Re: Handsets
rban...@shaw.ca
wrote:
>Lion <Nos...@com.sg> wrote:
>>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>>business of mobile or cell phones.
>>
>
>The only thing that interests me in this question is the position of the
>question mark. The space before the question mark is popping up here ever more
>frequently from non-native speakers. Anyone have an explanation?
Shorthand--debased Pitman for 'I wonder'. Tamils have similar marks,
I think. Peter Wotsisface over in scilang could elaborate.
Donna Richoux
> Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
> business of mobile or cell phones.
>
> I suppose this this term is created because such devices are increasingly
> multi-purpose, not just for voice communications. Lets hope this name is
> universally adopted, instead of its predecessor being called mobile in one
> continent and cell in another.
M-W llth dates it as 1919, so it's nothing new. It referred to the
arrangement we all grew up with: a listening and speaking device in one
handheld piece --
http://www.handset.com/_borders/1W3-K.gif
instead of the very old hold-the-earpiece-and-shout-into-mouthpiece
affair.
http://www.btinternet.com/~ians.telephones/Images/NO4TELE.JPG
Although, if some ancient telephone engineer was to tell me that those
earpieces were also called "handsets", I'd have to believe him. But M-W
doesn't mention it.
A few decades ago, numerical keypads were fitted into the handset.
I haven't noticed that the word is being used to refer to mobile/cell
phones. It would be a likely name for those cordless/remote types that
are supposed to sit on a base, though. And there's only a slight
difference between those and mobile/cell phones.
Why do you want words to be universally adopted? Don't you like
diversity?
--
Best - Donna Richoux
Murray Arnow
>Murray Arnow wrote:
>
>>Lion <Nos...@com.sg> wrote:
>>>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>>>business of mobile or cell phones.
>>>
>>
>>The only thing that interests me in this question is the position of the
>>question mark. The space before the question mark is popping up here ever more
>
>>frequently from non-native speakers. Anyone have an explanation?
>
>Shorthand--debased Pitman for 'I wonder'. Tamils have similar marks,
>I think. Peter Wotsisface over in scilang could elaborate.
Let's keep this civil.
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Lion wrote:
>
> "Murray Arnow" <ar...@iname.com> wrote ..
> > Lion <Nos...@com.sg> wrote:
> >>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
> >>business of mobile or cell phones.
> >>
> > The only thing that interests me in this question is the position of the
> > question mark. The space before the question mark is popping up here ever
> > more
> > frequently from non-native speakers. Anyone have an explanation?
>
> Your observation is correct. I deliberately put a space in front of a
> question mark as well as an exclamation mark, but not in front of others.
>
> By the way, I also add two spaces instead of one in between two sentences.
> Both are to help with clarity of reading. It is my own practice.
>
The two spaces between sentences thing isn't your invention. You can
have, however, the space between the last letter of the last word of a
sentence and the question mark or the bang.
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
bitch got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
Charles Riggs
>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>business of mobile or cell phones.
This is a totally uninteresting question. Surely, we have more
important things to consider.
K. Edgcombe
In article <42b983f6$1...@news.starhub.net.sg>, Lion <Nos...@com.sg> wrote:
>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>business of mobile or cell phones.
Well, it certainly predates mobile phones. I think I first came across it
either when it first became possible to buy a handset (for a landline)
separately from renting the landline, or possibly when I first used an acoustic
coupler to connect to a mainframe computer, in the early Seventies.
But I've no reason to suppose it was a new word for the object even then; that
was just the first time I remember needing to refer to it.
Katy
Poet Fury
> Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
> business of mobile or cell phones.
I'd say a misused/refurbished term. I have a handset right here...with a
curly cord attaching it to a Western Electric pinky-beige telephone on my
desk.
--
http://www.newvague.com/tdis/index.html
Of course it's music. It has notes in it, doesn't it?
Poet Fury
> I deliberately put a space in front of a
> question mark as well as an exclamation mark, but not in front of others.
Well, of course. Things like that *should* be done in private. ;-)
Jukka Aho
> Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in
> the business of mobile or cell phones.
I've seen it used for DECT phones and USB VoIP devices as well,
regardless of whether they're wireless or not:
<http://digital-lifestyles.info/display_page.asp?section=plat
forms&id=1910>
<http://www.cbsys.net/index.html?lang=en-uk&target=d91.html>
--
znark
Lion
>>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>>business of mobile or cell phones.
>>
> question mark. The space before the question mark is popping up here ever
> more
> frequently from non-native speakers. Anyone have an explanation?
Your observation is correct. I deliberately put a space in front of a
question mark as well as an exclamation mark, but not in front of others.
By the way, I also add two spaces instead of one in between two sentences.
Both are to help with clarity of reading. It is my own practice.
I don't think this has anything to do with my mother tongue not being
English. I have been using English 90% of the time for over 40 years.
Lion
Lion
business of mobile or cell phones.
I suppose this this term is created because such devices are increasingly
Murray Arnow
>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>business of mobile or cell phones.
>
The only thing that interests me in this question is the position of the
Jukka Aho
> I deliberately put a space in front of a question mark as well as an
> exclamation mark, but not in front of others. [...]
>
> I don't think this has anything to do with my mother tongue not being
> English.
Established typographical conventions vary from one country, language,
and culture to the other. French magazines seem to use a thin,
connecting space before question marks and exclamation points. English
publications, as far as I have observed, don't.
--
znark
Mike Barnes
>Is this a new term ?
No. In BrE it means the part of a traditional two-piece phone that you
hold in your hand.
BTW it's usual to include the full question in the body of your message,
to save readers having to consult the message header.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
meirman
<Nos...@com.sg> posted:
>Is this a new term ?
Not in the US and Canada. It goes back at least to the 40's
Candlestick telephones, with the microphone on the candlestick base,
and the speaker on a separate item that hung from the side of the
candlestick, were probably said to have earpieces or something. Same
with crank telephones.
"Handset" was first used, I think, when the same movable item had the
microphone and the speaker in it.
In the US a handset will never mean mobile or cell. It will mean as
it always has that part of the telephone that one holds in his hand.
When one holds the whole telephone in his hand, people probably just
call it a telephone, and referring to a handset would seem silly.
Sort of like referring to a "member" of a club that had only one
member.
From the other posts, it seems what the British call a handset, we
call a telephone.
s/ meirman
Posting from alt.english.usage
--
If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Town NW of Pittsburgh Pa. 0 to 10 years
Indianapolis 7 years
Chicago 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
now in Baltimore 22 years
meirman
<Nos...@com.sg> posted:
>"Murray Arnow" <ar...@iname.com> wrote ..
>> Lion <Nos...@com.sg> wrote:
>>>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>>>business of mobile or cell phones.
>>>
>> The only thing that interests me in this question is the position of the
>> question mark. The space before the question mark is popping up here ever
>> more
>> frequently from non-native speakers. Anyone have an explanation?
>
>Your observation is correct. I deliberately put a space in front of a
>question mark as well as an exclamation mark, but not in front of others.
>
>By the way, I also add two spaces instead of one in between two sentences.
This is the standard convention with typewriters. With computers that
are using proportional fonts, unlike Usenet, most people think it
looks better with only one space.
>Both are to help with clarity of reading. It is my own practice.
To someone who is used to the standard use of commas and periods, it
doesn't help. It makes things worse.
>I don't think this has anything to do with my mother tongue not being
>English. I have been using English 90% of the time for over 40 years.
