Discussion:
Payday chocolate bar ad. They used metric
Add Reply
RichA
2018-04-09 04:27:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-09 05:42:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?

Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.

And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
RichA
2018-04-09 08:33:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other countries?
trotsky
2018-04-09 11:53:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other countries?
It appeals to all the illegal aliens Trump has let pour into the country.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-09 16:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by RichA
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other countries?
It appeals to all the illegal aliens Trump has let pour into the country.
But only to the ones who can read.*






* Irony, pure irony, but I suppose there are many right-wingos out there
that can't read either. Or try to read, but totally misinterpret the
intention, purpose, gist, content, details, message, lesson and story by
replacing these things with their concerns of based on fear and
trepidation. And I'm not sure that's any better.
Rhino
2018-04-09 20:55:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by trotsky
Post by RichA
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in
other countries?
Post by trotsky
It appeals to all the illegal aliens Trump has let pour into the country.
But only to the ones who can read.*
* Irony, pure irony, but I suppose there are many right-wingos out there
that can't read either. Or try to read, but totally misinterpret the
intention, purpose, gist, content, details, message, lesson and story by
replacing these things with their concerns of based on fear and
trepidation. And I'm not sure that's any better.
And then there are the left-wingers that have trouble comprehending the
text of, say, the Second Amendment, which says that Congress will make
no laws abridging the right to own firearms. Or that find abortion
rights within the Constitution, which would surely astonish the Founding
Fathers if they could be resurrected....
--
Rhino
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-10 07:11:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
And then there are the left-wingers that have trouble comprehending the
text of, say, the Second Amendment, which says that Congress will make
no laws abridging the right to own firearms.
You missed out the "militia" part that explains their reasoning.
Post by Rhino
Or that find abortion
rights within the Constitution, which would surely astonish the Founding
Fathers if they could be resurrected....
They'd also be surprised that women and non-whites cannot be owned and
are allowed to vote. Or that old elected white men no longer wear wigs.
The Horny Goat
2018-04-09 21:36:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by trotsky
Post by RichA
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other countries?
It appeals to all the illegal aliens Trump has let pour into the country.
Now would those be the ones Trump is encouraging to head for the
Canadian border and to cross on foot into Canada?

(Which despite the fact that 80% of them are being deported they are
still encouraged to come by the thousans)
Rhino
2018-04-09 22:17:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by trotsky
Post by RichA
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other countries?
It appeals to all the illegal aliens Trump has let pour into the country.
Now would those be the ones Trump is encouraging to head for the
Canadian border and to cross on foot into Canada?
(Which despite the fact that 80% of them are being deported they are
still encouraged to come by the thousans)
They are being deported? Really? I've seen several stories about
significant numbers of Somalis, Haitians and so forth who have been
living in America, sometimes for decades, crossing to Canada. I've also
heard how the Olympic Stadium in Montreal, to name just the most famous
facility, has been turned into a place for them to stay because they are
overwhelming existing facilities for border-jumpers. But I have NOT
heard of *any* of them being deported, let alone 80% of them! As I
understand it, they get started on their refugee claims very quickly.
I'm under the impression that the vast majority of refugee claimants are
eventually approved to live here, although it can take years for
Immigration to get through the backlogs. Apparently, quite a few refugee
claimants simply go underground without a word to the Immigration people
rather than wait for the paperwork to go through.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2018-04-10 05:12:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:17:26 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by trotsky
Post by RichA
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other countries?
It appeals to all the illegal aliens Trump has let pour into the country.
Now would those be the ones Trump is encouraging to head for the
Canadian border and to cross on foot into Canada?
(Which despite the fact that 80% of them are being deported they are
still encouraged to come by the thousans)
They are being deported? Really? I've seen several stories about
significant numbers of Somalis, Haitians and so forth who have been
living in America, sometimes for decades, crossing to Canada. I've also
heard how the Olympic Stadium in Montreal, to name just the most famous
facility, has been turned into a place for them to stay because they are
overwhelming existing facilities for border-jumpers. But I have NOT
heard of *any* of them being deported, let alone 80% of them! As I
understand it, they get started on their refugee claims very quickly.
I'm under the impression that the vast majority of refugee claimants are
eventually approved to live here, although it can take years for
Immigration to get through the backlogs. Apparently, quite a few refugee
claimants simply go underground without a word to the Immigration people
rather than wait for the paperwork to go through.
I take your point.

80% of them are turned down for refugee status but simply being told
to leave does NOT translate into these folks actually leaving.

I agree Canada has been absolutely gutless in deporting people under
deportation orders and it is an obscenity that people have been
allowed to stay long enough to have babies who are able to claim
citizenship since Canada and the US both share a very dysfunctional
system that anyone born on their soil gains citizenship rights
irregardless of whether their parents had the right to be here in the
first place.

Call me neanderthal, but it seems to me that pregnant women should be
first in the deportation queue and deportation orders should be
strictly enforced - there should be no bail pending deportation
PARTICULARLY when there's a crime involved.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-09 16:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other countries?
I've never seen a Payday chocolate bar here. With good reason: the
cheapest chocolate bars available in Germany taste so much better than
anything I've ever had in the U.S. (except for super expensive imports
from elsewhere: $12 for what I'd pay under 2 euros here!).

So I guess the ad was meant to confuse only you.

Perhaps others are unaware or not paying attention. Or aware and just
don't care. After all, most people in the world would have zero issues
with metric measurements. Everyone instantly knows how many meters long
a kilometer is, for instance.

Quick, how many yards are there in a mile?

Why are "ounces" used for both weight and volume, with some 16 to a
unit, others only 12? That's just crazy.

Tell me why normal body temperature is 98.6 degrees and not just rounded
up to 97. -> en.wikipedia.org

For laughs and giggles, ask a European how far 5/8 of a mile is.

For the most part it's Americans confusing the rest of the world by
sticking with an archaic and irregular system of weights and measures,
when a logical and virtually universal system exists.

