Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: material for easily protecting paperback books?
132 views
Skip to first unread message
William F. Adams
Sep 25, 2012, 2:40:32 PM9/25/12
to
Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
who had promised to be careful w/ it.
Since the replacement is $49.99 from Amazon, I was wondering if anyone
had a good source for archival materials for storing old paperback
books.
Once upon a time I had access to pretty much unlimited quantities of
clear film, which I would cut to the height of the book and then wrap
around from inside front cover around to the back cover, but I no
longer have access to that.
Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
I'm planning to cover all the valuable books and catalog them at the
same time....
William
who had promised to be careful w/ it.
Since the replacement is $49.99 from Amazon, I was wondering if anyone
had a good source for archival materials for storing old paperback
books.
Once upon a time I had access to pretty much unlimited quantities of
clear film, which I would cut to the height of the book and then wrap
around from inside front cover around to the back cover, but I no
longer have access to that.
Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
I'm planning to cover all the valuable books and catalog them at the
same time....
William
Dorothy J Heydt
Sep 25, 2012, 2:55:38 PM9/25/12
to
In article <51f6e21d-abbd-4329...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
(I would trust my 38-year-old son with any book. In fact, I
have. I would not trust my 4.5-year-old grandson with anything I
wanted to get back in one piece. This includes things made of
stone.)
>Since the replacement is $49.99 from Amazon, I was wondering if anyone
>had a good source for archival materials for storing old paperback
>books.
>
>Once upon a time I had access to pretty much unlimited quantities of
>clear film, which I would cut to the height of the book and then wrap
>around from inside front cover around to the back cover, but I no
>longer have access to that.
>
>Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
>as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
>cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
>
>I'm planning to cover all the valuable books and catalog them at the
>same time....
I have a number of old, irreplaceable PBs which I keep in Ziploc
bags. It keeps them from getting their edges frayed when they're
put into or taken out of the bookshelves.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
William F. Adams <will...@aol.com> wrote:
>Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
>who had promised to be careful w/ it.
Oh. How old is your son?
>Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
>who had promised to be careful w/ it.
(I would trust my 38-year-old son with any book. In fact, I
have. I would not trust my 4.5-year-old grandson with anything I
wanted to get back in one piece. This includes things made of
stone.)
>Since the replacement is $49.99 from Amazon, I was wondering if anyone
>had a good source for archival materials for storing old paperback
>books.
>
>Once upon a time I had access to pretty much unlimited quantities of
>clear film, which I would cut to the height of the book and then wrap
>around from inside front cover around to the back cover, but I no
>longer have access to that.
>
>Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
>as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
>cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
>
>I'm planning to cover all the valuable books and catalog them at the
>same time....
bags. It keeps them from getting their edges frayed when they're
put into or taken out of the bookshelves.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Konrad Gaertner
Sep 25, 2012, 3:26:50 PM9/25/12
to
"William F. Adams" wrote:
>
> Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
> as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
> cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
I used lots of clear packing tape when bits started braeking off the
>
> Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
> as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
> cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
cover of one of my paperbacks.
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - email: kgae...@tx.rr.com
http://kgbooklog.livejournal.com/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
Butch Malahide
Sep 25, 2012, 4:11:00 PM9/25/12
to
On Sep 25, 1:40 pm, "William F. Adams" <willad...@aol.com> wrote:
> Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
> who had promised to be careful w/ it.
>
> Since the replacement is $49.99 from Amazon, I was wondering if anyone
> had a good source for archival materials for storing old paperback
> books.
Do you think these would do the job?
> Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
> who had promised to be careful w/ it.
>
> Since the replacement is $49.99 from Amazon, I was wondering if anyone
> had a good source for archival materials for storing old paperback
> books.
http://oldsfbooks.com/bags.html
William F. Adams
Sep 25, 2012, 5:51:02 PM9/25/12
to
On Sep 25, 2:59 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <51f6e21d-abbd-4329-85c1-ca85fb123...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> >Since the replacement is $49.99 from Amazon, I was wondering if anyone
> >had a good source for archival materials for storing old paperback
> >books.
>
> >Once upon a time I had access to pretty much unlimited quantities of
> >clear film, which I would cut to the height of the book and then wrap
> >around from inside front cover around to the back cover, but I no
> >longer have access to that.
>
> >Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
> >as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
> >cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
>
> >I'm planning to cover all the valuable books and catalog them at the
> >same time....
>
> I have a number of old, irreplaceable PBs which I keep in Ziploc
> bags. It keeps them from getting their edges frayed when they're
> put into or taken out of the bookshelves.
I worry about sealing them in something air tight.
On Sep 25, 4:11 pm, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think these would do the job?
>
> http://oldsfbooks.com/bags.html
As I said, I'm concerned about sealing them up --- it'd be different
if they were printed on acid-free paper.
William
> In article <51f6e21d-abbd-4329-85c1-ca85fb123...@r7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> William F. Adams <willad...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
> >who had promised to be careful w/ it.
>
> Oh. How old is your son?
12
>
> >Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
> >who had promised to be careful w/ it.
>
> Oh. How old is your son?
> >Since the replacement is $49.99 from Amazon, I was wondering if anyone
> >had a good source for archival materials for storing old paperback
> >books.
>
> >Once upon a time I had access to pretty much unlimited quantities of
> >clear film, which I would cut to the height of the book and then wrap
> >around from inside front cover around to the back cover, but I no
> >longer have access to that.
