Standby on International Flights

kangaroo16 wrote:
On 19 Nov 2007 19:08:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:
[...]
Guten Morgen, Frank,

Wrong country! Who was it again who made snide remarks about people
mixing up countries?

Having taken the time to dig out my copy of the post, I see that
you are correct.

Yes. And that means that Cath was correct and that you were wrong
and that hence your accusations were indeed unfounded. That's all I
wanted to establish.

Now that that main point is out of the way, ...

[...]

In most of the other groups I follow, and have previously
followed, it is considered "bad form" to snip bits from others
posts, but simply leave everything in that was written
previously.

That is the exact opposite of long established Usenet netiquette, but
more important than that, it's just common sense to snip - read: to not
repeat - irrelevant stuff. Again, whatever some people think, also in
this respect Usenet is not really different from real life. Also in real
life (IRL), when someone talks about a whole lot of different
issues - i.e. as you do here - it is *not* common to repeat (i.e.
quote) everything and then only reply to part of it. If you do that,
people will think you're nuts.

[...]

The main advantage is that on replying to such a thread the
reader can see at a glance not only the original post, but all
previous posts, without bothering to switch between screens
to display them. The abbreviated header gives the user I.D
and Message number in a third colour.

*If* a reader needs to see what has been written in a previous
posting, then he can just use the 'show parent article' function which
any sane newsreader has. If needed, the reader can 'walk up' the
"References:" branch any number of levels.

[...]

There is also other good reasons for this: Many people may
post 10 or 15 replies to related threads on the same group,
even more on other groups. Unless one has a photographic
memory, they cannot be expected to remember exactly what they
wrote on a group post, especially a few days previously.

See above. 'show parent article' and/or 'Sent Items' folder.

[...]

Some posters just quote bits from another persons post, which
can be misleading as the quote can be taken out of context.

Worse yet, some posters actually selectively edit the previous
posters reply, which can be highly misleading.

Yes, that *can* be done. Like any facility, this can be used and
misused, again, just as IRL.

The *point* is that no such 'post-editing' (that's the common term for
this misuse) took place *here*.

So this issue - misuse of snipping - is a good example of something
which is irrelevant for the discussion of the original issue (the one
which Cath addressed), so it is prefectly OK and *sane* to snip this
whole part from any possible followup postings. QED.

So you did *not* mention "supercargo", but you *did* say "passenger",
"cabin", "fare" and "discount".

As she clipped a lot of my post, I couldn't see this at a glance.
post, I thought I had mentioned the main reason for accommodation
for 12 passengers was to provide for one or more persons acting
in a supercargo role.

Had she not clipped my post I could have immediately seen that I
had not. As she did clip the post would have had to leave the
present pane and dig out my original post, which is annoying.

Sorry, but that's your problem. "annoying" is a extreme exaggeration!
In my newsreader it's *one* key-press ('u', for 'up' (the (upside-down)
tree)). In most GUI newsreaders it's one click. Big fsck-ing deal!

No offense, but if you claim to have been on Usenet for 10+ years
you're looking quite silly if you're bothering your audience with *your*
limitations or/and those of your newsreader (not that I think that Agent
has this limitation).

Even then, in a long post I would have to continually refer
back to it as I wrote the post to her.

No, since she addressed only part of your post, there is no need to go
back to any *other* part of what you wrote.

So what you *wrote* was purely passenger/
commercial oriented, hence Cath' questions.

Sorry, Frank, here we disagree. I disagree that it
was "purely" passenger/commercial oriented. It was intended
as a purely historical note that it was once a method of
obtaining low cost passage before ship owners realised
that they would make more money by organising it.

Once mo Try to *read* and try to read for *comprehension*. Your
*intention* is irrelevant, because we can't see/read that. We only have
what you *wrote*. What you *wrote* was purely passenger/commercial
oriented, period. EOD.

[...]

Instead of back-pedalling,
you should just realize/acknowledge that.

That is your interpretation, your value judgment on
my post. My original intention was just to
mention a method of cheap travel that was once
possible.

So you intended to write A, but wrote B and that's *our* fault exactly
*how*?

Moral: Everyone makes mistakes. If they're pointed out to you, then
just acknowledge them and get on. It's the sane/'manly' thing to do. And
*if* you back-pedal, side-step, whinge, etc. and get caught, then don't
whinge about *that*.

[...]

It would be easier if you just commented on each point of my
posts without snipping or abbreviating it, let alone offering
your interpretation of it. :-)

It would be easier if you actually wrote what you apparently meant and
read/remember what you wrote. And for the record, Cath' "interpretation"
was the correct one.

For her and you, perhaps.

And for anyone else with half a brain.

[more of the same deleted]

Why? What is your motive for attempting to censor my posts?

Ah, the "censor" non sequitur! One of the oldest ones in the book!

There *is* no "attempt to censor". We only repeat/quote the *relevant*
parts, not the other/irrelevant parts. Not repeating is not "censoring",
not in real life and not here. What *other* things you wrote is still
available in your original posting, i.e. it is *not* "censored", it's
just not *relevant* (to what Cath (and I) wanted to address).

