This may have been done before, but I thought it might be fun, even useful, to compile a list of all everyday and idiomatic expressions in the English language which refer to British units of weights and measures - to help illustrate how our habit of using familiar weights and measures is ingrained in our culture and language.

I'll make a start by listing a few expressions in common use:

"A miss is as good as a mile"
"Weighs a ton"
"Inching forward"
"Sound as a pound"
"An ounce of strength"
"Just yards away"
"Miles away"
"Acres of space"
"It's been half-inched"
"Missed by a mile"
"Gallons of the stuff"
"An ounce of common sense"
"Inch perfect"
"Miles better"

T Bennett

So what?

BTW hello again all - been away working.

Clients eh?

Good to have you back, APP. You bring a smile to the face of anyone who doesn't take this too seriously.

Forgot to add : are we going to have the usual from the imperialists that such expressions would be outlawed by a 'thought police'?

Any new conspiracy theories, anyone?

"A miss is as good as a kilometre"
"Weighs a tonne"
"Centimetring forward"
"Sound as a kilo"
"A gramme of strength"
"Just metres away"
"Miles Davis away"
"Hectares of space"
"It's been half-centrimetred"
"Missed by a kilometre"
"Litres of the stuff"
"A gramme of common sense"
"Millimetre perfect"
"Miles Davis better"

Conservative Britain get used to the above expressions ! ;-)

Here's the Belgian again !
As I told you already, Belgium adopted the metric system in the early 1800s.
We still use, however, expressions like "mijlenver" (miles away; mijl = mile), "wachten tot je een ons weegt" (wait till the cows come home; ons = ounce), and many others, although we do not even know anymore what a mile/an ounce looks like.

So, don't worry... Language doesn't change as fast as laws and regulations ! Even with the introduction of the euro, "a penny for your thoughts" would not become "a cent for your thoughts".

Here are some more - let's see how they stand up to the test of time, or how relevent they are to today:

Getting the short end of the stick

Burning the candle at both ends

Getting the bum's rush

Frog in your throat

Eat a peck of dirt before you die

Rule of thumb (a measurement one!)

Sleep tight

Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey

Cock up

Between the devil and the deep blue sea

A flash in the pan

Half-assed

The exception that proves the rule

You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours

A prize (in the form of hearty congratulations) to the first person to give the meaning and origin / derivation of all of these/.

I'll add one

"Mind your P's and Q's"

If you were a sharp reader you'll see the answer to that in one of my other posts.

"Cockup" is from archery, I believe, and on the same subject do you know what the "two fingers up" sign means and why a frenchman would never use it?

Koen, I think there are two points here,

1. Many of the old money expressions that are still compatible today, such as "a few bob/that'll set you back a few bob" etc have disappeared over time witj only older people using them, and

2. Our measurement system is an integral part of our culture and language, so sepriving us of it, desensitises people and helps to take away part of the meaning.

Trust me, where the older money/systems and so forth are no longer used/people are not familiar with them, they die out and that helps narrow human thought, perhaps even causing people to become slaves and docile as things are now removed from them.


Anyway: "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a yard"

Two fingers - believed to come from the 100 yrs war. Enlgish & Welsh archers are reputed to have used it to show that they still had the fingers used in drawing a longbow. The French & allies were reputed to cut off those fingers of any archers that they captured to prevent them from drawing a bow again. I use he word "reputed" as their is some disagreement about his as the origin - not least because archers used 3 fingers (zand sometimes a thumb) to draw a bow - especially because the draw weight of them was over 120 lbs - modern bows are as little as 25% of thator less

Mind your Ps & Qs - Ale was served at local taverns out of a "tankard" ... you were charged by the angle of your elbow ... half-way up... you drank a pint, all the way up... you drank a quart. Since the Quart cost so much more than the Pint, you were warned to "Mind your Ps & Qs"

As for Bryan's comments - the fact that these sayings are still in use completely negates what he posted.