>
> >Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
> >as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
> >cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
>
> >I'm planning to cover all the valuable books and catalog them at the
> >same time....
>
> I have a number of old, irreplaceable PBs which I keep in Ziploc
> bags. It keeps them from getting their edges frayed when they're
> put into or taken out of the bookshelves.
On Sep 25, 4:11 pm, Butch Malahide <fred.gal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you think these would do the job?
>
> http://oldsfbooks.com/bags.html
if they were printed on acid-free paper.
William
Kurt Busiek
Sep 25, 2012, 6:01:32 PM9/25/12
to
On 2012-09-25 18:40:32 +0000, "William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> said:
> Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
> who had promised to be careful w/ it.
Out of curiosity, what book? 1989 doesn't seem like all that long ago
> Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
> who had promised to be careful w/ it.
for a PB to be going for $50, but I guess rarity is relative.
> Since the replacement is $49.99 from Amazon, I was wondering if anyone
> had a good source for archival materials for storing old paperback
> books.
>
> Once upon a time I had access to pretty much unlimited quantities of
> clear film, which I would cut to the height of the book and then wrap
> around from inside front cover around to the back cover, but I no
> longer have access to that.
>
> Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
> as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
> cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
>
> I'm planning to cover all the valuable books and catalog them at the
> same time....
in the UK:
http://www.rycobookcovers.com/index.php?cPath=1
The ClearShield ones seem to be pre-made but others have that
trim-to-size thing you want.
Here's one in the US:
http://www.shopbrodart.com/book-protection/
kdb
--
Visit http://www.busiek.com -- for all your Busiek needs!
Konrad Gaertner
Sep 25, 2012, 6:18:12 PM9/25/12
to
Kurt Busiek wrote:
>
> On 2012-09-25 18:40:32 +0000, "William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> said:
>
> > Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
> > who had promised to be careful w/ it.
>
> Out of curiosity, what book? 1989 doesn't seem like all that long ago
> for a PB to be going for $50, but I guess rarity is relative.
Prices can go up fast these days. According to Amazon, a used copy
>
> On 2012-09-25 18:40:32 +0000, "William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> said:
>
> > Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
> > who had promised to be careful w/ it.
>
> Out of curiosity, what book? 1989 doesn't seem like all that long ago
> for a PB to be going for $50, but I guess rarity is relative.
of Liz Williams' _Iron Khan_ will cost at least $36 dollars. And
that's for a paperback published last year.
Kurt Busiek
Sep 25, 2012, 6:51:16 PM9/25/12
to
On 2012-09-25 22:18:12 +0000, Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@tx.rr.com> said:
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-09-25 18:40:32 +0000, "William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> said:
>>
>>> Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
>>> who had promised to be careful w/ it.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what book? 1989 doesn't seem like all that long ago
>> for a PB to be going for $50, but I guess rarity is relative.
>
> Prices can go up fast these days. According to Amazon, a used copy
> of Liz Williams' _Iron Khan_ will cost at least $36 dollars. And
> that's for a paperback published last year.
That one's kind of a special case, though.
> Kurt Busiek wrote:
>>
>> On 2012-09-25 18:40:32 +0000, "William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> said:
>>
>>> Made the mistake of lending out a 23 yr. old paperback book to my son
>>> who had promised to be careful w/ it.
>>
>> Out of curiosity, what book? 1989 doesn't seem like all that long ago
>> for a PB to be going for $50, but I guess rarity is relative.
>
> Prices can go up fast these days. According to Amazon, a used copy
> of Liz Williams' _Iron Khan_ will cost at least $36 dollars. And
> that's for a paperback published last year.
It was published, apparently, by CreateSpace, a POD publisher, so if
the author wanted it still to be available new, it would be. This
suggests that it was pulled from the service for some reason, and
during the time it was available it probably sold very few copies, or
at least has a much lower number of copies in print than something
published in '89.
So the fact that it was published last year seems to be balanced out by
other factors, like her publisher dropping her, her publishing through
a POD service and then pulling the book from the service.
William December Starr
Sep 25, 2012, 6:51:22 PM9/25/12
to
In article <50622DA4...@tx.rr.com>,
Paperback: 340 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform (January 11, 2011)
Does that mean that it's mostly an ebook and very few copies were
actually printed on paper?
-- wds
Konrad Gaertner <kgae...@tx.rr.com> said:
> Prices can go up fast these days. According to Amazon, a used
> copy of Liz Williams' _Iron Khan_ will cost at least $36 dollars.
> And that's for a paperback published last year.
Product Details
> Prices can go up fast these days. According to Amazon, a used
> copy of Liz Williams' _Iron Khan_ will cost at least $36 dollars.
> And that's for a paperback published last year.
Paperback: 340 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing
Platform (January 11, 2011)
Does that mean that it's mostly an ebook and very few copies were
actually printed on paper?
-- wds
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Sep 25, 2012, 8:11:27 PM9/25/12
to
On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:26:50 -0500, Konrad Gaertner
<kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>"William F. Adams" wrote:
>>
>> Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
>> as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
>> cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
>
>I used lots of clear packing tape when bits started braeking off the
>cover of one of my paperbacks.
That really doesn't work out well - after about five years on a shelf
<kgae...@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>"William F. Adams" wrote:
>>
>> Ideally I'd like a roll of glassine or mylar which is the same height
>> as a paperback --- that way I could fold it around the book, make one
>> cut and be done --- unless someone has a better idea?
