Public showers?
Gus Honeybun
facilities, and I'm likely to be for the next week or so. Whilst friends
are happy to let me use their places, I'd prefer to be a bit self
sufficient. Are there any public places in Cambridge where I could get a
proper (private) shower? Being a modest type of chap, sudding up my
genitals in the swimming pool showers isn't really my style...
Vicky Larmour
wrote:
Dunno about the gents side, but at Parkside the ladies' showers are
in individual cubicles which are big enough to hang a towel in etc.
You'd probably have to pay to swim, though.
Most (all?) of the gyms have shower facilities that they might let
you borrow without being a member?
Vicky
--
"Bother," said Pooh, "Eeyore, ready two photon torpedoes and lock
phasers on the Heffalump. Piglet, meet me in transporter room
three. Christopher Robin, you have the bridge."
Nick Wagg
news:cjeem2$slk$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> ...Are there any public places in Cambridge where I could get a
> proper (private) shower?...
When I was in very poor digs while at Birmingham University
I often used to soak in one of the huge baths that were in the
basement of the Union building. The sides of the baths came
to halfway up my thighs and when I turned the taps on full,
the water would gush in an arc around the bath and out of the
opposite "corner". Bath, water, towel & soap all for 15p.
Perhaps one of the Cambridge colleges has some similar
arrangement that you could (sneakily) avail yourself of?
Meldrew of Meldreth
<n...@transcendata.com> writes
>Perhaps one of the Cambridge colleges has some similar
>arrangement that you could (sneakily) avail yourself of?
There used to be a bath-house in Sidney Sussex, and people were still
using it in the 70's. It was along the Chapel Wall in South Court. I
think it was eventually demolished to make way for a hyperspace^H^H^H
Mong Building. They didn't have the cycle park either in those days, it
was a fellows' car park.
http://www.sid.cam.ac.uk/vtour/panoramas/south.html
ps Anyone know what tool they use to get those funky panoramas?
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"
Deryck
> ps Anyone know what tool they use to get those funky panoramas?
Its the Java ptviewer class.
"The PTViewer, from Prof. Helmut Dersch, is a Java viewer that is one of
the best viewers available. Prof. Dersch has given a great deal of
attention to image quality issues in the PTViewer. The viewer also provides
a rich set of features. "
Google for more information.
Cheers
Deryck
PS. Sorry I mailed that directly to you by mistake the first time Roland
Gropius Riftwynde
I wonder if Prof Helmut Dersch is the slightest bit aware that anyone
with a net connection and is concerned with net security is not going
to use Java at all.
GR
Meldrew of Meldreth
<der...@REMOVElonghope.co.uk> writes
>PS. Sorry I mailed that directly to you by mistake the first time Roland
er, no problem. I get about a thousand a day. One more doesn't make any
difference! (You were only 3.4% likely to be spam, so quite acceptable,
really).
Jules
>
> ps Anyone know what tool they use to get those funky panoramas?
A camera? :-)
Seriously, most digital cameras come with software to stitch
photos together into a panorama, or there are commercial bits of software
available cheaply (I've not found anything under Linux to do it, but not
looked in a while). I have a feeling my camera even has some built in
whatsit to help take such panoramas, but Gawd knows how that works - never
needed to use it so far)
From there you just need an image viewer (in this case a Java applet with
a few controls) which can display a narrow segment of the 360 degree
image. Dead easy.
There was a prog around a few years ago (iPix??) which would allow
viewing in two dimensions (i.e. you could move up/down as well as
left/right) but I haven't seen mention of it in quite some time -
presumably it fell by the wayside as something that was gimmicky but not
very practical for anything (and it was an ActiveX control IIRC, so
Windows-only)
cheers,
Jules
bob
verminous person and ask to be cleansed under the Public Health Act 1936.
