Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: National swearwords
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Duggy
Dec 4, 2011, 11:15:11 PM12/4/11
to
On Dec 5, 2:00 pm, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 4/12/11 8:33 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > But then we [Australians] tend to go much further than most cultures,
> > even in what is generally considered to be polite conversation.
>
> I'd have thought that was a considerably out-date-idea. It was certainly
> true up to about 1914 and gave rise to the occasionally heard "My
> colonial oath", but mainly referred to the use of "bloody" and "bugger".
>
> I am sure the Americans outstripped us in public swearing in their films
> of 80s, if not earlier, and since then my impression is that the British
> are now amongst the foul-mouths of Europe. Mind you, members of the
> former Yugoslav nations do pretty well if frequency is an issue as are,
> I believe, French Canadians.
I'm not sure that swearing *in* films is an effective indicator.
The rating of films with swearing (or the editing to get a better
rating) or what can or can't be shown on FTA TV would be a better
example.
Certainly the use of bloody & bugger in advertisements shows that they
are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink & drive, you're a
bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the bloody hell are
you?" ads for example).
===
= DUG.
===
> On 4/12/11 8:33 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
> > But then we [Australians] tend to go much further than most cultures,
> > even in what is generally considered to be polite conversation.
>
> I'd have thought that was a considerably out-date-idea. It was certainly
> true up to about 1914 and gave rise to the occasionally heard "My
> colonial oath", but mainly referred to the use of "bloody" and "bugger".
>
> I am sure the Americans outstripped us in public swearing in their films
> of 80s, if not earlier, and since then my impression is that the British
> are now amongst the foul-mouths of Europe. Mind you, members of the
> former Yugoslav nations do pretty well if frequency is an issue as are,
> I believe, French Canadians.
I'm not sure that swearing *in* films is an effective indicator.
The rating of films with swearing (or the editing to get a better
rating) or what can or can't be shown on FTA TV would be a better
example.
Certainly the use of bloody & bugger in advertisements shows that they
are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink & drive, you're a
bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the bloody hell are
you?" ads for example).
===
= DUG.
===
Robert Bannister
Dec 5, 2011, 9:26:48 PM12/5/11
to
On 5/12/11 12:15 PM, Duggy wrote:
> On Dec 5, 2:00 pm, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On 4/12/11 8:33 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> But then we [Australians] tend to go much further than most cultures,
>>> even in what is generally considered to be polite conversation.
>>
>> I'd have thought that was a considerably out-date-idea. It was certainly
>> true up to about 1914 and gave rise to the occasionally heard "My
>> colonial oath", but mainly referred to the use of "bloody" and "bugger".
>>
>> I am sure the Americans outstripped us in public swearing in their films
>> of 80s, if not earlier, and since then my impression is that the British
>> are now amongst the foul-mouths of Europe. Mind you, members of the
>> former Yugoslav nations do pretty well if frequency is an issue as are,
>> I believe, French Canadians.
>
> I'm not sure that swearing *in* films is an effective indicator.
>
> The rating of films with swearing (or the editing to get a better
> rating) or what can or can't be shown on FTA TV would be a better
> example.
>
> Certainly the use of bloody& bugger in advertisements shows that they
> On Dec 5, 2:00 pm, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On 4/12/11 8:33 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>> But then we [Australians] tend to go much further than most cultures,
>>> even in what is generally considered to be polite conversation.
>>
>> I'd have thought that was a considerably out-date-idea. It was certainly
>> true up to about 1914 and gave rise to the occasionally heard "My
>> colonial oath", but mainly referred to the use of "bloody" and "bugger".
>>
>> I am sure the Americans outstripped us in public swearing in their films
>> of 80s, if not earlier, and since then my impression is that the British
>> are now amongst the foul-mouths of Europe. Mind you, members of the
>> former Yugoslav nations do pretty well if frequency is an issue as are,
>> I believe, French Canadians.
>
> I'm not sure that swearing *in* films is an effective indicator.
>
> The rating of films with swearing (or the editing to get a better
> rating) or what can or can't be shown on FTA TV would be a better
> example.
>
> are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink& drive, you're a
> bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the bloody hell are
> you?" ads for example).
But those aren't swear words any more than damn is these days. There's
> you?" ads for example).
really only F&C left and you hear F so often, I doubt that will hold out
much longer.
--
Robert Bannister
Nerfo
Dec 5, 2011, 9:45:25 PM12/5/11
to
"Robert Bannister" <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:9k5cr8...@mid.individual.net...
crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the planet?
Rod Speed
Dec 5, 2011, 10:55:27 PM12/5/11
to
Robert Bannister wrote
> Duggy wrote
>> Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote
Bet they do in ads etc. And arsehole etc etc etc too.
You dont even see the words shit or piss used much in ads either.
> Duggy wrote
>> Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote
You dont even see the words shit or piss used much in ads either.
Rod Speed
Dec 5, 2011, 10:59:20 PM12/5/11
to
Nerfo wrote
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote
were commonly used in the past like nigger and coon in ads etc.
We actually have Coon Cheese, named after a Mr Coon, with some
fools wanting to see it renamed so it isnt called Coon Cheese anymore.
And thats in the country that revels in the deliberate use of the words bloody and bugger in our ads.
> Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com> wrote
>> On 5/12/11 12:15 PM, Duggy wrote
>>> Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> But then we [Australians] tend to go much further than most cultures, even in what is generally considered to be
>>>>> polite conversation.
>>>> I'd have thought that was a considerably out-date-idea. It was
>>>> certainly true up to about 1914 and gave rise to the occasionally
>>>> heard "My colonial oath", but mainly referred to the use of
>>>> "bloody" and "bugger".
>>>> I am sure the Americans outstripped us in public swearing in their
>>>> films of 80s, if not earlier, and since then my impression is that
>>>> the British are now amongst the foul-mouths of Europe. Mind you,
>>>> members of the former Yugoslav nations do pretty well if frequency
>>>> is an issue as are, I believe, French Canadians.
>>> I'm not sure that swearing *in* films is an effective indicator.
>>> The rating of films with swearing (or the editing to get a better rating) or what can or can't be shown on FTA TV
>>> would be a better example.
>>> Certainly the use of bloody& bugger in advertisements shows that
>>> they are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink& drive,
>>> you're a bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the
>>> bloody hell are you?" ads for example).
>> But those aren't swear words any more than damn is these days.
>> There's really only F&C left and you hear F so often, I doubt that
>> will hold out much longer.
> Where is this all leading to then? Are we heading towards becoming
> the most crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the planet?
I doubt it. We have in fact seen a lot of the refusal to use words that
>>>>> But then we [Australians] tend to go much further than most cultures, even in what is generally considered to be
>>>>> polite conversation.
>>>> I'd have thought that was a considerably out-date-idea. It was
>>>> certainly true up to about 1914 and gave rise to the occasionally
>>>> heard "My colonial oath", but mainly referred to the use of
>>>> "bloody" and "bugger".
>>>> I am sure the Americans outstripped us in public swearing in their
>>>> films of 80s, if not earlier, and since then my impression is that
>>>> the British are now amongst the foul-mouths of Europe. Mind you,
>>>> members of the former Yugoslav nations do pretty well if frequency
>>>> is an issue as are, I believe, French Canadians.
>>> I'm not sure that swearing *in* films is an effective indicator.
>>> The rating of films with swearing (or the editing to get a better rating) or what can or can't be shown on FTA TV
>>> would be a better example.
>>> Certainly the use of bloody& bugger in advertisements shows that
>>> they are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink& drive,
>>> you're a bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the
>>> bloody hell are you?" ads for example).
>> But those aren't swear words any more than damn is these days.
>> There's really only F&C left and you hear F so often, I doubt that
>> will hold out much longer.
> Where is this all leading to then? Are we heading towards becoming
> the most crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the planet?
were commonly used in the past like nigger and coon in ads etc.
We actually have Coon Cheese, named after a Mr Coon, with some
fools wanting to see it renamed so it isnt called Coon Cheese anymore.
And thats in the country that revels in the deliberate use of the words bloody and bugger in our ads.
dechucka
Dec 6, 2011, 1:26:32 AM12/6/11
to
"Nerfo" <nefro@_____.com> wrote in message
news:jbjvke$eh4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
Duggy
Dec 6, 2011, 5:21:20 AM12/6/11
to
The point is they aren't swear words here.
===
= DUG.
===
Mike Barnes
Dec 6, 2011, 6:39:54 AM12/6/11
to
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au>:
Wikipedia says:
"The advertising campaign caused controversy in March 2006 when it
was banned by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre in the
United Kingdom, which would not allow the word "bloody" in television
versions of the commercial. Following lobbying by Tourism Australia,
including a visit to the UK by Australia's tourism minister Fran
Bailey and Lara Bingle, the ban was lifted, although a 9pm
"watershed" was imposed on television commercials in May.
"In March 2007, the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK ordered
the removal of roadside billboards bearing the slogan. The ASA stated
that it had received 32 complaints and warned Tourism Australia to
refrain from using profanity in future billboards."
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
"The advertising campaign caused controversy in March 2006 when it
was banned by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre in the
United Kingdom, which would not allow the word "bloody" in television
versions of the commercial. Following lobbying by Tourism Australia,
including a visit to the UK by Australia's tourism minister Fran
Bailey and Lara Bingle, the ban was lifted, although a 9pm
"watershed" was imposed on television commercials in May.
"In March 2007, the Advertising Standards Authority in the UK ordered
the removal of roadside billboards bearing the slogan. The ASA stated
that it had received 32 complaints and warned Tourism Australia to
refrain from using profanity in future billboards."