>
>I used lots of clear packing tape when bits started braeking off the
>cover of one of my paperbacks.
in a room that gets sunlight the tape glue dries up and falls out as
dust in the lit parts.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.
David Dyer-Bennet
Sep 25, 2012, 11:14:55 PM9/25/12
to
"William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> writes:
> On Sep 25, 2:59 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> I have a number of old, irreplaceable PBs which I keep in Ziploc
>> bags. It keeps them from getting their edges frayed when they're
>> put into or taken out of the bookshelves.
>
> I worry about sealing them in something air tight.
It's actually a good idea. Pulp paper is acid, and interacts with
> On Sep 25, 2:59 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> I have a number of old, irreplaceable PBs which I keep in Ziploc
>> bags. It keeps them from getting their edges frayed when they're
>> put into or taken out of the bookshelves.
>
> I worry about sealing them in something air tight.
oxygen from the atmosphere to turn brittle and eventually fall apart.
Keeping such books (also comics) sealed in plastic bags is the classic
way of preserving them.
--
Googleproofaddress(account:dd-b provider:dd-b domain:net)
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
Mike Dworetsky
Sep 26, 2012, 3:30:49 AM9/26/12
to
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> On Sep 25, 2:59 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>>> I have a number of old, irreplaceable PBs which I keep in Ziploc
>>> bags. It keeps them from getting their edges frayed when they're
>>> put into or taken out of the bookshelves.
>>
>> I worry about sealing them in something air tight.
>
> It's actually a good idea. Pulp paper is acid, and interacts with
> oxygen from the atmosphere to turn brittle and eventually fall apart.
> Keeping such books (also comics) sealed in plastic bags is the classic
> way of preserving them.
The Howard Families preserved archive material for the future by sealing
> "William F. Adams" <will...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> On Sep 25, 2:59 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>>> I have a number of old, irreplaceable PBs which I keep in Ziploc
>>> bags. It keeps them from getting their edges frayed when they're
>>> put into or taken out of the bookshelves.
>>
>> I worry about sealing them in something air tight.
>
> It's actually a good idea. Pulp paper is acid, and interacts with
> oxygen from the atmosphere to turn brittle and eventually fall apart.
> Keeping such books (also comics) sealed in plastic bags is the classic
> way of preserving them.
documents in airtight containers under a nitrogen atmosphere. That's how
Lazarus Long communicated with his family from 1914-18 back to Tertius
thousands of years later. Probably no one in this newsgroup will go to that
extreme.
One problem with paperbacks is mainly that the paper is usually high-acid
woodpulp. The same problem is present in comics. The British Library has a
serious problem with crumbling old publications due to this sort of thing.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Gohar Khan
Sep 26, 2012, 4:23:29 AM9/26/12
to
The Do's & Don'ts of an Engineering student.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-MweIUKAig&list=UUmhLtTCHD3S6Asrfi2zSJ2A&index=5&feature=plpp_video
Subscribe for more footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-MweIUKAig&list=UUmhLtTCHD3S6Asrfi2zSJ2A&index=5&feature=plpp_video
Subscribe for more footage.
tphile2
Sep 26, 2012, 6:44:52 AM9/26/12
to
Robert Carnegie
Sep 26, 2012, 10:31:54 AM9/26/12
to
On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:40:32 PM UTC+1, William F. Adams wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone had a good source for archival materials
> for storing old paperback books.
Didn't we have here, a while back, an extensive discussion of "canning"?
> I was wondering if anyone had a good source for archival materials
> for storing old paperback books.
Which I supposed to mean "putting into tin cans", but apparently it also
includes glass jars - so you can still see your books...
Michael Stemper
Sep 26, 2012, 12:59:13 PM9/26/12
to
that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the whole thing
in rapidly boiling water.
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
Life's too important to take seriously.
Bill Snyder
Sep 26, 2012, 1:58:12 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 16:59:13 +0000 (UTC),
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <ec76220b-619c-4677...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>>On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:40:32 PM UTC+1, William F. Adams wrote:
>
>>> I was wondering if anyone had a good source for archival materials
>>> for storing old paperback books.
>>
>>Didn't we have here, a while back, an extensive discussion of "canning"?
>>Which I supposed to mean "putting into tin cans", but apparently it also
>>includes glass jars - so you can still see your books...
>
>Assuming that you have no problem with the canning process, which requires
>that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the whole thing
>in rapidly boiling water.
We should try this on a spammer some time.
mste...@walkabout.empros.com (Michael Stemper) wrote:
>In article <ec76220b-619c-4677...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
>>On Tuesday, September 25, 2012 7:40:32 PM UTC+1, William F. Adams wrote:
>
>>> I was wondering if anyone had a good source for archival materials
>>> for storing old paperback books.
>>
>>Didn't we have here, a while back, an extensive discussion of "canning"?
>>Which I supposed to mean "putting into tin cans", but apparently it also
>>includes glass jars - so you can still see your books...
>
>Assuming that you have no problem with the canning process, which requires
>that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the whole thing
>in rapidly boiling water.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
Wayne Throop
Sep 26, 2012, 2:01:49 PM9/26/12
to
::: Didn't we have here, a while back, an extensive discussion of
: We should try this on a spammer some time.