"Gus Honeybun" <g...@gus--honeybun.com> wrote in message
news:cjeem2$slk$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Gropius Riftwynde
>In article <cjejf1$phi$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk>, Nick Wagg
><n...@transcendata.com> writes
>>Perhaps one of the Cambridge colleges has some similar
>>arrangement that you could (sneakily) avail yourself of?
>
>There used to be a bath-house in Sidney Sussex, and people were still
>using it in the 70's. It was along the Chapel Wall in South Court. I
>think it was eventually demolished to make way for a hyperspace^H^H^H
>Mong Building. They didn't have the cycle park either in those days, it
>was a fellows' car park.
>
>http://www.sid.cam.ac.uk/vtour/panoramas/south.html
>
>ps Anyone know what tool they use to get those funky panoramas?
Actually, having previously posted criticising the use of Java, I find
that in spite of several layers of security I can still run a
panorama.
The following is a link to panoramas at the clifftop Minack Theatre in
Cornwall, where the Cambridge G&S Society performed a couple of weeks
ago. The Minack always finishes off the season with a Cambridge G&S
production, so get yourselves down there next year.
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/place/xbw09/gallery/panoramas/minack-panos.htm
GR
Meldrew of Meldreth
Jules <julesric...@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> ps Anyone know what tool they use to get those funky panoramas?
>
>A camera? :-)
>
>Seriously, most digital cameras come with software to stitch
>photos together into a panorama,
Yes, I've got that. Although it doesn't do the final stitch to make it
into a cylinder.
>From there you just need an image viewer (in this case a Java applet with
>a few controls) which can display a narrow segment of the 360 degree
>image. Dead easy.
The difference here is the way the perspective changes as you pan,
rather than simply scrolling around the inside of a fixed cylinder.
Jules
> In article <pan.2004.09.29....@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk>,
> Jules <julesric...@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>> ps Anyone know what tool they use to get those funky panoramas?
>>
>>A camera? :-)
>>
>>Seriously, most digital cameras come with software to stitch
>>photos together into a panorama,
>
> Yes, I've got that. Although it doesn't do the final stitch to make it
> into a cylinder.
>
>>From there you just need an image viewer (in this case a Java applet with
>>a few controls) which can display a narrow segment of the 360 degree
>>image. Dead easy.
>
> The difference here is the way the perspective changes as you pan,
> rather than simply scrolling around the inside of a fixed cylinder.
Hmmmmmmm... (in bold, 12pt)
I do remember that the one time I did try some photo-stitch software a few
years ago, it had all sorts of adjustments that could be made to force
perspective of the final image (lens settings and the like)
The input image appears to be here:
http://www.sid.cam.ac.uk/vtour/panoramas/images/south.jpg
presumably the applet just maps the image onto the inside of a sphere for
display or something?
I'm missing the point as to why at the moment though. Wouldn't a cylinder
give a nicer effect (none of the warping at the corners) as well as
simplifying the input image somewhat? Or is that viewer actually a
lot cleverer than it looks and in this instance they just haven't
enabled most of the controls? Grumble, brain not working at all this
evening!
cheers
Jules
tony sayer
Riftwynde <rift...@hotmail.com> writes
There yer go, from a shower to giblet and sullyvan in a few postings..
Is there an SI unit for cam.misc thread drift?...
--
Tony Sayer
Jonathan Larmour
>
>
>There was a prog around a few years ago (iPix??) which would allow
>viewing in two dimensions (i.e. you could move up/down as well as
>left/right) but I haven't seen mention of it in quite some time -
>presumably it fell by the wayside as something that was gimmicky but not
>very practical for anything (and it was an ActiveX control IIRC, so
>Windows-only)
That Sidney panorama allows you to move up/down too. Click on the pic
and drag.
Jifl
--
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
Gareth Rees
> Dunno about the gents side, but at Parkside the ladies' showers are
> in individual cubicles which are big enough to hang a towel in etc.
But the men's showers at Parkside are communal.
The showers at Kelsey Kerridge are communal too, but they are
pretty quiet at half past the hour since most of the facilities are
booked by the hour.