The "....narrow human thought, perhaps even causing people to become slaves and docile..." bit is wonderful. Thanks for injecting a bit of (slightly surreal) humour - it certainly made me laugh. It's a good thing that he didn't mean it seriously

^ These expressions you used are still used as imperial is still used.

So

"Trust me, where the older ......systems and so forth are no longer used/people are not familiar with them, they die out"

is WRONG

Thank you for pointing that out.

Um, is there a bit of the old irony in that last post there, or have I completely missed what you were saying. Sorry...

Um, is there a bit of the old irony in that last post there, or have I completely missed what you were saying. Sorry...

What do you metricators want, exactly? What is your ideal? A land where every Imperial measure or reference to Imperial measures, is eradicated and their use purged from the public canon, presumably on pain of imprisonment? I appeal to your good sense to afford me respect - to allow me to enjoy my culture in peace. In return, I promise to respect your right to use metric measures. Deal?

"What do you metricators want, exactly? ............Deal?"

Ive no idea where this came from - you've been making assumptions again and then acting as if they are true. You know that this gets you into trouble - intellectually if not in fact.

Just making things up and then acting as if they are true mught be comforting, but it is not the real world.

Sorry.

As for the culture thing - well really. My culture is broader, more vibrant, exploring and more inclusive than you seem able to imagine.

Again, sorry - I feel for you.

"The best place for an illegal metric sign is 'six feet under'"

T Bennett

"My culture is broader, more vibrant, exploring and more inclusive than you seem able to imagine."

Seems you haven't changed a bit.

Also, to be honest, 'vibrant' and 'inclusive' are overused adjectives. Are you singing straight from the Labour Party hymn sheet, I wonder? Please try and broaden your vocabulary a bit next time - your intellectual cribbing is painfully obvious.

To judge from your typically evasive remarks, you DO seek to persecute me for for beliefs, though I am willing to tolerate yours. Who is the liberal and who is the bigot between the two of us?

How you seem to glorify the second rate. Why are you so scared of honesty?

Why do you seek to judge others by such low standards? This is one of the things in our culture I despise - the cult of mediocrity.

I fear that you also misunderstand the use of the word culture. Culture is so often taken to mean the artistic production of people long dead. Why is it that some petty snobs (with all the intellectual rigour of the committee of a suburban golf club) see the words culture and popular as antonyms?

Get out a bit more Mr B.

See what is happening out there; celebrate success; be honest with yourself and others; look for what is good in our culture and let's look to change the rest.

"Also, to be honest, 'vibrant' and 'inclusive' are overused adjectives"

Why? If they are the right ones, it makes no sense not to use them. Could there be a little petty snobbery creeping in here perhaps?

Someone who uses stereotyping, cliches and worn out hackneyed phrases in such abundance should be carefull from where within the glass house he is throwing stones. (Yes, I know it's a cliche)

"Are you singing straight from the Labour Party hymn sheet, I wonder?"

In this, you seem to be better informed tham me. Please enlighten us all - what is on the Labour Party hymn sheet? Also, how over-used is that phrase do you think?

"Please try and broaden your vocabulary a bit next time - your intellectual cribbing is painfully obvious"

Yet more assumptions! Perhaps ypu should break free of the intellectual straighjacket in which you seem trapped.


"To judge from your typically evasive remarks, you DO seek to persecute me for for beliefs, though I am willing to tolerate yours. Who is the liberal and who is the bigot between the two of us?"

Really Mr B!

Where did you get this from. This seems to be the product of a fvered mind. We were indulging in a little light-hearted banter about sayings and proverbs, only to be hit with the Exeocet of your paranoia in the post above. You have no basis for this apart from your own fears and assumptions. Your cavalier approach to evidence and understanding has, once again, demonstrated your intolerance, although your persecution complex does make for interesting conjecture.

Now, is anyone up for the challenge detailed above?

Hey! Mind your P's and Q's!

Actually here is my take on that story:
In older times folk were served quarts as well as pints in pubs.