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
felix_unger
Dec 6, 2011, 9:00:03 AM12/6/11
to
when you think about what it's actually saying, but it's used frequently
in movies these days. Some movies have swear words incessantly. It's a
sad state of affairs IMO.
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
"Dumping the Gillard/Brown Government is the 'greatest moral imperative of our time'"
“Democracy and free speech die on the same day. The Senate passes the carbon tax and the media inquiry begins. George Orwell got it right- he just got the year wrong”
"Julia finally got something right. Older people don't vote Labor, because they have seen too many incompetent, mismanaging, money-wasting Labor governments"
"If the WORLD as a whole cut ALL emissions tomorrow, the average temperature of the planet's not going to drop for several hundred years, perhaps over on thousand years" - Tim Flannery, Climate Commissioner
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct from natural variation" - Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
"Currently, China and India combined emit 20 times as much as Australia each day, and that factor is increasing rapidly. Australia's annual savings by 2020 could be emitted by China and India within five days" - Dr. David Evans former Govt Climate Adviser.
“What I see is a country bravely beating along to the agenda of some ideological people, in this case the socialist left of the ALP and the Greens, to take away what is a natural advantage. At the end of the day, we are paying someone else to use our coal” - Peter Costello, former Federal Treasurer - http://tinyurl.com/costello-carbon-tax
Carbon Dioxide Tax: Get the facts! .. http://tinyurl.com/axe-the-tax
The Science is now settled on Global Warming .. http://tinyurl.com/3ufy3lq
The corruption of science .. http://tinyurl.com/scientific-untruths
Labors Debt: what will it cost YOU! .. http://tinyurl.com/Labors-debt
“We have a treasurer who's effectively announced he's a fiscal joke and that the prime minister hasn't a political clue. We've got very low Federal Government debt because John Howard and Peter Costello paid off the debt built up by the Keating Labor government with its budget deficits. All the debt we now have is down to Swan and his two prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Gillard. In the four years he's been Treasurer, he will have racked up total deficits adding to $167 billion by the end of this financial year. Swan has had four budgets, four deficits, averaging $42 billion a year. And then we are expected to believe, the budget bottom line will leap, just, into surplus in the next year. I don't” - Terry McCrann
The Working with Children check is a joke! .. http://tinyurl.com/insane-vcat
Our Kids at Risk! .. http://tinyurl.com/crims-work-with-kids
“Wait until users find out smart meters charge in half-hour blocks at the rate of the highest power-using appliance being used in that half hour. Turn your electric kettle on and that’s what rate you pay for 30 minutes”
felix_unger
Dec 6, 2011, 9:01:40 AM12/6/11
to
--
---
rgds,
Pete
------
felix_unger
Dec 6, 2011, 9:05:54 AM12/6/11
to
are decreasing rapidly.
The pilot speaks over the intercom ...
"I'm sorry it has come to this ladies and gentlemen, but unfortunately we
are going to have to jettison
the luggage in order for the aircraft to remain airborne".
Baggage is thrown out but still the plane continues to lose height.
Once again the pilot gets on the intercom, "I hate to do this folks but in
order to save the majority we are going to have to start off-loading some
passengers.
The only fair way is to do this alphabetically, so we'll start with the
letter 'A'". "Africans?
Are there any Africans on board?"
There was no answer so the pilot calls, "Black people, are there any black
people on board?"
Again silence. "C - coloured people?
Are there any coloured people on board?"
Silence.
A little black boy sitting near the rear of the plane turned to his mother
and said,
"Mum, ain't we African?
Ain't we black?" Ain't we coloured?"
She replied, "Yes son but for the purpose of this exercise we is Niggers -
let them do the Muslims first".
:)
>
> We actually have Coon Cheese, named after a Mr Coon, with some
> fools wanting to see it renamed so it isnt called Coon Cheese anymore.
>
> And thats in the country that revels in the deliberate use of the words bloody and bugger in our ads.
>
>
Robert Bannister
Dec 6, 2011, 9:22:40 PM12/6/11
to
--
Robert Bannister
Duggy
Dec 6, 2011, 9:24:29 PM12/6/11
to
===
= DUG.
===
Robert Bannister
Dec 6, 2011, 9:27:53 PM12/6/11
to
On 6/12/11 7:39 PM, Mike Barnes wrote:
> Duggy<Paul....@jcu.edu.au>:
>> On Dec 6, 12:26 pm, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/12/11 12:15 PM, Duggy wrote:
>>>> Certainly the use of bloody& bugger in advertisements shows that they
>>>> are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink& drive, you're a
>>>> bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the bloody hell are
>>>> you?" ads for example).
>>>
>>> But those aren't swear words any more than damn is these days. There's
>>> really only F&C left and you hear F so often, I doubt that will hold out
>>> much longer.
>>
>> Really? How did the "Where the Bloody Hell are ya?" ad do over seas.
>
> Wikipedia says:
>
> "The advertising campaign caused controversy in March 2006 when it
> was banned by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre in the
> United Kingdom, which would not allow the word "bloody" in television
> versions of the commercial. Following lobbying by Tourism Australia,
> including a visit to the UK by Australia's tourism minister Fran
> Bailey and Lara Bingle, the ban was lifted, although a 9pm
> "watershed" was imposed on television commercials in May.
Amazing when you think that the BBC was probably the first television
> Duggy<Paul....@jcu.edu.au>:
>> On Dec 6, 12:26 pm, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/12/11 12:15 PM, Duggy wrote:
>>>> Certainly the use of bloody& bugger in advertisements shows that they
>>>> are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink& drive, you're a
>>>> bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the bloody hell are
>>>> you?" ads for example).
>>>
>>> But those aren't swear words any more than damn is these days. There's
>>> really only F&C left and you hear F so often, I doubt that will hold out
>>> much longer.
>>
>> Really? How did the "Where the Bloody Hell are ya?" ad do over seas.
>
> Wikipedia says:
>
> "The advertising campaign caused controversy in March 2006 when it
> was banned by the Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre in the
> United Kingdom, which would not allow the word "bloody" in television
> versions of the commercial. Following lobbying by Tourism Australia,
> including a visit to the UK by Australia's tourism minister Fran
> Bailey and Lara Bingle, the ban was lifted, although a 9pm
> "watershed" was imposed on television commercials in May.
service to allow "fuck" to be broadcast - I've forgotten now - someone
like Kenneth Tynan?
--
Robert Bannister
Duggy
Dec 6, 2011, 9:25:39 PM12/6/11
to
On Dec 6, 9:39 pm, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au>:
So, "Bloody" is, in the UK, a swear word still.
===
= DUG.
===
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au>:
===
= DUG.
===
Someone Else
Dec 6, 2011, 10:40:57 PM12/6/11
to
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 01:00:03 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
wrote:
>I despise the use of the term "m*ther f*ker". It's a disgusting term,
>when you think about what it's actually saying, but it's used frequently
>in movies these days. Some movies have swear words incessantly. It's a
>sad state of affairs IMO.
P*ss off, you c*ck s*cking m*ther f*cker.....
wrote:
>I despise the use of the term "m*ther f*ker". It's a disgusting term,
>when you think about what it's actually saying, but it's used frequently
>in movies these days. Some movies have swear words incessantly. It's a
>sad state of affairs IMO.
Duggy
Dec 6, 2011, 11:49:13 PM12/6/11
to
===
= DUG.
===
Mike Barnes
Dec 7, 2011, 3:39:23 AM12/7/11
to
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>:
The BBC is quite different from the BACC. But I don't think even the BBC
would have countenanced a "Fuck you!" directed at their audience.
would have countenanced a "Fuck you!" directed at their audience.
Mike Barnes
Dec 7, 2011, 3:13:27 AM12/7/11
to
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au>:
That was five years ago. Even so, today, "bloody" is more of a swear
word than "very" or "extremely", but not by much. Its intensity in that
ad was exaggerated by its being directed at the reader or listener.
Witnessing swearing is one thing but being publicly sworn *at*, however
mildly, is another thing altogether.
word than "very" or "extremely", but not by much. Its intensity in that
ad was exaggerated by its being directed at the reader or listener.
Witnessing swearing is one thing but being publicly sworn *at*, however
mildly, is another thing altogether.
the Omrud
Dec 7, 2011, 4:49:10 AM12/7/11
to
programme so they couldn't exactly stop him.
--
David
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 7, 2011, 5:59:01 AM12/7/11
to
This might have been because that word is not used as freely in the UK
as it apparently is in Australia. I suspect there would have been the
same number of complaints, or even more, in the UK if the wording had
been "Where the Hell are ya?"
There is a more general point here. This advert bumped up against the
rules for the content of TV advertising in the UK. It was an ad to be
broadcast at any time of day and to any audience. There is no general
ban on the broadcast of "bloody", "Hell" or "bloody Hell" as expletives
in TV programmes. Similarly they is no general ban of the use of the
expletive "fuck". It all depends on context, particularly time of day.
This is just another illustration of the fact that words and phrases do
not have fixed meanings and strengths of meanings everywhere they are
used.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Duggy
Dec 7, 2011, 6:21:42 AM12/7/11
to
ad 20 years ago.
Why the Bloody Hell are you 20 years behind us?
===
= DUG.
===
Mike Barnes
Dec 7, 2011, 9:56:28 AM12/7/11
to
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au>:
That's rather different - the deprecation is part of the message.
>Why the Bloody Hell are you 20 years behind us?
Bloody hell, when I got back from there last week it was only 11 hours.
While I've got your attention, I'd like to mention a couple of weird (to
me) commonplace Australian road signs...
When road narrows: "FORM 1 LANE". Huh? Only the road makers can do that,
surely? "FORM 1 *LINE*", that I could understand.
"CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AHEAD". Surely traffic conditions are
changing all the time? I guessed that what they meant was "CHANGED ROAD
LAYOUT AHEAD".
>Why the Bloody Hell are you 20 years behind us?
While I've got your attention, I'd like to mention a couple of weird (to
me) commonplace Australian road signs...
When road narrows: "FORM 1 LANE". Huh? Only the road makers can do that,
surely? "FORM 1 *LINE*", that I could understand.
"CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AHEAD". Surely traffic conditions are
changing all the time? I guessed that what they meant was "CHANGED ROAD
LAYOUT AHEAD".
Evan Kirshenbaum
Dec 7, 2011, 2:20:35 PM12/7/11
to
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |You gotta know when to code,
SF Bay Area (1982-) | Know when to log out,
Chicago (1964-1982) |Know when to single step,
| Know when you're through.
evan.kir...@gmail.com |You don't write your program
| When you're sittin' at the term'nal.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |There'll be time enough for writin'
| When you're in the queue.
Duggy
Dec 7, 2011, 3:38:52 PM12/7/11
to
On Dec 8, 12:56 am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au>:
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au>:
> When road narrows: "FORM 1 LANE". Huh? Only the road makers can do that,
> surely? "FORM 1 *LINE*", that I could understand.
A line can go anywhere. You can't form a line if you're the only car.
> surely? "FORM 1 *LINE*", that I could understand.
> "CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AHEAD". Surely traffic conditions are
> changing all the time? I guessed that what they meant was "CHANGED ROAD
> LAYOUT AHEAD".
===
= DUG.
===
Mike Lyle
Dec 7, 2011, 3:57:32 PM12/7/11
to
On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 09:49:10 +0000, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I can't remember the details of the Tynan one; but when Perry
Worsthorne said it in the heat of the cleverness, they apologised
earnestly (I was watching at the time) and banned him for life.
--
Mike.
wrote:
Worsthorne said it in the heat of the cleverness, they apologised
earnestly (I was watching at the time) and banned him for life.
--
Mike.
Robert Bannister
Dec 7, 2011, 6:45:41 PM12/7/11
to
On 8/12/11 3:20 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
> Robert Bannister<rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> On 6/12/11 10:45 AM, Nerfo wrote:
>>> Where is this all leading to then? Are we heading towards becoming
>>> the most crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the
>>> planet?
>>>
>> Haven't we already reached that point?
>
> Hasn't every generation for at least the past couple of centuries?
>
I don't think so, or at least not so openly. Whether secret vice is
> Robert Bannister<rob...@bigpond.com> writes:
>
>> On 6/12/11 10:45 AM, Nerfo wrote:
>>> Where is this all leading to then? Are we heading towards becoming
>>> the most crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the
>>> planet?
>>>
>> Haven't we already reached that point?
>
> Hasn't every generation for at least the past couple of centuries?
>
preferable or worse than blatantly disgusting behaviour is another question.
--
Robert Bannister
R H Draney
Dec 7, 2011, 6:51:51 PM12/7/11
to
Duggy filted:
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
>
>On Dec 8, 12:56=A0am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>> "CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AHEAD". Surely traffic conditions are
>> changing all the time? I guessed that what they meant was "CHANGED ROAD
>> LAYOUT AHEAD".
>
>Nope. Sometimes it's just guys with signs slowing traffic.
Your tax dollars at play....r
>On Dec 8, 12:56=A0am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>
>> "CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AHEAD". Surely traffic conditions are
>> changing all the time? I guessed that what they meant was "CHANGED ROAD
>> LAYOUT AHEAD".
>
>Nope. Sometimes it's just guys with signs slowing traffic.
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Robert Bannister
Dec 7, 2011, 6:58:02 PM12/7/11
to
can detect no difference at all. I assume Main Roads just put them up to
amuse themselves.
--
Robert Bannister
Duggy
Dec 7, 2011, 7:21:02 PM12/7/11
to
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Dec 7, 2011, 7:25:05 PM12/7/11
to
road from place they usually don't and/or are hard to see.
I walk past a shopping centre that is having construction done ATM and
about a meter before the traffic lights there are 2 workmen with signs
constantly there to allow trucks to back into traffic. That's changed
traffic conditions, no roadworks involved.
Although, a light-up sign does say "CHNGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ACCROSS
SIDE ROAD" which annoys the hell out of me.
===
= DUG.
===
Mike Barnes
Dec 8, 2011, 4:37:24 AM12/8/11
to
Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>:
have the timing memorised to save me looking. I actually observe the
lights. Every time. Perhaps that's unusual.
Similarly there was an interview on BBC Radio 4 yesterday about mobile
phones on planes (in the wake of a sleb being chucked off a plane for
disobedience, nothing to do with mobile phones). The interviewer was
complaining that the rules seem to vary for no obvious reason. It didn't
seem to occur to him that you're supposed to listen to what you're being
told.
>I get more puzzled by "Modified Traffic Signals Ahead" because usually
>I can detect no difference at all. I assume Main Roads just put them up
>to amuse themselves.
That's CHANGED SIGNAL TIMING here. Why should I care? It's not as if I
>I can detect no difference at all. I assume Main Roads just put them up
>to amuse themselves.
have the timing memorised to save me looking. I actually observe the
lights. Every time. Perhaps that's unusual.
Similarly there was an interview on BBC Radio 4 yesterday about mobile
phones on planes (in the wake of a sleb being chucked off a plane for
disobedience, nothing to do with mobile phones). The interviewer was
complaining that the rules seem to vary for no obvious reason. It didn't
seem to occur to him that you're supposed to listen to what you're being
told.
Mike Barnes
Dec 8, 2011, 3:14:06 AM12/8/11
to
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au>:
with road works. Often - not always - there'd be lollipop man.
>On Dec 8, 9:51 am, R H Draney <dadoc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>> Duggy filted:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 8, 12:56=A0am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> "CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AHEAD". Surely traffic conditions are
>> >> changing all the time? I guessed that what they meant was "CHANGED ROAD
>> >> LAYOUT AHEAD".
>>
>> >Nope. Sometimes it's just guys with signs slowing traffic.
>>
>> Your tax dollars at play....r
>
>I've seen it usually when large vehicles are regularly accessing the
>road from place they usually don't and/or are hard to see.
The (many) examples I saw seem to indicate a lane closure associated
>> Duggy filted:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 8, 12:56=A0am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> "CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AHEAD". Surely traffic conditions are
>> >> changing all the time? I guessed that what they meant was "CHANGED ROAD
>> >> LAYOUT AHEAD".
>>
>> >Nope. Sometimes it's just guys with signs slowing traffic.
>>
>> Your tax dollars at play....r
>
>I've seen it usually when large vehicles are regularly accessing the
>road from place they usually don't and/or are hard to see.
with road works. Often - not always - there'd be lollipop man.
Duggy
Dec 8, 2011, 6:24:36 AM12/8/11
to
On Dec 8, 6:14 pm, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au>:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"Changed Road Layout Ahead" sign, they have one that covers both.
===
= DUG.
===
Django Cat
Dec 8, 2011, 8:45:39 AM12/8/11
to
Duggy wrote:
> > > I've seen it usually when large vehicles are regularly accessing
> > > the road from place they usually don't and/or are hard to see.
> >
> > The (many) examples I saw seem to indicate a lane closure associated
> > with road works. Often - not always - there'd be lollipop man.
>
> Yes, but instead of having a "Changed Traffic Conditions Ahead" and a
> "Changed Road Layout Ahead" sign, they have one that covers both.
I quite often see 'changed priorities ahead', which is a tad
> > > I've seen it usually when large vehicles are regularly accessing
> > > the road from place they usually don't and/or are hard to see.
> >
> > The (many) examples I saw seem to indicate a lane closure associated
> > with road works. Often - not always - there'd be lollipop man.
>
> Yes, but instead of having a "Changed Traffic Conditions Ahead" and a
> "Changed Road Layout Ahead" sign, they have one that covers both.
existential.
DC
--
Mike Barnes
Dec 8, 2011, 10:05:37 AM12/8/11
to
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au>:
Fair enough, but it takes a while to work that out if one's expecting a
sign to mean what it says. I did wonder if it illustrated some
difference between BrE and OzE, but apparently not.
sign to mean what it says. I did wonder if it illustrated some
difference between BrE and OzE, but apparently not.
Mike Lyle
Dec 8, 2011, 4:32:25 PM12/8/11
to
On Thu, 8 Dec 2011 09:37:24 +0000, Mike Barnes
<mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>:
>>I get more puzzled by "Modified Traffic Signals Ahead" because usually
>>I can detect no difference at all. I assume Main Roads just put them up
>>to amuse themselves.
>
>That's CHANGED SIGNAL TIMING here. Why should I care? It's not as if I
>have the timing memorised to save me looking. I actually observe the
>lights. Every time. Perhaps that's unusual.
I'm not very tall, especially now that I've shrunk from the original
<mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>Robert Bannister <rob...@bigpond.com>:
>>I get more puzzled by "Modified Traffic Signals Ahead" because usually
>>I can detect no difference at all. I assume Main Roads just put them up
>>to amuse themselves.
>
>That's CHANGED SIGNAL TIMING here. Why should I care? It's not as if I
>have the timing memorised to save me looking. I actually observe the
>lights. Every time. Perhaps that's unusual.
scant five ten, but in my present car and its predecessor (Ka and
Corsa) I can't actually see the nearest signals if I'm first in the
queue. Sometimes these are the only ones facing my way.
>
>Similarly there was an interview on BBC Radio 4 yesterday about mobile
>phones on planes (in the wake of a sleb being chucked off a plane for
>disobedience, nothing to do with mobile phones). The interviewer was
>complaining that the rules seem to vary for no obvious reason. It didn't
>seem to occur to him that you're supposed to listen to what you're being
>told.
