"How the EU works: In Germany, they make the rules, in Britain, they obey the rules, in France, they bend the rules, in Spain, they break the rules, and in Italy they have no rules at all."

[измет4peejay]

How the EU works: In Germany, they make the rules, in Britain, they
obey the rules, in France, they bend the rules, in Spain, they break
the rules, and in Italy they have no rules at all.

NEW YORK 07:25:09 LONDON 12:25:09 GMT 12:25:09 TOKYO 21:25:09
SYDNEY 23:25:09

GOOGLE IT

[Jean]

False : in Germany they obey the rules,
in Britain they willingly create confusion (pounds, feets, oz, driving
at the left),
in France they try to take advantage of each situation,
in Spain they work the least as possible,
in Italy they are rational because they have cities built like
american cities : parallel and perpendicular streets

[Cory O. Laynis]

"Jean" <jean...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00299abd-a444-47ca...@p2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...

> False : in Germany they obey the rules,

They also make them.

> in Britain they willingly create confusion (pounds, feets, oz, driving
> at the left),

Britain has largely gone metric, with a few key exceptions.

> in France they try to take advantage of each situation,

Stereotype not supported by reality.

> in Spain they work the least as possible,

Stereotype not supported by reality. Ever been to Barcelona?

> in Italy they are rational because they have cities built like
> american cities : parallel and perpendicular streets

Examining maps of Rome, Padua, Venice, and Milan ('cause there's,
like, Google Maps, y'know?), I have to conclude that, whatever it
is you're smoking or snorting, you should cease immediately, if
only to make fleeting contact with reality once again.

[Johannes Kleese]

>> in Italy they are rational because they have cities built like
>> american cities : parallel and perpendicular streets
>
> Examining maps of Rome, Padua, Venice, and Milan ('cause there's,
> like, Google Maps, y'know?), I have to conclude that, whatever it
> is you're smoking or snorting, you should cease immediately, if
> only to make fleeting contact with reality once again.

Italy is the land of antagonism. The streets are parallel and
perpendicular and at the same time chaotic. The cities can both have
existed for two thousand years and be built like American cities. You
can be both prime minister and the world's biggest fuckhead (literally).

[Surreyman]

Unfortunately not funny - probably entirely correct.

[John Rennie]

Plus the undoubted that we drive on the correct side of the road.

[martin]

On 15.11.11 09:34, Johannes Kleese wrote:

> Italy is the land of antagonism. The streets are parallel and
> perpendicular and at the same time chaotic. The cities can both have
> existed for two thousand years and be built like American cities. You
> can be both prime minister and the world's biggest fuckhead (literally).

That's not unique to Italy.

[Runge 131]

martin a fuckhead ?


"martin" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
9ik99v...@mid.individual.net...

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-14 14:16:48 -0600, Jean said:

>
> in Britain they willingly create confusion (pounds, feets, oz, driving
> at the left),
>

I think driving on the left is really great. I'm right-handed, and I
can use right-hand to steer but shift with my left. And as I love
scenic-driving in Britain and Ireland, it is incredibly helpful to
point my camera out the window with the right hand (my camera of the
style that is meant to be held and 80% operated with the right hand).
I just wish Norway hadn't gone over to driving on the right for my
drive up the fjordlands to the Nordkapp a couple years back. Now THAT
is the world's most scenic drive! (driving on the right in New Zealand
was helpful, too, btw)

I also like the round-abouts. The fly-ways on American interstate
highways are far superior than the mega-roundabouts on the British
four-lane carriageways, but, for the other 98% of traffic control, they
are better than stop signs and traffic lights. And they're a hoot to
drive in that they are like a chicane. Taking a roundabout fast in a
Porsche would be awesome.

And in general, the English measures make more sense than metric,
anyway. Everybody knows this. True, the metric system is better for
modern engineering and such, but for workaday purposes people intuit
the English measures, they're easier to manipulate in one's head, they
have a connection usually with something in everyday life (inch, foot,
yard, gallon, etc.), and all the tooling already invested-in are all in
English / Imperial measures. These are the same arguments made in the
first Transactions of the ASME one hundred years ago, and they're
largely true today. I daresay the biggest problem with the English /
Imperial units, is when people want to force-in metric units on an
already-existing Imperial system, and unit conversion problems occur as
a result -- FOR NO REASON.
--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

[Johannes Kleese]

> And in general, the English measures make more sense than metric,
> anyway. Everybody knows this.

> they're easier to manipulate in one's head

Indeed. 1 inch being 0.0833 feet or 0.02777 yards is a straight-forward
conversion and just makes sense.

Say I'd measured several small pieces and summed up to 1373 inch. That's
obviously 114.42 feet or 38.14 yards, got that in a second of thinking.
I wonder what wicked idiot came up with the idea that turning 3487
centimeters into 34.87 meters would be as easy?

> a connection usually with something in everyday life (inch, foot, yard,
> gallon, etc.),

Which could not be true for the metric system. And who uses a rule
anyway, we calculate using fingers so we may measure with thumbs, too.

Not to speak of the problem that a US liter surely is different from an
Imperial liter. Something that could never ever happen with gallons.

> and all the tooling already invested-in are all in English / Imperial
> measures.

Definitly. I still use those 200 year old tools, too. Those rulers with
both Imperial and metric units make me crazy.

You forgot one point, though: The metric system for lengths, for
example, is based on just one lame unit, the meter, extended with some
factor of ten, if needed.

True geniuses of engineering come up with something like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/English_length_units_graph.svg
- Now, how many poppyseeds are one shackle?

[Runge 131]

Trying to sell your book ?


"Dan Stephenson" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
201111181919293211-stephedanospam@maccom...

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 10:24:42 +0100, Johannes Kleese wrote:


> True geniuses of engineering come up with something like this:
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/eb/
English_length_units_graph.svg
> - Now, how many poppyseeds are one shackle?

