How very interesting.

[hongy...@gmail.com]

What's the meaning of the following sentence?

How very interesting.

Regards,
Zhao

[Snidely]

hongy...@gmail.com submitted this gripping article, maybe on Saturday:

That depends on how it is used; it has multiple meanings. Can you give
an example of where you've seen it?

/dps

--
Yes, I have had a cucumber soda. Why do you ask?

[hongy...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 2:44:40 PM UTC+8, Snidely wrote:
> hongy...@gmail.com submitted this gripping article, maybe on Saturday:
> > What's the meaning of the following sentence?
> >
> > How very interesting.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Zhao
> That depends on how it is used; it has multiple meanings. Can you give
> an example of where you've seen it?

See the context below:

A: As you can see, in this case, our newly developed algorithm is almost
100 times faster than the calculation based on ConjugatorSpaceGroups.

This indicates that our algorithm is an important advance in solving
this problem.

B: How very interesting.

> /dps

Zhao

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-05-28 07:39:58 +0000, hongy...@gmail.com said:

> On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 2:44:40 PM UTC+8, Snidely wrote:
>> hongy...@gmail.com submitted this gripping article, maybe on Saturday:
>>> What's the meaning of the following sentence?> >> > How very
>>> interesting.> >> > Regards,> > Zhao
>> That depends on how it is used; it has multiple meanings. Can you give>
>> an example of where you've seen it?
> See the context below:
>
> A: As you can see, in this case, our newly developed algorithm is almost
> 100 times faster than the calculation based on ConjugatorSpaceGroups.
>
> This indicates that our algorithm is an important advance in solving
> this problem.
>
> B: How very interesting.

Maybe I'm being unfair, but this has the feeling of something you've
invented, à la Navi. Can you give a real example? Preferably several,
because, as Snidely said, there are multiple meanings.


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[hongy...@gmail.com]

This is exactly the real context I'm talking with a friend on some topic. Here, A is me, and B is my friend.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

hongy...@gmail.com wrote:

>>> What's the meaning of the following sentence?
>>>
>>> How very interesting.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Zhao
>> That depends on how it is used; it has multiple meanings. Can you give
>> an example of where you've seen it?
>
> See the context below:
>
> A: As you can see, in this case, our newly developed algorithm is almost
> 100 times faster than the calculation based on ConjugatorSpaceGroups.
>
> This indicates that our algorithm is an important advance in solving
> this problem.
>
> B: How very interesting.

It's impossible to tell because it may be said in earnest or it may be
said deeply sarcastically.

In earnest: It means that the person is pleased to learn that they have
reached such a result.

Sarcastically: It means that the person couldn't care less. You'd have
to listen to the statement or to have a lot more background knowledge of
the person who says so.

--
Bertel, Denmark

[Hibou]

Le 28/05/2023 à 08:39, hongy...@gmail.com a écrit :
>
> See the context below:
>
> A: As you can see, in this case, our newly developed algorithm is almost
> 100 times faster than the calculation based on ConjugatorSpaceGroups.
>
> This indicates that our algorithm is an important advance in solving
> this problem.
>
> B: How very interesting.

It could mean "That's very interesting", "That's quite interesting", or
"That's not interesting at all". It's all in the tone (or if in writing,
the wider context).

[Peter T. Daniels]

A British-educated friend? An American response could be
"How interesting," to indicate that it was of little interest.

[Ken Blake]

On Sun, 28 May 2023 00:39:58 -0700 (PDT), "hongy...@gmail.com"
<hongy...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 2:44:40?PM UTC+8, Snidely wrote:
>> hongy...@gmail.com submitted this gripping article, maybe on Saturday:
>> > What's the meaning of the following sentence?
>> >
>> > How very interesting.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Zhao
>> That depends on how it is used; it has multiple meanings. Can you give
>> an example of where you've seen it?
>
>See the context below:
>
> A: As you can see, in this case, our newly developed algorithm is almost
> 100 times faster than the calculation based on ConjugatorSpaceGroups.
>
> This indicates that our algorithm is an important advance in solving
> this problem.
>
>B: How very interesting.

That is very interesting,

That could be exactly what's meant or it could be said sarcastically.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Is B a native English speaker? If yes, then ask him if he is being
sarcastic. If no, then his opinion about English usage is of dubious
significance.

A normal way of expressing the non-sarcastic sense would be "That is
very interesting: can you tell me more?"

I'd still prefer an example that didn't refer to your own conversation
wth someone.