You don't suppose Hormel... nah, couldn't be.
But now I can't decide if that'd be a good or a bad thing, if they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam
In 2007, the seven billionth can of Spam was sold.
On average, 3.8 cans are consumed every second in the United States.
::: "canning"? Which I supposed to mean "putting into tin cans", but
::: apparently it also includes glass jars - so you can still see your
::: books...
:: Assuming that you have no problem with the canning process, which
:: requires that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the
:: whole thing in rapidly boiling water.
: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
::: apparently it also includes glass jars - so you can still see your
::: books...
:: Assuming that you have no problem with the canning process, which
:: requires that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the
:: whole thing in rapidly boiling water.
: We should try this on a spammer some time.
You don't suppose Hormel... nah, couldn't be.
But now I can't decide if that'd be a good or a bad thing, if they did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam
In 2007, the seven billionth can of Spam was sold.
On average, 3.8 cans are consumed every second in the United States.
Bill Snyder
Sep 26, 2012, 4:11:49 PM9/26/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 18:01:49 GMT, thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop)
wrote:
>::: Didn't we have here, a while back, an extensive discussion of
>::: "canning"? Which I supposed to mean "putting into tin cans", but
>::: apparently it also includes glass jars - so you can still see your
>::: books...
>
>:: Assuming that you have no problem with the canning process, which
>:: requires that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the
>:: whole thing in rapidly boiling water.
>
>: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>: We should try this on a spammer some time.
>
>You don't suppose Hormel... nah, couldn't be.
>But now I can't decide if that'd be a good or a bad thing, if they did.
I must admit, I never properly appreciated the "CAN-SPAM" Act
until just now.
wrote:
>::: Didn't we have here, a while back, an extensive discussion of
>::: "canning"? Which I supposed to mean "putting into tin cans", but
>::: apparently it also includes glass jars - so you can still see your
>::: books...
>
>:: Assuming that you have no problem with the canning process, which
>:: requires that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the
>:: whole thing in rapidly boiling water.
>
>: Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
>: We should try this on a spammer some time.
>
>You don't suppose Hormel... nah, couldn't be.
>But now I can't decide if that'd be a good or a bad thing, if they did.
until just now.
Raymond Daley
Sep 26, 2012, 4:58:12 PM9/26/12
to
Fablon.
Used to use it back in the RAF on ID cards and other things we wanted to
protect from damage.
Also useful for practical jokes.
Like sealing up a phone book then giving it to an officer you don't like and
telling him it's his replacement phone book.
Used to use it back in the RAF on ID cards and other things we wanted to
protect from damage.
Also useful for practical jokes.
Like sealing up a phone book then giving it to an officer you don't like and
telling him it's his replacement phone book.
Walter Bushell
Sep 26, 2012, 9:51:17 PM9/26/12
to
In article <vgg6689gra1dgdudr...@4ax.com>,
Is that gentler or rougher than boiling oil?
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
--
This space unintentionally left blank.
Robert Carnegie
Sep 26, 2012, 10:13:31 PM9/26/12
to michael...@gmail.com
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 5:59:14 PM UTC+1, Michael Stemper wrote:
> In article <ec76220b-619c-4677...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
> >Didn't we have here, a while back, an extensive discussion of "canning"?
> >Which I supposed to mean "putting into tin cans", but apparently it also
> >includes glass jars - so you can still see your books...
>
> Assuming that you have no problem with the canning process, which requires
> that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the whole thing
> in rapidly boiling water.
I assume this will get the acid out of the paper...
> In article <ec76220b-619c-4677...@googlegroups.com>, Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> writes:
> >Didn't we have here, a while back, an extensive discussion of "canning"?
> >Which I supposed to mean "putting into tin cans", but apparently it also
> >includes glass jars - so you can still see your books...
>
> Assuming that you have no problem with the canning process, which requires
> that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the whole thing
> in rapidly boiling water.
Gene Wirchenko
Sep 28, 2012, 11:52:02 PM9/28/12
to
On Wed, 26 Sep 2012 12:58:12 -0500, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
wrote:
[snip]
>>Assuming that you have no problem with the canning process, which requires
>>that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the whole thing
>>in rapidly boiling water.
>
>We should try this on a spammer some time.
Why? It is not as if we care whether the meat spoils.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
wrote:
[snip]
>>Assuming that you have no problem with the canning process, which requires
>>that you put the book into the canning jar, and submerge the whole thing
>>in rapidly boiling water.
>
>We should try this on a spammer some time.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Walter Bushell
Sep 29, 2012, 11:26:58 AM9/29/12
to
Evelyn Leeper
Sep 30, 2012, 3:33:28 PM9/30/12
to
On 9/25/12 11:14 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> "William F. Adams"<will...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> On Sep 25, 2:59 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>>> I have a number of old, irreplaceable PBs which I keep in Ziploc
>>> bags. It keeps them from getting their edges frayed when they're
>>> put into or taken out of the bookshelves.
>>
>> I worry about sealing them in something air tight.
>
> It's actually a good idea. Pulp paper is acid, and interacts with
> oxygen from the atmosphere to turn brittle and eventually fall apart.
> Keeping such books (also comics) sealed in plastic bags is the classic
> way of preserving them.
Just be sure to do the sealing in a low-humidity environment.