US and UK measure system are comparatively quite simple compared to the
situation that prevailed in continental Europe at the same time.

Here below is a web site which lists the many measures in use in a very
small countryside before the introduction of the metric system. The
measure system varied from village to village, the units name were
different, those that had the same name could have values varying from 1
to 3 or more. And the situation was the same in every province of every
country.

http://www.stjuliendance.com/h_mesures.htm#CANTON_DE_LA_CHAISE-DIEU

Examples:
La Chaise-Dieu, wines:
1 pot = 10 quartes = 20 litres 9351
1 quarte = 2 pintes = 2 litres 0935
1 pinte = 2 chopines = 1 litre 0467
1 chopine = 0 litre 5233

Craponne, just 19km away (5 leagues) from La Chaise-Dieu:

1 pot = 15 pintes = 25 litres 8610
1 pinte = 2 chopines = 1 litre 7240
1 chopine = 0 litre 8620

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-19 03:24:42 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:

>>
>> And in general, the English measures make more sense than metric,
>> anyway. Everybody knows this.
>
>> they're easier to manipulate in one's head
>
> Indeed. 1 inch being 0.0833 feet or 0.02777 yards is a straight-forward
> conversion and just makes sense.
>
> Say I'd measured several small pieces and summed up to 1373 inch.
> That's obviously 114.42 feet or 38.14 yards, got that in a second of
> thinking.
> I wonder what wicked idiot came up with the idea that turning 3487
> centimeters into 34.87 meters would be as easy?

You are joking, right?

There are twelve inches in a foot. Referring to it in decimal is
metric-thinking. I challenge you to measure 0.02777 (repeating 7 I
assume) yards.

When I see 1373 inches, which is a ridiculous unit of measure for that
distance, you should use yards -- I can easily figure 1200 inches in
100 feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4
feet 5 inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such
think as .42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in
inches.

Test: did you use a calculator to reduce 1373 inches to feet and yards?
I did not, nor do I to convert 114 feet 5 inches to 38 yards 5 inches.

My point is valid: used consistently, without ridiculous excusions into
metric or forcing mixed use, the traditional units of measure are
perfectly serviceable. Ask yourself why we aren't using decimal time.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-19 07:22:26 -0600, Paul Aubrin said:

> US and UK measure system are comparatively quite simple compared to the
> situation that prevailed in continental Europe at the same time.
>

> Here below is a web site....

Thank you. The benefits are in standardization, not in what is the
standard, per se.

[Markku Grönroos]

19.11.2011 16:01, Dan Stephenson kirjoitti:
>
> When I see 1373 inches, which is a ridiculous unit of measure for that
> distance, you should use yards -- I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100
> feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5
> inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple.

Quite.

You don't believe (as one who uses the decimal base for figures) that
the approach described above is a fine example about divide and conquer
figures in order to transfer from one unit of length to another. It
would be much easier if you just moved decimal points to left or right.
Right? I guess this is what the decimal base is about.

I could understand your stand if you had the base of "0..9, A,B" in use.

[Markku Grönroos]

Sorry, not quite: you meant that 120 inches is 10 feet.

[JohnT]

"Dan Stephenson" <stephed...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:2011111908015246940-stephedanospam@maccom...

Perhaps Americans are not very good at irony.

--
JohnT

[Dan Stephenson]

Nahh, we're best at bronzy. It's like irony, except it's made of bronze.

[Johannes Kleese]

> I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100
> feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5
> inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as
> .42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches.

Same in the metric system:

100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters.
You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one.

34.87 meters vs. 114 feet and 5 inches
You need five words, or two numbers and two units. I just need one
number and one unit.

You may learn and get used to any riduculous unit, but that doesn't make
the system straight-forward. Even if it's based on Henry I's thumb.

Thanks for your attention.

(One more question though: Which unit do you use for parts smaller than
an inch? Don't tell me you stole the prefixes from the darn metric
system and use milli- or microinches.)

[Johannes Kleese]

> US and UK measure system are comparatively quite simple compared to the
> situation that prevailed in continental Europe at the same time.

That's why the metric system has been in use for some 200 years now.
Where's your point?

[James Silverton]

I forcefully disagree with you! I regard it as one of the great
revelations of my life when I first saw the metric system printed on the
back of a school exercise book. I was of course suffering thro' the
mid-20th century British system of weights, measures and currency. It is
estimated that learning the ridiculous foot-pound system adds an
unnecessary year to arithmetic classes.

The French did try decimal clocks after the Revolution tho' the idea
foundered on the rocks of conservatism. We find it convenient to be able
to estimate time to 0.0035 parts of a day (5 minutes) but would it
really be so bad if we accepted 0.005 and had watches showing 200ths of
a day? You could say "I'll have breakfast at three thirty five", which
is close enough to 8 o'clock.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net

[Irwell]

Always carry a chain, you never know when you might want to
play a game of cricket. Or plough a furlong.

[Runge 131]

Who cares except a bunch of retired old timers

"Dan Stephenson" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :

2011111908015246940-stephedanospam@maccom...

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:

> > I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100
>> feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5
>> inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as
>> .42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches.
>
> Same in the metric system:
>
> 100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters.
> You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one.

But you cannot measure .87 meters with a meter gauge. Anything can be
decimalized, but the beauty of the imperial-type measurements, is that
they have natural subdivisions. Somewhat for the same reasons there is
more than a one euro, 1/10 euro, and 1/100 euro coin. My point is
valid.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:

> 34.87 meters vs. 114 feet and 5 inches
> You need five words, or two numbers and two units. I just need one
> number and one unit.

Do you pay by the word, is that it?

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:

> (One more question though: Which unit do you use for parts smaller than
> an inch? Don't tell me you stole the prefixes from the darn metric
> system and use milli- or microinches.)

As I have related already, the benefits are standardizations, not
_which_ standard, and the metric system is simply one standard that
eschews the benefits of natural subunits and has only decimalization to
go on.