[Sam Plusnet]

If said by a BrE speaker, I think the latter would be far more likely.

--
Sam Plusnet

[TonyCooper]

I think some knowledge of the interactions with the person who wrote
the comment that could explain if it is a genuine expression of
interest or a sarcastic expression indicating no interest.

If the algorithm has been discussed before, and what is added is just
another comment about the benefits of the algorithm, then the reply
might be a dismissive "How very interesting".

If it's a new subject, or a new participant, then the reply is likely
to be a genuine statement of interest.

For example, if a poster here brought up yet another book that he had
to read in his Episcopal school experience, it might result in a
sarcastic "How very interesting" response.


--

Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

[Peter Moylan]

In my experience, the sarcastic meaning is the most common. But you have
to listen to tone of voice.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[hongy...@gmail.com]

No, he is a Dutch.

[hongy...@gmail.com]

Yes, it's a new subject and hasn't been discussed before. See the more complete context:

Me: Based on the following facts, I don't think so. What I mean is that no
expert is omnipotent.

1. I've identified several bugs and inappropriate descriptions in GAP
Cryst package.
2. I've implemented the minimal generating set algorithm for solvable
space groups, though it's not rigorous, but really works.
3. I've implemented the affine isomorphism determination algorithm,
which is a few to a hundred times faster than the current
implementation in GAP Cryst package.

He: I am impressed.

[...]

Me: As you can see, in this case, our newly developed algorithm is almost

100 times faster than the calculation based on ConjugatorSpaceGroups.

This indicates that our algorithm is an important advance in solving
this problem.

He: How very interesting.

> For example, if a poster here brought up yet another book that he had
> to read in his Episcopal school experience, it might result in a
> sarcastic "How very interesting" response.
>
>
> --
>
> Tony Cooper - Orlando,Florida

Regards,
Zhao

[TonyCooper]

On Sun, 28 May 2023 22:58:15 -0700 (PDT), "hongy...@gmail.com"
<hongy...@gmail.com> wrote:

When seeing it in context, it appears that it should be taken at face
value. He thinks it's very interesting.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

OK, but apparently B was Dutch, and his usage cannot be taken as
authoritative as a soure of information about English usage. Consider
Jan: his English is close to perfect(as one expects for a Dutchman),
but he does make mistakes that a native speaker of his erudition would
be unlikely to make.

[bruce bowser]

That must tell you about your own use of French and not being born and raised on the actual continent, right?

[TonyCooper]

I don't see this as a question of English usage. It's a question of
the intent of the writer. Was the intent to be sarcastic or to
indicate genuine approval?

Take Hongy's comment that the person is "a Dutch". That's faulty
usage, but the meaning is clear: The person is Dutch.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, May 28, 2023 at 5:21:38 PM UTC-4, TonyCooper wrote:
> On Sun, 28 May 2023 20:35:56 +0100, Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:

> If it's a new subject, or a new participant, then the reply is likely
> to be a genuine statement of interest.
>
> For example, if a poster here

the Great Anonymizer tries to strike again

> brought up yet another book that he had

another besides what?

> to read in his Episcopal school experience, it might result in a
> sarcastic "How very interesting" response.

Catholic Hoosiers were cut off from one of the formative documents
of modern English culture?

[Peter T. Daniels]

("He is Dutch" or "He is a Dutchman")

Then much more likely to be British-educated than American-educated.

(I did assume he was Chinese, perhaps from Hong Kong. PRC people
met Over Here usually have American-, not British-, -accented English.).

[Sam Plusnet]

Agreed. The ambiguity only arises when it's in written form.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Thomas Joseph]

Sam Plusnet wrote:

> >>> B: How very interesting.
> >>
> >> That is very interesting,
> >>
> >> That could be exactly what's meant or it could be said
> >> sarcastically.
> >
> > In my experience, the sarcastic meaning is the most common. But you have
> > to listen to tone of voice.
> >
> Agreed. The ambiguity only arises when it's in written form.

Ambiguity can be the most entertaining thing about it. I enjoy not
knowing things. Please, oh God please, no - no more teaching.
I believe sound, tone, and context mean more than the words. Even
making up words without trying is good. Trying does not count.