If a fight broke out in the pub the landlord, mindful of his customers spilling some of the good stuff, would shout "mind you P's and Q's !".

"Wet your whistle" was when your pint or quart mug had a whistle on it so that you could use it to call the barman!

All these great sayings a based on the passed, but are still used now even though the actual actions are long dead. Imperial measures in common use today supply us with a more convenient day-to-day system than metric. Both have their uses in different application but both have a relevance in today's conversation and world. Outdated less used measures like "chain" and "decametre" or "perch" and "angstrom" have simply died out of common english and don't get used. We will, as humans, use whatever is best and natural to its application regardless of laws to the contrary. To the chap that has been saying about making it illegal to use those words I can assure him that even through the power of the corrupt EU they can never stop you saying those words without attaching an "obscenity" reason to them (ie creating and equiv of "racism" to measures - it aint gonna happen).
And as far as 2009 is concerned I will bet a great deal of money that when 2009 comes along they will either seek an extension to that date or enact permanent derogation as with road signs, depending on the colour of politcs in 2009. You'll see!

APP: Stop evading the issue. Do you or do you not support the liberty of individuals to choose for themselves what units of measurement they will use, free of state coercion and the threat of fines or imprisonment?

In relation to "quarts":

I find it sad that they have died out both in that people no longer drink by them, but also by that we no longer talk of two pints as a quart. for instance, I have just come back from a card shop, and in it was a gift (that I did not buy) wich was a giant glass- a two pints glass, in fact. On the glass it said, "First class p*ss artist. A *"* pint glass". I'ld have prefered it to have said "quart glass" as a "two-pint" glass just sounds a little odd to my ears. Anyway, I just thought that I ought to share that tale of cards and woe... :)

No evasion - I have. Read previous posts here & elsewhere.

Bit of a silly (not to say emotive and loaded with presuppositions) question, especialy in the context of the posts above.

APP: You are still evading the issue. I repeat: do you or do you not support the liberty of individuals to choose for themselves what units of measurement they will use, free of state coercion and the threat of fines or imprisonment?

Here & elswhere.

If you can't be bothered to look back, then that is your problem...... Lazy mind - lazy body perhaps.

I have clearly explained this before.

Now, any takers for the challenge?

here's one especially for Paul:

Keep ypur shirt on

What is the origin?

APP: I repeat: do you or do you not support the liberty of individuals to choose for themselves what units of measurement they will use, free of state coercion and the threat of fines or imprisonment?

It's an easy question. It can be answered with "yes", "no", "sometimes" or even "I don't believe it's possible for individuals to choose". If you simply refuse to answer, then say so. If you think you've already answered the question, tell me in which part of which post on which thread (I can't find any such answer - but your writing style is so appalling I might easily have failed to recognise it).

Mr B (another one!)

I can't remember where; you will have to look. If you ask nicely, I'll do it for you - perhaps.

The way the question is phrased (closed, leading, rhetorical etc - look these up as you obviously struggle with written English) means that a yes / no answerr would be innacurate and untruthful in either case. No doubt that was why you phrased it like that.

I am fascinated why you even posed it here. Perhaps you had difficulty in following the topic.

I am quite happy with my writing style, although I recognise your need to close ranks with your chums. Rather sweet really.

The difference is that Gordon is interesting to debate with and I can respect (if not agree with) his approach.


Anyway, let's ignore your apparant sense of humour bypass.

Now - any takers for the sayings challenge?

APP: I repeat: do you or do you not support the liberty of individuals to choose for themselves what units of measurement they will use, free of state coercion and the threat of fines or imprisonment?

It is not a leading or rhetorical question: I want a truthful answer. Different people would answer it differently. BWMA would, I suspect, say "yes", whereas the European Commission, if it were honest, would say "no". If you are afraid to answer it, say so. If you believe you have answered it, say where. If you believe you cannot answer it, say why.

Exactly how old are you all. No offence, but this is all just a little absurd, don't you agree?