Hopefully you have learned something from this one.

sitting firmly on hands

[...]

On 20 Nov 2007 21:46:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On 19 Nov 2007 19:08:34 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:
[...]
Guten Morgen, Frank,

Wrong country! Who was it again who made snide remarks about people
mixing up countries?

Not mixing up countries, Frank. Just assumed that most readers
would know some common foreign words and phrases.

Having taken the time to dig out my copy of the post, I see that
you are correct.

Yes. And that means that Cath was correct and that you were wrong
and that hence your accusations were indeed unfounded. That's all I
wanted to establish.

AFIK, my basic premise that freighters are required by
international law to have accommodation for 12 still stands. Will
try to find a definite reference as time permits. However
won't have much time for next 3 weeks or so, probably will be
posting less.

Those who dislike my posts may consider this my Christmas Gift to
the group. :-)

I do admit that I shouldn't have implied that the accommodation
involved separate cabins, and should have mentioned that
they weren't intended for fare paying passengers.

Still, it was intended as a historical note. People do get
differing impressions of the same information.

Now that that main point is out of the way, ...

[...]

In most of the other groups I follow, and have previously
followed, it is considered "bad form" to snip bits from others
posts, but simply leave everything in that was written
previously.

That is the exact opposite of long established Usenet netiquette, but
more important than that, it's just common sense to snip - read: to not
repeat - irrelevant stuff.

If you know of any accepted rules or standards for this
" long established Usenet netiquette" posted anywhere, please
supply a reference. I've followed Usenet for a decade, and
have rarely seen much "etiquette" as you seem to define it.

For that matter, can you find any general agreement on everyday
rules for "human etiquette"? I think you will find it varies a
lot even in the U.S.A. At one time, "polite" people avoided
discussions on sex, politics, & religion. I don't recall ever
meeting such delicate people even when I was in the USA.

Basically, I doubt that there are any meaningful general rules,
and even if there are, they seem widely ignored.

Again, whatever some people think, also in
this respect Usenet is not really different from real life.

Depends on the group, I suppose. Snipping without indicating the
snip or deletion is widely condemned. Most groups strongly
discourage top posting. Have seen posters who do either roundly
condemned by many others in a group, and not in remotely polite
terms. :-)

Of course, most groups have a lot more traffic than the
immigration and travel groups.

Of course, statistics can be highly misleading as well. Most
people, myself included, think of the USA as a highly religious
country, predominately Christian.

Yet in the current edition of Time magazine, Nov.26, there are a
few pages on current life in America. To quote from the first
page of this section:

"The vast majority of Americans believe in God, and more than 90%
own a Bible, but only half can name a single Gospel, and 10%
think Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. So what's the average state of
our eternal souls?"

http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...683300,00.html

Also in real
life (IRL), when someone talks about a whole lot of different
issues - i.e. as you do here - it is *not* common to repeat (i.e.
quote) everything and then only reply to part of it. If you do that,
people will think you're nuts.

Some people, perhaps :-) . However, I had read enough by the
time I was 11 or 12 to realize that no person could possibly
please everyone, no matter what they said or did. I wasn't a
typical teenager, of course. No interest in participating in, or
even watching any form of teen sports. Next to no interest in
popular music. By following news over the years, had found
that majority opinion was frequently wrong.

[...]

The main advantage is that on replying to such a thread the
reader can see at a glance not only the original post, but all
previous posts, without bothering to switch between screens
to display them. The abbreviated header gives the user I.D
and Message number in a third colour.

*If* a reader needs to see what has been written in a previous
posting, then he can just use the 'show parent article' function which
any sane newsreader has. If needed, the reader can 'walk up' the
"References:" branch any number of levels.

[...]

There is also other good reasons for this: Many people may
post 10 or 15 replies to related threads on the same group,
even more on other groups. Unless one has a photographic
memory, they cannot be expected to remember exactly what they
wrote on a group post, especially a few days previously.

See above. 'show parent article' and/or 'Sent Items' folder.

Which still involves switching between one view and another :-)

[...]

Some posters just quote bits from another persons post, which
can be misleading as the quote can be taken out of context.

Worse yet, some posters actually selectively edit the previous
posters reply, which can be highly misleading.

Yes, that *can* be done. Like any facility, this can be used and
misused, again, just as IRL.

The *point* is that no such 'post-editing' (that's the common term for
this misuse) took place *here*.

As it happened, yes. But still would feel impelled to check.

So this issue - misuse of snipping - is a good example of something
which is irrelevant for the discussion of the original issue (the one
which Cath addressed), so it is prefectly OK and *sane* to snip this
whole part from any possible followup postings. QED.

Want to try to define "sanity" for the group? Actually, it is a
legal term, not a medical term.


So you did *not* mention "supercargo", but you *did* say "passenger",
"cabin", "fare" and "discount".