So if *I* wanted to measure less than an inch, I could choose decimal
inches if I chose, however, I would probably refer to ratios of two
because that is what all the tooling uses. For example, half inch,
quarter-inch, 5-16ths etc.. For firearms the sub-inch are referred-to
in calibers, referencing one inch. So a 30-cal is a decimalization to
0.3 inch. A .22 is 22/100ths of an inch. What wonderful flexibility.
I can use whatever I want and whatever standard has natually evolved.
I do not have to shoe-horn in a 7.62mm or 5.56mm, but I could if I
wanted to. I mean, we only did that to provide a metric decimalization
for NATO after WW2, based on long-established standards based on
caliber.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-19 15:46:05 -0600, Martin said:

>
> I'm amazed that Americans are using decimal currency.

Back to the topic of Britain, I must say, the best way to get into
conversation with Britons is to ask "so, what is a shilling, anyway".
To date, no Briton has been able to resist talking up a storm about
their pre-decimal currency. It's pretty cool, actually, as a
historical thing, plus it is a GREAT way to make introductions.

Most likely we (Americans) use decimal currency for no other reason
than to be different than the British, from whom we won our
independence. It is also the reason a lot of our American English
words are different - to create a difference. Thus, the ommision of
"u" in color, favor, etc., and use of s in words like defense, offense.

I must say, in all my extensive travels in Europe, the one place I've
had the greatest trouble understand a European's English, is in
England. I don't mean to denigrate, but the thickness of some rural
accents is just incredible. Way more so than in America, a much bigger
place.

[Dan Stephenson]

That continental Europe needed reform 200 years ago, and the United
Kingdom and the United States did not?

I must say, I feel an affinity for Britain and the Britons. I can
trace my ancestry to Henry Stephenson born in 1772 in Virginia to
Presbyterian parents -- but no farther. Yet, Stephensons are British.
Either northern England or southern Scotland, according to my various
internet perusals. I just need to find my family tree papers and try
one of those heritage websites to try to find when and from-where the
Atlantic crossing took place. How COOL would it be to visit the
village where my ancestors lived?

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-19 10:42:49 -0600, Irwell said:

>
> Always carry a chain, you never know when you might want to
> play a game of cricket. Or plough a furlong.

Or plough a hectare. Oh wait, is that a measure in System Internationale?

No, it is not. It's an invention because people were used to acres.

[Irwell]

Re: British driving and Imperial units of measure Johannes Kleese
<j.kl...@arcor.de> 11/19/2011 4:36:58 PM

What unit(s) do 'you' use for the time and date of your post?
11(months)19(days)2011(years) 4(hours)36(minutes)58(seconds).

Resolve it all in seconds, or years?

[David Hatunen]

At one time the advantage of the American/Imperial system was that most
units were halves. Not the foot, of course, not some of the other units
that made sense in a particular context, such as the furlong.

Otherwise, say you wanted to measure out a quart, a 1/4 of a gallon from
a container holding a gallon. All you had to do was split the gallon in
two and then split one of the results in two. Dividing a bulk quantity in
two without a graduated cup is simple. Take two identical cups and put
equal portions of the gallon in each; this is pretty easy to eyeball to
the level of accuracy required way back when. Thus a quart is half of a
half of a gallon, a pint is half of a quart, a cup is half of a pint, and
the cup is easily divided into eighths, which we Americans call a fluid
ounce.

But if I give you a liter of fluid and ask you to pour out a deciliter
without a measuring instrument of some kind how would you do it?

Today, when graduated measuring devices are common making odd measurement
is easy and we don't really need all those half measures so much.

Of course, most of American industry and trade has actually adopted the
metric system by choice in order to engage in international trade, so
many Americans are learning to use both systems.

So why hasn't Europe adopted metric tire rim sizes and dumped the inch
sizes?


--
Dave Hatunen, Tucson, Baja Arizona

[Dan Stephenson]

I'm sure he resolves it in seconds, and then SO SIMPLY can refer to it
in scientific notation. <chuckle>

[Markku Grönroos]

20.11.2011 4:58, Dan Stephenson kirjoitti:
>>
>> That's why the metric system has been in use for some 200 years now.
>> Where's your point?
>
> That continental Europe needed reform 200 years ago, and the United
> Kingdom and the United States did not?
>
> I must say, I feel an affinity for Britain and the Britons. I can trace
> my ancestry to Henry Stephenson born in 1772 in Virginia to Presbyterian
> parents -- but no farther. Yet, Stephensons are British. Either northern
> England or southern Scotland, according to my various internet perusals.
> I just need to find my family tree papers and try one of those heritage
> websites to try to find when and from-where the Atlantic crossing took
> place. How COOL would it be to visit the village where my ancestors lived?
>

You deal with measures in most sentimental fashion. However, America is
not nearly as British as Americans sometimes believe it is. Most
European family lines living in the USA are 120-130 years old at most.

John Smith used to be Yevgeny Beliyayev of Russia, Tadeus Slusarski of
Poland, Guido Napolitano you know from where and Joao Pereira do
Caliente Nascimento from Lisbon. Naturally Irishmen run out potatoes
every now and then therefore emigrating to the US in great numbers
(Ireland has a population which is essentially smaller now than it used
to be in 1800's).

They just adopted these names unfamiliar to themselves after they had
passed the Ellis Island.

They have stage names like Bolshevik politicians, American actors and
Brazilian football players.

[Markku Grönroos]

20.11.2011 5:41, David Hatunen kirjoitti:tandards based on caliber.

>
> At one time the advantage of the American/Imperial system was that most
> units were halves. Not the foot, of course, not some of the other units
> that made sense in a particular context, such as the furlong.
>

A kind of binary system then.

>
> So why hasn't Europe adopted metric tire rim sizes and dumped the inch
> sizes?
>

Quite. Typically tools of many sort also come with imperial measures
even if metric measures are encarved on them as well. In mechanics at
large Imperial units are commonplace.