I heard that too, and was also unimpressed. Hospitals, on the other
>Similarly there was an interview on BBC Radio 4 yesterday about mobile
>phones on planes (in the wake of a sleb being chucked off a plane for
>disobedience, nothing to do with mobile phones). The interviewer was
>complaining that the rules seem to vary for no obvious reason. It didn't
>seem to occur to him that you're supposed to listen to what you're being
>told.
hand, seem to me to ban mobiles less to protect their electronic
doctor-stuff than to increase the profits of the paid-for bedside
gear.
--
Mike.
Mike Barnes
Dec 8, 2011, 5:05:13 PM12/8/11
to
Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk>:
Do they still ban mobiles in hospitals? The last I heard they were
unbanning them because some research showed that the benefits of
doctors' mobiles outweighed the (largely imagined) risk to equipment.
unbanning them because some research showed that the benefits of
doctors' mobiles outweighed the (largely imagined) risk to equipment.
Duggy
Dec 8, 2011, 7:12:02 PM12/8/11
to
almost automatic.
I wouldn't say that road signs were AnyE but rather their own form of
shorthand that varied from area to area.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Dec 8, 2011, 7:12:32 PM12/8/11
to
===
= DUG.
===
Rod Speed
Dec 8, 2011, 8:09:14 PM12/8/11
to
Robert Bannister wrote:
> On 6/12/11 10:45 AM, Nerfo wrote:
>> "Robert Bannister"<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> On 6/12/11 10:45 AM, Nerfo wrote:
>> news:9k5cr8...@mid.individual.net...
>>> On 5/12/11 12:15 PM, Duggy wrote:
>>>> On Dec 5, 2:00 pm, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/11 8:33 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But then we [Australians] tend to go much further than most
>>>>>> cultures, even in what is generally considered to be polite
>>>>>> conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd have thought that was a considerably out-date-idea. It was
>>>>> certainly true up to about 1914 and gave rise to the occasionally
>>>>> heard "My colonial oath", but mainly referred to the use of
>>>>> "bloody" and "bugger". I am sure the Americans outstripped us in public swearing in
>>>>> their films of 80s, if not earlier, and since then my impression
>>>>> is that the British are now amongst the foul-mouths of Europe.
>>>>> Mind you, members of the former Yugoslav nations do pretty well
>>>>> if frequency is an issue as are, I believe, French Canadians.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure that swearing *in* films is an effective indicator.
>>>>
>>>> The rating of films with swearing (or the editing to get a better
>>>> rating) or what can or can't be shown on FTA TV would be a better
>>>> example.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly the use of bloody& bugger in advertisements shows that
>>>> they are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink& drive,
>>>> you're a bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the
>>>> bloody hell are you?" ads for example).
>>>
>>> But those aren't swear words any more than damn is these days.
>>> There's really only F&C left and you hear F so often, I doubt that
>>> will hold out much longer.
>>>
>>
>>>> Certainly the use of bloody& bugger in advertisements shows that
>>>> they are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink& drive,
>>>> you're a bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the
>>>> bloody hell are you?" ads for example).
>>>
>>> But those aren't swear words any more than damn is these days.
>>> There's really only F&C left and you hear F so often, I doubt that
>>> will hold out much longer.
>>>
>>
>> Where is this all leading to then? Are we heading towards becoming
>> the most crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the
>> planet?
> Haven't we already reached that point?
Nope, most obviously with the informal ban on the most prejudiced language like nigger and coon.
>> the most crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the
>> planet?
> Haven't we already reached that point?
Rod Speed
Dec 8, 2011, 8:13:38 PM12/8/11
to
> "CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AHEAD". Surely traffic conditions are
> changing all the time? I guessed that what they meant was "CHANGED
> ROAD LAYOUT AHEAD".
and they clearly mean a more significant change that usual too.
Rod Speed
Dec 8, 2011, 8:52:51 PM12/8/11
to
Mike Barnes wrote
> Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
want them to say that I wasnt allowed to use the mobile phone.
It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
> The last I heard they were unbanning them because some research showed that
> the benefits of doctors' mobiles outweighed the (largely imagined) risk to equipment.
They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
> Mike Lyle <mike_l...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote
>> Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> wrote
>>> Similarly there was an interview on BBC Radio 4 yesterday about
>>> mobile phones on planes (in the wake of a sleb being chucked off a
>>> plane for disobedience, nothing to do with mobile phones). The
>>> interviewer was complaining that the rules seem to vary for no
>>> obvious reason. It didn't seem to occur to him that you're supposed
>>> to listen to what you're being told.
>> I heard that too, and was also unimpressed. Hospitals, on the other
>> hand, seem to me to ban mobiles less to protect their electronic
>> doctor-stuff than to increase the profits of the paid-for bedside gear.
> Do they still ban mobiles in hospitals?
Not here they dont. I studiously avoided asking because I didnt
>>> Similarly there was an interview on BBC Radio 4 yesterday about
>>> mobile phones on planes (in the wake of a sleb being chucked off a
>>> plane for disobedience, nothing to do with mobile phones). The
>>> interviewer was complaining that the rules seem to vary for no
>>> obvious reason. It didn't seem to occur to him that you're supposed
>>> to listen to what you're being told.
>> I heard that too, and was also unimpressed. Hospitals, on the other
>> hand, seem to me to ban mobiles less to protect their electronic
>> doctor-stuff than to increase the profits of the paid-for bedside gear.
> Do they still ban mobiles in hospitals?
want them to say that I wasnt allowed to use the mobile phone.
It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
> The last I heard they were unbanning them because some research showed that
> the benefits of doctors' mobiles outweighed the (largely imagined) risk to equipment.
Duggy
Dec 8, 2011, 9:57:51 PM12/8/11
to
On Dec 9, 11:52 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
everywhere else (Emergency & Short Stay Wards, not there).
> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
messaging rather than call each one and people are more likely to
ignore a phone spring to mind.
===
= DUG.
===
Mike Barnes
Dec 9, 2011, 2:41:56 AM12/9/11
to
Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au>:
It means that you have to give way to a stream of traffic that you
didn't previously have to give way to, or vice-versa. "Priority" is a
clearly-understood concept for traffic.
The one I struggle with most in the UK is TEMPORARY ROAD SURFACE. I
remember as a child asking my father what it meant, and it makes no more
sense to me now than it did then.
didn't previously have to give way to, or vice-versa. "Priority" is a
clearly-understood concept for traffic.
The one I struggle with most in the UK is TEMPORARY ROAD SURFACE. I
remember as a child asking my father what it meant, and it makes no more
sense to me now than it did then.
Django Cat
Dec 9, 2011, 5:23:05 AM12/9/11
to
2012" ('I'm not sitting here for four months!'), Salisbury Council's
surreal 'beware; men working on the verge', and everyone's favourite
'heavy plant crossing'.
DC
--
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 9, 2011, 5:34:36 AM12/9/11
to
one I've met most often is where a road is in the process of being
relaid and part of it has been reopened to traffic before the final top
surface of tarmac has been laid. The surface on which you are driving is
not the final surface and is in that sense "temporary". It is not in
that example temporary in the sense that it will be removed and replaced
with a better one.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
CT
Dec 9, 2011, 6:16:47 AM12/9/11
to
Django Cat wrote:
> There's also the popular motorway sign "Delays expected until March
> 2012" ('I'm not sitting here for four months!'), Salisbury Council's
> surreal 'beware; men working on the verge', and everyone's favourite
> 'heavy plant crossing'.
http://www.splurj.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/splurj09_heavy.jpg
> There's also the popular motorway sign "Delays expected until March
> 2012" ('I'm not sitting here for four months!'), Salisbury Council's
> surreal 'beware; men working on the verge', and everyone's favourite
> 'heavy plant crossing'.
Surely the most ridiculous and useless roadsign is the one that simply
says "Fog".
--
Chris
Peter Brooks
Dec 9, 2011, 6:19:12 AM12/9/11
to
On Dec 7, 6:49 am, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> On Dec 7, 1:40 pm, Someone Else <sumwunelse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 01:00:03 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >I despise the use of the term "m*ther f*ker". It's a disgusting term,
> > >when you think about what it's actually saying, but it's used frequently
> > >in movies these days. Some movies have swear words incessantly. It's a
> > >sad state of affairs IMO.
>
> > P*ss off, you c*ck s*cking m*ther f*cker.....
>
> Wait... who's m*ther has a c*ck?
>
Mother fuckers don't have to limit themselves exclusively to mothers
to remain so. No more than beefeaters would cease so to be if they had
the odd ham sandwich.
> On Dec 7, 1:40 pm, Someone Else <sumwunelse...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 07 Dec 2011 01:00:03 +1100, felix_unger <m...@nothere.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >I despise the use of the term "m*ther f*ker". It's a disgusting term,
> > >when you think about what it's actually saying, but it's used frequently
> > >in movies these days. Some movies have swear words incessantly. It's a
> > >sad state of affairs IMO.
>
> > P*ss off, you c*ck s*cking m*ther f*cker.....
>
> Wait... who's m*ther has a c*ck?
>
Mother fuckers don't have to limit themselves exclusively to mothers
to remain so. No more than beefeaters would cease so to be if they had
the odd ham sandwich.
Peter Brooks
Dec 9, 2011, 6:27:41 AM12/9/11
to
On Dec 8, 1:45 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 8/12/11 3:20 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
> > Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> writes:
> On 8/12/11 3:20 AM, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
>
> >> On 6/12/11 10:45 AM, Nerfo wrote:
> >>> Where is this all leading to then? Are we heading towards becoming
> >>> the most crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the
> >>> planet?