As she clipped a lot of my post, I couldn't see this at a glance.
post, I thought I had mentioned the main reason for accommodation
for 12 passengers was to provide for one or more persons acting
in a supercargo role.

Had she not clipped my post I could have immediately seen that I
had not. As she did clip the post would have had to leave the
present pane and dig out my original post, which is annoying.

Sorry, but that's your problem.

Or possibly your problem. :-)

"annoying" is a extreme exaggeration!

Not to me.
In my newsreader it's *one* key-press ('u', for 'up' (the (upside-down)
tree)). In most GUI newsreaders it's one click. Big fsck-ing deal!

So is not snipping posts at all.

No offense, but if you claim to have been on Usenet for 10+ years

Statement of fact. Do you think I'm lying?

you're looking quite silly
In your opinion, perhaps.

if you're bothering your audience

I don't have, or wish for an "audience". People
who wish to read my posts are free to do so, others
can ignore them.

with *your*
limitations or/and those of your newsreader (not that I think that Agent
has this limitation).

It doesn't


Even then, in a long post I would have to continually refer
back to it as I wrote the post to her.

No, since she addressed only part of your post, there is no need to go
back to any *other* part of what you wrote.

Nor is there any need not to.

So what you *wrote* was purely passenger/
commercial oriented, hence Cath' questions.

Sorry, Frank, here we disagree. I disagree that it
was "purely" passenger/commercial oriented. It was intended
as a purely historical note that it was once a method of
obtaining low cost passage before ship owners realised
that they would make more money by organising it.

Once mo Try to *read* and try to read for *comprehension*. Your
*intention* is irrelevant, because we can't see/read that. We only have
what you *wrote*. What you *wrote* was purely passenger/commercial
oriented, period. EOD.

Not from my point of view. I did state that, like aircraft
standby, it is now impossible to bargain for a cheap fare.
Therefore, it is historical, not current.

[...]

Instead of back-pedalling,
you should just realize/acknowledge that.

That is your interpretation, your value judgment on
my post. My original intention was just to
mention a method of cheap travel that was once
possible.

So you intended to write A, but wrote B and that's *our* fault exactly
*how*?

I didn't say I "intended" to word it differently, or would have
done so.

Groups are meant to be casual exchanges of information, like
a casual conversation. If I were writing a book, a speech, or
a journal article I would spend more time on it.

Usenet is as informal as a chat with a stranger, or should be.



Moral: Everyone makes mistakes. If they're pointed out to you, then
just acknowledge them and get on. It's the sane/'manly' thing to do. And
*if* you back-pedal, side-step, whinge, etc. and get caught, then don't
whinge about *that*.

Why should I try to conform to your preconceptions of what is
"sane" or "manly"?

Ever hear of the "Midtown Manhattan Survey"?

--------
Midtown Manhattan Prevalence Rates and the Implied Need for
Treatment: Meeting the Challenge of Public Mental Health

In providing a historical perspective on the lifetime rates of
psychiatric disorders estimated in the Epidemiologic Catchment
Area study and the National Comorbidity Survey, Regier et al1
state that " . . . rates had ranged . . . to highs of . . . 81.5%
in midtown Manhattan, NY." A precise and useful summary was
provided by Regier et al2 as follows:

It is important to note that the objectives and designs
of each survey were quite different (each using different
definitions of a case and different case-finding methods) and
that the age groups on which the rates were based were quite
different. Thus, the rates for each area were as follows: . . .
Midtown Manhattan, 81% of the population 20 to 59 years of age
had symptom formation that was mild to severely incapacitating,
and 23.4% of persons in this age range were substantially
impaired. "

http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/con...act/55/12/1146

[...]

It would be easier if you just commented on each point of my
posts without snipping or abbreviating it, let alone offering
your interpretation of it. :-)

It would be easier if you actually wrote what you apparently meant and
read/remember what you wrote. And for the record, Cath' "interpretation"
was the correct one.

For her and you, perhaps.

And for anyone else with half a brain.

Again, your judgment. I guarantee that have two
functioning halves.

[more of the same deleted]

Why? What is your motive for attempting to censor my posts?

Ah, the "censor" non sequitur! One of the oldest ones in the book!

Still valid, though. Or do you believe that there is no
censorship today?

There *is* no "attempt to censor". We only repeat/quote the *relevant*
parts, not the other/irrelevant parts. Not repeating is not "censoring",
not in real life and not here. What *other* things you wrote is still
available in your original posting, i.e. it is *not* "censored", it's
just not *relevant* (to what Cath (and I) wanted to address).

Hopefully you have learned something from this one.

sitting firmly on hands

For what reasons? :-) Finger fatigue? How is your typing
speed? It is easy to learn to touch type at a reasonable
rate.

Anyway, better send this before my connection times out.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:00:31 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

AFIK, my basic premise that freighters are required by
international law to have accommodation for 12 still stands.

I vaguely recall researching this for a possible trip a
couple of years ago. I visited these sites, but I never
followed it up:

http://www.freightercruises.com/
The faqs include:
http://www.freightercruises.com/main/faq.html#anchor5
"
5) How many passengers do the freighters carry?