I think it not absurd but a basic question
to this discussion and am in
suspense as to how APP as an intelligent
correspondent will reply

"One inch of delay more is a South Sea of discovery" - As You Like It, Part III

T Bennett

As those who have followed this board & it's sister will know, my position is quite clear.

However, for those who are too lazy too look, I will put something together later - clients call for the next few of days.

Serendipity

The enjoyable thing about running my own business is the occasional unexpected find of free time.

The other aspects can be more challenging!

Here we go for the energetically challenged (That's you Mr Birch):

May 14 2002, 1:40 PM

"There has always been legislation appertaining to weights and measures - or, if not always, at least for many years.

You can use whatever system you like, but in trade and commerce there have always (see note above) been standards and legal weights and measures. This is to promote fairness etc in trade and commerce.

Trading standards have prosecuted people for years for not using the current system - whatever that was at the time."


May 16 2002, 8:11 AM

"I have a great affection for traditional units, but remember the misery of my schooldays in maths, for example."

And one of the A levels I took was maths!

"Metric is very useful and simple - it makes sense to have it as the official system.

Mind you, if I was starting from scratch (without thousands of years of history) I would select a system based on the number 12 - duodecimal. There is in fact a body promoting this, although I suspect they may not succeed.

NB. we have had official systems for many years.

The fact that something different may happen in the future (but we don't know what) is a recipe for doing nothing - we must make decisions on the circumstances now and trust that they will stand up to the demands of the future. We should also be prepared to change to meet changing circumstances"

Weights and measures legislation, like much consumer protection legislation, has resulted from long struggles by our forefathers to protect us all.

I do not want to see that valient struggle wasted.

There are some things that, as a member of a society, I have to do. I mat not particularly like doing it (Paying VAT for example) but I do it.

Compared to the major issues in life the anti-metric obsession of some people is trivial.

I wonder what history will make of it.

Where will Mr Bennet be placed?

Here is one for Mr Birch and Leonard:

Place these people in order of greatness and stature:

Churchill

Wellingon

Cromwell

Caesar

William (of Normandy - "The conqueror")

Roosevelt

Bennett (UKIP)

Einstein


Here are some more for Mr Birch:

Which is more important - the measurement system that we use or fighting poverty in the third world?

Which is more important - removing signs and thus placing people at risk on the roads or generating wealth that will benefit the economy of the country?

As for sending people to prison - this is much more complicated. Certainly more complicated than the Mail andother tabloids would like to think.

No-one has been sent to prison for not using metric - indeed the prosecutions are for using illegal scales. This is something that has happened for years, without any response from Leonard or Mr Birch.

However, I think that the current "justice" system (and I use the quotation marks aoppropriately here - don't I Mr Birch?) is not just or effective.

I have worked with young criminals (in a previous life) and have experience of how it works. Prison does not work.

We have fundamental issues to address such as what prison is for - ie. do we send people there AS punsihment or FOR punishment?

Also, why do we punish the criminal AND his her family and friends?

There is an excellent book on the subject - The Punitive Obsession - which is worth reading on this (Mr Birch, you might need to get someone to read it to you).

I could go on - it is something I feel strongly about.

For the record, I support The Howard League - if only on pragmatic grounds. I also support Amnesty.


Now, back to the challenge - Steve has given and interesting one for Ps & Qs and definately leads so far.

Here's one especially for Mr Bennet

Parva leves capiunt animas (Ovid - Ars Amatoria)

Not quite in the vain of things but close:

Have you ever thought what it means when you call someone a "Berk"?

I mean, you hear it loads of times on TV, including kids TV and probably from your ma and pa (or kids depending on your age!) so what does it actually mean?

It will shock you when you realise how rude it is! I'm serious!

I won't tell you EXACTLY what it means because it will be removed by the moderator, but you can work it out for yourself.

It comes from the cockney rhyming slang : "Berkshire Hunt".