>
>Lion
>
Martin Ambuhl
> Is this a new term ?
Neither 'this' nor 'handset' (cleverly hidden in the subject line,
marking 'Lion' as clueless) is a new term.
Not unless 86 years (for 'handset') is recent for you.
[MW11CD]
Main Entry:hand-set
Date:circa 1919
: a combined telephone transmitter and receiver mounted on a handheld
device
[OED2]
handset ("h&ndsEt) Also hand-set. [hand n. + set n.2]
A telephone transmitter and receiver combined in a single instrument.
[1914 Smith & Campbell Automatic Teleph. vi. 131 The telephone
instrument follows the general form which is so popular on the
Continent, making large use of the combined transmitter and
receiver, sometimes known as the hand microphone set.]
1930 Electr. Commun. VIII. 265/2 The tendency towards more comfortable
and convenient apparatus has been evidenced .. finally by the
development of handsets, or as they are sometimes called,
‘micro-telephones’.
1955 ‘N. Shute’ Requiem for Wren 283 They repeated it and booked the
call, and I put down the handset.
1962 A. Nisbett Technique Sound Studio 176 For telephones a standard
hand-set can be similarly adapted, so that the bell may be worked by
a press-button.
1972 C. Drummond Death at Bar v. 127 There was a call box. .. He had
to wait ten minutes while a young citizen+quacked into the handset.
meirman
<mei...@invalid.com> posted:
>
>When one holds the whole telephone in his hand, people probably just
>call it a telephone,
Or a phone or a cellphone. There are regular phones which plug into
the wal which have no base, only a handset that includes the ringer
and keypad.
> and referring to a handset would seem silly.
>Sort of like referring to a "member" of a club that had only one
>member.
meirman
<mam...@earthlink.net> posted:
>
>Lion wrote:
>> Is this a new term ?
>
>Neither 'this' nor 'handset' (cleverly hidden in the subject line,
>marking 'Lion' as clueless)
Defintely.
meirman
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) posted:
>
>
>A few decades ago, numerical keypads were fitted into the handset.
As a matter of trivia (what else is new?) before that dials were
inserted in the handset. The Trimline phone iirc. The dial diameter
was made smaller than other phones, by removing the empty space
between the 1 and the finger stop and by allowing the finger-stop to
move about two holes past where it normally sat, when someone dialed a
number.
One more, unrelated to your post: I never desire to place a phonecall
from my bathroom, but I did want to answer calls. So installed a jack
in the wall, on a plate, and put a neon light in the place so I could
tell when the phone was ringing, and a small toggle so I could answer
the phone.
Then I just plugged a handset into the jack and hung the handset from
a pretty string attached to the towel bar. I had to rewire the
handset, because normally they use all 4 wires, and but only two wires
of the main phone line are used**. It hangs between the toilet and
the bathtub and works great. I try to answer it between rings. After
that the voltage is lower, but I don't know what it would do if I
dropped it in the tub.
** Was: four wires. Changed it to \ / , two wiree
VV
Harvey Van Sickle
> As a matter of trivia (what else is new?) before that dials were
> inserted in the handset. The Trimline phone iirc.
Entirely right, but one's memory does funny things.
Your comment went (wrongly) CLANG, so I googled to challenge your iirc.
Turns out I was thinking of the BT "Trimphone", not a "Trimline", and I
now have an entirely punctured "gotchca" balloon...
> One more, unrelated to your post: I never desire to place a
> phonecall from my bathroom, but I did want to answer calls. So
> installed a jack in the wall, on a plate, and put a neon light in
> the place so I could tell when the phone was ringing, and a small
> toggle so I could answer the phone.
>
> Then I just plugged a handset into the jack and hung the handset
> from a pretty string attached to the towel bar. I had to rewire
> the handset, because normally they use all 4 wires, and but only
> two wires of the main phone line are used**. It hangs between the
> toilet and the bathtub and works great. I try to answer it
> between rings. After that the voltage is lower, but I don't know
> what it would do if I dropped it in the tub.
Ah, those were the days when men were geeks and geeks were
men. Nowadays, the softies just take a cordless handset into the bog
with them.
They don't know they're born, I tell ya'...
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canada for 30 years; S England since 1982.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
Donna Richoux
> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:01:10 +0200
> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) posted:
>
> >
> >
> >A few decades ago, numerical keypads were fitted into the handset.
>
> As a matter of trivia (what else is new?) before that dials were
> inserted in the handset. The Trimline phone iirc.
Thanks. I thought of "Princess phone" earlier, but when I looked up the
pictures, they didn't qualify.
Here's a Trimline with a dial:
http://www.digitallydo.com/phone/blue_trimline.jpg
And here's a Princess:
http://www.dcwstore.com/telephones/CR59-pink.jpg
Then for a really fancy handset, there's the antique French style:
http://images.andale.com/f2/107/104/12590872/1102027886501_d7_1_b.JPG
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Skitt
The thing is, I don't believe the phone you take into the bog with you has
to be a working one. It's all in fooling nature. I have never received a
call while doing my businness with a phone within easy reach. The few times
when I was unprepared, however, resulted in most distressing circumstances,
to say the least.
Yeah, I know -- just let the machine take care of it. I really should. It
must be the having growing up without those machines that compels me to take
things rather personally.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> The thing is, I don't believe the phone you take into the bog with
> you has to be a working one. It's all in fooling nature. I have
> never received a call while doing my businness with a phone within
> easy reach. The few times when I was unprepared, however,
> resulted in most distressing circumstances, to say the least.
Whole religions are based on such things.
> Yeah, I know -- just let the machine take care of it. I really
> should. It must be the having growing up without those machines
> that compels me to take things rather personally.
I've learned to let the machine answer, but the thing I hate is having
to judge how long to leave before you return the call: too quickly,
and it's pretty clear you're screening your calls; too long, and
you're a bit neglectful.
Modern life is soooooo complex....
the Omrud
> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:01:10 +0200
> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) posted:
>
> >A few decades ago, numerical keypads were fitted into the handset.
>
> As a matter of trivia (what else is new?) before that dials were
> inserted in the handset. The Trimline phone iirc. The dial diameter
> was made smaller than other phones, by removing the empty space
> between the 1 and the finger stop and by allowing the finger-stop to
> move about two holes past where it normally sat, when someone dialed a
> number.
>
> One more, unrelated to your post: I never desire to place a phonecall
> from my bathroom, but I did want to answer calls. So installed a jack
> in the wall, on a plate, and put a neon light in the place so I could
> tell when the phone was ringing, and a small toggle so I could answer
> the phone.
>
> Then I just plugged a handset into the jack and hung the handset from
> a pretty string attached to the towel bar. I had to rewire the
> handset, because normally they use all 4 wires, and but only two wires
> of the main phone line are used**. It hangs between the toilet and
> the bathtub and works great. I try to answer it between rings. After
> that the voltage is lower, but I don't know what it would do if I
> dropped it in the tub.
50 V DC down the phone lines in the UK while the phone is ringing -
this can give you a nasty shock and might prove dangerous to somebody
with a dicky ticker if it was allowed to pass across the body.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
Skitt
> It must be the having growing up without those machines that
> compels me to take things rather personally.
ObAUE: I failed to remove all of the "having grown" when changing it to
"growing". Shit happens.
John Dean
> Lion <Nos...@com.sg> wrote:
>
>> Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people
>> in the business of mobile or cell phones.