>
> >> Haven't we already reached that point?
>
> > Hasn't every generation for at least the past couple of centuries?
>
> I don't think so, or at least not so openly. Whether secret vice is
> preferable or worse than blatantly disgusting behaviour is another question.
>
Doesn't it depend rather on the vice in question? Exhibitionism is
> >> On 6/12/11 10:45 AM, Nerfo wrote:
> >>> Where is this all leading to then? Are we heading towards becoming
> >>> the most crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the
> >>> planet?
>
> >> Haven't we already reached that point?
>
> > Hasn't every generation for at least the past couple of centuries?
>
> I don't think so, or at least not so openly. Whether secret vice is
> preferable or worse than blatantly disgusting behaviour is another question.
>
difficult to practice as a secret vice - at least I'd have thought so.
Police brutality is far better, I think, as blatantly disgusting
behaviour rather than the secret vice that it is in so many places.
Mixing the two is probably worst - the scene, for example showing the
onanistic secret watching of the death squad attacking and killing the
unarmed bin Laden was disturbing because it felt disgustingly prurient
to be watching voyeuristically, the disgustingly prurient voyeurism of
the assassination. Actually this was nicely sent up in the most
excellent first episode of 'Black Mirror', which promises, to me at
any rate, to be one of the most entertaining series for a very long
time.
Mike Barnes
Dec 9, 2011, 6:47:44 AM12/9/11
to
"Peter Duncanson (BrE)" <ma...@peterduncanson.net>:
Yes, but its temporary nature is of no immediate interest to me as a
motorist. I'm more interested in knowing whether it's rough, slippery,
pot-holed, undrained, lacking markings, etc.
motorist. I'm more interested in knowing whether it's rough, slippery,
pot-holed, undrained, lacking markings, etc.
Mike Barnes
Dec 9, 2011, 6:51:40 AM12/9/11
to
Django Cat <nota...@address.com>:
Indeed: Cue the Triffids...
I was intrigued by another sign in Foreign Parts that said something
like "Road markings erased. Overtake only when safe."
I was intrigued by another sign in Foreign Parts that said something
like "Road markings erased. Overtake only when safe."
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 9, 2011, 7:53:54 AM12/9/11
to
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 11:47:44 +0000, Mike Barnes
Mere details!
I think the sign is warning that it could be any of those - "Don't
expect a normal road surface".
I think the sign is warning that it could be any of those - "Don't
expect a normal road surface".
Mike Barnes
Dec 9, 2011, 8:57:21 AM12/9/11
to
like that would be fine. But the allegedly temporary nature of the
surface is irrelevant and uninformative. It does no harm to say what you
mean rather than leaving the reader to solve a riddle.
Peter Duncanson (BrE)
Dec 9, 2011, 9:47:21 AM12/9/11
to
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 13:57:21 +0000, Mike Barnes
There may be lawyers involved in the wording.
Evan Kirshenbaum
Dec 9, 2011, 11:46:43 AM12/9/11
to
Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> writes:
> "Poor road surface", "Substandard road surface", "Rough road",
> anything like that would be fine. But the allegedly temporary nature
> of the surface is irrelevant and uninformative. It does no harm to
> say what you mean rather than leaving the reader to solve a riddle.
Think of it as "Don't complain to the city council about how crappy
> "Poor road surface", "Substandard road surface", "Rough road",
> anything like that would be fine. But the allegedly temporary nature
> of the surface is irrelevant and uninformative. It does no harm to
> say what you mean rather than leaving the reader to solve a riddle.
the new road surface is. We're not done yet."
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |If I may digress momentarily from
SF Bay Area (1982-) |the mainstream of this evening's
Chicago (1964-1982) |symposium, I'd like to sing a song
|which is completely pointless.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Tom Lehrer
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Mike Barnes
Dec 9, 2011, 12:12:00 PM12/9/11
to
Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kir...@gmail.com>:
means "poor", and sometimes the surface and the sign are there for
considerable lengths of time.
>Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> writes:
>
>> "Poor road surface", "Substandard road surface", "Rough road",
>> anything like that would be fine. But the allegedly temporary nature
>> of the surface is irrelevant and uninformative. It does no harm to
>> say what you mean rather than leaving the reader to solve a riddle.
>
>Think of it as "Don't complain to the city council about how crappy
>the new road surface is. We're not done yet."
Thing is, they often are done. "Temporary" doesn't mean "temporary", it
>
>> "Poor road surface", "Substandard road surface", "Rough road",
>> anything like that would be fine. But the allegedly temporary nature
>> of the surface is irrelevant and uninformative. It does no harm to
>> say what you mean rather than leaving the reader to solve a riddle.
>
>Think of it as "Don't complain to the city council about how crappy
>the new road surface is. We're not done yet."
means "poor", and sometimes the surface and the sign are there for
considerable lengths of time.
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 12:58:46 PM12/9/11
to
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 12:59:34 PM12/9/11
to
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 1:01:15 PM12/9/11
to
get replaced by the permanent one later.
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 1:02:35 PM12/9/11
to
various others instead of a separate set of signs for each of those conditions.
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 1:06:41 PM12/9/11
to
> But the allegedly temporary nature of the surface is irrelevant and uninformative.
> It does no harm to say what you mean
and the road users have to get used to all of those which they see much
more rarely with particular signs. It makes a lot more sense to have just
one sign that says that the current detail isnt what the permanent road
would be and just laugh at the mindless nit pickers like you who dont like it.
> rather than leaving the reader to solve a riddle.
you should be able to observe the difference from normal.
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 1:07:27 PM12/9/11
to
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 1:08:25 PM12/9/11
to
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 1:12:43 PM12/9/11
to
Duggy wrote
>> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos
>> I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
> I think there are benefits to pagers than phones don't have.
Yeah, they deliver the message more reliably for starters.
> Mass messaging rather than call each one
Never seen that happen. They appear to use the speaker system for that.
> and people are more likely to ignore a phone spring to mind.
Yeah, bet thats a large part of it.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
>> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
>> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
> Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
> everywhere else (Emergency & Short Stay Wards, not there).
My emergency and critical care didnt have any signs banning them.
>> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
>> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
>> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
> Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
> everywhere else (Emergency & Short Stay Wards, not there).
>> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos
>> I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
> I think there are benefits to pagers than phones don't have.
> Mass messaging rather than call each one
> and people are more likely to ignore a phone spring to mind.
Django Cat
Dec 9, 2011, 2:17:26 PM12/9/11
to
Workforce in Road':
"Get out of the f****** road!!!"
DC
--
bill van
Dec 9, 2011, 3:23:31 PM12/9/11
to
In article <9ke90v...@mid.individual.net>,
I would take that sign to mean that a low-lying area is ahead where fog
might not dissipate as it quickly as elsewhere. It's a warning that in
some weather conditions visibility may be limited, and that you may want
to slow down.
bill
might not dissipate as it quickly as elsewhere. It's a warning that in
some weather conditions visibility may be limited, and that you may want
to slow down.
bill
John Varela
Dec 9, 2011, 4:01:33 PM12/9/11
to
fully, completely, and smoothly surfaced, with curbs and storm
drains. Only a few hundred yards long, it is a heavily travelled
cut-through. Also in Northern Virginia is "Ad Hoc Road". (My
favorite is in rural southern Virginia: "Mud Dusty Road". There, you
get your seasonal choice.)
--
John Varela
Duggy
Dec 9, 2011, 4:12:31 PM12/9/11
to
On Dec 10, 4:12 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Duggy wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
> >> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
> >> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
> > Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
> > everywhere else (Emergency & Short Stay Wards, not there).
>
> My emergency and critical care didnt have any signs banning them.
>
> >> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos
> >> I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
> > I think there are benefits to pagers than phones don't have.
> Yeah, they deliver the message more reliably for starters.
> > Mass messaging rather than call each one
> Never seen that happen. They appear to use the speaker system for that.
Mass Casualty calls to off duty medical staff.
> Duggy wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
> >> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
> >> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
> > Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
> > everywhere else (Emergency & Short Stay Wards, not there).
>
> My emergency and critical care didnt have any signs banning them.
>
> >> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos
> >> I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
> > I think there are benefits to pagers than phones don't have.
> Yeah, they deliver the message more reliably for starters.
> > Mass messaging rather than call each one
> Never seen that happen. They appear to use the speaker system for that.
(Saw something on TV Thursday about State Emergency Services
volunteers and they all started their stories "When the pager went off
I was...")
You're right about on-duty things. Mass announcements and hospital
codes are best. There may be situations where they don't want to
cause panic or tip off an offender but that'd be rare.
> > and people are more likely to ignore a phone spring to mind.
> Yeah, bet thats a large part of it.
===
= DUG.
===
Duggy
Dec 9, 2011, 4:16:27 PM12/9/11
to
On Dec 10, 3:12 am, Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>:
===
= DUG.
===
> Evan Kirshenbaum <evan.kirshenb...@gmail.com>:
>
> >Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> writes:
>
> >> "Poor road surface", "Substandard road surface", "Rough road",
> >> anything like that would be fine. But the allegedly temporary nature
> >> of the surface is irrelevant and uninformative. It does no harm to
> >> say what you mean rather than leaving the reader to solve a riddle.
>
> >Think of it as "Don't complain to the city council about how crappy
> >the new road surface is. We're not done yet."
>
> Thing is, they often are done. "Temporary" doesn't mean "temporary", it
> means "poor", and sometimes the surface and the sign are there for
> considerable lengths of time.
If they mean to fix/replace it later then it is temporary.