So, think carefully next time your get called, or call someone, a "Berk"!

APP: You still have not answered my question. From the sneering tone of your posts in general, and reading between the lines of the particular excerpts you have chosen to reproduce, I would presume that you do NOT support the liberty of individuals to choose for themselves what units of measurement they will use, free of state coercion or the threat of fines or imprisonment.

However, it remains a presumption, which is why, wishing to know the answer, I ask the same question yet again: do you or do you not support the liberty of individuals to choose for themselves what units of measurement they will use, free of state coercion and the threat of fines or imprisonment?

Your May 14 post relates to questions of historical fact, not to your ethical or political position on the question I have posed.
Your May 16 post is a mixture of reminiscences, opinion concerning the value of the metric system, purported history and, dare I say, rhetorical woffle; but it does not answer my question.
The rest of your May 30 post is further evasion; it does not answer my question.

to understand. It is quite simple.

I support the use of weights and measures legilsation.

Simple enough for you?

Get someone to help if you need to.

You can use what you like in most cases - but in matters of trade and other public (and publicly reguleted) matters there should be one system. This is just common sense.

Trying to make it an issue of liberty (just to bolster a belief system) does not alter that.

We have had agreed measurement systems, as we have agrements on language, time etc for public commerce and other dealings for years.

Use what you like in private, but when trading etc - ue the legal one.

Now, if you can borrow a sense of humour, how about trying the challenge?
I don't really care if you measure your garden in paces, butter beans or old school ties - but if I want to buy your house, then I want to know what the size is in the standard ormat.

As for woffle (waffle?), I bow to your obvious extensive experience - that is certainly one thing where I admit you have the edge on most of us.

No it's not simple enough. Weights and measures legislation can be many things. It can attempt to outlaw free choice (whether one can use a particular unit at all) or simply to outlaw fraud (state that a particular unit is defined in such and such a way so that if you use it you must not give people short measure). Which sort are you talking about?

I repeat: do you or do you not support the liberty of individuals to choose for themselves what units of measurement they will use, free of state coercion and the threat of fines or imprisonment?

You really do need to amke an effort to try to understand.

I am well aware that you do not want to accept the answer - it would scupper the obvious rhetorical (and loaded) nature of your question. It that, you will have to remain dissappointed.

Here's one for you:

Do you suppoort weights and measures legislation (As we have had in recent history - for the last 50 years say)?

A second one:

If you do, how do you think it should be enforced?

How about answering my questions?

What APP really meant to say was:

"I support and applaud Steve Thoburn and the other so-called 'metric martyrs' being given criminal records for their crimes".

"I support Sutton Borough Council in depriving Mr Peter Collins of his street traders' licence (thus depriving him of his livelihood) because he has the brass neck to carry on serving his customers in pounds and ounces as all of them want, despite the Weights and Measures Regulations".

"I thoroughly endorse making it a crime to even display the word 'pound' or the symbol 'lb' in a shop after 31 December 2009. Anyone who disobeys deserves all they've got coming to them".

"If the government wants to spend about 1 billion pounds of our money converting our 4 million or so road signs into metric they should be free to do so whenever they want even though 86% of people, including young people, are opposed to this in the latest national survey".

"People should be forced to give their heights in metric, weigh their babies in kilos and use metric units in their conversation".

"If the European Union wants to use its powers to abolish the mile and the pint by revoking their 'permission' for the UK to use them, that's fine by me".

"I would support the complete obliteration of British weights and measures no matter what people think".


'Firkin'

...what I said. Understand?

I will answer your questions once you have answered mine. However, in the "making it even plainer" post, which you added while I was replying to your previous one, you have at least begun to move towards giving an answer. I will make it easier for you.

I go to the market. I ask a market trader, "How much is a pound of peanuts?" He replies, "They're fifty two pence a pound." I say, "Fine, I'll take twelve ounces." He weighs out twelve ounces on his scales, (which we assume are correctly calibrated in British units and plainly visible to me), slides the nuts into a paper bag, and says, "Twelve ounces, that'll be thirty nine pence." I give him thirty nine pence and take the bag of nuts.