[Paul Aubrin]

This list shows that a huge problem, 200 year ago, was the impossibility
on any exchange between communities due to the non standardisation of
measures. It was not so bad for land surfaces, but for wines or cloths it
should have been a mess. Imagine when the abbey of La Chaise Dieu
monastery (cold place, no vineyards there) had to order wine from its
neighbours, if he ordered a 'charge' he would get a completely different
amount from a wine merchant in Pradelle and from a one in Saugues.

Worse, the way the units with the same names were divided varied from one
place to the other.
In Fay a quintal (37kg) was worth 100 pounds, which in turn was worth 16
ounces while in Saugues the quintal (43kg) was worth 200 pounds (1
quintal=1600 ounces), itself worth 14 ounces (1 quintal = 2800 ounces).

Nowadays, the problem remains with US imported goods (ex. metric and US
cans). For that reason, in France, the law imposes that stores provide,
besides the price of the unit price, the price per kilogram.

[JohnT]

"Dan Stephenson" <stephed...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:2011111920521050418-stephedanospam@maccom...
> On 2011-11-19 15:46:05 -0600, Martin said:
>
>>
>> I'm amazed that Americans are using decimal currency.
>
> Back to the topic of Britain, I must say, the best way to get into
> conversation with Britons is to ask "so, what is a shilling, anyway". To
> date, no Briton has been able to resist talking up a storm about their
> pre-decimal currency. It's pretty cool, actually, as a historical thing,
> plus it is a GREAT way to make introductions.
>

You really must get out more often!
--
JohnT

[Surreyman]

On Nov 20, 10:07 am, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature> wrote:
> Dan Stephenson <stephedanos...@mac.com> wrote in
> news:2011111920521050418- stephedanospam@maccom:

>
> > Back to the topic of Britain, I must say, the best way to get into
> > conversation with Britons is to ask "so, what is a shilling, anyway".
> > To date, no Briton has been able to resist talking up a storm about
> > their pre-decimal currency.
>

> Only the older generations surely? Decimal day was in 1971, younger
> people won't remember.
>
> > Most likely we (Americans) use decimal currency for no other reason
> > than to be different than the British, from whom we won our
> > independence.
>
> When other Commonwealth countries decimalised around the same time,
> they also renamed their currencies from pounds to dollars, hence
> Australian and New Zealand dollars nowadays. Only UK and Ireland kept
> the name pound.
>
> --
> Tank nur das gute Super rein
>
> http://www.wschwanke.de/             http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
>                 usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de

The Irish no longer have the pound.
But numerous other nations still do.

[Paul Aubrin]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:24:43 +0100, Martin wrote:

>>> 100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters.
>>> You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one.
>>
>>But you cannot measure .87 meters with a meter gauge. Anything can be
>>decimalized, but the beauty of the imperial-type measurements, is that
>>they have natural subdivisions.
>
> Natural in what way?
>
> In what way are inch, foot, yard pole/perch chain furlong mile ounce,
> pound, hundred weight, ton
> natural?

I suppose he refers to 12 having 2,3,4,6 as divisors when 10 only has 2
and 5. So it was easier to do some repartition between a small party of
people with units that divide into 12 parts, except for groups of
5,7,9,10,11 persons. But you had to learn how to manipulate fractions
written in the form 3+3/4 or 2+1/6, a skill which is not required with
metrics units where you just have to take care of the position of the
decimal point.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 03:24:43 -0600, Martin said:

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:36:42 -0600, Dan Stephenson
> <stephed...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:
>>
>>>> I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100
>>>> feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5
>>>> inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as
>>>> .42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches.
>>>
>>> Same in the metric system:

>>>
>>> 100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters.
>>> You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one.
>>
>> But you cannot measure .87 meters with a meter gauge. Anything can be
>> decimalized, but the beauty of the imperial-type measurements, is that
>> they have natural subdivisions.
>
> Natural in what way?
>
> In what way are inch, foot, yard pole/perch chain furlong mile
> ounce, pound, hundred weight, ton
> natural?

Natural, as in, evolved through traditional to be measures that people
can readily understand. People cannot intuit a gram, sorry, that's
simply true. People can intuit a pound of weight, however. That's
what I mean.

>
>> Somewhat for the same reasons there is
>> more than a one euro, 1/10 euro, and 1/100 euro coin. My point is
>> valid.

What an excellent point, Dan! You are so right! That there are 20
cent or 50 cent or some other non- 10ths coin is a good example for how
people wanted something with which they were already accustomed!

--
Dan Stephenson
http://web.mac.com/stepheda
Travel pages for Europe and the U.S.A. (and New Zealand too)

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 04:18:33 -0600, M@gd@ said:

> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:24:43 +0100, in rec.travel.europe, Martin
> <m...@address.invalid>
> arranged some electrons, so they looked like this:
>
> ... On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:36:42 -0600, Dan Stephenson
> ... <stephed...@mac.com> wrote:
> ...
> ... >On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:
> ... >
> ... >> > I can easily figure 1200 inches in 100
> ... >>> feet and 173 inches is 10 feet and 53 inches and 53 inches is 4 feet 5
> ... >>> inches. Thus, 114 feet and 5 inches. Simple. There is no such think as
> ... >>> .42 feet for the remainder at 114 feet, the remainder is in inches.
> ... >>
> ... >> Same in the metric system:
> ... >>
> ... >> 100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters.
> ... >> You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one.
> ... >
> ... >But you cannot measure .87 meters with a meter gauge. Anything can be
> ... >decimalized, but the beauty of the imperial-type measurements, is that
> ... >they have natural subdivisions.
> ...
> ... Natural in what way?
>
> No way.
>
> Ten fingers, ten toes. That's natural.

So you count in base 20?