> "William F. Adams"<will...@aol.com> writes:
>
>> On Sep 25, 2:59 pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>
>>> I have a number of old, irreplaceable PBs which I keep in Ziploc
>>> bags. It keeps them from getting their edges frayed when they're
>>> put into or taken out of the bookshelves.
>>
>> I worry about sealing them in something air tight.
>
> It's actually a good idea. Pulp paper is acid, and interacts with
> oxygen from the atmosphere to turn brittle and eventually fall apart.
> Keeping such books (also comics) sealed in plastic bags is the classic
> way of preserving them.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Who's better for business? During Bush's second term the Dow Jones
*dropped* 2000 points; during Obama's term it *rose* 5000 points.
Wayne Throop
Sep 30, 2012, 5:43:53 PM9/30/12
to
:: It's actually a good idea. Pulp paper is acid, and interacts with
: Just be sure to do the sealing in a low-humidity environment.
Would adding dessicant help?
:: oxygen from the atmosphere to turn brittle and eventually fall apart.
:: Keeping such books (also comics) sealed in plastic bags is the
:: classic way of preserving them.
: Evelyn Leeper <ele...@optonline.net>
:: Keeping such books (also comics) sealed in plastic bags is the
:: classic way of preserving them.
: Just be sure to do the sealing in a low-humidity environment.
Would adding dessicant help?
Evelyn Leeper
Sep 30, 2012, 8:10:14 PM9/30/12
to
Brian M. Scott
Oct 1, 2012, 2:55:45 AM10/1/12
to
On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 21:43:53 GMT, Wayne Throop
<thr...@sheol.org> wrote in <news:13490...@sheol.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
I suspect that desiccant would work better. <g>
Brian
<thr...@sheol.org> wrote in <news:13490...@sheol.org> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
Brian
Wayne Throop
Oct 1, 2012, 3:02:00 AM10/1/12
to
:: Would adding dessicant help?
: "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu>
: I suspect that desiccant would work better. <g>
But shirley excess esses are dryer than superfluous sees?
: "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu>
: I suspect that desiccant would work better. <g>
But shirley excess esses are dryer than superfluous sees?
Brian M. Scott
Oct 1, 2012, 4:10:31 AM10/1/12
to
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 07:02:00 GMT, Wayne Throop
Gollum gee, I just don't know. Is the Martian north polar
sea superfluous?
Brian
sea superfluous?
Brian
J
Oct 4, 2012, 9:15:06 PM10/4/12
to
On Sep 25, 6:01 pm, Kurt Busiek <k...@busiek.com> wrote:
>
> This looks like the sort of thing you might be looking for, but they're
> in the UK:
>
> http://www.rycobookcovers.com/index.php?cPath=1
>
> The ClearShield ones seem to be pre-made but others have that
> trim-to-size thing you want.
>
> Here's one in the US:
>
> http://www.shopbrodart.com/book-protection/
I had originally ordered some of these from Demco, to protect some of
>
> This looks like the sort of thing you might be looking for, but they're
> in the UK:
>
> http://www.rycobookcovers.com/index.php?cPath=1
>
> The ClearShield ones seem to be pre-made but others have that
> trim-to-size thing you want.
>
> Here's one in the US:
>
> http://www.shopbrodart.com/book-protection/
my ARCs, and a few paperback originals. After seeing Kurt's posting, I
decided to give Brodart a try. Though I don't like their dust jacket
protectors as well as the Demco, these seem indistinguishable. The
Brodart are a few cents less, and the shipping charges are less, too.
It only takes a few minutes to slip the book into one, and fold the
leftover plastic into place.
Jacey Bedford
Oct 9, 2012, 7:54:39 PM10/9/12
to
In message <O0K8s.171851$356.1...@fx07.am4>, Raymond Daley
<raymon...@ntlworld.com> writes
Marginally kinder than clingfilm (ceran wrap?) across the top of the
toilet bowl.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
<raymon...@ntlworld.com> writes
toilet bowl.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
Dorothy J Heydt
Oct 9, 2012, 8:08:42 PM10/9/12
to
In article <f3i+NGf$kLdQ...@parkhead.demon.co.uk>,
Saran Wrap. (tm, I think).
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.
Jacey Bedford
Oct 11, 2012, 5:59:23 PM10/11/12
to
In message <MBnHq...@kithrup.com>, Dorothy J Heydt
<djh...@kithrup.com> writes
not a British term, so I've heard it but never seen it written.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
<djh...@kithrup.com> writes
>In article <f3i+NGf$kLdQ...@parkhead.demon.co.uk>,
>Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>In message <O0K8s.171851$356.1...@fx07.am4>, Raymond Daley
>><raymon...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>Fablon.
>>>
>>>Used to use it back in the RAF on ID cards and other things we wanted to
>>>protect from damage.
>>>Also useful for practical jokes.
>>>Like sealing up a phone book then giving it to an officer you don't like and
>>>telling him it's his replacement phone book.
>>>
>>>
>>Marginally kinder than clingfilm (ceran wrap?) across the top of the
>>toilet bowl.
>
>Saran Wrap. (tm, I think).
>
Possibly. I tend not to buy clingfilm in the US and Seran/Ceran wrap is
>Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>In message <O0K8s.171851$356.1...@fx07.am4>, Raymond Daley
>><raymon...@ntlworld.com> writes
>>>Fablon.
>>>
>>>Used to use it back in the RAF on ID cards and other things we wanted to
>>>protect from damage.