> >Mike Barnes <mikebar...@bluebottle.com> writes:
>
> >> "Poor road surface", "Substandard road surface", "Rough road",
> >> anything like that would be fine. But the allegedly temporary nature
> >> of the surface is irrelevant and uninformative. It does no harm to
> >> say what you mean rather than leaving the reader to solve a riddle.
>
> >Think of it as "Don't complain to the city council about how crappy
> >the new road surface is. We're not done yet."
>
> Thing is, they often are done. "Temporary" doesn't mean "temporary", it
> means "poor", and sometimes the surface and the sign are there for
> considerable lengths of time.
===
= DUG.
===
Rich Ulrich
Dec 9, 2011, 5:43:06 PM12/9/11
to
On Fri, 09 Dec 2011 08:46:43 -0800, Evan Kirshenbaum
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> writes:
>
>> "Poor road surface", "Substandard road surface", "Rough road",
>> anything like that would be fine. But the allegedly temporary nature
>> of the surface is irrelevant and uninformative. It does no harm to
>> say what you mean rather than leaving the reader to solve a riddle.
>
>Think of it as "Don't complain to the city council about how crappy
>the new road surface is. We're not done yet."
That reminds me of my puzzlement when I moved to Pittsburgh
<evan.kir...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> writes:
>
>> "Poor road surface", "Substandard road surface", "Rough road",
>> anything like that would be fine. But the allegedly temporary nature
>> of the surface is irrelevant and uninformative. It does no harm to
>> say what you mean rather than leaving the reader to solve a riddle.
>
>Think of it as "Don't complain to the city council about how crappy
>the new road surface is. We're not done yet."
in 1974. I drove on several really lousy roads in the city that each
had bright, fresh signs that read, "State Maintained Road".
Who would brag?
It turned out that the signs were put up at the direction of the
clever Mayor, Pete Flaherty. He couldn't fix the roads, but he
could tell us who to blame.
--
Rich Ulrich
Robert Bannister
Dec 9, 2011, 5:43:15 PM12/9/11
to
On 9/12/11 9:09 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> news:9k5cr8...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 5/12/11 12:15 PM, Duggy wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 5, 2:00 pm, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/11 8:33 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then we [Australians] tend to go much further than most
>>>>>>> cultures, even in what is generally considered to be polite
>>>>>>> conversation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd have thought that was a considerably out-date-idea. It was
>>>>>> certainly true up to about 1914 and gave rise to the occasionally
>>>>>> heard "My colonial oath", but mainly referred to the use of
>>>>>> "bloody" and "bugger". I am sure the Americans outstripped us in public swearing in
>>>>>> their films of 80s, if not earlier, and since then my impression
>>>>>> is that the British are now amongst the foul-mouths of Europe.
>>>>>> Mind you, members of the former Yugoslav nations do pretty well
>>>>>> if frequency is an issue as are, I believe, French Canadians.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure that swearing *in* films is an effective indicator.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rating of films with swearing (or the editing to get a better
>>>>> rating) or what can or can't be shown on FTA TV would be a better
>>>>> example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly the use of bloody& bugger in advertisements shows that
>>>>> they are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink& drive,
>>>>> you're a bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the
>>>>> bloody hell are you?" ads for example).
>>>>
>>>> But those aren't swear words any more than damn is these days.
>>>> There's really only F&C left and you hear F so often, I doubt that
>>>> will hold out much longer.
>
>
Hmm. In my country, those particular words aren't used a lot, but we
have a number of equally offensive racist words. They may be banned in
public, but you only have to go to any bar frequented mainly by men to
hear them along with an entire array of language that would be deemed
offensive in most other public places.
What may be the norm in academia or the drawing room does not
necessarily reflect the real world.
--
Robert Bannister
> Robert Bannister wrote:
>> On 6/12/11 10:45 AM, Nerfo wrote:
>>> "Robert Bannister"<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> On 6/12/11 10:45 AM, Nerfo wrote:
>>> news:9k5cr8...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> On 5/12/11 12:15 PM, Duggy wrote:
>>>>> On Dec 5, 2:00 pm, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/11 8:33 AM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But then we [Australians] tend to go much further than most
>>>>>>> cultures, even in what is generally considered to be polite
>>>>>>> conversation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd have thought that was a considerably out-date-idea. It was
>>>>>> certainly true up to about 1914 and gave rise to the occasionally
>>>>>> heard "My colonial oath", but mainly referred to the use of
>>>>>> "bloody" and "bugger". I am sure the Americans outstripped us in public swearing in
>>>>>> their films of 80s, if not earlier, and since then my impression
>>>>>> is that the British are now amongst the foul-mouths of Europe.
>>>>>> Mind you, members of the former Yugoslav nations do pretty well
>>>>>> if frequency is an issue as are, I believe, French Canadians.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure that swearing *in* films is an effective indicator.
>>>>>
>>>>> The rating of films with swearing (or the editing to get a better
>>>>> rating) or what can or can't be shown on FTA TV would be a better
>>>>> example.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly the use of bloody& bugger in advertisements shows that
>>>>> they are acceptable for most Australians ("If you drink& drive,
>>>>> you're a bloody idiot", the Toyota "bugger!" ads and "Where the
>>>>> bloody hell are you?" ads for example).
>>>>
>>>> But those aren't swear words any more than damn is these days.
>>>> There's really only F&C left and you hear F so often, I doubt that
>>>> will hold out much longer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where is this all leading to then? Are we heading towards becoming
>>> the most crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the
>>> planet?
>> Haven't we already reached that point?
>
> Nope, most obviously with the informal ban on the most prejudiced language like nigger and coon.
>>>
>>> Where is this all leading to then? Are we heading towards becoming
>>> the most crass and obscene civilisation that's ever been on the
>>> planet?
>> Haven't we already reached that point?
>
>
>
Hmm. In my country, those particular words aren't used a lot, but we
have a number of equally offensive racist words. They may be banned in
public, but you only have to go to any bar frequented mainly by men to
hear them along with an entire array of language that would be deemed
offensive in most other public places.
What may be the norm in academia or the drawing room does not
necessarily reflect the real world.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Dec 9, 2011, 5:44:54 PM12/9/11
to
On 8/12/11 9:45 PM, Django Cat wrote:
> Duggy wrote:
>
>>>> I've seen it usually when large vehicles are regularly accessing
>>>> the road from place they usually don't and/or are hard to see.
>>>
>>> The (many) examples I saw seem to indicate a lane closure associated
>>> with road works. Often - not always - there'd be lollipop man.
>>
>> Yes, but instead of having a "Changed Traffic Conditions Ahead" and a
>> "Changed Road Layout Ahead" sign, they have one that covers both.
>
> I quite often see 'changed priorities ahead', which is a tad
> existential.
I love that one. It could mean so many things.
> Duggy wrote:
>
>>>> I've seen it usually when large vehicles are regularly accessing
>>>> the road from place they usually don't and/or are hard to see.
>>>
>>> The (many) examples I saw seem to indicate a lane closure associated
>>> with road works. Often - not always - there'd be lollipop man.
>>
>> Yes, but instead of having a "Changed Traffic Conditions Ahead" and a
>> "Changed Road Layout Ahead" sign, they have one that covers both.
>
> I quite often see 'changed priorities ahead', which is a tad
> existential.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Dec 9, 2011, 5:48:32 PM12/9/11
to
>> On Dec 8, 11:45 pm, "Django Cat"<notar...@address.com> wrote:
>>> Duggy wrote:
>>>>>> I've seen it usually when large vehicles are regularly accessing
>>>>>> the road from place they usually don't and/or are hard to see.
>>>
>>>>> The (many) examples I saw seem to indicate a lane closure associated
>>>>> with road works. Often - not always - there'd be lollipop man.
>>>
>>>> Yes, but instead of having a "Changed Traffic Conditions Ahead" and a
>>>> "Changed Road Layout Ahead" sign, they have one that covers both.
>>>
>>> I quite often see 'changed priorities ahead', which is a tad
>>> existential.
>>
>>> Duggy wrote:
>>>>>> I've seen it usually when large vehicles are regularly accessing
>>>>>> the road from place they usually don't and/or are hard to see.
>>>
>>>>> The (many) examples I saw seem to indicate a lane closure associated
>>>>> with road works. Often - not always - there'd be lollipop man.
>>>
>>>> Yes, but instead of having a "Changed Traffic Conditions Ahead" and a
>>>> "Changed Road Layout Ahead" sign, they have one that covers both.
>>>
>>> I quite often see 'changed priorities ahead', which is a tad
>>> existential.
>>
>> OK I don't know what that means.
>
> It means that you have to give way to a stream of traffic that you
> didn't previously have to give way to, or vice-versa. "Priority" is a
> clearly-understood concept for traffic.
>
> The one I struggle with most in the UK is TEMPORARY ROAD SURFACE. I
> remember as a child asking my father what it meant, and it makes no more
> sense to me now than it did then.
>
Isn't it that part of road mending where they remove the entire road
>
> It means that you have to give way to a stream of traffic that you
> didn't previously have to give way to, or vice-versa. "Priority" is a
> clearly-understood concept for traffic.
>
> The one I struggle with most in the UK is TEMPORARY ROAD SURFACE. I
> remember as a child asking my father what it meant, and it makes no more
> sense to me now than it did then.
>
surface for 2-3 kilometres and leave it like that for a few months?
Here, they sometimes cover it with gravel, so I assume they use the
traffic as a cheap way of impacting it.
--
Robert Bannister
Fozzi
Dec 9, 2011, 5:51:35 PM12/9/11
to
"CT" wrote in message news:9ke90v...@mid.individual.net...