Do you support the liberty of that trader and myself voluntarily to enter into such an entirely honest transaction, in the units of our choice, free of state interference or the threat of fines or imprisonment?

If you do, please say so plainly. If you don't, if for example you believe that the trader should be obliged by law to use only certain officially designated units, irrespective of what either of us might wish to use, please have the honesty to say so openly. Other posters on this forum, such as Ralf and EuRobert, seem to have no difficulty in admitting that they favour forcing people to use metric. If you are not ashamed of your stance, why won't you give an unequivocal answer?

Sorry to hear that you struggle

to understand. It is quite simple.

I support the use of weights and measures legislation.

(As we have had for many years)

(I support its enforcement)

(My views on the justice system I have briefly indicated above)

Simple enough for you?

Get someone to help if you need to.





Making it even plainer

You can use what you like in most cases - but in matters of trade and other public (and publicly regulated) matters there should be one system.


(read the sentence above - think about it)

This is just common sense.

Trying to make it an issue of liberty (just to bolster a belief system) does not alter that.

We have had agreed measurement systems, as we have agrements on language, time etc for public commerce and other dealings for years.

Use what you like in private, but when trading etc - use the legal one.

(Read this - think about it)

I don't really care if you measure your garden in paces, butter beans or old school ties - but if I want to buy your house, then I want to know what the size is in the standard format.

(Read this- think about it)

Now, if you can borrow a sense of humour, how about trying the challenge?

As for woffle (waffle?), I bow to your obvious extensive experience - that is certainly one thing where I admit you have the edge on most of us.

Yes, I think metric is the way to go. But if you want to plauy with your old rulers in private - that's up to you.


Now, if you have given up being deliberately obtuse - answer mine.

APP: Repeating your previous evasive comments with insulting drivel like "think about it" does not answer my questions - either the original general one or the later specific one.

I HAVE thought about what you say. My conclusion is that probably you do NOT support the liberty of individuals to choose for themselves what units of measurement they will use, free of state coercion or the threat of fines or imprisonment.
My further conclusion is that probably you do NOT support the liberty of a trader and myself voluntarily to enter into an honest transaction, in the units of our choice, free of state interference or the threat of fines or imprisonment.
My additional conclusion is that you are either just naturally bloody-minded and constitutionally incapable of giving plain answers to anything, or afraid openly to admit that you do not support the liberty of individuals to choose, because you fear that to do so would make you appear vicious and despicable. So you hide behind a vague support for "weights and measures" regulations, which could mean anything.

Do you support, specifically, the 1985 Act, the 1994 regulations, or the 1999 regulations?
Do you support whatsoever regulations are currently enforced, or do the regulations have to take a particular form before you will support them - and if so, what form?

I have also given some thought to the possibility that you are nothing more than a computer program, but rejected it on the grounds that even computers are never quite so infuriatingly evasive as you are.

My questions still stand:

Do you support the liberty of individuals to choose for themselves what units of measurement they will use, free of state coercion and the threat of fines or imprisonment?

Do you support the liberty of any trader and customer voluntarily to enter into an honest transaction, in the units of their choice, free of state interference or the threat of fines or imprisonment?

I have to say that I have answered. You may wish to put whatever spin you like - your problem.

You can say what you like (and probably will) but I leave you to your own drivel - or is it dribble?

You have you answer and that is all that needs to be said. Now go home and play with your firkins, or whatever you do in your spare time.

Back to the original post - anyone got answers?

I was interested in the Berk one from SH. A bit worrying that!

NB. a sense of humour is needed for this thread.

I am certainly finding Mr Birch quite funny!

You have your answers as far as I can see. Just repeating and repeating and repeating simply because you have not got the answer you want does not convince anyone but you! Sad little man. Get a life.

Reff Bennet. I sent him the questions and got a reply of saorts. It was very interesting.