>>>Also useful for practical jokes.
>>>Like sealing up a phone book then giving it to an officer you don't like and
>>>telling him it's his replacement phone book.
>>>
>>>
>>Marginally kinder than clingfilm (ceran wrap?) across the top of the
>>toilet bowl.
>
>Saran Wrap. (tm, I think).
>
not a British term, so I've heard it but never seen it written.
Jacey
--
Jacey Bedford
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 11, 2012, 6:31:03 PM10/11/12
to
Jacey Bedford <look...@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:mMzATiO7...@parkhead.demon.co.uk:
And, apparently, you've never hear of Google.
http://www.saranbrands.com/
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
news:mMzATiO7...@parkhead.demon.co.uk:
http://www.saranbrands.com/
--
Terry Austin
"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek
Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.
Quadibloc
Oct 11, 2012, 7:07:18 PM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 4:08 pm, Jacey Bedford <lookin...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Possibly. I tend not to buy clingfilm in the US and Seran/Ceran wrap is
> not a British term, so I've heard it but never seen it written.
Saran Wrap, a product of the Dow Chemical Corporation.
> Possibly. I tend not to buy clingfilm in the US and Seran/Ceran wrap is
> not a British term, so I've heard it but never seen it written.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Oct 11, 2012, 7:08:17 PM10/11/12
to
On Oct 11, 4:31 pm, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
I didn't know there was a phonetic Google. Mind you, Googling plastic
cling wrap ought to have turned up some hits.
John Savard
I didn't know there was a phonetic Google. Mind you, Googling plastic
cling wrap ought to have turned up some hits.
John Savard
Quadibloc
Oct 11, 2012, 7:09:59 PM10/11/12
to
> http://www.saranbrands.com/
What, it's made by the Johnson Wax company now, instead of Dow
Chemical? Even the box looks different...
John Savard
What, it's made by the Johnson Wax company now, instead of Dow
Chemical? Even the box looks different...
John Savard
Wayne Throop
Oct 11, 2012, 7:52:35 PM10/11/12
to
: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: I didn't know there was a phonetic Google.
I didn't know there was a NON phonetic Google.
It routinely suggests alternate spellings. For example,
if you search for ceran wrap, it sez:
Showing results for saran wrap
Search instead for ceran wrap
: I didn't know there was a phonetic Google.
I didn't know there was a NON phonetic Google.
It routinely suggests alternate spellings. For example,
if you search for ceran wrap, it sez:
Showing results for saran wrap
Search instead for ceran wrap
Joy Beeson
Oct 12, 2012, 12:36:07 AM10/12/12
to
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:59:23 +0100, Jacey Bedford
<look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Possibly. I tend not to buy clingfilm in the US and Seran/Ceran wrap is
> not a British term, so I've heard it but never seen it written.
Huh! Wikipedia says Saran is a kind of plastic, and that in some
<look...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Possibly. I tend not to buy clingfilm in the US and Seran/Ceran wrap is
> not a British term, so I've heard it but never seen it written.
countries "Saran" has lost its trademark status. I saw a lot of Saran
Wrap in my youth, but never suspected that "Saran" meant anything.
Wiki doesn't say whether Saran Wrap is still being sold, but that's
implied in the assertion that it's no longer made of Saran. (I buy
only the house brand, so I don't see the fancy brands. Last time I
bought a name brand, I found it brittle and inclined to tear, and
didn't think it as good as the cheaper wrap.)
In following the cross references, I also learned that "greaseproof
paper" doesn't mean "wax paper". I wonder whether I could find some
greaseproof paper if I poked around in Kroger -- they have parchment
paper and wide aluminum foil and other stuff that used to be only
written about, never sold to home cooks.
--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://roughsewing.home.comcast.net/
The above message is a Usenet post.
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.
Garrett Wollman
Oct 12, 2012, 1:22:27 AM10/12/12
to
In article <bb9281e7-9afb-4a2c...@q9g2000pbo.googlegroups.com>,
Dow sold all of their consumer products some years ago, mostly to
S.C. Johnson (f/k/a "Johnson Wax"). The pharmaceutical division
(Marion Merrell Dow) was sold to Hoechst (now part of Sanofi).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
S.C. Johnson (f/k/a "Johnson Wax"). The pharmaceutical division
(Marion Merrell Dow) was sold to Hoechst (now part of Sanofi).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
wol...@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Kip Williams
Oct 12, 2012, 9:10:50 AM10/12/12
to
Joy Beeson wrote, On 10/12/12 12:36 AM:
bulb with plastic wrap to make it light, as I recall) referred to it as
'saran plastic.' This was a U.S. publication, and I suspect their usage
would have been disputed by the rights-holder if they found out, since
they'd want to protect their product name and all.
Interesting that it's not a trademark any more in some places. I didn't
know that.
Kip W
rasfw
> Huh! Wikipedia says Saran is a kind of plastic, and that in some
> countries "Saran" has lost its trademark status. I saw a lot of Saran
> Wrap in my youth, but never suspected that "Saran" meant anything.
When I was in grade school, a science experiment (rubbing a fluorescent
> countries "Saran" has lost its trademark status. I saw a lot of Saran
> Wrap in my youth, but never suspected that "Saran" meant anything.
bulb with plastic wrap to make it light, as I recall) referred to it as
'saran plastic.' This was a U.S. publication, and I suspect their usage
would have been disputed by the rights-holder if they found out, since
they'd want to protect their product name and all.