>>
>
> phones. It would be a likely name for those cordless/remote types that
> are supposed to sit on a base, though. And there's only a slight
> difference between those and mobile/cell phones.
I would say there are major differences, chief being that the mobile /
cell works independently, subject to being within range of a relay
station of some kind while the cordless needs to be within range of its
own base station. I could use my mobile in Australia (if I were in a
suitable location) but might struggle to use my cordless 200 yards down
the road.
I think "handset" is avoided for mobiles because the mobile is an
all-in-one. "handset" is used for conventional phones because it is part
of the apparatus.
And my cordless, as is standard for the breed here, isn't supposed to
sit on a base. Indeed, for the particular model I have the manufacturers
warn that doing so may reduce battery life quite dramatically. The
handsets *do* require to be recharged regularly (a few hours every few
days) though this doesn't have to be done on the base station - it can
be done on a separate module.
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Dean
> "Lion" <Nos...@com.sg> did writes:
>> Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by
>> people in the business of mobile or cell phones.
>
> telephone transmitter and receiver mounted on a handle" where
> a "handle" might be "a part that is designed especially to be
> grasped by the hand".
>
> I have heard the term "headset" in Germany to describe a
> combination of a microphone with earphones that can be
> connected to a telephone.
>
> In German language, there is a noun "handy"; many German
> speakers believe this to be an English noun. In fact, in
> English "cell phone" or "mobile phone" is used and "handy" is
> an adjective. But then, there seem to be rare cases where
> "handy" is used in English speaking areas to refer to a
> walkie-talkie or possibly even a mobile phone.
I haven't heard it, but it's possible that, as we become more aware of
the German use of "handy" in this context, English speakers are adopting
it.
There *is* an English noun "handy" but it's an old-fashioned dialect
term for a small vessel.
--
John Dean
Oxford
the Omrud
>
>
> Lion wrote:
> >
> > "Murray Arnow" <ar...@iname.com> wrote ..
> > > Lion <Nos...@com.sg> wrote:
> > >>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
> > >>business of mobile or cell phones.
> > >>
> > > The only thing that interests me in this question is the position of the
> > > question mark. The space before the question mark is popping up here ever
> > > more
> > > frequently from non-native speakers. Anyone have an explanation?
> >
> > Your observation is correct. I deliberately put a space in front of a
> > question mark as well as an exclamation mark, but not in front of others.
> >
> > By the way, I also add two spaces instead of one in between two sentences.
> > Both are to help with clarity of reading. It is my own practice.
> >
> The two spaces between sentences thing isn't your invention. You can
> have, however, the space between the last letter of the last word of a
> sentence and the question mark or the bang.
... or shriek.
meirman
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) posted:
>meirman <mei...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> In alt.english.usage on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:01:10 +0200
>> tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) posted:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >A few decades ago, numerical keypads were fitted into the handset.
>>
>> As a matter of trivia (what else is new?) before that dials were
>> inserted in the handset. The Trimline phone iirc.
>
>Thanks. I thought of "Princess phone" earlier, but when I looked up the
>pictures, they didn't qualify.
I thought of Princess phone first myself, faded pink, but I have one
connected to the box on my desk. I had to stand up, go around the
corner of the desk, and the anti-tank blockade I have there, and get
down to the floor to look at it, and I decided that wasn't it.
>
>Here's a Trimline with a dial:
> http://www.digitallydo.com/phone/blue_trimline.jpg
>
>And here's a Princess:
> http://www.dcwstore.com/telephones/CR59-pink.jpg
>
>Then for a really fancy handset, there's the antique French style:
> http://images.andale.com/f2/107/104/12590872/1102027886501_d7_1_b.JPG
The antique French spent a lot of time on the phone.
meirman
<usenet...@gmail.com> posted:
>meirman spake thusly:
>ould
>> tell when the phone was ringing, and a small toggle so I could answer
>> the phone.
>>
>> Then I just plugged a handset into the jack and hung the handset from
>> a pretty string attached to the towel bar. I had to rewire the
>> handset, because normally they use all 4 wires, and but only two wires
>> of the main phone line are used**. It hangs between the toilet and
>> the bathtub and works great. I try to answer it between rings. After
>> that the voltage is lower, but I don't know what it would do if I
>> dropped it in the tub.
>
>50 V DC down the phone lines in the UK while the phone is ringing -
>this can give you a nasty shock and might prove dangerous to somebody
>with a dicky ticker if it was allowed to pass across the body.
Yes, I forgot, talking voltage is higher in the UK. I've measured it
here in Chicago and NYC and it was onoy 12 or 15 volts, though I've
heard that it's higher than that in the US. I really should measure
it where I live now.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>50 V DC down the phone lines in the UK while the phone is ringing -
>this can give you a nasty shock and might prove dangerous to somebody
>with a dicky ticker if it was allowed to pass across the body.
I can think of no situation that would tempt me to answer my landline
in the bathroom. I sincerely hope that no one I'm on the phone with
thinks otherwise.
However, I do carry a mobile on my hip. Will anyone else admit to
ever being so startled by the ringing phone that they sprayed the wall
around the urinal?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando FL
John Dean
> "John Dean" <john...@frag.lineone.net> writes:
>> There *is* an English noun "handy" but it's an old-fashioned
>> dialect term for a small vessel.
>
> meaning of the adjective "handy" for vessels:
>
> "(Naut.) Easily managed; obedient to the helm; -- said of
> a vessel." - "easily maneuvered"
>
> Unless you used "vessel" to refer to a container.
Yes. I was quoting from OED. Here's the full entry:
1. See quot. 1825.
1681 Inv. in Biggar & Ho. of Fleming (1862) 62 Item to Andrew Murray
ane Say a handy and a seck rindle. 1818 Edin. Mag. Dec. 503 (Jam.), I
flang the hannie frae me. 1825 Brockett N.C. Gloss., Handy, a small
wooden vessel with an upright handle. 1847-78 Halliwell, Handy, a
piggin.
2. A hand-bier.
1909 Daily Chron. 8 June 2/5 Hearses, Handys, Biers, &c. 1922 Daily
Mail 4 Nov. 10 The charges for licences on motor-hearses and handies.
--
John Dean
Oxford
JoeTaxpayer
Tony Cooper wrote:
snip
>
> However, I do carry a mobile on my hip. Will anyone else admit to
> ever being so startled by the ringing phone that they sprayed the wall
> around the urinal?
>
>
Wall? Totally wet my left pant leg. Went to the sink, wet my shirt and
other leg, and asked our office admin to call the maintenance man,
something wrong with the faucet. Only one co-worker of the 20 or so
called my bluff. (I now leave the cell at my desk to use the restroom)
JOE
R H Draney
>
>On 22 Jun 2005, Skitt wrote
>
>> you has to be a working one. It's all in fooling nature. I have
>> never received a call while doing my businness with a phone within
>> easy reach. The few times when I was unprepared, however,
>> resulted in most distressing circumstances, to say the least.
>
>Whole religions are based on such things.
The phones at my office have the "invisible bungee" feature...I can stay at my
desk all day, with the handset never farther than a flick of the left elbow, and
it never rings...take a three-minute trip down to what we laughingly call the
"break room" to microwave a bagel (we're not permitted the use of toasters), and
when I return there will be half a dozen new messages on my voice-mail....r
meirman
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> posted:
I don't carry a cellphone, but I will admit to, when awaking in the
middle of the night, twice trying to urinate in the bathroom
wastebasket. One of the times I was about 8 and once about 40.