--
Gareth Rees
Andrew Nightingale
Street, still called the Bath House, offered bathing to the public. I
think I remember it closing, some time in the 60's when demand
disappeared and it was felt that pretty well every house in the area had
baths.
--
Andrew Nightingale of Cambridge (UK)
Meldrew of Meldreth
Jules <julesric...@remove.this.yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> The difference here is the way the perspective changes as you pan,
>> rather than simply scrolling around the inside of a fixed cylinder.
>
>Hmmmmmmm... (in bold, 12pt)
>
>I do remember that the one time I did try some photo-stitch software a few
>years ago, it had all sorts of adjustments that could be made to force
>perspective of the final image (lens settings and the like)
Yes, to make them join up you need to distort the pictures according to
the original lens geometry. If you shoot with a wide angle lens you end
up joining lots of lozenge-shaped sections together, and having to crop
quite a bit top and bottom.
>The input image appears to be here:
>
>http://www.sid.cam.ac.uk/vtour/panoramas/images/south.jpg
That's interesting, the image there is *much* more barrel-distorted than
you get when you do a normal stitch.
Compare with the perspective in the panorama on this page I uploaded
some time ago:
http://roland-tourist.fotopic.net/c98064.html
That's about 180 degrees across (5 individual shots and the "railway
arches" are a straight line in real life).
>presumably the applet just maps the image onto the inside of a sphere for
>display or something?
>
>I'm missing the point as to why at the moment though. Wouldn't a cylinder
>give a nicer effect (none of the warping at the corners) as well as
>simplifying the input image somewhat? Or is that viewer actually a
>lot cleverer than it looks and in this instance they just haven't
>enabled most of the controls? Grumble, brain not working at all this
>evening!
I'm not sure whether the spherical projection or a cylindrical would
look better. The spherical certainly has a "whoosh" factor!
Bill
<g...@gus--honeybun.com> writes
I wonder if the Extra services on the A14 have one?
--
Bill
Nick Wagg
news:1096480968.wbkizaNavOj9+2zhDjGdAg@teranews...
> The following is a link to panoramas at the clifftop Minack Theatre in
> Cornwall, where the Cambridge G&S Society performed a couple of weeks
> ago. The Minack always finishes off the season with a Cambridge G&S
> production, so get yourselves down there next year.
>
>
http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/place/xbw09/gallery/panoramas/minack-panos.htm
It is a fantastic spot. We saw a friend perform in Mansfield Park there
as the sun set over/into the sea behind the "stage". Don't forget your
jumpers.
Jennie Evans
"Bill" <Bi...@birchnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lQQMlxSw...@birchnet.demon.co.uk...
They have them in the ladies too...... not that it would affect the OP but
just thought I'd say.....
Meldrew of Meldreth
<jifl...@jifvik.org> writes
>That Sidney panorama allows you to move up/down too. Click on the pic
>and drag.
That would be a very good reason to have a spherical projection, rather
than cylindrical.
Must be a more complex problem to stitch together the photos so that
they are continuous over and under the camera as well as all around. How
do they get the clouds to "join up"?
Mark Carroll
Nick Wagg <n...@transcendata.com> wrote:
(snip)
>It is a fantastic spot. We saw a friend perform in Mansfield Park there
Yes, it is. I think I've seen some Cambridge G&S there.
>as the sun set over/into the sea behind the "stage". Don't forget your
Wasn't it hard to see the performance under such a circumstance?
>jumpers.
Indeed. (-: I think I've only been to matinees.
-- Mark
Nick Wagg
news:yKi*N0...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...
>
> Wasn't it hard to see the performance under such a circumstance?
No because the viewing angle is sufficiently downwards that there
is little reflection or glare from the setting sun, although it provides
considerable distraction from the performance.
Mark Carroll
Gareth Rees <garet...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Vicky Larmour wrote:
>> Dunno about the gents side, but at Parkside the ladies' showers are
>> in individual cubicles which are big enough to hang a towel in etc.