The simple truth is, counting based on 12s or 60s is attractive in
insofar as it is easily divisible into integers.

>
>
> =====
> It sounds much better in French, but then, everything does.

[Dan Stephenson]

Yes, that too. I acknowledge this is less critical nowadays with
calculating machines available, but in general the simple maths need to
happen all the time in one's head and something that makes that more
simple can be helpful.

That, and 'natural' in that the measures are more human-relatable and
not an abstract concept with artificial though mathematically
convenient decimalization.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 04:07:09 -0600, Wolfgang Schwanke said:

> Dan Stephenson <stephed...@mac.com> wrote in

> news:2011111920521050418- stephedanospam@maccom:
>
>> Back to the topic of Britain, I must say, the best way to get into
>> conversation with Britons is to ask "so, what is a shilling, anyway".
>> To date, no Briton has been able to resist talking up a storm about
>> their pre-decimal currency.
>
> Only the older generations surely? Decimal day was in 1971, younger
> people won't remember.

That's right.

>
>> Most likely we (Americans) use decimal currency for no other reason
>> than to be different than the British, from whom we won our
>> independence.
>
> When other Commonwealth countries decimalised around the same time,
> they also renamed their currencies from pounds to dollars, hence
> Australian and New Zealand dollars nowadays. Only UK and Ireland kept
> the name pound.

Didn't the Irish use the variation, punt?

Question: did a pound once correspond to a pound weight of silver?

Question also: anyone know the origin of dollar and why it is used? I
visited a Dollar Castle once in Scotland. Maybe there was a Scot in
our Founding Fathers. Hmm.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 05:22:56 -0600, Martin said:

> Not if he is going to drive around wet roundabouts at high speed in UK
> in a Porsche.
>
> He hasn't recommended the guinea as a unit of currency yet.

Hey, so what is a guinea, anyway? I read about them in the old Ian
Fleming novels. And wat is a crown and a half-crown? I recall James
Bond spending one of those on a doctor and supposedly it was a large
denomination.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 04:18:19 -0600, Wolfgang Schwanke said:

> Dan Stephenson <stephed...@mac.com> wrote in

> news:2011111920594538159-stephedanospam@maccom:
>
>> On 2011-11-19 10:42:49 -0600, Irwell said:
>>
>>>
>>> Always carry a chain, you never know when you might want to
>>> play a game of cricket. Or plough a furlong.
>>
>> Or plough a hectare. Oh wait, is that a measure in System
>> Internationale?
>
> Yes it is. An are is 10x10 meters. A hectare is 100 of those.

Actually, no, it is not. It is a division derived from the metric
system but it is an artificial construct so people could have a unit
that was something of a suitable size for farm land sizing, a purpose
previously served by the acre.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 03:54:22 -0600, Wolfgang Schwanke said:

> Dan Stephenson <stephed...@mac.com> wrote

> in news:201111181919293211-stephedanospam@maccom:
>
>> The fly-ways on American interstate
>> highways are far superior than the mega-roundabouts on the British
>> four-lane carriageways,
>
> What are fly-ways?

They are ramps and elevated roads that merge and separate traffic, so
that there is no slowing down at all.

This is the interchange nearest to my house:

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.676842,-97.064037&spn=0.021891,0.045018&t=h&z=15&vpsrc=6


Actually, lemme try the 'short URL' option in Google Maps:

http://g.co/maps/3kvfx

For local traffic, is where roundabouts are nice.


> [...]

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 04:24:28 -0600, Martin said:

>
> A pint of beer is nearer to a half litre in UK than a half litre of
> beer is to a half litre measure in the Netherlands.

As I recall, the "Brussels banning our pints" was a controversy in the
news of one of my UK visits.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 04:14:57 -0600, Wolfgang Schwanke said:

> Q: How much force do you need to accelerate the mass of 1 pound within
> 1 second to the speed 1 foot per second?
>
> A: 1 pound * foot/s^2 = (odd conversion factor) * pounds-force
>
> The "odd conversion factor" is something you have to memorise or look
> up in a table.

You mean, 1 slug?

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 03:42:16 -0600, Martin said:

> Odd that you didn't show your independence by adopting the metric
> system :-)

<chuckle>

Tell you what, if we had gain independence fifty years alter, as part
of the Napoleonic Wars, that could have happened.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 03:37:06 -0600, Martin said:

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:59:45 -0600, Dan Stephenson
> <stephed...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-11-19 10:42:49 -0600, Irwell said:
>>
>>>
>>> Always carry a chain, you never know when you might want to
>>> play a game of cricket. Or plough a furlong.
>>
>> Or plough a hectare. Oh wait, is that a measure in System Internationale?
>

> hectare = unit of area, furlong = unit of length

I see what you mean, I meant, ploughing not just a length, but an area
of land, which I used to make a point that a hectare is no in SI, but
retained because people don't want to think in terms of square meters.

>
>> No, it is not. It's an invention because people were used to acres.
>
> You don't plough acres in the USA?

[Dan Stephenson]

>>> I must say, I feel an affinity for Britain and the Britons. I can trace
>>> my ancestry to Henry Stephenson born in 1772 in Virginia to Presbyterian
>>> parents -- but no farther. Yet, Stephensons are British. Either northern
>>> England or southern Scotland, according to my various internet perusals.
>>> I just need to find my family tree papers and try one of those heritage
>>> websites to try to find when and from-where the Atlantic crossing took
>>> place. How COOL would it be to visit the village where my ancestors lived?
>>>
>> You deal with measures in most sentimental fashion. However, America is
>> not nearly as British as Americans sometimes believe it is. Most
>> European family lines living in the USA are 120-130 years old at most.

I totally understand this, and most people only have to go back a could
generations, to get back to the 'old land'. I am looking for that. It
doesn't hurt than Britain is spectacularly pretty with great weather
(to me), with incredibly good beer too.