Yet another fine example of conservatism in action: intentionally
keeping things crazy complicated, less economical and way effed up.
suzeeq
2018-04-09 17:00:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other
countries?
I've never seen a Payday chocolate bar here. With good reason: the
cheapest chocolate bars available in Germany taste so much better than
anything I've ever had in the U.S. (except for super expensive imports
from elsewhere: $12 for what I'd pay under 2 euros here!).
So I guess the ad was meant to confuse only you.
Perhaps others are unaware or not paying attention. Or aware and just
don't care. After all, most people in the world would have zero issues
with metric measurements. Everyone instantly knows how many meters long
a kilometer is, for instance.
Quick, how many yards are there in a mile?
Why are "ounces" used for both weight and volume, with some 16 to a
unit, others only 12? That's just crazy.
I've never heard of a 12oz measure for something that normally has 16.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-09 19:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by suzeeq
Post by Darrel Knutson
Why are "ounces" used for both weight and volume, with some 16 to a
unit, others only 12? That's just crazy.
I've never heard of a 12oz measure for something that normally has 16.
Now that I look,...

imperial fluid ounce: 1/20 of a pint
US fluid ounce: 1/16 of a pint
ounce (weight): 16 per pound

*12* ounces is the typical size of a can of Coca Cola. I've guess I've
heard "a 12-oz. blah" too many times.

I screwed up on body temperature, too:

It's 98.6 degrees and not simply rounded up to 99 degrees.
number6
2018-04-10 02:24:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
It's 98.6 degrees and not simply rounded up to 99 degrees.
There's a good story why ... A little hazy but I think it's this ..
When Gabriel Fahrenheit was looking to make a temperature scale. He made
the coldest temperature he could make in the lab as 0 degrees and ice forming
at 32 and body temperature at 96 ... these were nice divisible numbers ...
but then he discovered water boiled at around but not exactly 212 degrees and since 212-32 was 180 (an even better divisible number) he made that exactly
212 ... bringing the previous body temp of 96 to 98.6 ...
Adam H. Kerman
2018-04-10 05:56:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by number6
Post by Darrel Knutson
It's 98.6 degrees and not simply rounded up to 99 degrees.
There's a good story why ... A little hazy but I think it's this ..
When Gabriel Fahrenheit was looking to make a temperature scale. He made
the coldest temperature he could make in the lab as 0 degrees and ice forming
at 32 and body temperature at 96 ... these were nice divisible numbers ...
but then he discovered water boiled at around but not exactly 212
degrees and since 212-32 was 180 (an even better divisible number) he
made that exactly
212 ... bringing the previous body temp of 96 to 98.6 ...
Right. Fahrenheit really did start off thinking of a centigrade scale. I
really dislike the Celsius scale. Farenheit's finer degrees are a lot
easier to work with.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-10 07:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
It's 98.6 degrees and not simply rounded up to 99 degrees.
There's a good story why ... A little hazy but I think it's this .. When
Gabriel Fahrenheit was looking to make a temperature scale. He made the
coldest temperature he could make in the lab as 0 degrees and ice forming
at 32 and body temperature at 96 ... these were nice divisible numbers ...
but then he discovered water boiled at around but not exactly 212 degrees
and since 212-32 was 180 (an even better divisible number) he made that
exactly 212 ... bringing the previous body temp of 96 to 98.6 ...
Here's a tip: It has nothing to do with Fahrenheit. Convert 98.6 F into
celcius and see *exactly* what happens.
Barry Margolin
2018-04-10 16:25:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Darrel Knutson
It's 98.6 degrees and not simply rounded up to 99 degrees.
There's a good story why ... A little hazy but I think it's this .. When
Gabriel Fahrenheit was looking to make a temperature scale. He made the
coldest temperature he could make in the lab as 0 degrees and ice forming
at 32 and body temperature at 96 ... these were nice divisible numbers ...
but then he discovered water boiled at around but not exactly 212 degrees
and since 212-32 was 180 (an even better divisible number) he made that
exactly 212 ... bringing the previous body temp of 96 to 98.6 ...
Here's a tip: It has nothing to do with Fahrenheit. Convert 98.6 F into
celcius and see *exactly* what happens.
I assumed that was it, but www.livescience.com/39916-fahrenheit.html
agrees substantially with number6. They say the recalibration happened
after Fahrenheit's death, not by Fahrenheit himself, to make conversion
between Fahrenheit and Celsius either (the 5:9 ratio of degrees).

I think it's just lucky coicidence that the revised body temperature
ended up being an integer in Celsius.
--
Barry Margolin
Arlington, MA
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-11 18:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Darrel Knutson
It's 98.6 degrees and not simply rounded up to 99 degrees.
There's a good story why ... A little hazy but I think it's this .. When
Gabriel Fahrenheit was looking to make a temperature scale. He made the
coldest temperature he could make in the lab as 0 degrees and ice forming
at 32 and body temperature at 96 ... these were nice divisible numbers ...
but then he discovered water boiled at around but not exactly 212 degrees
and since 212-32 was 180 (an even better divisible number) he made that
exactly 212 ... bringing the previous body temp of 96 to 98.6 ...
Here's a tip: It has nothing to do with Fahrenheit. Convert 98.6 F into
celcius and see *exactly* what happens.
I assumed that was it, but www.livescience.com/39916-fahrenheit.html
agrees substantially with number6. They say the recalibration happened
after Fahrenheit's death, not by Fahrenheit himself, to make conversion
between Fahrenheit and Celsius either (the 5:9 ratio of degrees).
I think it's just lucky coicidence that the revised body temperature
ended up being an integer in Celsius.
It started as 37 degrees celcius and was then converted to degrees
Fahrenheit, which should logically have been rounded up to 99 degrees.
But, they stuck with the exact 98.6 degrees conversion.
number6
2018-04-11 23:33:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Barry Margolin
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Darrel Knutson
It's 98.6 degrees and not simply rounded up to 99 degrees.
There's a good story why ... A little hazy but I think it's this .. When
Gabriel Fahrenheit was looking to make a temperature scale. He made the
coldest temperature he could make in the lab as 0 degrees and ice forming
at 32 and body temperature at 96 ... these were nice divisible numbers ...
but then he discovered water boiled at around but not exactly 212 degrees
and since 212-32 was 180 (an even better divisible number) he made that
exactly 212 ... bringing the previous body temp of 96 to 98.6 ...
Here's a tip: It has nothing to do with Fahrenheit. Convert 98.6 F into
celcius and see *exactly* what happens.
I assumed that was it, but www.livescience.com/39916-fahrenheit.html
agrees substantially with number6. They say the recalibration happened
after Fahrenheit's death, not by Fahrenheit himself, to make conversion
between Fahrenheit and Celsius either (the 5:9 ratio of degrees).
I think it's just lucky coicidence that the revised body temperature
ended up being an integer in Celsius.
It started as 37 degrees celcius and was then converted to degrees
Fahrenheit, which should logically have been rounded up to 99 degrees.
But, they stuck with the exact 98.6 degrees conversion.
Hmmm ... a time paradox as the Fahrenheit scale was developed 20 years BEFORE
the Centigrade Scale ...
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-12 12:13:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
It started as 37 degrees celcius and was then converted to degrees
Post by Darrel Knutson
Fahrenheit, which should logically have been rounded up to 99 degrees.
But, they stuck with the exact 98.6 degrees conversion.
Hmmm ... a time paradox as the Fahrenheit scale was developed 20 years BEFORE
the Centigrade Scale ...
Afterwards, determination of body temperature was first made in a study
employing Celcius, then converted into Fahrenheit.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body_temperature>