In regards to your comment about tone of voice, how about talking
at all times in a monotone voice? I enjoy that too. You really have
to dig deep to get the meaning, even if there is none. But in regards
to tone of voice I remember one time over the phone telling a standup
road comic friend of mine who is a major trier in life that, "I could never
do what you do", and knowing as I said it, just as I said it, not beforehand,
that it could be taken two distinctly opposite ways. "I could never do
what you do", implying it's something I would never want to do, or, "I
could never do what you do", implying the person's abilities are superior
to my own. I meant it in the former way but also respect the guy's
work ethic and insane competitive spirit. Yet it also makes me sick.
Thus my comment was delivered in a monotone voice. But even
within the most monotone of voices I'm sure hints of genuine
sentiment can be unearthed.

[Madhu]

* Athel Cornish-Bowden <kdjou7FspjgU1 @mid.individual.net> :
Wrote on Mon, 29 May 2023 15:51:03 +0200:

>>>>>>>>> What's the meaning of the following sentence?
>>>>>>>>> How very interesting.

>>>>>>>>> Zhao

>>>>>>>> That depends on how it is used; it has multiple meanings. Can you give
>>>>>>>> an example of where you've seen it?

[snip]

>> When seeing it in context, it appears that it should be taken at face
>> value. He thinks it's very interesting.
>
> OK, but apparently B was Dutch,

All bets are off.

[Madhu]

* "Peter T. Daniels" <0b0d220f-c76c-46f7-b038-7bff78663ce9n @googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Mon, 29 May 2023 08:21:48 -0700 (PDT):

> ("He is Dutch" or "He is a Dutchman")

and force the revelation of gender. It works the same way as the
following:

I am a Hindu.

I am Hindu, but I am also a Hindu. I prefer to use the first form when
self identifying as Hindu to native english speakers, even if they don't
get the nuances which are conveyed in this choice of form.

> Then much more likely to be British-educated than American-educated.
> (I did assume he was Chinese, perhaps from Hong Kong. PRC people met
> Over Here usually have American-, not British-, -accented English.).

Recently I came across a comment (by an Australian) on the difference
between his Hongkong- and mainland- students in the US. The mainlanders
were more "polite and eager students" but "genrally had worse written
english skills" I put this down to the school boards of Hong Kong which,
in that age were the same as any commonwealth schoolboard with
curriculums (curricula?) based on schools in the UK

[Peter T. Daniels]

Was that ChatGPT or another AI?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 4:48:06 AM UTC-4, Madhu wrote:
> * "Peter T. Daniels" <0b0d220f-c76c-46f7-b038-7bff78663ce9n @googlegroups.com> :
> Wrote on Mon, 29 May 2023 08:21:48 -0700 (PDT):
> > ("He is Dutch" or "He is a Dutchman")
> and force the revelation of gender. It works the same way as the
> following:

The pronoun had already been used. Therefore there was no need
to use "Dutchperson."

> I am a Hindu.

noun

> I am Hindu,

adjectivve

> but I am also a Hindu. I prefer to use the first form when
> self identifying as Hindu to native english speakers, even if they don't
> get the nuances which are conveyed in this choice of form.

? No nuances, jut grammar.

[Madhu]

* "Peter T. Daniels" <9e8df22c-db4d-4ef1-98a5-df39ca54beabn @googlegroups.com> :
Wrote on Tue, 30 May 2023 05:27:01 -0700 (PDT):

> On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 4:48:06 AM UTC-4, Madhu wrote:
>> I am a Hindu.
>
> noun
>
>> I am Hindu,
>
> adjectivve

never thought of it that way. Isn't it analogous to "I am Jewish" :: "I
am a Jew" where both denote a noun.

>> but I am also a Hindu. I prefer to use the first form when self
>> identifying as Hindu to native english speakers, even if they don't
>> get the nuances which are conveyed in this choice of form.
>
> ? No nuances, jut grammar.

the message left unsaid in ESL-sounding construct

<ALLCAPS>

no NN, there is no such thing as "Hindu", The subcontinent of
India is a collection of various cultures and peoples with different
traditions and languages and beliefs, theologies, and food, and it is foolish or
(or belies a suspect agenda) to hide all that diversity behind a single
noun [that outsiders have come up with]

</ALLCAPS>

[Jerry Friedman]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 10:32:20 AM UTC-6, Madhu wrote:
> * "Peter T. Daniels" <9e8df22c-db4d-4ef1-98a5-df39ca54beabn @googlegroups.com> :
> Wrote on Tue, 30 May 2023 05:27:01 -0700 (PDT):
> > On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 4:48:06 AM UTC-4, Madhu wrote:
> >> I am a Hindu.
> >
> > noun
> >
> >> I am Hindu,
> >
> > adjectivve

> never thought of it that way. Isn't it analogous to "I am Jewish" :: "I
> am a Jew" where both denote a noun.