[S Viemeister]

On 11/20/2011 10:07 AM, Dan Stephenson wrote:

> Question: did a pound once correspond to a pound weight of silver?
>

Sorta kinda.

> Question also: anyone know the origin of dollar and why it is used? I
> visited a Dollar Castle once in Scotland. Maybe there was a Scot in our
> Founding Fathers. Hmm.

IIRC dollar derives from thaler, not Dollar in Scotland.
And there were a number of Founding Fathers with Scottish antecedents.

[S Viemeister]

On 11/20/2011 10:11 AM, Dan Stephenson wrote:
>
> Hey, so what is a guinea, anyway? I read about them in the old Ian
> Fleming novels. And wat is a crown and a half-crown? I recall James Bond
> spending one of those on a doctor and supposedly it was a large
> denomination.

A guinea is 21 shillings.
A crown was 5 shillings
A half-crown was 2/6 (two-and-six)
A florin was two shillings.
A tanner was a sixpence.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 03:27:07 -0600, Martin said:

> On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 20:44:52 -0600, Dan Stephenson
> <stephed...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2011-11-19 09:36:58 -0600, Johannes Kleese said:
>>

>>> (One more question though: Which unit do you use for parts smaller than
>>> an inch? Don't tell me you stole the prefixes from the darn metric
>>> system and use milli- or microinches.)
>>
>> As I have related already, the benefits are standardizations, not
>> _which_ standard, and the metric system is simply one standard that
>> eschews the benefits of natural subunits and has only decimalization to
>> go on.
>>
>> So if *I* wanted to measure less than an inch, I could choose decimal
>> inches if I chose, however, I would probably refer to ratios of two
>> because that is what all the tooling uses. For example, half inch,
>> quarter-inch, 5-16ths etc.. For firearms the sub-inch are referred-to
>> in calibers, referencing one inch. So a 30-cal is a decimalization to
>> 0.3 inch. A .22 is 22/100ths of an inch. What wonderful flexibility.
>> I can use whatever I want and whatever standard has natually evolved.
>> I do not have to shoe-horn in a 7.62mm or 5.56mm, but I could if I
>> wanted to. I mean, we only did that to provide a metric decimalization
>> for NATO after WW2, based on long-established standards based on
>> caliber.
>
> and not because Germany used metric, designed and produced better
> guns?

I have a Mauser and it is a fantastic bolt-action rifle.

http://web.mac.com/stepheda/Home_Page/Guns.html

However, the 30-06 cartridge was used by the M1 Garand, and while the
Mauser was 7.92 mm (32 cal), the 30-06 cartridge had higher speed and
an autoloading magazine with a greater round capacity (8 vs 5). So
when the 7.62x51mm M80 round was invented, it was understandable that
the same bullet from the 30-06 cartridge would go forward. There was
some competition at the time. Both the 30-06 and 8mm Mauser round were
too powerful, though, for the original goals for the new NATO round to
be full-automatic. As it turned out, the M80 was too powerful too for
a controlled fire.

[Dan Stephenson]

Right, I remember a little now, how a guinea was one pound one
shilling. Rather, it was 21 shillings because it could be divided into
three sets of seven, iirc what I once knew.

Wasn't there a three-pence and two-pence coin? I have "thruppence" and
"tuppence" on my tongue for some reason. I bet the reason the 20-pence
coin is non-round is because the florin or whatever, was also not round.

And I recall a Hapenny bridge in Dublin because the toll was once a
half-penny. I wonder if there were other sub-penny divisions.

I seem to recall a super-pound coin, too, a sovereign? Right? Was
that the only super-pound coin (other than a guinea, technically).

All the harkens to a time when a pound was a LOT of money. Even in a
film just 40 years ago, from watching one of those George Smiley films
with the title character portrayed by Obi Wan Kenobi, there was an
issue made about an informant and a 'large sum' of something like 6
pounds being referenced.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 09:32:43 -0600, Wolfgang Schwanke said:

> Dan Stephenson <stephed...@mac.com> wrote

> in news:2011112009132350813-stephedanospam@maccom:

>
>> On 2011-11-20 04:18:19 -0600, Wolfgang Schwanke said:
>
>>>> Or plough a hectare. Oh wait, is that a measure in System
>>>> Internationale?
>>>
>>> Yes it is. An are is 10x10 meters. A hectare is 100 of those.
>>
>> Actually, no, it is not. It is a division derived from the metric
>> system but it is an artificial construct so people could have a unit
>> that was something of a suitable size for farm land sizing, a purpose
>> previously served by the acre.
>

> Nobody denies that some common metric units are deliberately tailored
> to be close to ancient ones. I'm not sure about your acre theory
> though, the hectare is also used in countries who never had the acre
> unit.

Agreed, understand. The common thread is that dealing with land area
begs for a unit of measure large enough to present huge areas, yet not
so huge that sub-divisions cannot be easily made. Acres and hectares
service this purposes.

The use of a kilogram is similar, insofar as it isn't the base unit
(gram) but (despite the technicality of 'kilo' mean one thousand)
nevertheless being the practically-used unit of mass.

I totally understand the benefits of metric. I'm an engineer. But I
am also jaded by standardizations made by committees that don't have a
domain competency. Add you own comments about the EU regulation on the
shape of bannanas, here:

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 09:29:40 -0600, Wolfgang Schwanke said:

> Dan Stephenson <stephed...@mac.com> wrote in

> news:2011112009075315062-stephedanospam@maccom:

>
>> On 2011-11-20 04:07:09 -0600, Wolfgang Schwanke said:
>
>> Didn't the Irish use the variation, punt?
>

> That's just Irish Gaelic for pound.

That's another thing. Who thought it would be a good idea to replace
English for Gaelic, without an English translation?

Hey, I respect the desire to keep a tradition. But to put up traffic
signs that make no correspondence to my map, simply makes me want to
stop in the road and decypher. It is a road hazard to have Gaelic-only
signage.