"Historical understanding

In the 19th century, most books quoted "blood heat" as 98 °F, until a
study published the mean (but not the variance) of a large sample as
36.88 °C (98.38 °F). Subsequently that mean was widely quoted as "37 °C
or 98.4 °F" until editors realised 37 °C is closer to 98.6 °F than 98.4
°F. Dictionaries and other sources that quoted these averages did add
the word "about" to show that there is some variance, but generally did
not state how wide the variance is."
Rhino
2018-04-09 19:11:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar.  They mentioned the
sizes of
the two bars.  But in metric, centimeters.  I wonder why?  Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other
countries?
I've never seen a Payday chocolate bar here. With good reason: the
cheapest chocolate bars available in Germany taste so much better than
anything I've ever had in the U.S. (except for super expensive imports
from elsewhere: $12 for what I'd pay under 2 euros here!).
So I guess the ad was meant to confuse only you.
Perhaps others are unaware or not paying attention. Or aware and just
don't care. After all, most people in the world would have zero issues
with metric measurements. Everyone instantly knows how many meters long
a kilometer is, for instance.
Quick, how many yards are there in a mile?
Why are "ounces" used for both weight and volume, with some 16 to a
unit, others only 12? That's just crazy.
I've never heard of a 12oz measure for something that normally has 16.
I wonder if he is confusing US liquid measure with Imperial liquid measure?

Canadians are well aware that US gallons are smaller than Imperial
(British) gallons. A US gallon is 3.785 liters whereas an Imperial
gallon is 4.54609 liters. The same issues apply to pints, quarts, etc.
--
Rhino
Adam H. Kerman
2018-04-10 06:21:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by suzeeq
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar.  They mentioned the
sizes of
the two bars.  But in metric, centimeters.  I wonder why?  Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other
countries?
I've never seen a Payday chocolate bar here. With good reason: the
cheapest chocolate bars available in Germany taste so much better than
anything I've ever had in the U.S. (except for super expensive imports
from elsewhere: $12 for what I'd pay under 2 euros here!).
So I guess the ad was meant to confuse only you.
Perhaps others are unaware or not paying attention. Or aware and just
don't care. After all, most people in the world would have zero issues
with metric measurements. Everyone instantly knows how many meters long
a kilometer is, for instance.
Quick, how many yards are there in a mile?
Why are "ounces" used for both weight and volume, with some 16 to a
unit, others only 12? That's just crazy.
I've never heard of a 12oz measure for something that normally has 16.
I wonder if he is confusing US liquid measure with Imperial liquid measure?
No. The stupid sockpuppet is mixing up the grain-dram-ounce-pound system
of avoirdupois with apothecaries and troy. Grain is common among all three.

In avoirdupois, there are 7000 grains to the pound, 256 drams, and 16
ounces.

In apothecaries, 1 pound has 5760 grains, 288 scruples, 96 drams, and 12
ounces. This was abolished in Great Britain in 1864, when they began
using avoirdupois for drug measurements.

In troy, used for gemstones, 1 pound has 5760 grains (note that this is
the same as apothecaries). 24 grains to a pennyweight, 20 pennyweights
to an ounce, 12 ounces to a pound.
Post by Rhino
Canadians are well aware that US gallons are smaller than Imperial
(British) gallons. A US gallon is 3.785 liters whereas an Imperial
gallon is 4.54609 liters. The same issues apply to pints, quarts, etc.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-10 10:01:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Adam H. Kerman
Post by Rhino
I wonder if he is confusing US liquid measure with Imperial liquid measure?
No. The stupid sockpuppet is mixing up the grain-dram-ounce-pound system
of avoirdupois with apothecaries and troy. Grain is common among all three.
Why so derogatory? What have I done to you?
Post by Adam H. Kerman
In avoirdupois, there are 7000 grains to the pound, 256 drams, and 16
ounces.
In apothecaries, 1 pound has 5760 grains, 288 scruples, 96 drams, and 12
ounces. This was abolished in Great Britain in 1864, when they began
using avoirdupois for drug measurements.
In troy, used for gemstones, 1 pound has 5760 grains (note that this is
the same as apothecaries). 24 grains to a pennyweight, 20 pennyweights
to an ounce, 12 ounces to a pound.
Thanks for correcting my errors. Can I call you "sock drawer" now?
Rhino
2018-04-09 19:01:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
The ad was American, for American sales, unless they're using it in other
countries?
I've never seen a Payday chocolate bar here. With good reason: the
cheapest chocolate bars available in Germany taste so much better than
anything I've ever had in the U.S. (except for super expensive imports
from elsewhere: $12 for what I'd pay under 2 euros here!).
So I guess the ad was meant to confuse only you.
Perhaps others are unaware or not paying attention. Or aware and just
don't care. After all, most people in the world would have zero issues
with metric measurements. Everyone instantly knows how many meters long
a kilometer is, for instance.
Quick, how many yards are there in a mile?
Why are "ounces" used for both weight and volume, with some 16 to a
unit, others only 12? That's just crazy.
Tell me why normal body temperature is 98.6 degrees and not just rounded
up to 97. -> en.wikipedia.org
For laughs and giggles, ask a European how far 5/8 of a mile is.
For the most part it's Americans confusing the rest of the world by
sticking with an archaic and irregular system of weights and measures,
when a logical and virtually universal system exists.
Yet another fine example of conservatism in action: intentionally
keeping things crazy complicated, less economical and way effed up.
One point: conservatism is NOT about resisting change - all change - no
matter what. Change happens and conservatives know that and are capable
of going with the flow. For instance, conservatives didn't resist
electricity or using cell phones when they came along because they had
obvious uses/advantages. But conservative people do have a certain
resistance to change for change sake. In other words, if the old way
still works fine, why complicate everyone's life by doing things
differently? So I can well understand Americans being resistant to the
metric system because they have a perfectly adequate measuring system
already.