Areff
> to microwave a bagel
Say what?
Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus of recirculation')
Somewhere there's a list of the APL names for all the key characters
(that APL used). It's way more fun to call the symbol above the number 8
a "splat" than a boring old "star".
--
"What do you value in your bulldogs? Gripping, is it not? It's their
nature? It's why you breed them? It's so with men. I will not give in
because I oppose it. Not my pride, not my spleen, nor any other of my
appetites, but *I* do. Is there in the midst of all this muscle no
single sinew that serves no appetite of Norfolk's but is just Norfolk?
Give that some exercise. Because, as you stand, you'll go before your
Maker ill-conditioned. He'll think that somewhere along your pedigree, a
bitch got over the wall."
-+Paul Scofield, "A Man For All Seasons"
R H Draney
>
>R H Draney wrote:
>> to microwave a bagel
>
>Say what?
This is a place of business, not a sidewalk cafe...one must make do with
atrocities the likes of store-bought frozen bagels, and warm them in the only
device provided....r
Sara Lorimer
> However, I do carry a mobile on my hip. Will anyone else admit to
> ever being so startled by the ringing phone that they sprayed the wall
> around the urinal?
(Hangs head in shame)
--
SML
Tony Cooper
Now *that's* funny.
meirman
<mei...@invalid.com> posted:
>In alt.english.usage on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:29:41 GMT the Omrud
><usenet...@gmail.com> posted:
>
>>50 V DC down the phone lines in the UK while the phone is ringing -
>>this can give you a nasty shock and might prove dangerous to somebody
>>with a dicky ticker if it was allowed to pass across the body.
>
>Yes, I forgot, talking voltage is higher in the UK. I've measured it
>here in Chicago and NYC and it was onoy 12 or 15 volts, though I've
>heard that it's higher than that in the US. I really should measure
>it where I live now.
A related story from Baltimore. Someone in Baltimore had locked his
keys in the car, and left it running all night. In the morning, in
order to keep it from overheating, he tried to get his car to stop
running by vacuuming the gasoline out of his car with a garden hose.
Every vacuum I've seen makes sparks in the motor. It was actually
working, filling a bucket I think, before it caught on fire and melted
the vaccuum and the bucket.
He looks pretty good, with bandages around his forearm, belly, and one
hand..
Murray Arnow
>(Sara Lorimer) wrote:
>
>>
>>> However, I do carry a mobile on my hip. Will anyone else admit to
>>> ever being so startled by the ringing phone that they sprayed the wall
>>> around the urinal?
>>
>>(Hangs head in shame)
>
>Now *that's* funny.
>
If you think that's funny, then listen up. I used to work for a defense outfit
that made microwave amplifiers for the Air Force. One of the physicists there
was noted for his absentmindedness (everyone who knew Bob M. could contribute
a story). Bob was taking a leak in the men's room when he became engrossed in
a conversation held by two chaps behind him. The two gents were flabbergasted
when Bob turned in midstream to join the conversation. True story.
R J Valentine
...
} If you think that's funny, then listen up. I used to work for a defense outfit
} that made microwave amplifiers for the Air Force. One of the physicists there
} was noted for his absentmindedness (everyone who knew Bob M. could contribute
} a story). Bob was taking a leak in the men's room when he became engrossed in
} a conversation held by two chaps behind him. The two gents were flabbergasted
} when Bob turned in midstream to join the conversation. True story.
I'd like to hear Bob's side: "... couldn't shut them up; finally, ...."
--
R. J. Valentine <mailto:r...@theWorld.com>
Never underestimate an old guy.
rban...@shaw.ca
wrote:
>rbaniste wrote:
>>Murray Arnow wrote:
>>
>>>Lion <Nos...@com.sg> wrote:
>>>>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>>>>business of mobile or cell phones.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The only thing that interests me in this question is the position of the
>>>question mark. The space before the question mark is popping up here ever more
>>
>>>frequently from non-native speakers. Anyone have an explanation?
>>
>>Shorthand--debased Pitman for 'I wonder'. Tamils have similar marks,
>>I think. Peter Wotsisface over in scilang could elaborate.
>
>Let's keep this civil.
Trying to, Murray; I think Wozzizfaccia chap greps.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Tony Cooper wrote:
Who *hasn't* done that at some point in their lives?
It's just funnier thinking of Sara at the urinal. With or without the
cell phone.
Murray Arnow
>Murray Arnow wrote:
>....
>} If you think that's funny, then listen up. I used to work for a defense outfit
>} that made microwave amplifiers for the Air Force. One of the physicists there
>} was noted for his absentmindedness (everyone who knew Bob M. could contribute
>} a story). Bob was taking a leak in the men's room when he became engrossed in
>} a conversation held by two chaps behind him. The two gents were flabbergasted
>} when Bob turned in midstream to join the conversation. True story.
>
>I'd like to hear Bob's side: "... couldn't shut them up; finally, ...."
>
Not likely. Bob was a nice and never rude fellow; it's just that he got easily
distracted and had memory lapses. There was the time we sent him to Washington
for a meeting with the AF. The day before he was reminded repeatedly to pack
the necessary docs. The next day while he was driven to the airport, he was
reminded repeatedly along the way to keep track of his papers. Well, he did
arrive on time to the meeting with his attaché case, but when he was to give
his presentation, he opened his case to only find his lunch.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>The thing is, I don't believe the phone you take into the bog with you has
>to be a working one. It's all in fooling nature. I have never received a
>call while doing my businness with a phone within easy reach. The few times
>when I was unprepared, however, resulted in most distressing circumstances,
>to say the least.
In this day of the mobile, everything has changed. Some people, sadly,
have not adjusted to the times. When one of my callers heard a
familiar splashing sound a few months back, he was aghast to learn I
was answering a call of nature while also talking on the phone with
him. In 2005, what could be a more natural thing to do? Once we all
have picture phones things may revert, but for now, I say, let her
fly.
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:15:55 GMT Tony Cooper
><tony_co...@earthlink.net> posted:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:29:41 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>50 V DC down the phone lines in the UK while the phone is ringing -
>>>this can give you a nasty shock and might prove dangerous to somebody
>>>with a dicky ticker if it was allowed to pass across the body.
>>
>>I can think of no situation that would tempt me to answer my landline
>>in the bathroom. I sincerely hope that no one I'm on the phone with
>>thinks otherwise.
>>
>>However, I do carry a mobile on my hip. Will anyone else admit to
>>ever being so startled by the ringing phone that they sprayed the wall
>>around the urinal?
>
>I don't carry a cellphone, but I will admit to, when awaking in the
>middle of the night, twice trying to urinate in the bathroom
>wastebasket. One of the times I was about 8 and once about 40.
Were you at home at the time? Those sorts of things happen to me only
when I'm in unfamiliar surroundings. Once, to her chagrin, a new
girlfriend discovered me pissing into her closet around 3 in the
morning. Sometimes when I'm in a hotel room for the first time I'll
leave the light on in the bathroom. That generally solves the
early-morning disorientation problem.
Charles Riggs
Will I tell you again about the many virtues of a kitchen sink?
Charles Riggs
You evidently missed the double entendre, intentional on her part, or
not.
Peter Moylan
>I don't carry a cellphone, but I will admit to, when awaking in the
>middle of the night, twice trying to urinate in the bathroom
>wastebasket. One of the times I was about 8 and once about 40.