Interesting that it's not a trademark any more in some places. I didn't
know that.
Kip W
rasfw
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 12, 2012, 11:40:23 AM10/12/12
to
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:30ef859b-fc4f-4a79...@p5g2000pbs.googlegroups.c
om:
In fact, Google is actually pretty good at figuring out what you
meant. Go type in something incorrectly, and not the "Did you mean"
link at the top. (In fact, these days, it's nearly impossible to get
it to actually search for something that's misspelled on purpose.)
news:30ef859b-fc4f-4a79...@p5g2000pbs.googlegroups.c
om:
meant. Go type in something incorrectly, and not the "Did you mean"
link at the top. (In fact, these days, it's nearly impossible to get
it to actually search for something that's misspelled on purpose.)
Brian M. Scott
Oct 12, 2012, 2:27:37 PM10/12/12
to
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:40:23 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:XnsA0EA583A47F...@69.16.186.7> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> In fact, Google is actually pretty good at figuring out
> what you meant. [...]
Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides
to substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search
twice; I consider this behavior unconscionable.
Brian
Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:XnsA0EA583A47F...@69.16.186.7> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
[...]
> In fact, Google is actually pretty good at figuring out
Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides
to substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search
twice; I consider this behavior unconscionable.
Brian
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
Oct 12, 2012, 4:24:48 PM10/12/12
to
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in news:hqotgekj35a
$.1gmg61kz4b62u$.d...@40tude.net:
Or at least annoying. But Gogole made it very clear years ago that
they know what's best for you *far* better than you ever weill, now
shut up and eat your advertising like a good little sheeple.
But as long as they're not Microfoft, they can od anything they want
and not get called out on it as an evil empire.
$.1gmg61kz4b62u$.d...@40tude.net:
they know what's best for you *far* better than you ever weill, now
shut up and eat your advertising like a good little sheeple.
But as long as they're not Microfoft, they can od anything they want
and not get called out on it as an evil empire.
Rod Speed
Oct 12, 2012, 4:53:01 PM10/12/12
to
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>> In fact, Google is actually pretty good at figuring out what you meant.
> Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
> whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
> something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
> it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides to
> substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search twice;
I much more often get the reverse effect, I hardly ever
> whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
> something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
> it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides to
> substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search twice;
want what google decides I might well have misspelt.
And you hardly ever have to search twice, just click on the
alternative at the top.
> I consider this behavior unconscionable.
Brian M. Scott
Oct 13, 2012, 12:22:49 AM10/13/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 07:53:01 +1100, Rod Speed
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:adrebf...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> In fact, Google is actually pretty good at figuring out
>>> what you meant.
>> Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
>> whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
>> something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
>> it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides to
>> substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search twice;
> I much more often get the reverse effect, I hardly ever
> want what google decides I might well have misspelt.
If you read it again, you may actually come to realize that
I said much the same thing. 'One time in ten' qualifies as
'hardly ever' in my book.
> And you hardly ever have to search twice, just click on the
> alternative at the top.
Which of course is searching twice.
[...]
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in
<news:adrebf...@mid.individual.net> in
rec.arts.sf.written:
> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> In fact, Google is actually pretty good at figuring out
>>> what you meant.
>> Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
>> whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
>> something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
>> it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides to
>> substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search twice;
> I much more often get the reverse effect, I hardly ever
> want what google decides I might well have misspelt.
I said much the same thing. 'One time in ten' qualifies as
'hardly ever' in my book.
> And you hardly ever have to search twice, just click on the
> alternative at the top.
[...]
Rod Speed
Oct 13, 2012, 3:17:56 AM10/13/12
to
Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Brian M. Scott <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> In fact, Google is actually pretty good
>>>> at figuring out what you meant.
>>> Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
>>> whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
>>> something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
>>> it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides to
>>> substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search twice;
>> I much more often get the reverse effect, I hardly ever
>> want what google decides I might well have misspelt.
> If you read it again, you may actually come
> to realize that I said much the same thing.
No you did not.
>>> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> In fact, Google is actually pretty good
>>>> at figuring out what you meant.
>>> Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
>>> whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
>>> something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
>>> it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides to
>>> substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search twice;
>> I much more often get the reverse effect, I hardly ever
>> want what google decides I might well have misspelt.
> If you read it again, you may actually come
> to realize that I said much the same thing.
> 'One time in ten' qualifies as 'hardly ever' in my book.
In fact its actually closer to one time in 100 that google gets it wrong.
>> And you hardly ever have to search twice,
>> just click on the alternative at the top.
> Which of course is searching twice.
Greg Goss
Oct 13, 2012, 12:15:18 PM10/13/12
to
regarding the college, I had to add -saint and -st to any search
because Google insisted on doing the search for what it thought I
wanted without even offering the choice of a "search for what you
actually typed".
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.
david.sh...@ymail.com
Oct 13, 2012, 12:23:32 PM10/13/12
to
On Oct 12, 4:54 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hardly ever
> want what google decides I might well have misspelt.
Out of context, that is an ambiguous statement.
> I hardly ever
> want what google decides I might well have misspelt.
One way, I type "fnord".
Google decides I have misspelt "ford".
I didn't want "ford".