The US military - arguably a very conservative institution - uses the
metric system and has for a long time. I assume that's because of
America's involvement in NATO and the need to work with other countries
that were predominantly metric. (Canada started converting to metric in
1979 and phased it in gradually over several years.) Imagine the chaos
if a Belgian spotter told an American artillery battery to fire at an
enemy 450 meters away and the American didn't know the conversion and
just guessed (or failed to fire in time because he was scrambling to
find out the conversion)? Or just fired at something 450 yards away?
That would actually be pretty close but the difference could be crucial
in a real battle. I've often wondered if the standard use of metric in
the US military would eventually percolate out to the rest of the US
economy but, so far, it hasn't in any big way.

There's no doubt that the Imperial system is less logical than the
metric one but it *does* work and has for centuries. The cost of
converting all manufacturing over to the metric system would be
substantial. All sorts of manufactured items would require expensive
modifications; for instance, drink containers would have to be made in
metric sizes like liters instead of quarts. All kinds of packaging would
have to be redone to use metric units. I expect most garages would
already be fine since so many metric vehicles already operate on US
roads that most mechanics probably already have wrenches in both US and
metric systems. But the average weekend mechanic may have problems if
he's always bought American cars. Gun owners might have challenges
adapting to calibers expressed in metric units. Motorists would be
confused by gas priced in liters instead of gallons. (I still remember
when we started converting to metric in Canada. One day, the gas was
99.9 cents/gallon and I was wondering how they'd accomodate any increase
in price since all the signs only had a capacity of 3 digits. The next
day, the prices were 19.9 but were measuring liters instead of gallons.
And now the signs mostly have 4 digit capacity so there's no problem
accomodating 130.9 cents/liter).

Based on my experience, even if America switched to metric tomorrow and
stopped teaching anything but metric in school the same day, people
(especially older people) would continue to use the old units for
decades. For instance, it's not unusual to hear Canadians say things
like "What a scorcher it is today! Must be 90 degrees!" even 30+ years
after we went metric. That, of course is 90 degrees Fahrenheit, even
though we're a metric country now. But the kids who grew up on the
metric system and never really learned the imperial system probably
think only in metric units. And Canadians who grew up on the old system
probably use miles or miles/hour almost as often as they to kilometers
or kilometers/hour. I was telling an anecdote the other day in which I
did 80 past a radar training station (which I didn't know was there) and
got away with it. I was referring to 80 miles/hour (back when speed
limits were 50 or 60 mph); a metric-only person would just be baffled by
that anecdote and wonder why I thought it was a big deal to drive 80
kilometers/hour when the speed limit on major roads is usually 100 kph.
I'm *still* not used to measuring tire pressures in kilopascals and
honestly couldn't tell you what pressure my tires need in those units
without digging out my manual. But I know that I need 35 psi so I'm good
to go.
--
Rhino
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-09 19:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Based on my experience, even if America switched to metric tomorrow and
stopped teaching anything but metric in school the same day, people
(especially older people) would continue to use the old units for
decades. For instance, it's not unusual to hear Canadians say things
like "What a scorcher it is today! Must be 90 degrees!" even 30+ years
after we went metric. That, of course is 90 degrees Fahrenheit, even
though we're a metric country now. But the kids who grew up on the
metric system and never really learned the imperial system probably
think only in metric units. And Canadians who grew up on the old system
probably use miles or miles/hour almost as often as they to kilometers
or kilometers/hour. I was telling an anecdote the other day in which I
did 80 past a radar training station (which I didn't know was there) and
got away with it. I was referring to 80 miles/hour (back when speed
limits were 50 or 60 mph); a metric-only person would just be baffled by
that anecdote and wonder why I thought it was a big deal to drive 80
kilometers/hour when the speed limit on major roads is usually 100 kph.
I'm *still* not used to measuring tire pressures in kilopascals and
honestly couldn't tell you what pressure my tires need in those units
without digging out my manual. But I know that I need 35 psi so I'm good
to go.
For lack of time, three things to note:

1. Great info. Thanks!

2. I hear Brits still talking about how many "stone" they weigh. I have
no idea what that is and not sure I ever want to.