[Dan Stephenson]

On 2011-11-20 09:31:32 -0600, S Viemeister said:

>> Question also: anyone know the origin of dollar and why it is used? I
>> visited a Dollar Castle once in Scotland. Maybe there was a Scot in our
>> Founding Fathers. Hmm.
>
> IIRC dollar derives from thaler, not Dollar in Scotland.
> And there were a number of Founding Fathers with Scottish antecedents.

Ah, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler

Given thaler is a germanic origin for "valley", it makes me figure,
Dollar Glen, which named Dollar Castle, is really double-named, insofar
as Glen is also a name for valley.

[S Viemeister]

On 11/20/2011 11:53 AM, Dan Stephenson wrote:
> On 2011-11-20 09:31:32 -0600, S Viemeister said:
>
>>> Question also: anyone know the origin of dollar and why it is used? I
>>> visited a Dollar Castle once in Scotland. Maybe there was a Scot in our
>>> Founding Fathers. Hmm.
>>
>> IIRC dollar derives from thaler, not Dollar in Scotland.
>> And there were a number of Founding Fathers with Scottish antecedents.
>
> Ah, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thaler
>
> Given thaler is a germanic origin for "valley", it makes me figure,
> Dollar Glen, which named Dollar Castle, is really double-named, insofar
> as Glen is also a name for valley.

There's a lot of that - eg River Avon is river river. There are one or
two names which have more than two versions.

[S Viemeister]

On 11/20/2011 11:42 AM, Dan Stephenson wrote:
> On 2011-11-20 09:35:00 -0600, S Viemeister said:
>> On 11/20/2011 10:11 AM, Dan Stephenson wrote:
>>> Hey, so what is a guinea, anyway? I read about them in the old Ian
>>> Fleming novels. And wat is a crown and a half-crown? I recall James Bond
>>> spending one of those on a doctor and supposedly it was a large
>>> denomination.
>> A guinea is 21 shillings.
>> A crown was 5 shillings
>> A half-crown was 2/6 (two-and-six)
>> A florin was two shillings.
>> A tanner was a sixpence.
> Right, I remember a little now, how a guinea was one pound one shilling.
> Rather, it was 21 shillings because it could be divided into three sets
> of seven, iirc what I once knew.
> Wasn't there a three-pence and two-pence coin? I have "thruppence" and
> "tuppence" on my tongue for some reason. I bet the reason the 20-pence
> coin is non-round is because the florin or whatever, was also not round.
>

There was a thruppenny bit, which had angles. The florin was round.

> And I recall a Hapenny bridge in Dublin because the toll was once a
> half-penny. I wonder if there were other sub-penny divisions.
>

There were ha'pennies (half pennies), and farthings (quarter pennies).

> I seem to recall a super-pound coin, too, a sovereign? Right? Was that
> the only super-pound coin (other than a guinea, technically).
>

I don't know what you mean by 'super pound'. The sovereign was worth 20
shillings.

> All the harkens to a time when a pound was a LOT of money. Even in a
> film just 40 years ago, from watching one of those George Smiley films
> with the title character portrayed by Obi Wan Kenobi, there was an issue
> made about an informant and a 'large sum' of something like 6 pounds
> being referenced.

My first flat, two rooms in the West End of Edinburgh, cost GBP 6 per
month. That was in the 1960s.

[Johannes Kleese]

>>> US and UK measure system are comparatively quite simple compared to the
>>> situation that prevailed in continental Europe at the same time.
>>
>> That's why the metric system has been in use for some 200 years now.
>> Where's your point?
>
> That continental Europe needed reform 200 years ago, and the United
> Kingdom and the United States did not?

The problem on continental Europe was that the different units made if
hard to trade with your neighbours. That was a matter of
standardization, not a question on how complex the units were.

In the UK this had been done, sort of, centuries earlier. For this
matter, it's obviously an advantage to sit alone on an island with just
one king, more or less.
And the US simply imported the units from the UK.

[Johannes Kleese]

>> 100 centimeter are 1 meter, so 3487 centimeters are 34.87 meters.>
>> You needed four lines to explain the conversion, I just one.
>
> But you cannot measure .87 meters with a meter gauge.

If you put it like this, you cannot measure 5 inches with a yard gauge,
either.

> Anything can be decimalized, but the beauty of the imperial-type
> measurements, is that they have natural subdivisions.

If by "natural" you mean chaotic, without any plan - well, then you're
right. Or where's the mathematical logic in 1 foot being 12 inch and 1
yard being 3 feet?

The beauty of the metric system is that it's always some factor of 10,
usually 1000. 1 kilometer are 1000 meters, 1000 millimeters are 1 meter,
1000 micrometers are 1 millimeter.

Nevertheless, if you like talking in subdivisions, you may use "1 meter
and 87 centimeters". Others simply say "1 meter, 87". Same stuff, no
conversion needed. This is not possible with the Imperial system.

> Somewhat for the same reasons there is
> more than a one euro, 1/10 euro, and 1/100 euro coin.

The Euro (and the Dollar and, I'd say, most other currencies) are
working like the metric system: By factors of 10. There's nothing like
the Imperial-style "1 Euro are 120 cents, and 1 cent is 45 bling".

[Irwell]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 12:19:37 +0100, Martin wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 11:18:19 +0100, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature>
> wrote:
>
>>Dan Stephenson <stephed...@mac.com> wrote in

>>news:2011111920594538159-stephedanospam@maccom:

>>
>>> On 2011-11-19 10:42:49 -0600, Irwell said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Always carry a chain, you never know when you might want to
>>>> play a game of cricket. Or plough a furlong.
>>>

>>> Or plough a hectare. Oh wait, is that a measure in System
>>> Internationale?
>>
>>Yes it is. An are is 10x10 meters. A hectare is 100 of those.
>

> Few in UK have much feel for the size of an acre or know how many
> square feet are in an acre.