Usually up to twelve, however, in many cases no more
than four or five."

And:
http://www.geocities.com/freighterman.geo/index.html
"How many passengers on an average freighter?

Most ships carry a maximum of twelve passengers. This is the
magic number, as ships carrying twelve or less passengers
are not required to employ a physician. One or more of the
officers has some training in emergency medical treatment,
but should you have a medical problem requiring surgical
intervention, on an immediate basis, you are just out of
luck. I am not trying to scare you, just pointing out the
reality of the situation."

It would appear that it's the other way around. 12 is the
upper limit, not the minimum.

Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest

Phew Alan,
You are trusting fate, correcting "otor mouth Kangaroo16" the ex Yank
Now you will get an epistle in return.
At least I dont see his posts as he is killfiled.
I am amazed you still bother.
John H

"Alan S" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:00:31 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

AFIK, my basic premise that freighters are required by
international law to have accommodation for 12 still stands.

I vaguely recall researching this for a possible trip a
couple of years ago. I visited these sites, but I never
followed it up:

http://www.freightercruises.com/
The faqs include:
http://www.freightercruises.com/main/faq.html#anchor5
"
5) How many passengers do the freighters carry?

Usually up to twelve, however, in many cases no more
than four or five."

And:
http://www.geocities.com/freighterman.geo/index.html
"How many passengers on an average freighter?

Most ships carry a maximum of twelve passengers. This is the
magic number, as ships carrying twelve or less passengers
are not required to employ a physician. One or more of the
officers has some training in emergency medical treatment,
but should you have a medical problem requiring surgical
intervention, on an immediate basis, you are just out of
luck. I am not trying to scare you, just pointing out the
reality of the situation."

It would appear that it's the other way around. 12 is the
upper limit, not the minimum.

Cheers, Alan, Australia
--
http://loraltravel.blogspot.com/
latest: Slovenia
http://loraltraveloz.blogspot.com/
latest: Mossman Gorge in the Daintree Rainforest

kangaroo16 wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007 21:46:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:
[...]
In most of the other groups I follow, and have previously
followed, it is considered "bad form" to snip bits from others
posts, but simply leave everything in that was written
previously.

That is the exact opposite of long established Usenet netiquette, but
more important than that, it's just common sense to snip - read: to not
repeat - irrelevant stuff.

If you know of any accepted rules or standards for this
" long established Usenet netiquette" posted anywhere, please
supply a reference. I've followed Usenet for a decade, and
have rarely seen much "etiquette" as you seem to define it.

I'm sure news.announce.newusers has all the material you (do not)
want. Also a simple search on "netiquette" would give ample results.

But, *as I said*, there's no *need* for a 'rules document', because
it's really just common sense, i.e. just as in real life. Next you'll
ask for 'rules' for not ****ing against the wind.

Again, whatever some people think, also in this respect Usenet is
not really different from real life.

Depends on the group, I suppose.

No, not when using regular, i.e. interleaved quote-response, posting.

*Top*-posters normally don't snip, because they're lazy. If they
weren't lazy, they wouldn't be top-posters.

Real (i.e. full quote follwed by all new text) bottom-posting is even
worse (than top-posting).

Snipping without indicating the snip or deletion is widely condemned.

Especially when people are *intentionally* and *silently* snipping
*relevant* comments.

But again: That *didn't* happen here, so it's *irrelevant*, so also
this issue can be snipped from future followups.

[...]

See above. 'show parent article' and/or 'Sent Items' folder.

Which still involves switching between one view and another :-)

There are these computer thingies called "windows". They're quite
handy! :-(

No offense, but if you claim to have been on Usenet for 10+ years

Statement of fact. Do you think I'm lying?

Straw man.

you're looking quite silly

In your opinion, perhaps.

And in the opinion of the rest of the audience. You can jump up and
down all you want. It's not going to change anything.

if you're bothering your audience

I don't have, or wish for an "audience". People
who wish to read my posts are free to do so, others
can ignore them.

Newsflash: This is *not* about *you*. It does not *matter* if you wish
an audience or not, you *have* an audience.

with *your*
limitations or/and those of your newsreader (not that I think that Agent
has this limitation).

It doesn't

So *what* then is your excuse for bothering your audience with your
limitations?

[...]

Moral: Everyone makes mistakes. If they're pointed out to you, then
just acknowledge them and get on. It's the sane/'manly' thing to do. And
*if* you back-pedal, side-step, whinge, etc. and get caught, then don't
whinge about *that*.

Why should I try to conform to your preconceptions of what is
"sane" or "manly"?

Because they're not *my* "preconceptions", but common accepted
practice. (And now you're going to whine about *that* term.)

[more of the same, ad infinitum]

Why? What is your motive for attempting to censor my posts?

Ah, the "censor" non sequitur! One of the oldest ones in the book!

Still valid, though. Or do you believe that there is no
censorship today?