I thought Berk was spelled Burke and came from Burke and Hare the grave robbers

"but if I want to buy your house, then I want to know what the size is in the standard format."

Estate agents display the size of rooms in feet and inches. I guess they are not trapped by the fascist stuff because you don't sell houses by the square foot!

However that doesn't explain office space which *IS* sold by the sqr ft.

That "Berk" thing I got from a book, I guess a search on yahoo should occur, me thinks.....

It's certainly true you need a sense of humour for this and any other of the threads. Some people should be told to 'just chill'......

If APP and "Sceptic" (whom I suspect is merely an alias of APP, like Anonymous earlier) insist that my questions have been answered I can only assume that APP agrees with what I concluded his answers to be.

That is:

APP does NOT support the liberty of individuals to choose for themselves what units of measurement they will use, free of state coercion or the threat of fines or imprisonment.

APP does NOT support the liberty of any trader and customer voluntarily to enter into an honest transaction, in the units of their choice, free of state interference or the threat of fines or imprisonment.

APP supports weights and measures regulations that deny such liberties.

Certainly I can find no other rational interpretation that equates to an answer (insisting that one HAS answered is quite different from flatly refusing to answer, which APP was evidently unwilling to do). I would appreciate the thoughts of Bryan Parry, G Brown, SteveH, Leonard and "Firkin" on this point. Can we assume that APP has answered "no"? If not, will someone else explain his supposed answer to me?

If APP accepts that I have stated his answers correctly then I am ready to go on to answer APP's questions in turn.

No I'm not sceptic or anonymous, although I have no way of proving it. Who else are you????? What sort of anaorak do you wear?

Why so scared to answer my questions?

Your

"I'll show you mine if you show me yours"

approach is really very funny. But then I expect you are used to people laughing at you.

I am really looking forward to Gordon returning - much better to speak to the organ grinder than the monkey.

My answers are clear - you can interpret all you like and spin whatever way you want. I don't really care. It's your problem (and boy, don't you have a lot of them?).

Now, for those with a sense of humour (Paul, I think you might want to miss the next bit)..

...any answers?

Steve H is in the lead at the moment for the star prize.

How about publishing IP addresses. Network 54 can do that.

Strange that - when he sent me an e-mail, APP's e-mail address began 'Sceptic999'

T Bennett

APP: Evidently you think I'm an idiot. So we're even. Humour me. Spell out your answers in words of one syllable. I have no wish to put any spin on your answers. I just want to know what they are! So answer me this: was my restatement of your answers true or false? If false, give me a true restatement.

As to your questions: "Do you suppoort weights and measures legislation (As we have had in recent history - for the last 50 years say)? ...If [so] how do you think it should be enforced?"; my answer is "I don't know".

I don't know because I don't know what the earlier legislation said. I asked Stephen Davis something about this on another thread, but got no reply. However, I don't believe we actually need any specific weights and measure legislation at all; the general law of contract will suffice.

I agree with APP's suggestion of logging IP addresses.

I am amazed at APP's patience in the face of someone who has made his mind up what he wants to believe. Your closed mind will not let you believe anything that does not fit in with your rigid views will it? ******* hypocrite. He answered you fully but you want him to fall in with (as he puts it so well) your spin. He has talked about the justice system which was a very good response and shows he took your question seriously. He said what he agreed with and did not let himself get sucked into your little game. Just because you want to slant and spin and twist and wriggle and he will not play you are in a sulk. Either that or you are very stupid. Which is it sulk or stupid? Anyone can answer because you (PB) will not. You certainly do not seem to be much fun although I think you might be going through the change at the moment because I hear that makes old women grumpy. Perhaps you will call in your friends in a "just wait, I am going to tell my dad" sort of way. That shows just what sort of person this birch is.

Because my email addresses are in my own name and all start David......

It just shows that making assumptions is dangerous. Gordon and I had some interesting discussions about that.

That anonymous was me; the person who posted that it about shoe sizes, that is.