The other way, I type "fnord"
Google decides that "fnord" was misspelt.
I didn't want "fnord".
Good thing we have context.
Kip Williams
Oct 13, 2012, 2:44:20 PM10/13/12
to
david.sh...@ymail.com wrote, On 10/13/12 12:23 PM:
You say "fnord,"
I say "ford"
You say "ford,"
I say "fjord"
Fnord! Ford! Ford! Fjord!
Let's call the whole thing FUBAR.
Kip W
I say "ford"
You say "ford,"
I say "fjord"
Fnord! Ford! Ford! Fjord!
Let's call the whole thing FUBAR.
Kip W
James Silverton
Oct 13, 2012, 3:25:00 PM10/13/12
to
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)
Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
Rod Speed
Oct 13, 2012, 4:48:48 PM10/13/12
to
<david.sh...@ymail.com> wrote
> One way, I type "fnord".
> Google decides I have misspelt "ford".
> I didn't want "ford".
Sure, but like I said in the context you stripped
away, while that does happen for some, it hardly ever
happens for me, presumably because I hardly ever
need to use such unusual words with google searches.
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> I hardly ever want what google decides I might well have misspelt.
> Out of context, that is an ambiguous statement.
Which is why I always retain the context.
>> I hardly ever want what google decides I might well have misspelt.
> Out of context, that is an ambiguous statement.
> One way, I type "fnord".
> Google decides I have misspelt "ford".
> I didn't want "ford".
away, while that does happen for some, it hardly ever
happens for me, presumably because I hardly ever
need to use such unusual words with google searches.
Greg Goss
Oct 13, 2012, 9:05:14 PM10/13/12
to
>>In article <f3i+NGf$kLdQ...@parkhead.demon.co.uk>,
>>>Marginally kinder than clingfilm (ceran wrap?) across the top of the
>>>toilet bowl.
>>
>>Saran Wrap. (tm, I think).
>>
>Possibly. I tend not to buy clingfilm in the US and Seran/Ceran wrap is
>not a British term, so I've heard it but never seen it written.
Saran was an older formulation, with very little stretch and not much
cling, either.
>>>Marginally kinder than clingfilm (ceran wrap?) across the top of the
>>>toilet bowl.
>>
>>Saran Wrap. (tm, I think).
>>
>Possibly. I tend not to buy clingfilm in the US and Seran/Ceran wrap is
>not a British term, so I've heard it but never seen it written.
cling, either.
Gene Wirchenko
Oct 20, 2012, 11:42:38 PM10/20/12
to
On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:15:18 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:40:23 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>>Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
>><news:XnsA0EA583A47F...@69.16.186.7> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> In fact, Google is actually pretty good at figuring out
>>> what you meant. [...]
>>
>>Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
>>whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
>>something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
>>it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides
>>to substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search
>>twice; I consider this behavior unconscionable.
Google trying to be helpful? The cads!
>"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:40:23 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>>Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
>><news:XnsA0EA583A47F...@69.16.186.7> in
>>rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>> In fact, Google is actually pretty good at figuring out
>>> what you meant. [...]
>>
>>Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
>>whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
>>something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
>>it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides
>>to substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search
>>twice; I consider this behavior unconscionable.
>I went to a college named SAIT. Whenever I searched for anything
>regarding the college, I had to add -saint and -st to any search
>because Google insisted on doing the search for what it thought I
>wanted without even offering the choice of a "search for what you
>actually typed".
My computer diploma is from a program called CSOM (Computer
Systems: Operations and Management). Try a Google search on "CSOM".
The second hit is, and has been whenever I have checked for it, Center
for Sex Offender Management.
Sincerely,
Gene Wirchenko
Kip Williams
Oct 21, 2012, 9:37:14 AM10/21/12
to
Gene Wirchenko wrote, On 10/20/12 11:42 PM:
let us say, "John Smith." Google might say "Did you mean to search for
John Smyth?" So I'll say okay, search for that, and Google comes back
with "No results found for John Smyth."
What the—?
Kip W
rasfw
> On Sat, 13 Oct 2012 10:15:18 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:40:23 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>>> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> <news:XnsA0EA583A47F...@69.16.186.7> in
>>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> In fact, Google is actually pretty good at figuring out
>>>> what you meant. [...]
>>>
>>> Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
>>> whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
>>> something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
>>> it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides
>>> to substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search
>>> twice; I consider this behavior unconscionable.
>
> Google trying to be helpful? The cads!
Reminds me of when I'm fishing around for something, and I search for,
>
>> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 08:40:23 -0700, Gutless Umbrella
>>> Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> <news:XnsA0EA583A47F...@69.16.186.7> in
>>> rec.arts.sf.written:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> In fact, Google is actually pretty good at figuring out
>>>> what you meant. [...]
>>>
>>> Yes, it is; and if it would just go ahead and search for
>>> whatever I did type and ask me whether I actually meant
>>> something else, I'd be delighted; perhaps one time in ten
>>> it's actually helpful. Too often, unfortunately, it decides
>>> to substitute its version for mine, forcing me to search
>>> twice; I consider this behavior unconscionable.
>
> Google trying to be helpful? The cads!
let us say, "John Smith." Google might say "Did you mean to search for
John Smyth?" So I'll say okay, search for that, and Google comes back
with "No results found for John Smyth."
What the—?
Kip W
rasfw
0 new messages