"valid"? Are you *completely* bonkers? Do you even know/understand
what "non sequitur" means? *Per definition* it means that the conclusion
is invalid.

[...]

Hopefully you have learned something from this one.

sitting firmly on hands

For what reasons? :-) Finger fatigue?

another woosh

The concept is called 'sarchasm'.

On 21 Nov 2007 16:20:14 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:

kangaroo16 wrote:
On 20 Nov 2007 21:46:56 GMT, Frank Slootweg
wrote in
:
[...]
In most of the other groups I follow, and have previously
followed, it is considered "bad form" to snip bits from others
posts, but simply leave everything in that was written
previously.

That is the exact opposite of long established Usenet netiquette, but
more important than that, it's just common sense to snip - read: to not
repeat - irrelevant stuff.

If you know of any accepted rules or standards for this
" long established Usenet netiquette" posted anywhere, please
supply a reference. I've followed Usenet for a decade, and
have rarely seen much "etiquette" as you seem to define it.

I'm sure news.announce.newusers has all the material you (do not)
want. Also a simple search on "netiquette" would give ample results.

I'm sure it would. I might have a look at it. Many years ago I
actually read a book on formal etiquette and marveled at how
silly some of the "rules" seemed, and how obsessive/compulsive
some people must be.

I wonder how many readers always eat properly. Those that are
worried can obtain information on

Serving Food Properly, Proper Serving Order, Proper Clearing
Order, Proper Use of Knife, Fork, and Spoon, Proper Use of a
Napkin, Foods That Are Proper To Eat With Your Fingers, The
Formal Place Setting

http://www.chefalbrich.com/etiquette...knife_fork.htm

Tell us, Frank, do you ever butter a slice of bread before eating
it? Do you ever cut up meat before eating it, rather than the
"proper" technique of cutting one bite at a time?

I understand that some people follow these rather uptight
formal rules even when dining alone. I can cope with
formal occasions, but avoid them if possible.

One interesting fact that I remember from one of my
basic psychology courses. I don't mind sharing it with
you and the group.

In the U.S., lower class people use the word "toilet" when
referring to the room in which this common waste removal
device is located. Middle class people use the more "elegant"
word "bathroom", as they want to impress others. Upper class
people use the word "toilet" as they don't feel they have to
impress people.

In Australia, many homes have separate rooms for the toilet
and bathroom. The former usually only contains the toilet
itself. The bathroom contains a small bathroom sink, shower,
and usually a bathtub.

So an newly arrived American who has been invited to a party and
feels the need to urinate and/or defecate, can confuse the host
or hostess by asking him the bathroom is. They, if unfamiliar
with American usage, might wonder why the guest feels a sudden
need to wash his hands or shower or take a tub bath.

Fortunately, another guest who does know, might say "The Yank
wants to know where the loo is." Perhaps he will use the word
"toilet" or even "crapper". :-)

I won't bother to explain the Australian phrase "Kangarooing the
dyke", but others can if they wish.

Seriously, there can be quite potentially embarrassing verbal
mistakes. A couple that have heard of come to mind. One was
an American woman at a formal dinner party. The subject
of baseball came up, and she loudly declaimed that she
rooted for the Yankees. Naturally there was a dead silence.
The word "root" has a very different meaning here! [ The proper
term is "barrack". ]

For an Aussie definition of the word "root" see under the
"sport" heading in Wikipedia article "Australian English
vocabulary"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austral...rms_for_people

The first site I looked at didn't give the best definition.
Still, it does contain a lot of information, in addition to
"AUSTRALIAN DICTIONARY" heading. Directly under this
is "SEALED SECTION" but Americans might think it isn't suitable
for children.

However, Frank, If you want to check that your Aussie vocabulary
is current, you might want to read it. :-)

Another involved an immigrant, a American psychiatrist here who
gave a lecture to professional colleagues, and asked if the
audience had any questions. Someone asked how he liked
Australia.

He replied that it was a great place, and told them that one of
his teenage daughter had arrived home very late from a party
and "was so tired her fanny was dragging". Naturally, the
response of the audience was to laugh for the next couple of
minutes, which reportedly made him wonder what he had said.

In the U.S. "fanny" is a slightly refined synonym for "ass".
There would have been no mirthful response had he said that
"... her ass was dragging" Someone eventually took pity at his
obvious puzzlement, and explained that the word "fanny" here
refers to a quite different portion of female anatomy.

Am sure most readers can guess at its meaning, but perhaps
some Aussie would like to enlighten others. If not, they can
check definition (2) at:
http://www.elook.org/dictionary/fanny.html


But, *as I said*, there's no *need* for a 'rules document', because
it's really just common sense, i.e. just as in real life.

Actually, many of us believe that what is usually called "common
sense" is quite uncommon. Otherwise there wouldn't be nearly as
many injuries or deaths. Or wars, for that matter.

Next you'll
ask for 'rules' for not ****ing against the wind.

Not being an optimist, I think I have a high degree
of what could be called "common sense". However
I don't have a set of formal written rules to consult. :-)

You might want to make one for your own use, though.
I can even imagine what a sample entry might look like.