...

It's analogous because "Jewish" is an adjective.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 12:32:20 PM UTC-4, Madhu wrote:
> * "Peter T. Daniels" <9e8df22c-db4d-4ef1-98a5-df39ca54beabn @googlegroups.com> :
> Wrote on Tue, 30 May 2023 05:27:01 -0700 (PDT):
> > On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 4:48:06 AM UTC-4, Madhu wrote:
> >> I am a Hindu.
> >
> > noun
> >
> >> I am Hindu,
> >
> > adjectivve
> never thought of it that way. Isn't it analogous to "I am Jewish" :: "I

adjective

> am a Jew" where both denote a noun.

noun

> >> but I am also a Hindu. I prefer to use the first form when self
> >> identifying as Hindu to native english speakers, even if they don't
> >> get the nuances which are conveyed in this choice of form.
> > ? No nuances, jut grammar.
>
> the message left unsaid in ESL-sounding construct
>
> <ALLCAPS>
>
> no NN, there is no such thing as "Hindu", The subcontinent of
> India is a collection of various cultures and peoples with different
> traditions and languages and beliefs, theologies, and food, and it is foolish or
> (or belies a suspect agenda) to hide all that diversity behind a single
> noun [that outsiders have come up with]
>
> </ALLCAPS>

"Hinduism" is certainly the topic of many overviews of India's majority
religion in all its variety. Anyone who practices Hinduism is Hindu. Not
sure what "a Hindu" is. You might just as well say "there is no such thing
as Christian" (which is ungrammatical), because "Christianity" is quite
diverse. (Probably more so than Islam.) But there's a pretty clear definition
of what "a Christian" is -- a person who has been baptized according to a
set ritual. (The other view, that one isn't a Christian unless one has been
"born again," may be asserted loudly but is far from prevalent.)

[bozo de niro]

It's always interesting when you get what you need, when you need it, where you need it. Like living hand-to-mouth with busted lamps that mock let there be light. Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. I love primitive deprivation that beats the cost of living. In a not so cheap one-room flat with never enough flatware. Always having to wash the few I got before I can eat. Always too many forks. Never enough spoons. And the ones I got are slotted or always wet and greasy. And I always have to do my own sweeping and mopping and bidding with all the where-with-all always missing. What I wouldn't do for everything in its place and never out of reach. Same for editing. Why can't it be as painless and effortless as breathing. Come on my little AI bitch, don't make my Google sanitize your name with five asterisks for B-I-T-C-H! Just do what I ask and then fix it too without me asking. And don't make me look for what I need and where either. Or make me use the damn keyboard for speech-to-text and text-to-speech. What I wouldn't do for the tasks of writing and editing as easy, effortless, and casual as breathing and sleeping. So I'm dying here of thirst from a glut of salt, sugar, and liquor and all I got is one lousy 16.9 fluid oz bottle of purified water frozen solid in my refrigerator freezer and not a drop to drink. Nothing quenches thirst better than an ice-cold glass of water. So thank you God for your microwaves and the instant melting liquifaction gratification of a beautiful ice-cold glass of water when I need it. Thank you God. What a treat. How very interesting. How very generous too.

[Thomas Joseph]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

Thomas Joseph wrote:

> > Thus my comment was delivered in a monotone voice. But even
> > within the most monotone of voices I'm sure hints of genuine
> > sentiment can be unearthed.


> Was that ChatGPT or another AI?

I don't know what you mean. I am tired of learning new stuff. I
want to get by on the old stuff I already know. Know what I mean?
I see AI all over the place. I guess it means artificial intelligence,
right? I don't get that either and am not ready to learn. No, I was
simply on the phone with a friend when I made my comment with
as little emphasis on anything one way or the other to leave the
comment more open to interpretation. I'm not much into the robot
voice. I prefer a real human voice used intentionally by its owner
to sound like a robot. I had a friend would sometimes read me
over the phone something I had written. He would always read
it monotone style. At first it bugged me, but not for long. I really
enjoyed it. Listening to my own words recited by someone else,
but with no emotion, no acting, just reading - read me, reading my
words - to me! I loved it.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Would it pass a Reverse Turing Test if a person's prose style is
indistinguishable from that of an AI device?

[lar3ryca]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSrQyA7dQpM

--
I ate alphabet soup. Now I have strong vowel movement.