It's even worse when you walk up to a public urinal, pull out your
tie, and fill your pants.
OK, I'll admit I've never done that. I did once go into a public
toilet during a power blackout, certain that I knew which wall
the urinals were on. I was wrong.
It can be embarrassing when you're caught short in public, nip
behind a convenient wall, and fail to notice that you're still in
public view. Recently our State's Premier visited a prison to
make some announcement or other, and the TV cameras that had come
to cover his speech concentrated instead on a guard standing up
beside a building relieving himself. They also showed him walking
around, very obviously as tired and emotional as a newt. I suspect
that he found it hard to keep his job after such an appearance
on national television.
--
Peter Moylan peter at ee dot newcastle dot edu dot au
http://eepjm.newcastle.edu.au (OS/2 and eCS information and software)
Peter Moylan
>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:29:56 +0800, Lion wrote:
>
>> Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>> business of mobile or cell phones.
>
>curly cord attaching it to a Western Electric pinky-beige telephone on my
>desk.
You forgot the important part. The curly cord started its life as a
neat spiral, but now has one or more counter-twists that cannot be
corrected by even the most determined topologist. Each untwisting
makes the situation worse.
Pinky-beige? That sounds horrible. On the other hand, it might well
be precisely the same colour as my office phone. Only last night I
was asking my wife to explain the difference between "beige" and
"light brown" to me, but I still don't get it. I think it's one of
those colours like octaroon that male eyes aren't equipped to see.
meirman
<chriggs@éircom.net> posted:
So one can spray the wall around the kitchen sink?
meirman
<chriggs@éircom.net> posted:
>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 20:38:00 -0400, meirman <mei...@invalid.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In alt.english.usage on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:15:55 GMT Tony Cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> posted:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:29:41 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>50 V DC down the phone lines in the UK while the phone is ringing -
>>>>this can give you a nasty shock and might prove dangerous to somebody
>>>>with a dicky ticker if it was allowed to pass across the body.
>>>
>>>I can think of no situation that would tempt me to answer my landline
>>>in the bathroom. I sincerely hope that no one I'm on the phone with
>>>thinks otherwise.
>>>
>>>However, I do carry a mobile on my hip. Will anyone else admit to
>>>ever being so startled by the ringing phone that they sprayed the wall
>>>around the urinal?
>>
>>I don't carry a cellphone, but I will admit to, when awaking in the
>>middle of the night, twice trying to urinate in the bathroom
>>wastebasket. One of the times I was about 8 and once about 40.
>
>Were you at home at the time? Those sorts of things happen to me only
Certainly the first time. A house built in the 30's or 40's we had a
bathroom as big as a medium sized bedroom. If I walked in the door, I
had to make a right-angle turn to head to the toilet. The waste
basket was straight ahead. I wasn't ashamed or embarrassed -- I
thought it was almost funny -- but nonetheless I have a direct memory
of this 50 years later.
The second time maybe I was somewhere else, because I've only had 6
bathrooms in the last 30 years and in all of them the wastebasket
would be hard to reach.
>when I'm in unfamiliar surroundings. Once, to her chagrin, a new
>girlfriend discovered me pissing into her closet around 3 in the
Bad, bad, bad.... :)
>morning. Sometimes when I'm in a hotel room for the first time I'll
>leave the light on in the bathroom. That generally solves the
>early-morning disorientation problem.
Mike Barnes
<boggles> - You're a *gal*, aren't you?
Nothing personal, but anyone who is startled by their phone ringing
obviously has it too loud. And it's un-fucking-believable just how loud
some people have their ringers set.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Mike Barnes
>Areff filted:
>>
>>R H Draney wrote:
>>> to microwave a bagel
>>
>>Say what?
>
>This is a place of business, not a sidewalk cafe.
Sure. But what does preparing hot snacks have to do with the business?
JPG
Moylan) wrote:
>Poet Fury turpitued:
>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:29:56 +0800, Lion wrote:
>>
>>> Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>>> business of mobile or cell phones.
>>
>>I'd say a misused/refurbished term. I have a handset right here...with a
>>curly cord attaching it to a Western Electric pinky-beige telephone on my
>>desk.
>
>You forgot the important part. The curly cord started its life as a
>neat spiral, but now has one or more counter-twists that cannot be
>corrected by even the most determined topologist. Each untwisting
>makes the situation worse.
>
>Pinky-beige? That sounds horrible. On the other hand, it might well
>be precisely the same colour as my office phone. Only last night I
>was asking my wife to explain the difference between "beige" and
>"light brown" to me, but I still don't get it. I think it's one of
>those colours like octaroon that male eyes aren't equipped to see.
Taupe, ecru and puce come to mind.
Matti Lamprhey
> Poet Fury turpitued:
> >
> >[...] I have a handset right here...with a curly cord attaching it
> > to a Western Electric pinky-beige telephone on my desk.
>
> You forgot the important part. The curly cord started its life as a
> neat spiral, but now has one or more counter-twists that cannot be
> corrected by even the most determined topologist. Each untwisting
> makes the situation worse.
British phone cords are designed to twist both ways, as you would
expect.
Not enough people know this.
Matti
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 06:33:51 +0100 Charles Riggs
><chriggs@éircom.net> posted:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 23:15:55 GMT, Tony Cooper
>><tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 22:29:41 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>50 V DC down the phone lines in the UK while the phone is ringing -
>>>>this can give you a nasty shock and might prove dangerous to somebody
>>>>with a dicky ticker if it was allowed to pass across the body.
>>>
>>>I can think of no situation that would tempt me to answer my landline
>>>in the bathroom. I sincerely hope that no one I'm on the phone with
>>>thinks otherwise.
>>>
>>>However, I do carry a mobile on my hip. Will anyone else admit to
>>>ever being so startled by the ringing phone that they sprayed the wall
>>>around the urinal?
>>
>>Will I tell you again about the many virtues of a kitchen sink?
>
>So one can spray the wall around the kitchen sink?
Most kitchen sinks are wider than an average urinal: closer, too, so
hitting a wall or the floor is less likely. These are advantages I
haven't mentioned until now, even though I've enumerated a number of
other ones over the years.
Lion
> Lion wrote:
>> "Murray Arnow" wrote ..
>> > Lion wrote:
>> >>Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in
>> >>the
>> >>business of mobile or cell phones.
>> >>
>> > the
>> > question mark. The space before the question mark is popping up here
>> > ever
>> > more frequently from non-native speakers. Anyone have an explanation?
>>
>> question mark as well as an exclamation mark, but not in front of others.
>>
>> By the way, I also add two spaces instead of one in between two
>> sentences.
>> Both are to help with clarity of reading. It is my own practice.
>>
> The two spaces between sentences thing isn't your invention. You can
> have, however, the space between the last letter of the last word of a
> sentence and the question mark or the bang.
About two spaces between sentences, I am saying I practice it to help with
reading clarity. This is especially useful when reading a printed text as a
speech. I am not claiming it is my invention at all. The point is whether
it is a good idea.
About a space before a question mark or an exclamation mark, this is a
useful practice as they may be mistaken to be an extra alphabet to the word
in front. This does not occur for the other punctuation marks.
Lion
Linz
"Mike Barnes" <june...@mikebarnes.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2PfNTMMK...@34klh41lk4h1lk34h3lk4h1k4.invalid...
Mine is set to vibrate and that can give one a bit of a start, I can
tell you.
Lion
> Lion wrote:
>
>> Is this a new term ? I twice come across this term used by people in the
>> business of mobile or cell phones.