Sorry, but this "debate" has degenerated somewhat.

I have, however, never anonymoused before- I don't hide behind anonymity, but unfortunately I forgot to type in my name and address before posting, but thought that it was unimportant.

A careful comparison shows that there is remarkably similar language used in postings by APP and 'Sceptic'; recent postings from both include, for example, the cries of 'vile', 'hypocrite' and 'very stupid', sometiems with asterisks in front of words.

I see APP posted three minutes after 'Sceptic' today. Perhaps either would care to comment and refute, if they can, strong evidence of a very close relationship??

T Bennett

I am now inclined to doubt that you are an alias of APP. You seem to be able to write more directly, though just as rudely.

If I am stupid, all the more reason for people to explain carefully. I have tried and tried to get a grip on what, if anything, APP's position actually is. I have failed to do so, unless the interpretation I have previously given is in fact true. If it is false, why cannot APP simply state that it is false? And then spell out a true interpretation?

Note that APP has not complained that the question is unfair (still less explained why he might have considered it unfair); nor has he simply refused to answer the question (which he'd have been within his rights to do); he has instead claimed actually to have answered it. Well, I'm sorry, call me thick if you want, but I can't see his answer. I really can't. I'm not trying to put a spin on anything. I'm not closing my mind. I'm not being a hypocrite. I just want a comprehensible answer to a question I personally consider highly important. I want to know where APP stands.

If you think you understand (or anyone else out there thinks they understand) his purported answer to my question (not an answer to some other question, but the answer he claims to have given to MY question) please explain it to me. Quote to me the words that answer the question and tell me what they mean.

How is it possible to prove a negative?

Just a point - I don't recall seeing asterisks in my posts. You're not seeing double, are you?

The words are fairly common in English.

I take your word for it that these exact words or phrases appear in both.

Does anyone else use them?

Could it be that people pick up when they are used (they do seem to be rather good after all)?

This sounds like another of your conspiracy theories. Not one of your best either.

I shal have to do a "carefull comparison" of your posts with some others. I am sure that I can "prove" that you are someone else!

What about publishing IP addresses? That would be best for us all.

For those with a sense of humour - this is where we started:

Getting the short end of the stick

Burning the candle at both ends

Getting the bum's rush

Frog in your throat

Eat a peck of dirt before you die

Rule of thumb (a measurement one!)

Sleep tight

Cold enough to freeze the balls off a brass monkey

Cock up

Between the devil and the deep blue sea

A flash in the pan

Half-assed

The exception that proves the rule

You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours

A prize (in the form of hearty congratulations) to the first person to give the meaning and origin / derivation of all of these/.

Keep your shirt on

A reprise:

Place these people in order of greatness and stature:

Churchill

Wellingon

Cromwell

Caesar

William (of Normandy - "The conqueror")

Roosevelt

Bennett (UKIP)

Einstein


Here are some more for Mr Birch:

1.0 Which is more important - the measurement system that we use or fighting poverty in the third world?
(And Mr Bennet)


2.0 Which is more important - removing signs and thus placing people at risk on the roads or generating wealth that will benefit the economy of the country?



3.0 Why do we punish the criminal AND his her family and friends?


4.0 Parva leves capiunt animas (Ovid - Ars Amatoria)

I have just worked out that I am T Bennet!

I have analysed some of our posts and found that we use.... wait for it.....SOME OF THE SAME WORDS.

For example:

"and..."

"culture"

"language"

"English language"

Morevoer, I see that we have sometimes posted within just a few minutes of each other.

From this I conclude that I must be T Bennett!

This has come as a real shock for me, I can tell you.

How can I disprove this?

I will never be able to hold my head up when walking past roadworks again (sob)

It must be a conspiracy by closet metricators, little green men or someone - the signs are all there.

In fact, I am I have felt myself becoming strangely attracted to triangular bits of aluminium placed in the roads - is this the first symptom?

Hellllllllllp