Django Cat wrote:
> There's also the popular motorway sign "Delays expected until March
> 2012" ('I'm not sitting here for four months!'), Salisbury Council's
> surreal 'beware; men working on the verge', and everyone's favourite
> 'heavy plant crossing'.
http://www.splurj.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/splurj09_heavy.jpg
Surely the most ridiculous and useless roadsign is the one that simply
says "Fog".
Chris
i'm not so sure, years ago Lithgow council used to maintain one that was a
flood warning for a creek prone to flash floods, it read:-
WARNING
WHEN THIS SIGN IS UNDER WATER
THE ROAD IS FLOODED
not a road sign but definately in the deserves to ridiculed category
was a sign painted on the Emu Plains Railway station emergency phone box
Note : if this phone box is locked please call <phone no.> for key
I should point out that that was the 1970's quite a bit before mobile phones
were common
Cheers
Fozzi
Robert Bannister
Dec 9, 2011, 5:53:25 PM12/9/11
to
assuming people can work out cryptic clues while driving. I won't say I
had a near-accident, but I was certainly distracted by an extremely
complicated pictorial sign at a road junction that was really trying to
indicate that one lane straight ahead was blocked, but which looked
something like an anatomy diagram of the intestines.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Dec 9, 2011, 5:56:39 PM12/9/11
to
great number of their roads have poor, substandard surfaces at the end
of winter and that this is not temporary at all, so they pick on the one
section of road they have decided to repair.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Dec 9, 2011, 6:04:06 PM12/9/11
to
On 8/12/11 8:21 AM, Duggy wrote:
> On Dec 8, 9:58 am, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/11 4:38 AM, Duggy wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 12:56 am, Mike Barnes<mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>> Duggy<Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au>:
>>>> When road narrows: "FORM 1 LANE". Huh? Only the road makers can do that,
>>>> surely? "FORM 1 *LINE*", that I could understand.
>>
>>> A line can go anywhere. You can't form a line if you're the only car.
>>
>>>> "CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AHEAD". Surely traffic conditions are
>>>> changing all the time? I guessed that what they meant was "CHANGED ROAD
>>>> LAYOUT AHEAD".
>>
>>> Nope. Sometimes it's just guys with signs slowing traffic.
>>
>> I get more puzzled by "Modified Traffic Signals Ahead" because usually I
>> can detect no difference at all. I assume Main Roads just put them up to
>> amuse themselves.
>
> Changed from flow to timed for some reason?
It may be where the green filter right arrow goes out and leaves you
wondering whether it's a free-for-all or a broken bulb. (I suppose now
we're changing to LEDs or whatever they are, that will be less of a
problem).
I especially like an intersection not far from home that has a red right
turn arrow, but never a green one and, since it is a very busy road, it
is almost impossible to turn right there, so you have to remember never
to be in that right hand lane. Non-locals can get stuck there for ages.
--
Robert Bannister
> On Dec 8, 9:58 am, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> On 8/12/11 4:38 AM, Duggy wrote:
>>
>>> On Dec 8, 12:56 am, Mike Barnes<mikebar...@bluebottle.com> wrote:
>>>> Duggy<Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au>:
>>>> When road narrows: "FORM 1 LANE". Huh? Only the road makers can do that,
>>>> surely? "FORM 1 *LINE*", that I could understand.
>>
>>> A line can go anywhere. You can't form a line if you're the only car.
>>
>>>> "CHANGED TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AHEAD". Surely traffic conditions are
>>>> changing all the time? I guessed that what they meant was "CHANGED ROAD
>>>> LAYOUT AHEAD".
>>
>>> Nope. Sometimes it's just guys with signs slowing traffic.
>>
>> I get more puzzled by "Modified Traffic Signals Ahead" because usually I
>> can detect no difference at all. I assume Main Roads just put them up to
>> amuse themselves.
>
> Changed from flow to timed for some reason?
It may be where the green filter right arrow goes out and leaves you
wondering whether it's a free-for-all or a broken bulb. (I suppose now
we're changing to LEDs or whatever they are, that will be less of a
problem).
I especially like an intersection not far from home that has a red right
turn arrow, but never a green one and, since it is a very busy road, it
is almost impossible to turn right there, so you have to remember never
to be in that right hand lane. Non-locals can get stuck there for ages.
--
Robert Bannister
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 8:08:13 PM12/9/11
to
> They may be banned in public, but you only have to go to any bar frequented mainly by men to hear them along with an
> entire array of language that would be deemed offensive in most other public places.
and we dont in fact see those words that you agree are banned
in public places being seen much more often in the media etc as
is being discussed with the swear words.
So we have not in fact 'reached that point' being discussed with those.
> What may be the norm in academia or the drawing room does not necessarily reflect the real world.
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 8:10:02 PM12/9/11
to
Rod Speed
Dec 9, 2011, 8:22:29 PM12/9/11
to
Duggy wrote:
> On Dec 10, 4:12 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Duggy wrote
>>
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
>>>> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
>>>> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
>>> Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
>>> everywhere else (Emergency & Short Stay Wards, not there).
>>
>> My emergency and critical care didnt have any signs banning them.
>>
>>>> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos
>>>> I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
>>> I think there are benefits to pagers than phones don't have.
>> Yeah, they deliver the message more reliably for starters.
>
>>> Mass messaging rather than call each one
>> Never seen that happen. They appear to use the speaker system for that.
> Mass Casualty calls to off duty medical staff.
I dont believe they take them home, so that wont work.
> On Dec 10, 4:12 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Duggy wrote
>>
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
>>>> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
>>>> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
>>> Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
>>> everywhere else (Emergency & Short Stay Wards, not there).
>>
>> My emergency and critical care didnt have any signs banning them.
>>
>>>> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos
>>>> I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
>>> I think there are benefits to pagers than phones don't have.
>> Yeah, they deliver the message more reliably for starters.
>
>>> Mass messaging rather than call each one
>> Never seen that happen. They appear to use the speaker system for that.
> Mass Casualty calls to off duty medical staff.
> (Saw something on TV Thursday about State
> Emergency Services volunteers and they all started
> their stories "When the pager went off I was...")
pagers because they are more reliable than mobile phones.
> You're right about on-duty things. Mass announcements and
> hospital codes are best. There may be situations where they
> don't want to cause panic or tip off an offender but that'd be rare.
>>> and people are more likely to ignore a phone spring to mind.
>> Yeah, bet thats a large part of it.
> Responsibly used it's perfect for emergency calls.
Duggy
Dec 9, 2011, 9:40:00 PM12/9/11
to
On Dec 10, 11:22 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Duggy wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 4:12 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Duggy wrote
>
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
> >>>> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
> >>>> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
> >>> Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
> >>> everywhere else (Emergency & Short Stay Wards, not there).
>
> >> My emergency and critical care didnt have any signs banning them.
>
> >>>> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos
> >>>> I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
> >>> I think there are benefits to pagers than phones don't have.
> >> Yeah, they deliver the message more reliably for starters.
>
> >>> Mass messaging rather than call each one
> >> Never seen that happen. They appear to use the speaker system for that.
> > Mass Casualty calls to off duty medical staff.
>
> I dont believe they take them home, so that wont work.
My understanding is they do.
> Duggy wrote:
> > On Dec 10, 4:12 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Duggy wrote
>
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
> >>>> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
> >>>> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
> >>> Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
> >>> everywhere else (Emergency & Short Stay Wards, not there).
>
> >> My emergency and critical care didnt have any signs banning them.
>
> >>>> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos
> >>>> I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
> >>> I think there are benefits to pagers than phones don't have.
> >> Yeah, they deliver the message more reliably for starters.
>
> >>> Mass messaging rather than call each one
> >> Never seen that happen. They appear to use the speaker system for that.
> > Mass Casualty calls to off duty medical staff.
>
> I dont believe they take them home, so that wont work.
> > (Saw something on TV Thursday about State
> > Emergency Services volunteers and they all started
> > their stories "When the pager went off I was...")
> Yeah, those and the non fulltime fire people do certainly have
> pagers because they are more reliable than mobile phones.
> > You're right about on-duty things. Mass announcements and
> > hospital codes are best. There may be situations where they
> > don't want to cause panic or tip off an offender but that'd be rare.
> >>> and people are more likely to ignore a phone spring to mind.
> >> Yeah, bet thats a large part of it.
> > Responsibly used it's perfect for emergency calls.
> But harder to ensure that the individual hasnt turned it off for some reason.
===
= DUG.
===
Peter Brooks
Dec 9, 2011, 11:12:29 PM12/9/11
to
On Dec 10, 12:43 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hmm. In my country, those particular words aren't used a lot, but we
> have a number of equally offensive racist words. They may be banned in
> public, but you only have to go to any bar frequented mainly by men to
> hear them along with an entire array of language that would be deemed
> offensive in most other public places.
>
> What may be the norm in academia or the drawing room does not
> necessarily reflect the real world.
>
I think that's true universally. Part of the academic's job ( as he
>
>
> Hmm. In my country, those particular words aren't used a lot, but we
> have a number of equally offensive racist words. They may be banned in
> public, but you only have to go to any bar frequented mainly by men to
> hear them along with an entire array of language that would be deemed
> offensive in most other public places.
>
> What may be the norm in academia or the drawing room does not
> necessarily reflect the real world.
>
sees it ) is to maintain class distinctions between him, his mates,
and hoy polloi. Being a political correctness bigot and rebuking any
that break the Thought Police laws is one handy way of making it clear
that he is of elevated stock... It's a nice irony that the whole PC
charade ( like communism ) is supposed to be helping the poor and
downtrodden - as if niceties of speech were ever going to do that!
Dr Nick
Dec 10, 2011, 3:59:37 AM12/10/11
to
Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> writes:
> The BBC is quite different from the BACC. But I don't think even the BBC
> would have countenanced a "Fuck you!" directed at their audience.