>
>But the men's showers at Parkside are communal.
How interesting. Are they fairly new, too, given the other refurbishment?
I am wondering if there's some perception that women care more about such
privacy.
-- Mark
Vicky Larmour
Dunno. In Abbey Pool it's just one lot of completely communal showers
for men and women, and almost everyone keeps their cozzies on.
chris...@arm.nospam.com
> I am wondering if there's some perception that women care more about such
> privacy.
Can't comment on this instance but it does seem to be generally
the case. The tennis club I play at has a communal mens shower but
separate female ones.
Chris
Mark Carroll
Vicky Larmour <vi...@jifvik.org> wrote:
(snip)
>Dunno. In Abbey Pool it's just one lot of completely communal showers
>for men and women, and almost everyone keeps their cozzies on.
Is it quite one lot of completely communal showers - are there
separate ones, one for men and one for women, given that not quite
everyone keeps their cozzies on?
-- Mark
Vicky Larmour
No, it is just one lot of completely communal ones. Most of the
people I've seen showering cozzie-off have been women (but that may
be because nekkid men run away and hide when they see me approaching
:-))
Of course it's also Abbey where they had all the trouble with lechers
drilling holes in the cubicle walls.
Mark Ayliffe
Mark Carroll <ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> illuminated us with:
The main showers are indeed completely communal, but there are separate ones
in the family/disabled changing rooms. Or were last time I was there. There
may also be showers in the (gender specific) loos BICBW.
--
Mark
Real email address | Bills travel through the mail
is mark at | at twice the speed of cheques.
ayliffe dot org |
Vicky Larmour
wrote:
> Mark Carroll <ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> illuminated us with:
>> In article <Xns957492AAB...@81.104.194.28>,
>> Vicky Larmour <vi...@jifvik.org> wrote:
>> (snip)
>>>Dunno. In Abbey Pool it's just one lot of completely communal
>>>showers for men and women, and almost everyone keeps their
>>>cozzies on.
>>
>> Is it quite one lot of completely communal showers - are there
>> separate ones, one for men and one for women, given that not
>> quite everyone keeps their cozzies on?
>
> The main showers are indeed completely communal, but there are
> separate ones in the family/disabled changing rooms. Or were
> last time I was there.
True, I'd forgotten those. I'd actually rather those showers weren't
there as they make the whole room so soggy that there's nowhere to
put stuff (babies, bags, clothes, towels). I used to bring an extra
towel to put on the changing table thingy so I could actually put
Matthew on it. Now we just use the normal changing rooms - much
easier!
> There may also be showers in the (gender
> specific) loos BICBW.
There aren't any in the ladies AFAICR, BICBWT!
Mark Ayliffe
Vicky Larmour <vi...@jifvik.org.nospam> illuminated us with:
> In article news:rnht22-...@news.ntlworld.com, Mark Ayliffe
> wrote:
>>
>> The main showers are indeed completely communal, but there are
>> separate ones in the family/disabled changing rooms. Or were
>> last time I was there.
>
> True, I'd forgotten those. I'd actually rather those showers weren't
> there as they make the whole room so soggy that there's nowhere to
> put stuff (babies, bags, clothes, towels).
I agree wholeheartedly!
>> There may also be showers in the (gender
>> specific) loos BICBW.
>
> There aren't any in the ladies AFAICR, BICBWT!
OK, we tend to use Impington VC these days as it's nearer, cheaper
unaffected by whether Cambridge are playing Association Football and a
little more pleasant. I was probably conflating the two. But possibly there
aren't showers in the loos at Impintgon either and I'm just getting old &
forgetful.
--
Mark
Real email address | You should never say anything to a woman that even remotely
is mark at | suggests that you think she's pregnant unless you can see
ayliffe dot org | an actual baby emerging from her at that moment.
Robert Hunt
> > separate ones, one for men and one for women, given that not
> > quite everyone keeps their cozzies on?