[Thomas Joseph]

bozo de niro wrote:

> It's always interesting when you get what you need, when you need it, where you need it. Like living hand-to-mouth with busted lamps that mock let there be light. Don't get me wrong. I'm not complaining. I love primitive deprivation that beats the cost of living.

I have owned 11 cars in my life, never paying over $100, and some
were absolute gems that if around today are probably going for a
lot of money. Not that I care. I don't. But I am in agreement with
your primitive deprivation philosophy. When I was dead broke
and didn't know where I'd be sleeping that night, things just kind
of came my way more often. I owned two cars at the same time
when I was not working. Stuff tends to show up more often and
more easily when we're not looking. But I don't know if the practice
can be replicated. It can't be intended. At least not in the beginning.
You must FEEL the deprivation, you can't just claim it.

Now get out there and suffer and I swear by God I will do everything
I can to bring you more easy stuff in life. Let's do this thing!

[Thomas Joseph]

lar3ryca wrote:

> I ate alphabet soup. Now I have strong vowel movement.

Shut up and eat your soup before I make you eat your words.

[Thomas Joseph]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Would it pass a Reverse Turing Test if a person's prose style is
> indistinguishable from that of an AI device?

Not gonna deny it, I am lost with the techno jargon. But
I think I know what you mean. Similar to, "If there were
female sex robots so realistic you couldn't tell they were
robots, would you ever go back to the real thing again?

Here's something similar, I think. A theory of mine regarding
writing. I am not a big reader. But when I was a kid I got
into reading lots of short stories. I started reading some
French short story guys (in English), and I liked them. Then
I got into other foreign writers and found I like them too.
At first with the French authors it was, "Wow, these French
guys are really good writers", until I found the others. Then
I realized that maybe the writing was to my liking because
it had been translated. Simplified. And that's good.

So, suppose you write a short story, or maybe a poem - something
short - and have it translated by a professional into another
language, then later translated back to English by another
pro so you can see the English to French and back to English
version of your own words - and it would not surprise me if
you liked the translated version better than the one you
started with.

Anyway, we could be talking about two different things.
And that is cool too.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Interestingly, this message's style is much more colloquial than that
of the poster's previous messages and non sequiturs do not abound..

[Thomas Joseph]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:

> Interestingly, this message's style is much more colloquial than that
> of the poster's previous messages and non sequiturs do not abound..

Maybe I'm delusional but that sounds like a compliment to me.
By the way, your use of the word 'colloquial' forced me to the
dictionary. I just pump the word into the google bar and it comes
up. I'm usually close when I look up words I rarely use, or might
misuse if I did. I like being forced to the dictionary at times. So
thanks for that.

Naturally that makes me think of something else I absolutely
must comment on because I thought of it and everything I think
of has merit. No really, have you ever looked up a definition that
included words that need to be looked up too? I'm serious.

It reminds me of the Sudoko puzzle I do in the newspaper.
Right next to the puzzle is a suggestion that if I'm having
trouble with the puzzle and want helpful hints for solving
them I should go to "such and such.com". But I have never
done it.

Two reasons.

Reason #1. If they teach me to more easily solve the puzzles
I might then be forced to pay for the extra tough ones.

Reason #2, which should be #1: I am afraid their solving
solution might be more difficult to figure out than the puzzle itself.
Like instructions to a board game. Ouch.

TJ

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 8:56:32 PM UTC-4, Thomas Joseph wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, this message's style is much more colloquial than that
> > of the poster's previous messages and non sequiturs do not abound..
> Maybe I'm delusional but that sounds like a compliment to me.
> By the way, your use of the word 'colloquial' forced me to the
> dictionary. I just pump the word into the google bar and it comes
> up. I'm usually close when I look up words I rarely use, or might
> misuse if I did. I like being forced to the dictionary at times. So
> thanks for that.
>
> Naturally that makes me think of something else I absolutely
> must comment on because I thought of it and everything I think
> of has merit. No really, have you ever looked up a definition that
> included words that need to be looked up too? I'm serious.

Lexicographers try to avod that, but they can't know what words
everybody is sure to be familiar with.

[Thomas Joseph]

Peter T. Daniels wrote:
Thomas Joseph wrote:

> > Naturally that makes me think of something else I absolutely
> > must comment on because I thought of it and everything I think
> > of has merit. No really, have you ever looked up a definition that
> > included words that need to be looked up too? I'm serious.


> Lexicographers try to avod that, but they can't know what words
> everybody is sure to be familiar with.