>>
>> multi-purpose, not just for voice communications. Lets hope this name
>> is
>> universally adopted, instead of its predecessor being called mobile in
>> one
>> continent and cell in another.
>
> M-W llth dates it as 1919, so it's nothing new. It referred to the
> arrangement we all grew up with: a listening and speaking device in one
> handheld piece --
>
> http://www.handset.com/_borders/1W3-K.gif
>
> instead of the very old hold-the-earpiece-and-shout-into-mouthpiece
> affair. [snip]
The point is taken. I didn't realise this when I wrote it, as I never use
the English term 'handset' in my childhood days. With hindsight, I should
have said "Has this old term been given a new lease of life" or something to
that effect.
> I haven't noticed that the word is being used to refer to mobile/cell
> phones. It would be a likely name for those cordless/remote types that
> are supposed to sit on a base, though. And there's only a slight
> difference between those and mobile/cell phones.
This is the point of my original posting, that people in the fast moving
information communication industry seem to be using it to refer to new
handheld devices that can be used as a phone, a camera, a mini PC, etc.
> Why do you want words to be universally adopted? Don't you like
> diversity?
Not in a global business environment.
Lion
Odysseus
>
> Lion wrote:
>
> > I deliberately put a space in front of a question mark as well as an
> >
> > I don't think this has anything to do with my mother tongue not being
> > English.
>
> Established typographical conventions vary from one country, language,
> and culture to the other. French magazines seem to use a thin,
> connecting space before question marks and exclamation points. English
> publications, as far as I have observed, don't.
>
In French typography (including Québecois) there are also thin-spaces
before colons, and between quotation marks (usually _guillemets_ or
'continental quotes', looking like small angle-brackets, either
single or double) and the text they enclose.
--
Odysseus
Linz
"Lion" <Nos...@com.sg> wrote in message
news:42ba86a2$1...@news.starhub.net.sg...
> About a space before a question mark or an exclamation mark, this
> is a useful practice as they may be mistaken to be an extra
> alphabet to the word in front. This does not occur for the other
> punctuation marks.
If it were a useful practice, the world would have taken it up long
ago. As it is, we learn the alphabet at school and it does not include
punctuation marks. We learn them separately and learn that they are
not part of a letter.
Your phrase "an extra alphabet" is incorrect. 'Alphabet' is a
language's set of letters. Punctuation marks are not letters.
the Omrud
> And my cordless, as is standard for the breed here, isn't supposed to
> sit on a base. Indeed, for the particular model I have the manufacturers
> warn that doing so may reduce battery life quite dramatically. The
> handsets *do* require to be recharged regularly (a few hours every few
> days) though this doesn't have to be done on the base station - it can
> be done on a separate module.
Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base
station. Why do people do that? Both my parents and PILs do it, and
have to run to the hall to get the cordless phone when it rings;
they might as well not bother with the cordless at all. The Royle
Family did the same - they sent Antony to fetch the phone when it
rang, they talked to Grandma, and then they got Antony to put the
phone back in the hall.
Our base station is in our bedroom, from where it covers the garden
better.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
M. J. Powell
<chriggs@?.net.invalid> writes
Doesn't it turn the copper a nice shade of green?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>John Dean spake thusly:
>
>> And my cordless, as is standard for the breed here, isn't supposed to
>> sit on a base. Indeed, for the particular model I have the manufacturers
>> warn that doing so may reduce battery life quite dramatically. The
>> handsets *do* require to be recharged regularly (a few hours every few
>> days) though this doesn't have to be done on the base station - it can
>> be done on a separate module.
>
>Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base
>station. Why do people do that?
To find it. The problem with a cordless handset is figuring out where
you last used it and set it down. Sometimes you have to return to the
base unit to press the "locate the handset" key.
It's a well-known fact in this house that handsets and remotes are
self-propelled. Left unattended, they migrate to distant places and
burrow down in cracks and crevices. They get their energy from my
ring of car keys. Car keys were the first inanimate objects to learn
to move on their own.
The absolute most stupid and irritating question is "Where did you see
them last?"
Murray Arnow
Not nearly as stupid as being told "it was in the last place I looked."
John Dean
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:21:11 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> John Dean spake thusly:
>>
>>> And my cordless, as is standard for the breed here, isn't supposed
>>> to sit on a base. Indeed, for the particular model I have the
>>> manufacturers warn that doing so may reduce battery life quite
>>> dramatically. The handsets *do* require to be recharged regularly
>>> (a few hours every few days) though this doesn't have to be done on
>>> the base station - it can be done on a separate module.
>>
>> Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base
>> station. Why do people do that?
>
> To find it. The problem with a cordless handset is figuring out where
> you last used it and set it down. Sometimes you have to return to the
> base unit to press the "locate the handset" key.
Why not have enough handsets so that everyone in the house can have one
of their own? Or at least have enough so that one can live in the
vicinity of the base station if no-one can find any of the others. But
there's still no reason to keep it *on* the base station and one good
reason not to.
>
> The absolute most stupid and irritating question is "Where did you see
> them last?"
And the most irritating statement "It'll be in the last place you look
for it..."
--
John Dean
Oxford
R H Draney
>
>In alt.usage.english, R H Draney wrote:
>>Areff filted:
>>>
>>>R H Draney wrote:
>>>> to microwave a bagel
>>>
>>>Say what?
>>
>>This is a place of business, not a sidewalk cafe.
>
>Sure. But what does preparing hot snacks have to do with the business?
Less, apparently, than knowing what countries thirty or so beaches are located
in....
(I am now very likely skirting a violation of some non-disclosure agreement I
signed long ago)....r
the Omrud
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:21:11 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >John Dean spake thusly:
> >
> >> And my cordless, as is standard for the breed here, isn't supposed to
> >> sit on a base. Indeed, for the particular model I have the manufacturers
> >> warn that doing so may reduce battery life quite dramatically. The
> >> handsets *do* require to be recharged regularly (a few hours every few
> >> days) though this doesn't have to be done on the base station - it can
> >> be done on a separate module.
> >
> >Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base
> >station. Why do people do that?
>
> To find it. The problem with a cordless handset is figuring out where
> you last used it and set it down. Sometimes you have to return to the
> base unit to press the "locate the handset" key.
If you want to make a call then paging it from the base station, or
phoning your house from your mobile is surely a satisfactory
mechanism. If somebody is calling you then the phone is already
ringing and you should be able to locate it by use of ears.
Mickwick
>Tony Cooper wrote:
>> The absolute most stupid and irritating question is "Where did you see
>> them last?"
>
>And the most irritating statement "It'll be in the last place you look
>for it..."
My grandmother used to answer queries about lost items with 'It's in the
other behind the cake'. My grandfather, almost as unhelpfully, used to
put on a mock-solemn voice and ask 'H-when and h-where did you last have
it?'
Where they catch-phrases from some radio show or other?
--
Mickwick
Laura F. Spira
We usually keep the downstairs one on the base station in the hall. When
our children lived at home, it was the only way of being sure that one
could find it when it rang (not that the call was ever for the parent
who usually answered it) so the rule was that it should always be put
back. The upstairs one migrates and, to my husband's irritation, has
been known to end up downstairs. I wish it was a bright colour that
would show up on my desk and that it would vibrate like my mobile phone
to show me which pile of papers it was lurking under.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>Tony Cooper spake thusly:
>
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:21:11 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >John Dean spake thusly:
>> >
>> >> And my cordless, as is standard for the breed here, isn't supposed to
>> >> sit on a base. Indeed, for the particular model I have the manufacturers
>> >> warn that doing so may reduce battery life quite dramatically. The
>> >> handsets *do* require to be recharged regularly (a few hours every few
>> >> days) though this doesn't have to be done on the base station - it can
>> >> be done on a separate module.