>
> No, it is just one lot of completely communal ones. Most of the
> people I've seen showering cozzie-off have been women (but that may
> be because nekkid men run away and hide when they see me approaching
That's really surprising - I would have thought that a man who stripped
off in the showers in front of a group of women'n'children in cozzies
could have been arrested for indecent exposure, given that the
women'n'children might not have anticipated the possibility of
nakedness...
Meldrew of Meldreth
writes
>> No, it is just one lot of completely communal ones. Most of the
>> people I've seen showering cozzie-off have been women (but that may
>> be because nekkid men run away and hide when they see me approaching
>
>That's really surprising - I would have thought that a man who stripped
>off in the showers in front of a group of women'n'children in cozzies
>could have been arrested for indecent exposure, given that the
>women'n'children might not have anticipated the possibility of
>nakedness...
Since the recent change in the law, only if he *intended* to shock them.
Bill
<jev...@mathworks.com> writes
>> I wonder if the Extra services on the A14 have one?
>> --
>> Bill
>
>They have them in the ladies too...... not that it would affect the OP but
>just thought I'd say.....
Thank you, I realised it sounded a bit sexist as I hit the send key, no
offence intended.
There again I was only speaking from personal experience and that does
not include the ladies!
>
>
--
Bill
Jennie Evans
> In message <cjgj5d$a2g$1...@sabina.mathworks.co.uk>, Jennie Evans
> <jev...@mathworks.com> writes
> >
> >"Bill" <Bi...@birchnet.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:lQQMlxSw...@birchnet.demon.co.uk...
> >> Most motorway services have showers in the gents for lorry drivers etc.
> >> I wonder if the Extra services on the A14 have one?
> >> --
> >> Bill
> >
> >They have them in the ladies too...... not that it would affect the OP
but
> >just thought I'd say.....
>
> Thank you, I realised it sounded a bit sexist as I hit the send key, no
> offence intended.
none taken, I just thought it was worth noting :o) I guess there are some
female lorry drivers out there.....
Linda Fox
<jev...@mathworks.com> wrote:
>none taken, I just thought it was worth noting :o) I guess there are some
>female lorry drivers out there.....
Oh...
<moves across to window>
They'd gone by the time I looked
<moves back to computer>
Just get on with your work, the rest of you. Nothing to see.
Linda ff on Friday
DesOJobber
> put stuff (babies, bags, clothes, towels). I used to bring an extra
> towel to put on the changing table thingy so I could actually put
> Matthew on it. Now we just use the normal changing rooms - much
> easier!
> Vicky
I don't know who Matthew is.
DesOJ
Mark Carroll
DesOJobber <explo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Vicky Larmour <vi...@jifvik.org.nospam> wrote in message news:<Xns9574A40F2...@81.104.194.28>...
>
>> put stuff (babies, bags, clothes, towels). I used to bring an extra
>> towel to put on the changing table thingy so I could actually put
>> Matthew on it. Now we just use the normal changing rooms - much
>I don't know who Matthew is.
Vicky's young son, still a toddler.
-- Mark
Vicky Larmour
Correct. I'd assumed that that would be easily inferred from the
content of the post, for those who didn't already know anyway.
Gropius Riftwynde
<ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
Evidently they haven't given him an email account yet.
GR
Tim Ward
>
> Evidently they haven't given him an email account yet.
Slow. I'm sure I've received birth announcements from the baby's *domain*,
let alone email account.
--
Tim Ward - posting as an individual unless otherwise clear
Brett Ward Ltd - www.brettward.co.uk
Cambridge Accommodation Notice Board - www.brettward.co.uk/canb
Cambridge City Councillor
Jonathan Larmour
>
>
>On 01 Oct 2004 13:56:45 +0100 (BST), Mark Carroll
><ma...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <718b9bd2.04100...@posting.google.com>,
>>DesOJobber <explo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Vicky Larmour <vi...@jifvik.org.nospam> wrote in message news:<Xns9574A40F2...@81.104.194.28>...