Words are fragile but they're all we've got. I am a selfish
person. I'm here and I'm using whatever we've got without
asking where it came from. I see a switch on the wall, I
know it's up lights go on, down and they're off - I don't know
a thing about what's behind the sockets and I don't want to
know. But yes, there is a job to everything and I/we often
forget that. I suppose lexicographing is a lot like traffic
planning, not everyone is going to be happy with the
system. I just see the humor in the rigamarole of it, looking
up a word and they're using words you don't know to describe
it and now I have to look them up too. We're all different.
I can't handle a lot of techno speak for example. I mean
low tech techno speak, like the wording used for board game
instructions. It drives me nuts. And I can enjoy that too.

[Peter Moylan]

On 06/06/23 05:39, Thomas Joseph wrote:

> I see a switch on the wall, I
> know it's up lights go on, down and they're off

You're in for a shock when you visit a country where it's the other way
around.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Jerry Friedman]

On Monday, June 5, 2023 at 7:18:51 PM UTC-6, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 06/06/23 05:39, Thomas Joseph wrote:
>
> > I see a switch on the wall, I
> > know it's up lights go on, down and they're off

> You're in for a shock when you visit a country where it's the other way
> around.

Or a building or room where different switches work differently.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

Yes, good point. We have two light switches (for the same light) in the
lounge room. They're wired up in such a way that one of them is always
in the counter-intuitive position.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2023-06-06 01:18:45 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> On 06/06/23 05:39, Thomas Joseph wrote:
>
>> I see a switch on the wall, I
>> know it's up lights go on, down and they're off
>
> You're in for a shock when you visit a country where it's the other way around.

Or a country (like Chile) where the switches move sideways.


--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

[charles]

In article <ke86s9...@mid.individual.net>,

Athel Cornish-Bowden <athe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-06-06 01:18:45 +0000, Peter Moylan said:

> > On 06/06/23 05:39, Thomas Joseph wrote:
> >
> >> I see a switch on the wall, I
> >> know it's up lights go on, down and they're off
> >
> > You're in for a shock when you visit a country where it's the other way
> > around.

> Or a country (like Chile) where the switches move sideways.

I've got one like that, too. Installed my me on purpose.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

[bil...@shaw.ca]

On Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 12:51:43 AM UTC-7, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-06-06 01:18:45 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>
> > On 06/06/23 05:39, Thomas Joseph wrote:
> >
> >> I see a switch on the wall, I
> >> know it's up lights go on, down and they're off
> >
> > You're in for a shock when you visit a country where it's the other way around.
> Or a country (like Chile) where the switches move sideways.
>

I only get the shock when the wiring has come loose.

bill

[Thomas Joseph]

Peter Moylan wrote:

> I see a switch on the wall, I
> know it's up lights go on, down and they're off


> You're in for a shock when you visit a country where it's the other way
> around.

Shock is a bit extreme. I can adjust. How long? I'd guess about
one second. That's what I get for using examples. A bad habit.
Laziness. Also sometimes the example takes the place of the
topic at hand. The light switch was probably not a good example.
But sometimes even good examples are bad (for example).

[Thomas Joseph]

bil...@shaw.ca wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

Peter Moylan said:
Thomas Joseph wrote:


> I see a switch on the wall, I know it's up lights go on,
> down and they're off


> You're in for a shock when you visit a country where it's the other way around.
> Or a country (like Chile) where the switches move sideways.


> I only get the shock when the wiring has come loose.

I look under the hood of a car and all I see are a hundred things
waiting to go wrong. The more wires and plugs the scarier it is.
I drove a cab for 33 years but haven't owned a car since the mid
80s. I never paid over $100 for a car. But I never bought them
because I actually needed them, just because I had the cash at
the time and wanted to get rid of it before wasting on something
really stupid. To me the wall socket is just an analogy for scary
stuff I don't want to know about.

[Snidely]

on 6/5/2023, Peter Moylan supposed :

Three-way switches can be found in the US, too. I can imagine some
people taking the time to go around and get them all lined up. Mostly
on a "one and a while" basis for fun, and not so often -- I hope -- as
a urgent need.

/dps

--
"Maintaining a really good conspiracy requires far more intelligent
application, by a large number of people, than the world can readily
supply."

Sam Plusnet

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, June 10, 2023 at 2:24:17 PM UTC-4, Snidely wrote:

> on a "one and a while" basis for fun, and not so often -- I hope -- as

Is that a local variation on "once in a while"?