>> >
>> >Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base
>> >station. Why do people do that?
>>
>> To find it. The problem with a cordless handset is figuring out where
>> you last used it and set it down. Sometimes you have to return to the
>> base unit to press the "locate the handset" key.
>
>If you want to make a call then paging it from the base station,
Yes, but can I point out the obvious and say that if the handset is
returned to the base station after use, there's no need to page it?
If you have to go to the base station to page the handset, it saves
steps to keep the handset on the base station.
> or
>phoning your house from your mobile is surely a satisfactory
>mechanism.
We routinely use this ploy to find each other's mobile phone.
> If somebody is calling you then the phone is already
>ringing and you should be able to locate it by use of ears.
We have a rather large house and routinely use the cordless handset on
one of the porches or out on the pool deck. By the time the distant
ringing sound is tracked down, the answering machine picks up.
I'm not suggesting that you keep your handset on the base station, but
it does work better for us to do so.
Donna Richoux
> "Donna Richoux" wrote ...
> > Why do you want words to be universally adopted? Don't you like
> > diversity?
>
> Not in a global business environment.
So that means, you want us Yanks and Brits to get our acts together so
that Asian merchants don't have to fuss with alternate wording?
--
Curious -- Donna Richoux
the Omrud
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:09:37 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Tony Cooper spake thusly:
> >
> >> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:21:11 GMT, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >John Dean spake thusly:
> >> >
> >> >> And my cordless, as is standard for the breed here, isn't supposed to
> >> >> sit on a base. Indeed, for the particular model I have the manufacturers
> >> >> warn that doing so may reduce battery life quite dramatically. The
> >> >> handsets *do* require to be recharged regularly (a few hours every few
> >> >> days) though this doesn't have to be done on the base station - it can
> >> >> be done on a separate module.
> >> >
> >> >Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base
> >> >station. Why do people do that?
> >>
> >> To find it. The problem with a cordless handset is figuring out where
> >> you last used it and set it down. Sometimes you have to return to the
> >> base unit to press the "locate the handset" key.
> >
> >If you want to make a call then paging it from the base station,
>
> Yes, but can I point out the obvious and say that if the handset is
> returned to the base station after use, there's no need to page it?
> If you have to go to the base station to page the handset, it saves
> steps to keep the handset on the base station.
Only if you *always* lose it after use. Otherwise, you are making an
unnecessary journey to the base station after every call, only some
of which will net off against the times when you have lost the
handset.
> > or
> >phoning your house from your mobile is surely a satisfactory
> >mechanism.
>
> We routinely use this ploy to find each other's mobile phone.
>
> > If somebody is calling you then the phone is already
> >ringing and you should be able to locate it by use of ears.
>
> We have a rather large house and routinely use the cordless handset on
> one of the porches or out on the pool deck. By the time the distant
> ringing sound is tracked down, the answering machine picks up.
We have solved that one by setting the answering machine only when we
go out. So we have plenty of time to run around the house looking
for one of the handsets. In extremis, there are three wired
handsets, but they don't show the identity of the caller so we don't
prefer them.
the Omrud
> the Omrud wrote:
> > John Dean spake thusly:
> >
> >>And my cordless, as is standard for the breed here, isn't supposed to
> >>sit on a base. Indeed, for the particular model I have the manufacturers
> >>warn that doing so may reduce battery life quite dramatically. The
> >>handsets *do* require to be recharged regularly (a few hours every few
> >>days) though this doesn't have to be done on the base station - it can
> >>be done on a separate module.
> >
> > Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base
> > station. Why do people do that? Both my parents and PILs do it, and
> > have to run to the hall to get the cordless phone when it rings;
> > they might as well not bother with the cordless at all. The Royle
> > Family did the same - they sent Antony to fetch the phone when it
> > rang, they talked to Grandma, and then they got Antony to put the
> > phone back in the hall.
> >
> > Our base station is in our bedroom, from where it covers the garden
> > better.
>
> We usually keep the downstairs one on the base station in the hall. When
> our children lived at home, it was the only way of being sure that one
> could find it when it rang (not that the call was ever for the parent
> who usually answered it) so the rule was that it should always be put
> back.
Do you still do that? If you are spending the evening watching
television as a couple, do you really get up and walk to the hall to
answer the phone and then walk to the hall to put it back afterwards,
repeating the activity for your many personal calls? Have you got a
pedometer?
The main advantage of keeping the base station in the bedroom is that
it charges the phone during the night, which is still easily to hand
should it be needed from bed (like when my mother phones at 08:30 on
Sunday mornings, after decades of being told that we are ASLEEP).
> The upstairs one migrates and, to my husband's irritation, has
> been known to end up downstairs. I wish it was a bright colour that
> would show up on my desk and that it would vibrate like my mobile phone
> to show me which pile of papers it was lurking under.
Gosh, do you have an upstairs phone line and a downstairs phone line?
There's posh.
Linz
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d24c5963...@news.ntlworld.com...
> Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base
> station. Why do people do that?
To stop YoungBloke running away with it, or trying to eat it, or
phoning someone, or zapping the telly with it.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
>We have solved that one by setting the answering machine only when we
>go out. So we have plenty of time to run around the house looking
>for one of the handsets. In extremis, there are three wired
>handsets, but they don't show the identity of the caller so we don't
>prefer them.
I congratulate you on your retention of the memory function as you
progress through the years. As it is, there are too many things to
remember now when leaving the house. Are all doors locked? Is the
dog in or out? Do I have my keys with me? Are all burners off?
Where was I going when I planned to leave the house?
We are one of the last hold-outs and do not have Caller ID. I prefer
the excitement of the surprise. I'm willing to talk to most who call,
and give short shrift to those that call that I don't wish to talk to.
Tony Cooper
wrote:
My son's phone has speed dial numbers assigned on his phone. Young
grandson (he'll be two years old this fall) has seemingly figured out
the speed dial assignment of my mobile phone. When I get one of those
calls with no one on the other end, I ask "What's a cow say?" If I
hear "Moo!" and a giggle, we have a nice chat. Unfortunately, young
grandson has not yet learned how to disconnect at his end.
the Omrud
Caller ID is not used by us for screening calls from undesirables -
we always answer. It's used by some of us to avoid getting into long
and unnecessary conversations with relatives who have phoned to speak
to another family member. We pass the handset over without
answering it.
Laura F Spira
Good exercise, innit. Husband answers, stays in hall, puts it back. Or
Husband answers, gives me phone, I go to kitchen, put kettle on, make
tea, potter about, finish talking, leave phone wherever I end up. At
bedtime Husband empties dishwasher, puts cat and phone to bed.
>
> The main advantage of keeping the base station in the bedroom is that
> it charges the phone during the night, which is still easily to hand
> should it be needed from bed (like when my mother phones at 08:30 on
> Sunday mornings, after decades of being told that we are ASLEEP).
We've always had a bedside phone. Most "out of hours" calls are from the
police when the shop alarm goes off.
>
>
>>The upstairs one migrates and, to my husband's irritation, has
>>been known to end up downstairs. I wish it was a bright colour that
>>would show up on my desk and that it would vibrate like my mobile phone
>>to show me which pile of papers it was lurking under.