Rule 4,666 "When thirsty in winter, avoid eating yellow snow."


Again, whatever some people think, also in this respect Usenet is
not really different from real life.

Depends on the group, I suppose.

No, not when using regular, i.e. interleaved quote-response, posting.

People differ, Frank: Were we both to submit a job application,
our cover letters would probably differ.

*Top*-posters normally don't snip, because they're lazy. If they
weren't lazy, they wouldn't be top-posters.

See? We can agree on something! :-)

Real (i.e. full quote follwed by all new text) bottom-posting is even
worse (than top-posting).

A matter of opinion.

Snipping without indicating the snip or deletion is widely condemned.

Especially when people are *intentionally* and *silently* snipping
*relevant* comments.

I seldom snip anything, and when I do, I strive to always
indicate it. I also strive for accurate spelling, but sometimes
I slip up.

But again: That *didn't* happen here, so it's *irrelevant*, so also
this issue can be snipped from future followups.

If it is, it won't be by me. In nested posts of a thread I
sometimes snip some of the older ones, but I indicate the
reason for the snip.



[...]

See above. 'show parent article' and/or 'Sent Items' folder.

Which still involves switching between one view and another :-)

There are these computer thingies called "windows". They're quite
handy! :-(

There are also these "computer thingies" called "monitors" :-)
Whereas it is possible display more than one page on a monitor,
I seldom see a need for it.

No offense, but if you claim to have been on Usenet for 10+ years

Statement of fact. Do you think I'm lying?

Straw man.

Nope, when you doubt such a statement of fact, you are directly
accusing me of a lie.


you're looking quite silly

In your opinion, perhaps.

And in the opinion of the rest of the audience. You can jump up and
down all you want. It's not going to change anything.

I don't really care what other people may or not think about me.
If they think my posts worth reading, they will read them. If
they don't, they won't. Simple as that. Their decision.


if you're bothering your audience

I don't have, or wish for an "audience". People
who wish to read my posts are free to do so, others
can ignore them.

Newsflash: This is *not* about *you*. It does not *matter* if you wish
an audience or not, you *have* an audience.

Not if they decide not to read my posts or simply kill file me.
If I were giving a lecture and one or more people chose to walk
out, do you think I would beg them to return?

Reminds me of an old medical school joke, actually. The
professor is giving a lecture, and asks the class "What part
of the human body is capable of enlarging to nine times its
normal size. A female student gets up, preparing to leave,
exclaiming "I realize that this is a medical lecture, but that is
no excuse for you to deliberately trying to embarrass us!"

His reply? "Just a moment, Miss Jones, I want to explain
something to you. Firstly, the correct answer to the question is
the pupil of the human eye.
Secondly, you should avoid jumping to conclusions until
you are sure you have all the facts.
Thirdly, your comment leads me to think that you might
be very, very disappointed at your first sexual encounter with
a male partner." :-)


with *your*
limitations or/and those of your newsreader (not that I think that Agent
has this limitation).

It doesn't

So *what* then is your excuse for bothering your audience with your
limitations?

I don't think that most readers are that bothered. Do you claim
to know the opinions and emotions of all readers of this group?

Considering that some readers may have never posted on it,
there is no logical way either of us can possibly know who will
read this post, now, or in the future.

Unless, of course, you have an extraordinary ability to discern
each possible reader of this post, and telepathically read their
minds and emotions. If so, you could make much more money as
a Psychiatrist, a physical diagnostician, or a spy. :-)



[...]

Moral: Everyone makes mistakes. If they're pointed out to you, then
just acknowledge them and get on. It's the sane/'manly' thing to do. And
*if* you back-pedal, side-step, whinge, etc. and get caught, then don't
whinge about *that*.

Why should I try to conform to your preconceptions of what is
"sane" or "manly"?

Because they're not *my* "preconceptions", but common accepted
practice. (And now you're going to whine about *that* term.)

I would dispute that they are "commonly accepted" unless you
could offer more evidence.

[more of the same, ad infinitum]

Why? What is your motive for attempting to censor my posts?

Ah, the "censor" non sequitur! One of the oldest ones in the book!

Still valid, though. Or do you believe that there is no
censorship today?

"valid"? Are you *completely* bonkers? Do you even know/understand
what "non sequitur" means? *Per definition* it means that the conclusion
is invalid.

Yes, and there is no reason for you to question my sanity, or
give me lectures on language and usage.

You are free, of course, to do either or both. This is an
unmoderated Usenet group after all.

[...]

Hopefully you have learned something from this one.

sitting firmly on hands

" For what reasons? :-) Finger fatigue?

another woosh

The concept is called 'sarchasm'.

"sarchasm"? Is that an incorrect spelling of "sarcasm" or a
neologism? If the latter, please define it for us.

Having had a quick re-read of the above reply, I'm reasonably
satisfied with it. I somehow doubt that you will be, though.