3. Living on the border, I saw a lot of people stopped for traffic
violations. On both sides. The Americans cross the border, see the first
"100" sign and hit the gas like they're on the friggen Autobahn (I
regularly drive 190 kph here in Germany) and are then stopped by
Canadian police. The Canadians cross the border, see the "65" sign and
drive dangerously slow on the Interstate, causing them to be pulled over
by American police.
suzeeq
2018-04-09 20:18:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
Based on my experience, even if America switched to metric tomorrow and
stopped teaching anything but metric in school the same day, people
(especially older people) would continue to use the old units for
decades. For instance, it's not unusual to hear Canadians say things
like "What a scorcher it is today! Must be 90 degrees!" even 30+ years
after we went metric. That, of course is 90 degrees Fahrenheit, even
though we're a metric country now. But the kids who grew up on the
metric system and never really learned the imperial system probably
think only in metric units. And Canadians who grew up on the old system
probably use miles or miles/hour almost as often as they to kilometers
or kilometers/hour. I was telling an anecdote the other day in which I
did 80 past a radar training station (which I didn't know was there) and
got away with it. I was referring to 80 miles/hour (back when speed
limits were 50 or 60 mph); a metric-only person would just be baffled by
that anecdote and wonder why I thought it was a big deal to drive 80
kilometers/hour when the speed limit on major roads is usually 100 kph.
I'm *still* not used to measuring tire pressures in kilopascals and
honestly couldn't tell you what pressure my tires need in those units
without digging out my manual. But I know that I need 35 psi so I'm good
to go.
1. Great info. Thanks!
2. I hear Brits still talking about how many "stone" they weigh. I have
no idea what that is and not sure I ever want to.
14 pounds, I learned that a long time ago.
Post by Darrel Knutson
3. Living on the border, I saw a lot of people stopped for traffic
violations. On both sides. The Americans cross the border, see the first
"100" sign and hit the gas like they're on the friggen Autobahn (I
regularly drive 190 kph here in Germany) and are then stopped by
Canadian police. The Canadians cross the border, see the "65" sign and
drive dangerously slow on the Interstate, causing them to be pulled over
by American police.
Rhino
2018-04-09 20:52:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
Based on my experience, even if America switched to metric tomorrow and
stopped teaching anything but metric in school the same day, people
(especially older people) would continue to use the old units for
decades. For instance, it's not unusual to hear Canadians say things
like "What a scorcher it is today! Must be 90 degrees!" even 30+ years
after we went metric. That, of course is 90 degrees Fahrenheit, even
though we're a metric country now. But the kids who grew up on the
metric system and never really learned the imperial system probably
think only in metric units. And Canadians who grew up on the old system
probably use miles or miles/hour almost as often as they to kilometers
or kilometers/hour. I was telling an anecdote the other day in which I
did 80 past a radar training station (which I didn't know was there) and
got away with it. I was referring to 80 miles/hour (back when speed
limits were 50 or 60 mph); a metric-only person would just be baffled by
that anecdote and wonder why I thought it was a big deal to drive 80
kilometers/hour when the speed limit on major roads is usually 100 kph.
I'm *still* not used to measuring tire pressures in kilopascals and
honestly couldn't tell you what pressure my tires need in those units
without digging out my manual. But I know that I need 35 psi so I'm good
to go.
1. Great info. Thanks!
No problem :-)
Post by Darrel Knutson
2. I hear Brits still talking about how many "stone" they weigh. I have
no idea what that is and not sure I ever want to.
If I remember correctly, a stone is 14 pounds (weight as opposed to
currency). Wikipedia confirms that and gives some interesting (to me)
history of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)
Post by Darrel Knutson
3. Living on the border, I saw a lot of people stopped for traffic
violations. On both sides. The Americans cross the border, see the first
"100" sign and hit the gas like they're on the friggen Autobahn (I
regularly drive 190 kph here in Germany) and are then stopped by
Canadian police. The Canadians cross the border, see the "65" sign and
drive dangerously slow on the Interstate, causing them to be pulled over
by American police.
Really? Because when I crossed in the early days of metrication, I
remember seeing signs at the border warning US motorists of the units
use on Canadian road signs. I don't recall if they did anything like
that on the US side of the border for the sake of Canadian drivers but
it hardly seems necessary: we knew that the US was still using the
imperial system which had been OUR system very shortly before and
exactly what we had all grown up on (except recent immigrants from
metric countries).