>>>
>>>> put stuff (babies, bags, clothes, towels). I used to bring an extra
>>>> towel to put on the changing table thingy so I could actually put
>>>> Matthew on it. Now we just use the normal changing rooms - much
>>(snip)
>>>I don't know who Matthew is.
>>
>>Vicky's young son, still a toddler.
>
Just because he doesn't know how to use it yet doesn't me he doesn't
have one ;-). If you tried it, it would work[1].
Jifl
[1] By the simple expedient of _everything_ @jifvik.org working.
--
--["No sense being pessimistic, it wouldn't work anyway"]-- Opinions==mine
DesOJobber
> In article news:bfl*du...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk, Mark
> Carroll wrote:
> > In article <718b9bd2.04100...@posting.google.com>,
> > DesOJobber <explo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>Vicky Larmour <vi...@jifvik.org.nospam> wrote in message
> >>news:<Xns9574A40F2...@81.104.194.28>...
> >>
> >>> put stuff (babies, bags, clothes, towels). I used to bring an
> >>> extra towel to put on the changing table thingy so I could
> >>> actually put Matthew on it. Now we just use the normal
> >>> changing rooms - much
> (snip)
> >>I don't know who Matthew is.
> >
> > Vicky's young son, still a toddler.
>
> Correct. I'd assumed that that would be easily inferred from the
> content of the post, for those who didn't already know anyway.
> Vicky
Quite. I just find rather irritating the habit of introducing
someone's name into a conversation - in a way that suggests that
everyone already knows of this person and their name - when... they
don't.
DesOJ
Mark Ayliffe
DesOJobber <explo...@yahoo.co.uk> illuminated us with:
Well quite a lot of us have met Matthew. Seems like it might be near time
for another pubmeet...
--
Mark
Real email address | Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.
is mark at | Teach a man to fish and he will
ayliffe dot org | sit in a boat all day drinking beer.
Linda Fox
wrote:
>Quite. I just find rather irritating the habit of introducing
>someone's name into a conversation - in a way that suggests that
>everyone already knows of this person and their name - when... they
>don't.
But Des, are you really saying that when you read
>> >>> put stuff (babies, bags, clothes, towels). I used to bring an
>> >>> extra towel to put on the changing table thingy so I could
>> >>> actually put Matthew on it. Now we just use the normal
>> >>> changing rooms
it wasn't glaringly obvious? Did you think she was talking about her
husband?
Linda ff
Jonathan Larmour
>
>But Des, are you really saying that when you read
>
>>> >>> put stuff (babies, bags, clothes, towels). I used to bring an
>>> >>> extra towel to put on the changing table thingy so I could
>>> >>> actually put Matthew on it. Now we just use the normal
>>> >>> changing rooms
>
>it wasn't glaringly obvious? Did you think she was talking about her
>husband?
Yes, I haven't needed a changing table for, ooo, weeks now ;-). Maybe
it would be nice to be like Prince Charles and have someone to wipe
your bum for you ;).
Jifl
Matthew Vernon
> Well quite a lot of us have met Matthew. Seems like it might be near time
I've been to several of the pub-meets :)
Matthew
[1]yes, I know.
--
* Emperor reads cam.misc
* antinomy/#chiark puts some clothes on
<Emperor> that's our lives in a nutshell, isn't it?
Vicky Larmour
wrote:
>> someone's name into a conversation - in a way that suggests
>> that everyone already knows of this person and their name -
>> when... they don't.
Well, conversely, I find it rather irritating when people persist on
referring to "my son" or "my partner" or whatever when many/most
people present know the name of the person being referred to. So
pbtbtbtbtb :-)
> Well quite a lot of us have met Matthew. Seems like it might be
> near time for another pubmeet...
Good idea!
Tony
I havent been to Abbey pool for a while, but I thought there was a
notice saying that costumes MUST be worn in the showers. Mind you,
putting up a notice and policing are different things....