>
>
> Gosh, do you have an upstairs phone line and a downstairs phone line?
> There's posh.
>
Before mobiles, it became essential with a dial-up connection and
teenagers in the house.
Harvey Van Sickle
> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>> Handy, a piggin.
>
> And then, a web site quoted:
>
> 'I can and I must. Now if you would bring me the handy, I
> will arrange a meeting.' She gave him the cell phone.
>
> (page 175 of a paperback edition of)
> Rita Mae Brown and Sneaky Pie Brown, 'Cat on the Scent'
>
> Where Rita Mae Brown is reported to be american and
> the speaker of the sentence is supposed to be british.
Rita Mae's clearly not familiar with actual BrEng usage.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canada for 30 years; S England since 1982.
(for e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van)
R H Draney
>
>My grandmother used to answer queries about lost items with 'It's in the
>other behind the cake'. My grandfather, almost as unhelpfully, used to
>put on a mock-solemn voice and ask 'H-when and h-where did you last have
>it?'
>
>Where they catch-phrases from some radio show or other?
Something with Richard Haydn, maybe?...r
Skitt
> Tony Cooper spake thusly:
>>> If somebody is calling you then the phone is already
>>> ringing and you should be able to locate it by use of ears.
>>
>> We have a rather large house and routinely use the cordless handset
>> on one of the porches or out on the pool deck. By the time the
>> distant ringing sound is tracked down, the answering machine picks
>> up.
>
> We have solved that one by setting the answering machine only when we
> go out. So we have plenty of time to run around the house looking
> for one of the handsets.
We tried to do that, but most of the time we forgot to turn the machine on.
Now we keep it on all the time.
Oh, to complicate things in other ways, not all of our phones have their
ringers turned on. Whenever there's some ringing somewhere, someone picks
up the nearest phone that can be found. I try for that someone not to be
me.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/
John O'Flaherty
Charles Riggs wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:18:17 -0700, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
> >The thing is, I don't believe the phone you take into the bog with you has
> >to be a working one. It's all in fooling nature. I have never received a
> >call while doing my businness with a phone within easy reach. The few times
> >when I was unprepared, however, resulted in most distressing circumstances,
> >to say the least.
>
> In this day of the mobile, everything has changed. Some people, sadly,
> have not adjusted to the times. When one of my callers heard a
> familiar splashing sound a few months back, he was aghast to learn I
> was answering a call of nature while also talking on the phone with
> him. In 2005, what could be a more natural thing to do? Once we all
> have picture phones things may revert, but for now, I say, let her
> fly.
I've found that my portable phone has a single small hole through which
it accepts sound, and it can be muted just by placing a finger there.
Then you hope that the other person keeps talking for the duration.
--
john
Mike Barnes
>Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base station.
>Why do people do that?
So that we can quickly find it.
Where do you keep yours, and why?
>Both my parents and PILs do it, and have to run to the hall to get the
>cordless phone when it rings; they might as well not bother with the
>cordless at all.
*The* cordless phone? We've got seven of them. There's no need to run
anywhere.
--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England
Ray Heindl
> As a matter of trivia (what else is new?) before that dials were
> inserted in the handset. The Trimline phone iirc. The dial
> diameter was made smaller than other phones, by removing the empty
> space between the 1 and the finger stop and by allowing the
> finger-stop to move about two holes past where it normally sat,
> when someone dialed a number.
The handsets that phone company technicians carry on their belts
(called "butt sets", presumably because of where they hang) used to
have that kind of dial as well. No doubt they have keypads nowadays.
--
Ray Heindl
(remove the Xs to reply)
Ray Heindl
> In the US a handset will never mean mobile or cell. It will mean as
> it always has that part of the telephone that one holds in his hand.
The Federal Communications Commission uses "handset" to refer to a cell
phone:
In an order released by the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau on
Oct. 3, Schaumburg, Ill.-based Motorola received what the FCC called “a
limited, interim waiver to permit the continued shipment of Enhanced
911 Phase II-capable *handsets* incorporating a modified 911 call
completion method, subject to further review of this modified method.”
<http://mrtmag.com/business/industrial/radio_fcc_approves_motorola/>
(*Emphasis* added.)
Google finds about a million hits for <motorola handset>, not all of
which sound like industry jargon. Maybe it's a new trend?
Spehro Pefhany
<chriggs@éircom.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:18:17 -0700, "Skitt" <ski...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>The thing is, I don't believe the phone you take into the bog with you has
>>to be a working one. It's all in fooling nature. I have never received a
>>call while doing my businness with a phone within easy reach. The few times
>>when I was unprepared, however, resulted in most distressing circumstances,
>>to say the least.
>
>In this day of the mobile, everything has changed. Some people, sadly,
>have not adjusted to the times. When one of my callers heard a
>familiar splashing sound a few months back, he was aghast to learn I
>was answering a call of nature while also talking on the phone with
>him. In 2005, what could be a more natural thing to do? Once we all
>have picture phones things may revert, but for now, I say, let her
>fly.
It's only polite to at least run water into the basin afterwards so
that the caller can imagine you washing your hands.
Mike Lyle
> In alt.usage.english, the Omrud wrote:
>> Both my parents and PILs do it, and have to run to the hall to get
>> the cordless phone when it rings; they might as well not bother
with
>> the cordless at all.
>
> *The* cordless phone? We've got seven of them. There's no need to
run
> anywhere.
A vision of Hell! The only advantage of not having a broadband
connection is that it stops the telephone.
--
Mike.
Sara Lorimer
> Mike Barnes wrote:
> > *The* cordless phone? We've got seven of them. There's no need to
> run
> > anywhere.
>
> A vision of Hell! The only advantage of not having a broadband
> connection is that it stops the telephone.
My only phone is a cell, and I rarely remember to turn the ringer on.
Bliss.
--
SML
the Omrud
> In alt.usage.english, the Omrud wrote:
> >Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base station.
> >Why do people do that?
>
> So that we can quickly find it.
>
> Where do you keep yours, and why?
We have two which we scatter around the house.
> >Both my parents and PILs do it, and have to run to the hall to get the
> >cordless phone when it rings; they might as well not bother with the
> >cordless at all.
>
> *The* cordless phone? We've got seven of them. There's no need to run
> anywhere.
Hey, parents and PILs are not in the cordless age - they wouldn't
know what to do with more than one handset.
Don't your handsets seek each other out until you find that they are
nestling all together in some corner?
Mike Barnes
>Mike Barnes spake thusly:
>
>> In alt.usage.english, the Omrud wrote:
>> >Odd behaviour, that - keeping one's cordless phone on its base station.
>> >Why do people do that?
>>
>> So that we can quickly find it.
>>
>> Where do you keep yours, and why?
>
>We have two which we scatter around the house.
Then I guess it probably takes you longer to find one when you want it.
>> >Both my parents and PILs do it, and have to run to the hall to get the
>> >cordless phone when it rings; they might as well not bother with the
>> >cordless at all.
>>
>> *The* cordless phone? We've got seven of them. There's no need to run
>> anywhere.
>
>Hey, parents and PILs are not in the cordless age - they wouldn't
>know what to do with more than one handset.
>
>Don't your handsets seek each other out until you find that they are
>nestling all together in some corner?
No, they gravitate to their base stations. Positively reclusive, they
are. Especially the one in the garden shed.