disrupted.) So I don't expect to buy
or read Sara's book. I haven't even read any of Lars Eighner's, and
he's made the bestseller list. I did read *Chandler's Daughter* --
I'm only human. Anyway, whether or not I read Sara's book, she
wrote and published it, and I admire the achievement. I take
publishing a book very seriously. I'd like to do it myself, when I
grow up. If I ever do, watch this space.
> My reaction was genuine, not a
> polite platitude dictated by conventions.
It was also gratuitous. It had nothing to do with the thread, and
nothing compelled you to do it. If you simply *had* to write
something like what you posted, you could have written it and
deleted it before posting. I average one written and deleted post
per Usenet session, more or less. I've already done it once
tonight.
> Besides, it brought about all those
> messages who defended her and her writing, more than any decent and realistic
> editor can hope for such prose.
Ah, the old I'm-the-grit-in-the-oyster-behold-the-pearl-I-caused
defense. Well, what the hell, I've used it myself.
I declare this topic beaten to death.
--
Bob Lieblich
More often grit than oyster, let alone pearl
Robert Bannister
Well, I/we can only judge you by your words, and you seem pretty likable
to me.
--
Rob Bannister
Dena Jo
> Should we leave it to the vague science of archeology to describe
> life up there -- when there was life up there -- or are his memoirs
> valuable in this regard? They're not publishable, saleable, but they
> are valuable.
>
> So let every bored housewife write. If nothing else, the future will
> understand how boring housewifery was in the beginning of the 21st
> century.
Very lovely post, Simon!
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
sage
Simon R. Hughes <shu...@tromso.online.no> wrote in message
news:MPG.18eb111f9...@news.online.no...
Well played, that man.
Cheers, Sage
John Dean
>
> How about you? Let's see your picture, unravel that Really Clever
> anagram you post under,
>
Lessee -
Arid as arsenic.
A rancid arises.
I carried an ass
--
John Dean
Oxford
De-frag to reply
R F
> My head's huge already, and I'm a certified intellectual (or should
> be), and I'm overweight, so I'll run the gauntlet (besides, Robert
> Fontana is moving to New Jersey or somewhere);
A lot farther than that, than the great world-dividing Delaware Water
Gap even, but in that general westerly direction, yes. I put a deposit
down on an apartment today, as we say in AmE.
Harvey V
> Harvey Van Sickle writes:
-snip-
>> I'm not sure, but I imagine the prairie aversion to two-dollar
>> bills survived until the notes were abolished.
> What I've heard is that it survived until *$1* bills were
> abolished in 1989. ($2 bills lasted until 1996; I didn't visit
> western Canada very much during the intervening period.)
That makes sense. (Thanks for the abolition dates.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
Charles Riggs
<padr...@iol.ie> made history, by writing:
>Charles Riggs <chr...@aircom.net> wrote:
>
>>Nah. This is Ireland, where whiskey is in abundance. No offense, PB.
>
>No offense -- or even rightpondian offence -- taken. Pass the Bush.
That being as old fashioned as an old grandad, Paddy?
--
Charles Riggs
For email, take the air out of aircom and
replace it with eir
Linz
"Arcadian Rises" <arcadi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030325173706...@mb-fr.aol.com...
> In article <MPG.18eae8207...@news.online.no>, Simon R. Hughes
> <shu...@tromso.online.no> writes:
>
> >
> >It looks to the casual observer as if you resent her acheivement.
>
> You're jesting, aren't you? Not even in my nightmares I was ever writing
> a book on that subject. It's like a caricature of some aspiring writer
> who ran out of ideas.
Your second sentence is a very interesting construction and not one I would
have expected in normal written English. "Not even in my nightmares would I
ever write a book on that subject" would be more natural.
Mike Lyle
> Simon R. Hughes wrote:
> >
> > How about you? Let's see your picture, unravel that Really Clever
> > anagram you post under,
> >
> Ooh, ooh! Let me try ....
> Lessee -
>
> Arid as arsenic.
> A rancid arises.
> I carried an ass
i.e., a crass drain.
Mike.
Jacqui
> John Dean wrote
>> >
>> > How about you? Let's see your picture, unravel that Really
>> > Clever anagram you post under,
>> Arid as arsenic.
>> A rancid arises.
>> I carried an ass
>
> i.e., a crass drain.
Caesarian rids.
Jac
Mark Browne
wrote:
>In article <3E80D90F...@spira.u-net.com>, Laura F Spira
><la...@spira.u-net.com> writes:
>
>>Who are these "heavyweight intelectuals of aue"?
>
>Evidently not you. Only people who didn't have the urge to indulge in answering
>this kind of messages.
What an astonishingly stupid method of determining whether someone is
an intellectual (it *does* have two 'l's (OK, three)). Either we
argue with you and are unimportant, or we do not lower ourselves, and
thus become towering giants.
Just for the record, I am happy to be in the non-intellectual class,
but that does not make what I have to say any less interesting on its
own merits.
--
Mark Browne