Mark Carroll
Vicky Larmour <vi...@jifvik.org> wrote:
>In article news:7pt532-...@news.ntlworld.com, Mark Ayliffe
>wrote:
>> On or about 2004-10-03,
>> DesOJobber <explo...@yahoo.co.uk> illuminated us with:
>>> Quite. I just find rather irritating the habit of introducing
>>> someone's name into a conversation - in a way that suggests
>>> that everyone already knows of this person and their name -
>>> when... they don't.
>
>Well, conversely, I find it rather irritating when people persist on
>referring to "my son" or "my partner" or whatever when many/most
>people present know the name of the person being referred to. So
>pbtbtbtbtb :-)
Mmmm, yes. I find that people tend to prefer me to start using names
if I can make the person's relationship to me clear from context.
>> Well quite a lot of us have met Matthew. Seems like it might be
>> near time for another pubmeet...
>
>Good idea!
Noted. (-:
-- Mark
DesOJobber
> On 3 Oct 2004 10:38:42 -0700, explo...@yahoo.co.uk (DesOJobber)
> wrote:
>
> >Quite. I just find rather irritating the habit of introducing
> >someone's name into a conversation - in a way that suggests that
> >everyone already knows of this person and their name - when... they
> >don't.
>
> But Des, are you really saying that when you read
>
> >> >>> put stuff (babies, bags, clothes, towels). I used to bring an
> >> >>> extra towel to put on the changing table thingy so I could
> >> >>> actually put Matthew on it. Now we just use the normal
>
> husband?
> Linda ff
No, I'm not saying that. And it's not the point. (For the point, re-read above.) :-)
DesOJ
Linda Fox
wrote:
No. Your point was that _you_ didn't know. But you should have
considered the fact that most regular contributors and lurkers
possibly did know, which would have explained why she didn't preface
the name with "my x-month-old son", and for anyone who didn't already
know, the context filled it in.
It's a neat skill in writing; I have a feeling they call it
exposition: in introducing the setting and the characters, how much to
explain, how much to allow the reader to infer from the context, and
how much to leave them guessing and scratching their heads over. And
when a writer seems to get it just right (for you) it can be a
delight.
Linda ff
Simon Morris
wrote:
There are (or at least used to be) women-only sessions at the Abbey -
perhaps that's when the cozzies come off.
S.
DesOJobber
It's best not to tell me what my point was when you can read just
above to see that it wasn't. Anyroad, it irritates me, it doesn't you.
Sorted.
DesOJ
Linda Fox
wrote:
>It's best not to tell me what my point was when you can read just
>above to see that it wasn't.
Then you'd better spell out in words of one syllable what your point
was, because you've sure as hell made it so obscure that I can't tell.
All I can tell is that you don't like people using just names under
the impression that you know who they're talking about, when you
actually don't, and I have pointed out to you that in fact the
majority of people here do know in this case. If you're in a roomful
of strangers who, however, know each other, do you expect them to talk
to each other about "my wife, Angela" or "my son Michael" just for
your benefit?
So that irritates you? Scratch away, dear boy.
Linda ff
DesOJobber
> On 5 Oct 2004 06:45:21 -0700, explo...@yahoo.co.uk (DesOJobber)
> wrote:
>
> >It's best not to tell me what my point was when you can read just
> >above to see that it wasn't.
>
> Then you'd better spell out in words of one syllable what your point
> was, because you've sure as hell made it so obscure that I can't tell.
I've made it, (I think I can say) succintly and clearly. You (as I
said) disagree with it. The End.
> All I can tell is that you don't like people using just names under
> the impression that you know who they're talking about, when you
> actually don't, and I have pointed out to you that in fact the
> majority of people here do know in this case.
I would imagine it's impossible for you to know that this is true.
> If you're in a roomful
> of strangers who, however, know each other, do you expect them to talk
> to each other about "my wife, Angela" or "my son Michael" just for
> your benefit?
A patently absurd and inappropriate comparison.
>
> So that irritates you? Scratch away, dear boy.
> Linda ff
Calm down, old girl.
DesOJ