Feel free to reply to it in detail if you wish. However, as I
pointed out in an earlier post, I expect to be pretty busy for
the next three weeks or so, therefore you might not get a quick
reply. However, if you reply, will tag the reply and follow it
up eventually.

After all, on such contentious issues, I often strive to have
the last word.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:31:07 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

After all, on such contentious issues, I often strive to have
the last word.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

Roo, I give up. You have had your last word for me.

You've been given suggestions to cut the verbal diarrhoea,
ranging from subtle hints to straight out demands by almost
all who've bothered to read you. But you plough cheerfully
on using a page of totally irrelevant prose when a word will
do.

Have fun mate, but it won't be on my newsreader.

Take the hint. You might be a nice guy in person but you are
a crashing bore to read.

I sincerely hope we never meet on a long flight. If you talk
like you write I'd be frantically trying to leave the
aircraft while airborne.

'bye, Alan, Australia

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 17:25:56 +1100, Alan S
wrote in :

On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 04:00:31 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

AFIK, my basic premise that freighters are required by
international law to have accommodation for 12 still stands.

I vaguely recall researching this for a possible trip a
couple of years ago. I visited these sites, but I never
followed it up:

http://www.freightercruises.com/
The faqs include:
http://www.freightercruises.com/main/faq.html#anchor5

Many thanks, mate! Your blood is worth bottling!

My apologies for the delayed response to your post. Most was
written yesterday, but ran out of time on my dial-up connection.
Intended to resume it this morning but got involved with replies
to Frank Slootweg.

Assume that may be following said posts, if you have time to
read them. They might amuse you.

After sending the latest reply post to him, got started on the
dishes. While they are soaking, will finish my reply to you.

"
5) How many passengers do the freighters carry?

Usually up to twelve, however, in many cases no more
than four or five."

Accommodation for 12, usually not even half filled. Can dig
that.

And:
http://www.geocities.com/freighterman.geo/index.html
"How many passengers on an average freighter?

Most ships carry a maximum of twelve passengers. This is the
magic number, as ships carrying twelve or less passengers
are not required to employ a physician.

Ahah! I knew there must be some reason for the "magic number" of
twelve or less! Effusive thanks for this detailed input!

Does offer some thoughts, though. Just for the hell of it, is
there any maximum?

In other words, if you and I were rich, which I doubt if either
of us are, could we [theoretically, of course] could we rent a
cheap cargo ship, go to some country with a lot of potential
migrants, and load up 300 or so on mattresses in he hold? After
all, one might have at least G.P. medical qualifications, and we
could carry him for free, counting him as the "ships doctor"?

Not trying to be remotely serious, of course, just exploring the
limits of the law. :-)

Actually, it is very difficult to draft legislation which will
cover all possible contingencies. When a law is drafted to
ban the carrying of concealed weapons, no attempt is made
to define what constitutes a "weapon". Obviously impractical,
as almost anything can be used as a weapon, even a deadly weapon.

One or more of the
officers has some training in emergency medical treatment,
but should you have a medical problem requiring surgical
intervention, on an immediate basis, you are just out of
luck. I am not trying to scare you, just pointing out the
reality of the situation."

For the sake of argument, Alan, suppose there is a small tramp
steamer with a Captain, a First mate, and a crew of ten.

The ship, by law, has to carry a "Ships Medicine Chest". If you
want, I could detail the contents of it, as well as the "INTERCO"
medical codes for the use of it.

I, personally, couldn't qualify as either Captain or First Mate,
or even as an "O.S." or "Ordinary seaman".

But I would be probably more qualified for the use of the kit
than anyone else aboard the vessel.

Am confident that "Kitty Cath" or "Frank" will attempt to
challenge me on this point, but I do know a bit about
emergency medicine and surgery.

Fortunately, most diseases and conditions aren't immediately
fatal, although they can be. If a person suffers a massive
stroke or heart attack, it can be fatal no matter what help is
immediately available. Even if it occurs in the emergency room
of a major hospital where emergency skilled teams are readily
available.

Should the average person take a first aid course? Sure, even a
limited knowledge of emergency first aid can be life-saving.
IMHO, everyone should know how to practice cardiac resuscitation,
for example.

Of course, it isn't always successful. Perhaps in one or two
percent of cases if it involves a massive infarct. Still, it is
worth a try to attempt to save a life.

Better odds if the heart is fibrillating due to an electrical
shock, for example.

Severe accidents, especially those involving massive crushing
injuries of the chest and/or abdomen? I've seen some that
couldn't be saved if a fully equipped surgical team were on the
spot when the accident happened. Even medicine and surgery have
their limits.

With some possible exceptions given in the Bible, the
overwhelming percentage of humans eventually die of something.

As Kenny Rodgers said in "The Gamblers Song", "The best that you
can hope for is to die in your sleep."

Which makes me wonder why so many governments forbid euthanasia,
actually.

Or voluntary abortion, for that matter.

It would appear that it's the other way around. 12 is the
upper limit, not the minimum.

Cheers, Alan, Australia

As another point, suppose you had a desire to "go bush" with one
or more companions?