Most British people who have anything to do with the land
will know that it is roughly 70 by 70 yards, more accurately
4840 square yards.

A furlong (old English for a furrow long) is 220 yards,
or 1/8th of a mile, so a chain 22 yards long can be used to
measure a cricket pitch length, or even a mile.

[Runge 131]

american cretinism


"Dan Stephenson" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :

2011111920521050418-stephedanospam@maccom...

On 2011-11-19 15:46:05 -0600, Martin said:

>
> I'm amazed that Americans are using decimal currency.

Back to the topic of Britain, I must say, the best way to get into
conversation with Britons is to ask "so, what is a shilling, anyway".
To date, no Briton has been able to resist talking up a storm about
their pre-decimal currency. It's pretty cool, actually, as a
historical thing, plus it is a GREAT way to make introductions.

Most likely we (Americans) use decimal currency for no other reason
than to be different than the British, from whom we won our

independence. It is also the reason a lot of our American English
words are different - to create a difference. Thus, the ommision of
"u" in color, favor, etc., and use of s in words like defense, offense.

I must say, in all my extensive travels in Europe, the one place I've
had the greatest trouble understand a European's English, is in
England. I don't mean to denigrate, but the thickness of some rural
accents is just incredible. Way more so than in America, a much bigger
place.

[Erilar]

Dan Stephenson <stephed...@mac.com> wrote:

>
> I must say, in all my extensive travels in Europe, the one place I've had
> the greatest trouble understand a European's English, is in England. I
> don't mean to denigrate, but the thickness of some rural accents is just
> incredible. Way more so than in America, a much bigger place.

Quite simple: several more centuries of isolated communities and language
drift. Here in the US, we diidn't stay that isolated long enough to develop
mutually incomprensible dialects as was the case in Europe.

--
Erilar, biblioholic medievalist with iPad

[James Silverton]

On 11/20/2011 10:29 AM, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
> Dan Stephenson<stephed...@mac.com> wrote in

> news:2011112009075315062-stephedanospam@maccom:
>
>> On 2011-11-20 04:07:09 -0600, Wolfgang Schwanke said:
>
>> Didn't the Irish use the variation, punt?
>
> That's just Irish Gaelic for pound.
>

>> Question: did a pound once correspond to a pound weight of silver?
>

> Yes at one time in the distant past it did. The connection to precious
> metals has of course been decoupled long ago.

>
>> Question also: anyone know the origin of dollar and why it is used? I
>> visited a Dollar Castle once in Scotland. Maybe there was a Scot in
>> our Founding Fathers. Hmm.
>

> The name is a corruption of "Thaler", short for "Joachimthaler", an
> ancient coin that used to be minted in the Bohemian town of
> "Joachimsthal", modern Czech name Jachymov. The American dollar was
> named for that ancient European coin.
>
> "Joachimsthal" is the German name of that town, which translates
> "Joachim's valley". The -thal bit (modern German spelling "Tal") whence
> the word "dollar" derives, is cognate to English "dale" as in "hill and
> dale" and several placenames in England ending in -dale.
>
> The same word occurs in "Neanderthal man" which is named for
> "Neanderthal" (modern spelling "Neandertal"), the valley of the river
> Neander where the first fossils were found.
>
Filled with pride in his classical learning, Joachim's grandfather
Neumann changed his name to "Neander" (both meaning "New Man"). Joachim
Neander was very popular and the name of the valley was changed to
"Neanderthal" in his honor.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not* not.jim....@verizon.net

[James Silverton]

On 11/20/2011 11:42 AM, Dan Stephenson wrote:

When I knew them the "florin" (2 shilling) coin was round. Strangely
enough, the coin came into being as a first, mid-19th century beginning
of metrification. For other reasons, the government proposing this fell
but the coin remained.

There never was a "tuppence" coin during my childhood but a very small
silver "threppence" was changed to a 12-sided bronze coin, the
"threppenny bit", when I was young.

[Runge 131]

Of course martin, in your dreams.


"Martin" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
4hrhc7ha74c7lct5j...@4ax.com...

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 03:30:14 -0800 (PST), Surreyman
<alansp...@googlemail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 20, 10:07 am, Wolfgang Schwanke <s...@sig.nature> wrote:
>> Dan Stephenson <stephedanos...@mac.com> wrote in
>> news:2011111920521050418- stephedanospam@maccom:

>>
>> > Back to the topic of Britain, I must say, the best way to get into
>> > conversation with Britons is to ask "so, what is a shilling, anyway".
>> > To date, no Briton has been able to resist talking up a storm about
>> > their pre-decimal currency.
>>

>> Only the older generations surely? Decimal day was in 1971, younger
>> people won't remember.

>>
>> > Most likely we (Americans) use decimal currency for no other reason
>> > than to be different than the British, from whom we won our
>> > independence.
>>

>> When other Commonwealth countries decimalised around the same time,
>> they also renamed their currencies from pounds to dollars, hence
>> Australian and New Zealand dollars nowadays. Only UK and Ireland kept
>> the name pound.
>>
>> --
>> Tank nur das gute Super rein
>>
>> http://www.wschwanke.de/ http://www.fotos-aus-der-luft.de/
>> usenet_20031215 (AT) wschwanke (DOT) de
>
>The Irish no longer have the pound.
>But numerous other nations still do.

In metric countries like The Netherlands people still refer to ounces
and pounds when shopping, but of course they are metric ounces and
pounds, 100g and 500g respectively.
--

Martin

[Runge 131]

martin types nonsense as usual


"Irwell" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
y9l33ueiqfk7$.xg23iupijtet.dlg@40tude.net...

[Runge 131]

As I remember, recall is a stoopid word

"Dan Stephenson" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :
2011112009184680675-stephedanospam@maccom...

[Runge 131]

americans are hazards.

"Dan Stephenson" a écrit dans le message de groupe de discussion :

2011112010511665761-stephedanospam@maccom...