There's an example of the signs at the border in this article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Canada
--
Rhino
suzeeq
2018-04-09 21:05:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
Based on my experience, even if America switched to metric tomorrow and
stopped teaching anything but metric in school the same day, people
(especially older people) would continue to use the old units for
decades. For instance, it's not unusual to hear Canadians say things
like "What a scorcher it is today! Must be 90 degrees!" even 30+ years
after we went metric. That, of course is 90 degrees Fahrenheit, even
though we're a metric country now. But the kids who grew up on the
metric system and never really learned the imperial system probably
think only in metric units. And Canadians who grew up on the old system
probably use miles or miles/hour almost as often as they to kilometers
or kilometers/hour. I was telling an anecdote the other day in which I
did 80 past a radar training station (which I didn't know was there) and
got away with it. I was referring to 80 miles/hour (back when speed
limits were 50 or 60 mph); a metric-only person would just be baffled by
that anecdote and wonder why I thought it was a big deal to drive 80
kilometers/hour when the speed limit on major roads is usually 100 kph.
I'm *still* not used to measuring tire pressures in kilopascals and
honestly couldn't tell you what pressure my tires need in those units
without digging out my manual. But I know that I need 35 psi so I'm good
to go.
1. Great info. Thanks!
No problem :-)
Post by Darrel Knutson
2. I hear Brits still talking about how many "stone" they weigh. I have
no idea what that is and not sure I ever want to.
If I remember correctly, a stone is 14 pounds (weight as opposed to
currency). Wikipedia confirms that and gives some interesting (to me)
history of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)
Post by Darrel Knutson
3. Living on the border, I saw a lot of people stopped for traffic
violations. On both sides. The Americans cross the border, see the first
"100" sign and hit the gas like they're on the friggen Autobahn (I
regularly drive 190 kph here in Germany) and are then stopped by
Canadian police. The Canadians cross the border, see the "65" sign and
drive dangerously slow on the Interstate, causing them to be pulled over
by American police.
Really? Because when I crossed in the early days of metrication, I
remember seeing signs at the border warning US motorists of the units
use on Canadian road signs. I don't recall if they did anything like
that on the US side of the border for the sake of Canadian drivers but
it hardly seems necessary: we knew that the US was still using the
imperial system which had been OUR system very shortly before and
exactly what we had all grown up on (except recent immigrants from
metric countries).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Canada
I haven't been across the border in a long time, but I do remember
warning signs on the same post as the speed limit signs. Maybe they
don't do it anymore.
Rhino
2018-04-09 22:10:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by suzeeq
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
Based on my experience, even if America switched to metric tomorrow and
stopped teaching anything but metric in school the same day, people
(especially older people) would continue to use the old units for
decades. For instance, it's not unusual to hear Canadians say things
like "What a scorcher it is today! Must be 90 degrees!" even 30+ years
after we went metric. That, of course is 90 degrees Fahrenheit, even
though we're a metric country now. But the kids who grew up on the
metric system and never really learned the imperial system probably
think only in metric units. And Canadians who grew up on the old system
probably use miles or miles/hour almost as often as they to kilometers
or kilometers/hour. I was telling an anecdote the other day in which I
did 80 past a radar training station (which I didn't know was there) and
got away with it. I was referring to 80 miles/hour (back when speed
limits were 50 or 60 mph); a metric-only person would just be baffled by
that anecdote and wonder why I thought it was a big deal to drive 80
kilometers/hour when the speed limit on major roads is usually 100 kph.
I'm *still* not used to measuring tire pressures in kilopascals and
honestly couldn't tell you what pressure my tires need in those units
without digging out my manual. But I know that I need 35 psi so I'm good
to go.
1. Great info. Thanks!
No problem :-)
Post by Darrel Knutson
2. I hear Brits still talking about how many "stone" they weigh. I have
no idea what that is and not sure I ever want to.
If I remember correctly, a stone is 14 pounds (weight as opposed to
currency). Wikipedia confirms that and gives some interesting (to me)
history of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)
Post by Darrel Knutson
3. Living on the border, I saw a lot of people stopped for traffic
violations. On both sides. The Americans cross the border, see the first
"100" sign and hit the gas like they're on the friggen Autobahn (I
regularly drive 190 kph here in Germany) and are then stopped by
Canadian police. The Canadians cross the border, see the "65" sign and
drive dangerously slow on the Interstate, causing them to be pulled over
by American police.
Really? Because when I crossed in the early days of metrication, I
remember seeing signs at the border warning US motorists of the units
use on Canadian road signs. I don't recall if they did anything like
that on the US side of the border for the sake of Canadian drivers but
it hardly seems necessary: we knew that the US was still using the
imperial system which had been OUR system very shortly before and
exactly what we had all grown up on (except recent immigrants from
metric countries).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Canada
I haven't been across the border in a long time, but I do remember
warning signs on the same post as the speed limit signs. Maybe they
don't do it anymore.
I haven't crossed in three or four years now and I didn't pay attention
that time because I know about the different measuring systems. Given
that the average American visitor doesn't come that often and knows
little about Canada, I assume they still leave those warning signs in
place. The frequent visitors won't need it but the people that are
driving up for the first time may benefit from it.

Hmm. I wonder if car rental places make a point of warning people
verbally? I don't recall seeing any signs warning people arriving by air
of the different measurement system.... Mind you, the speedometers on
this side of the border have both scales - just as most American-made
cars do - but the metric scale is the bigger one here. I can imagine
people in rental cars seeing their speed go up to 100 (kph) and possibly
thinking they are doing 100 mph and then backing off to 60 (kph) but
then realizing they are going way slower than everyone else around them
and speeding up to match the other cars. After all, the first rule of
travel is "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" so if they find they're
going way faster or slower than prevailing traffic, they will adjust to
the conditions around them. Or have a nice police officer explain
things to them ;-)
--
Rhino
BTR1701
2018-04-10 01:41:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by suzeeq
I haven't been across the border in a long time, but I do remember
warning signs on the same post as the speed limit signs. Maybe they
don't do it anymore.
I haven't crossed in three or four years now
Every time I cross, I'm impressed at the way the Canadidians seem to put
attractive, cheerful women at customs who welcome you to Canadia with a
big smile, and how pleasant they are compared the surly, grunting, dour
American ICE officers when I cross back to the US.
Rhino
2018-04-10 02:17:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
Post by suzeeq
I haven't been across the border in a long time, but I do remember
warning signs on the same post as the speed limit signs. Maybe they
don't do it anymore.
I haven't crossed in three or four years now
Every time I cross, I'm impressed at the way the Canadidians seem to put
attractive, cheerful women at customs who welcome you to Canadia with a
big smile, and how pleasant they are compared the surly, grunting, dour
American ICE officers when I cross back to the US.
The last few times I crossed, I think I got only male agents. But even
they were friendlier than the American ICE people I encountered going
into the US. I've never done that job so I can only begin to imagine
what makes them the way they are on either side of the border. I suppose
the management culture is different and maybe the union.

Were the Canadian border agents you met armed? Until a few years ago,
our border people weren't usually armed so maybe they were nicer just
because they were afraid of a confrontation with arriving Americans who
might well be armed ;-) [Yes, I'm being tongue-in-cheek, not serious.]
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2018-04-10 05:19:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 22:17:24 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
The last few times I crossed, I think I got only male agents. But even
they were friendlier than the American ICE people I encountered going
into the US. I've never done that job so I can only begin to imagine
what makes them the way they are on either side of the border. I suppose
the management culture is different and maybe the union.
Were the Canadian border agents you met armed? Until a few years ago,
our border people weren't usually armed so maybe they were nicer just
because they were afraid of a confrontation with arriving Americans who
might well be armed ;-) [Yes, I'm being tongue-in-cheek, not serious.]
I've never encountered that either at the truck Customs or at the
airport. Admittedly I seldom use the 'civilian' line at the land
crossing so it's possible they're all there.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-10 07:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Rhino
Post by suzeeq
I haven't been across the border in a long time, but I do remember
warning signs on the same post as the speed limit signs. Maybe they
don't do it anymore.
I haven't crossed in three or four years now
Every time I cross, I'm impressed at the way the Canadidians seem to put
attractive, cheerful women at customs who welcome you to Canadia with a
big smile, and how pleasant they are compared the surly, grunting, dour
American ICE officers when I cross back to the US.
I've crossed the border many times after flying to Vancouver with my
German wife. We have never been handled with anything approaching
respect on the American side (long waits, being given clearly wrong
information, zero friendliness) with just the opposite happening on the
way back. Oh, Canada!