Not without couching it in a mission statement, certainly.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
> The BBC is quite different from the BACC. But I don't think even the BBC
> would have countenanced a "Fuck you!" directed at their audience.
Not without couching it in a mission statement, certainly.
--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk
Snidely
Dec 9, 2011, 3:36:02 PM12/9/11
to
Mike Barnes <mikeb...@bluebottle.com> scribbled something like ...
I don't have any problem with using "temporary" to mean "don't expect
normal [because it is going to be removed soon so we didn't bother making
it perfect]". But maybe that's because I've worked with tmp files so
often.
But there is another possible meaning, related to detours, but for which
a detour sign might be confusing ... the old lane is not accessible, but
they've graded and surfaced a route around the workzone. For this, you
need to be alert and ready to follow either new lane markings or be
guided by rows of cones or temporary signs, and also alert to changes of
level, turns that are sharper than usual, and the presence of equipment.
(There's a related railroad temporary track sometimes called a shoo-fly.)
/dps
.
normal [because it is going to be removed soon so we didn't bother making
it perfect]". But maybe that's because I've worked with tmp files so
often.
But there is another possible meaning, related to detours, but for which
a detour sign might be confusing ... the old lane is not accessible, but
they've graded and surfaced a route around the workzone. For this, you
need to be alert and ready to follow either new lane markings or be
guided by rows of cones or temporary signs, and also alert to changes of
level, turns that are sharper than usual, and the presence of equipment.
(There's a related railroad temporary track sometimes called a shoo-fly.)
/dps
.
John Varela
Dec 10, 2011, 3:47:43 PM12/10/11
to
On Fri, 9 Dec 2011 22:48:32 UTC, Robert Bannister
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Isn't it that part of road mending where they remove the entire road
> surface for 2-3 kilometres and leave it like that for a few months?
> Here, they sometimes cover it with gravel, so I assume they use the
> traffic as a cheap way of impacting it.
Compacting.
<rob...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Isn't it that part of road mending where they remove the entire road
> surface for 2-3 kilometres and leave it like that for a few months?
> Here, they sometimes cover it with gravel, so I assume they use the
> traffic as a cheap way of impacting it.
--
John Varela
Robert Bannister
Dec 10, 2011, 6:04:04 PM12/10/11
to
most certainly includes swear words, but they are not the sum total.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Dec 10, 2011, 6:09:54 PM12/10/11
to
bars like to make a point of using "strong" language to deliberately
shock and offend those they perceive as different. On the other hand, I
loved the man who, from behind me in a bar I thought contained only
males, yelled, "If you fucking swear in front of my wife again, I'll
fucking plant you one." He was not joking.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Dec 10, 2011, 6:11:47 PM12/10/11
to
is, then I probably can't see it.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
Dec 10, 2011, 6:17:25 PM12/10/11
to
On 10/12/11 10:40 AM, Duggy wrote:
> On Dec 10, 11:22 am, "Rod Speed"<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Duggy wrote:
>>> On Dec 10, 4:12 am, "Rod Speed"<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Duggy wrote
>>
>>>>> Rod Speed<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
>>>>>> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
>>>>>> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
>>>>> Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
>>>>> everywhere else (Emergency& Short Stay Wards, not there).
> On Dec 10, 11:22 am, "Rod Speed"<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Duggy wrote:
>>> On Dec 10, 4:12 am, "Rod Speed"<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Duggy wrote
>>
>>>>> Rod Speed<rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> It was only when I eventually got to the area where they did
>>>>>> the heart stent that there was a sign that said they had to be
>>>>>> turned off in that area, so clearly it was fine elsewhere.
>>>>> Ditto my recent experience and the area that did CT scans. OK
>>
>>>> My emergency and critical care didnt have any signs banning them.
>>
>>>>>> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos
>>>>>> I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
>>>>> I think there are benefits to pagers than phones don't have.
>>>> Yeah, they deliver the message more reliably for starters.
>>
>>>>> Mass messaging rather than call each one
>>>> Never seen that happen. They appear to use the speaker system for that.
>>> Mass Casualty calls to off duty medical staff.
>>
>> I dont believe they take them home, so that wont work.
>
> My understanding is they do.
The doctors in my family have, at various times in their career, had
>>>> My emergency and critical care didnt have any signs banning them.
>>
>>>>>> They mostly appear to use pagers in the docos
>>>>>> I have watched on doctors in hospitals.
>>>>> I think there are benefits to pagers than phones don't have.
>>>> Yeah, they deliver the message more reliably for starters.
>>
>>>>> Mass messaging rather than call each one
>>>> Never seen that happen. They appear to use the speaker system for that.
>>> Mass Casualty calls to off duty medical staff.
>>
>> I dont believe they take them home, so that wont work.
>
> My understanding is they do.
pagers at home; at other times, they get a phone call.
--
Robert Bannister
Rod Speed
Dec 10, 2011, 9:47:00 PM12/10/11
to
> Offensive language most certainly includes swear words, but they are not the sum total.
Rod Speed
Dec 10, 2011, 9:49:20 PM12/10/11
to
> If it is, then I probably can't see it.
Peter Brooks
Dec 11, 2011, 12:03:14 AM12/11/11
to
On Dec 11, 1:09 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> On 10/12/11 12:12 PM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 12:43 am, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hmm. In my country, those particular words aren't used a lot, but we
> >> have a number of equally offensive racist words. They may be banned in
> >> public, but you only have to go to any bar frequented mainly by men to
> >> hear them along with an entire array of language that would be deemed
> >> offensive in most other public places.
>
> >> What may be the norm in academia or the drawing room does not
> >> necessarily reflect the real world.
>
> > I think that's true universally. Part of the academic's job ( as he
> > sees it ) is to maintain class distinctions between him, his mates,
> > and hoy polloi. Being a political correctness bigot and rebuking any
> > that break the Thought Police laws is one handy way of making it clear
> > that he is of elevated stock... It's a nice irony that the whole PC
> > charade ( like communism ) is supposed to be helping the poor and
> > downtrodden - as if niceties of speech were ever going to do that!
>
> It is, however, also true that some of the people who frequent rough
> bars like to make a point of using "strong" language to deliberately
> shock and offend those they perceive as different.
>
I couldn't deny that there might be some, that'd require an
> On 10/12/11 12:12 PM, Peter Brooks wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 10, 12:43 am, Robert Bannister<robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >> Hmm. In my country, those particular words aren't used a lot, but we
> >> have a number of equally offensive racist words. They may be banned in
> >> public, but you only have to go to any bar frequented mainly by men to
> >> hear them along with an entire array of language that would be deemed
> >> offensive in most other public places.
>
> >> What may be the norm in academia or the drawing room does not
> >> necessarily reflect the real world.
>
> > I think that's true universally. Part of the academic's job ( as he
> > sees it ) is to maintain class distinctions between him, his mates,
> > and hoy polloi. Being a political correctness bigot and rebuking any
> > that break the Thought Police laws is one handy way of making it clear
> > that he is of elevated stock... It's a nice irony that the whole PC
> > charade ( like communism ) is supposed to be helping the poor and
> > downtrodden - as if niceties of speech were ever going to do that!
>
> It is, however, also true that some of the people who frequent rough
> bars like to make a point of using "strong" language to deliberately
> shock and offend those they perceive as different.
>
encyclopaedic knowledge of bar frequenters. I don't think it's many,
though, unless it's the aforesaid academic and middle-classes on their
hypocrisy night-out.
>
> On the other hand, I
> loved the man who, from behind me in a bar I thought contained only
> males, yelled, "If you fucking swear in front of my wife again, I'll
> fucking plant you one." He was not joking.
>
Alcohol tends to favour emotion over logic.
> On the other hand, I
> loved the man who, from behind me in a bar I thought contained only
> males, yelled, "If you fucking swear in front of my wife again, I'll
> fucking plant you one." He was not joking.
>
Snidely
Dec 11, 2011, 5:08:00 PM12/11/11
to
"Fozzi" <fozzi...@gmail.com> scribbled something like ...
> Surely the most ridiculous and useless roadsign is the one that simply
> says "Fog".
Why is it useless?
I quite clearly understand that even though I may not witness fog at the
moment I read the sign I am in an area prone to fog and should be alert for
it encountering me in stretch of road ahead.
And "Be alert for possible fog conditions ahead" is way too much verbage to
put on a warning sign.
/dps
> Surely the most ridiculous and useless roadsign is the one that simply
> says "Fog".
I quite clearly understand that even though I may not witness fog at the
moment I read the sign I am in an area prone to fog and should be alert for
it encountering me in stretch of road ahead.
And "Be alert for possible fog conditions ahead" is way too much verbage to
put on a warning sign.
/dps
Duggy
Dec 11, 2011, 6:38:54 PM12/11/11
to
On Dec 11, 9:09 am, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> It is, however, also true that some of the people who frequent rough
> bars like to make a point of using "strong" language to deliberately
> shock and offend those they perceive as different. On the other hand, I
> loved the man who, from behind me in a bar I thought contained only
> males, yelled, "If you fucking swear in front of my wife again, I'll
> fucking plant you one." He was not joking.
His wife was strangely masculine looking?
> It is, however, also true that some of the people who frequent rough
> bars like to make a point of using "strong" language to deliberately
> shock and offend those they perceive as different. On the other hand, I
> loved the man who, from behind me in a bar I thought contained only
> males, yelled, "If you fucking swear in front of my wife again, I'll
> fucking plant you one." He was not joking.
===
= DUG.
===
Robert Bannister
Dec 11, 2011, 8:12:14 PM12/11/11
to
--
Robert Bannister
0 new messages