I probably wouldn't be interested, as am old and married.
However, as a theoretical companion, you could make a far worse
choice.

Hark, group! If listen carefully you may hear Cath, Frank, and
others muttering something along the lines that "This bloke has
got tickets on himself!" :-)

If I were choosing companions for such a trip, you might be
invited. I have no idea of your range of skills, but I suspect
that you wouldn't hesitate to act when action was required.

You also strike me as someone with an open mind, therefore
a pleasant companion.

Or at least more pleasant than others I could name. :-)

If I had no responsibilities, and was a single male, I would
probably chose someone with a different range of skills, but the
same ability to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances.

Potential risk with my theoretical choice of you, as a single
male companion?

Well, suppose we were Alaskan prospectors, a more than a century
ago, confined together in a small cabin during the winter.

In the spring, would we both alive, one of us dead, or both dead?

An extreme example, perhaps but extremes are usually worth
exploring.

Suppose I had to choose from someone the this group who I hadn't
personally met? I haven't personally met any of you. Yet from
posts alone, I am confident that I could at least make a
preliminary selection. At least I would feel competent enough to
exclude some, purely on the basis of their posts.

At least a few, but I don't want to mention any names. :-)

Far too many humans labour under the delusion that everyone
is exactly like them, or at least should try to attain this
"status".

I have news for them: Of the present population of the earth,
there are roughly 6.5 billion people and no two of them are
exactly alike in all respects.

It would be interesting to know the basis on which they select
their friends and acquaintances from the people they have ever
met.

How many "friends" and "acquaintances" do they have. It does
depend a lot on how they define the terms, but IMHO I would guess
that the average person might have many "acquaintances" but
probably around five close friends that they could depend on in
all conceivable circumstances....if they are lucky, of course!

Any reader want a quick test? Go up to any "friend" or
"acquaintance" and ask if they can loan you, say $1000 in cash as
soon as they can reasonably be expected to lay their hands on
that amount. Don't tell them what you want or need it for, as it
is really none of their business. Can or will they produce it
ASAP? Then they are a true friend.

If they wonder whether you will repay it, then they don't really
trust you. Still less if they ask for a promissory note, or even
a signed acknowledgement of the loan. If they are really a
friend, they will assume that you will repay it as soon as
possible.

My wife and I have a joint account. Either of us can withdraw
any or all of it at any time, for any reason.

Perhaps an extreme degree of trust? Perhaps, but I cannot
personally conceive of being married to someone I don't totally
trust.

Others may have different standards, of course.

Looking forward to a possible reply, although my reply to it may
be delayed. Will be rather busy for the next few weeks, but
you will get one ASAP as time permits.

If you are online today, are you willing to offer any predictions
on the probable outcome?

I wouldn't be, as election outcomes are notoriously
unpredictable. Now 2:15 PM Thursday as I write these lines.

Under Australian law, as I understand it anyway, midnight is the
deadline for comments or predictions on the result of the
election. I admit I don't know if this applies to Internet
comments.

I look forward to your posts, as usual.

I look forward to all posts on this group, even those from the
persons who I won't name.

No points awarded for successful guesses to their identity, of
course.

Far too easy a challenge for any reader of this group.

Do you possibly wish to deny that you cannot possibly guess at
their identities? As to them, may their chooks change into emus
and kick their dunny down.

Fair dinkum, mate! Don't try to come the raw prawn with me!
Strewth! :-)

Avvagidday,
Kangaroo16
Posting at ~ 2:34 PM, Thursday 22 November, AEST

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:09:37 +1100, Alan S
wrote in :

On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:31:07 GMT, kangaroo16
wrote:

After all, on such contentious issues, I often strive to have
the last word.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16

Roo, I give up. You have had your last word for me.

Fair enough, mate! Everyone has the right to make their own
decisions.

You've been given suggestions to cut the verbal diarrhoea,
ranging from subtle hints to straight out demands by almost
all who've bothered to read you. But you plough cheerfully
on using a page of totally irrelevant prose when a word will
do.

Probably the result of my education and personality. Or perhaps
I'm just not intelligent enough to condense a page into a single
word. :-)

Have fun mate, but it won't be on my newsreader.

Fine, your free decision. Any reader of Usenet has that inherent
right.

From a psychological point of view, though, can you really avoid
reading this, our possibly last post? Personally, I doubt it.

Take the hint. You might be a nice guy in person but you are
a crashing bore to read.

Oh well, I don't claim perfection. Unlike some others on this
group. Not you, incidentally. I'm not God, after all.

I sincerely hope we never meet on a long flight. If you talk
like you write I'd be frantically trying to leave the
aircraft while airborne.

It is possible, as you no doubt would know, but would you
really wish to decompress the passenger cabin and inconvience the
other passengers?

Perhaps you exaggerate a bit? An understandable weakness, most
humans have a number of them, including me.

Cheers,
Kangaroo16
2:50 PM Thursday AEST

'bye, Alan, Australia