By contrast, German customs officers aren't all that friendly, but they
are damned fast and efficient, so I'm fine with it.
The Horny Goat
2018-04-10 05:08:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:10:52 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
I haven't crossed in three or four years now and I didn't pay attention
that time because I know about the different measuring systems. Given
that the average American visitor doesn't come that often and knows
little about Canada, I assume they still leave those warning signs in
place. The frequent visitors won't need it but the people that are
driving up for the first time may benefit from it.
I confess the Surrey RCMP are far more generous than the city cops in
Blaine, WA who are determined to raise as much Canadian moolah as
possible in speeding fines with their 25 mph speed limits from the
city limits (which are out in semi-rural areas) to the border
including in the highway approach to the truck crossing.

This look like a 25 mph zone to you?
https://www.google.ca/maps/@48.9939867,-122.7349862,3a,75y,2.98h,82.77t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6peRhnB2uxC4h1VGKUHSUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D6peRhnB2uxC4h1VGKUHSUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D0.7870238%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664
(that's the main truck route to Canada Customs about 1/2 mile south of
the US border)
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-10 07:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 18:10:52 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
I haven't crossed in three or four years now and I didn't pay attention
that time because I know about the different measuring systems. Given
that the average American visitor doesn't come that often and knows
little about Canada, I assume they still leave those warning signs in
place. The frequent visitors won't need it but the people that are
driving up for the first time may benefit from it.
I confess the Surrey RCMP are far more generous than the city cops in
Blaine, WA who are determined to raise as much Canadian moolah as
possible in speeding fines with their 25 mph speed limits from the
city limits (which are out in semi-rural areas) to the border
including in the highway approach to the truck crossing.
Stop! You're making me homesick. My twin brother lives in the next town
to the south. What's funny is that I have never actually been to Blaine,
although I have driven through it hundreds of times.

And I'd bet the Blaine police put up huge billboards using municipal
funds so they can hide their speed traps out of sight from southbound
traffic.
Post by The Horny Goat
This look like a 25 mph zone to you?
ta=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s6peRhnB2uxC4h1VGKUHSUw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%
3Fpanoid%3D6peRhnB2uxC4h1VGKUHSUw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_
sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D0.7870238%26pitch%3
D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i3328!8i1664 (that's the main truck route to Canada
Customs about 1/2 mile south of the US border)
That's a travesty and violates my rights as the holder of a German
driving license!
Ed Stasiak
2018-04-10 18:34:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Darrel Knutson
The Horny Goat
This look like a 25 mph zone to you?
That's a travesty and violates my rights as the holder of a German
driving license!

Darrel Knutson
2018-04-11 18:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Darrel Knutson
The Horny Goat
This look like a 25 mph zone to you?
That's a travesty and violates my rights as the holder of a German
driving license!
http://youtu.be/FlZZbR2iR84
Oddly enough, Kraftwerk's Autobahn was a hit on the radio the very week
I started formally learning German in high school in September, 1973.

It took many years before the next German language song hit the top of
the charts: Rock Me Amadeus from Falco (an Austrian who died in a
motorcycle accident).

Here's a quick lesson in German:

"Ihr fahrt", which sounds almost exactly like "ear fart" means "You
(all) drive". To ask a German whether he and others drive, simply ask
"fart ear?". That'll do the job.
The Horny Goat
2018-04-10 04:50:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by suzeeq
Post by Rhino
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Canada
I haven't been across the border in a long time, but I do remember
warning signs on the same post as the speed limit signs. Maybe they
don't do it anymore.
Certainly in Surrey, BC (which adjoins the border where the 49th
parallel hits the ocean) there are warning signs like you describe on
several posts within the first mile from the border. Not thereafter
though.

On my car (which admittedly is a Canadian model) my speedometer has km
in white and mph in dark blue so you can get mph but have to really
look for it. I know my conversions well enough it's not really an
issue on my occasional trips stateside but...
The Horny Goat
2018-04-10 04:42:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 16:52:31 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
If I remember correctly, a stone is 14 pounds (weight as opposed to
currency). Wikipedia confirms that and gives some interesting (to me)
history of the term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_(unit)
Britain is much more heavily into "the celebrity culture" and weight
gain and loss is a key part of that.

When British celebs talk about loss of weight they usually do talk
about stones and pounds for instance "2 stone 4 pounds" when most
North Americans would say 32 pounds.

(Unless you're Katie Holmes who gained notoriety when she claimed fat
people could lose weight if they tried - then gained 48 lbs which she
took off again over the next year. She subsequently appeared on the UK
Celebrity Big Brother - where the evictees are chosen by the public in
a series of 1-900 votes - and she went to the end but lost in the
final 2)
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-10 07:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
3. Living on the border, I saw a lot of people stopped for traffic
violations. On both sides. The Americans cross the border, see the first
"100" sign and hit the gas like they're on the friggen Autobahn (I
regularly drive 190 kph here in Germany) and are then stopped by
Canadian police. The Canadians cross the border, see the "65" sign and
drive dangerously slow on the Interstate, causing them to be pulled over
by American police.
Really? Because when I crossed in the early days of metrication, I
remember seeing signs at the border warning US motorists of the units
use on Canadian road signs. I don't recall if they did anything like
that on the US side of the border for the sake of Canadian drivers but
it hardly seems necessary: we knew that the US was still using the
imperial system which had been OUR system very shortly before and
exactly what we had all grown up on (except recent immigrants from
metric countries).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Canada
I've seen virtually every one of those signs. Makes me kinda
"Canada-sick" (not negative, more like "homesick").

If 99.99% of drivers have no problems with the transition, there's still
plenty of people that do. They are the ones I saw being regularly
stopped for driving too slow on I-5 and or driving too fast on the
highway heading to Vancouver.
The Horny Goat
2018-04-11 14:52:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
I've seen virtually every one of those signs. Makes me kinda
"Canada-sick" (not negative, more like "homesick").
If 99.99% of drivers have no problems with the transition, there's still
plenty of people that do. They are the ones I saw being regularly
stopped for driving too slow on I-5 and or driving too fast on the
highway heading to Vancouver.
In Vancouver there was recently a rash of false 911 calls where the
dispatchers were reporting their callers were confused elderly
Indians.

Turns out these elderly folks were forgetting to dial 011 for
international calls, 91 is the country code for India and any Indian
city code starting with 1 would create a 911 sequence which our phone
company automatically is programmed to treat as an emergency call.....

Such calls were concentrated in South Vancouver and Surrey both of
which are known to have large Indian communities (and presumably more
elderly people of Indian descent)
The Horny Goat
2018-04-10 00:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 15:01:25 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
1979 and phased it in gradually over several years.) Imagine the chaos
if a Belgian spotter told an American artillery battery to fire at an
enemy 450 meters away and the American didn't know the conversion and
just guessed (or failed to fire in time because he was scrambling to
find out the conversion)? Or just fired at something 450 yards away?
That would actually be pretty close but the difference could be crucial
in a real battle. I've often wondered if the standard use of metric in
If the result was that US artillery landed on Belgian troops with
devastating effect (and US artillery is INTENDED to land with
devastating effect!) one might expect the Belgians to be upset
particularly if due to a metric conversion error.
Rhino
2018-04-10 02:40:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 15:01:25 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
1979 and phased it in gradually over several years.) Imagine the chaos
if a Belgian spotter told an American artillery battery to fire at an
enemy 450 meters away and the American didn't know the conversion and
just guessed (or failed to fire in time because he was scrambling to
find out the conversion)? Or just fired at something 450 yards away?
That would actually be pretty close but the difference could be crucial
in a real battle. I've often wondered if the standard use of metric in
If the result was that US artillery landed on Belgian troops with
devastating effect (and US artillery is INTENDED to land with
devastating effect!) one might expect the Belgians to be upset
particularly if due to a metric conversion error.
Exactly my point :-)

Conversion issues can be deadly. Most Canadians of a certain age have
heard of the "Gimli glider" but I don't imagine most Americans know this
story.

Back in the early 80s, a passenger flight was flying from Montreal to
Edmonton. The ground crew of the plane had orders to put so much fuel in
the plane and Canada was just starting to go to metric so the ground
crew assumed that the number they had was for pounds of aviation fuel.
In fact, it was for kilograms, which are almost twice as big as pounds,
and the plane needed kilograms to make it all the way to their
destination. But they got several thousand pounds of gas instead of
several thousand kilograms and took off, not realizing that they had
nowhere near enough fuel to get to their destination. As they were
nearing Manitoba, still far to the east of their destination, they
realized they were running on fumes with very short notice. For some
reason, which I've forgotten, they could not land at the Winnipeg
International Airport - perhaps they were too far north to make it? - so
they checked their charts and found an abandoned Canadian Air Force base
that they *could* reach. They ran out of fuel before they actually got
there but the pilot managed to put the 767 down intact on the abandoned
airfield; fortunately, he was a very experienced glider pilot and used
those skills to bring the 767 down. He only narrowly missed killing a
bunch of people on the ground though! What he didn't know when he was
landing was that the airstrip was used by locals for car racing and
there was an event taking place at the facility as he was landing. The
airstrip was in Gimli, Manitoba so the plane was called the Gimli Glider
in the press.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider

This was a feat of flying comparable to Sullenberger's forced landing in
the Hudson River a few years back.
--
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
2018-04-10 02:28:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Rhino
There's no doubt that the Imperial system is less logical than
the metric one but it *does* work and has for centuries.
I’ll agree Imperial is archaic and mathematically, doesn’t make
much sense, with for example 2 cups to a pint, 2 pints to a quart,
4 quarts to a gallon, but I’d say it is more logical than metric.

Sure, you can easily divide metrics by 10 but how often are you
doing so? Meanwhile, a gallon is a gallon because that’s just the
right size for a human to transport liquid and has been since the
dawn of history, where we find ancient pottery roughly one gallon
in capacity going back to the earliest days of pottery.

With Imperial, the measurements are logically based on the users,
whereas metrics is based on irrelevant quantities; a liter being 1000
cubic centimeters which is based on… the distance from the North
Pole to the Equator?
Post by Rhino
But the average weekend mechanic may have problems if he's
always bought American cars.
Ironically, all American cars are designed in metric then converted
to Imperial before going into production.
Rhino
2018-04-10 02:45:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
Post by Rhino
Rhino
There's no doubt that the Imperial system is less logical than
the metric one but it *does* work and has for centuries.
I’ll agree Imperial is archaic and mathematically, doesn’t make
much sense, with for example 2 cups to a pint, 2 pints to a quart,
4 quarts to a gallon, but I’d say it is more logical than metric.
Sure, you can easily divide metrics by 10 but how often are you
doing so? Meanwhile, a gallon is a gallon because that’s just the
right size for a human to transport liquid and has been since the
dawn of history, where we find ancient pottery roughly one gallon
in capacity going back to the earliest days of pottery.
With Imperial, the measurements are logically based on the users,
whereas metrics is based on irrelevant quantities; a liter being 1000
cubic centimeters which is based on… the distance from the North
Pole to the Equator?
Post by Rhino
But the average weekend mechanic may have problems if he's
always bought American cars.
Ironically, all American cars are designed in metric then converted
to Imperial before going into production.
I assume that cars from American/Japanese partnerships are designed and
built in metric, right? I should ask my friend who works at the CAMI
plant in Ingersoll, Ontario whether their vehicles are metric or inch. I
can't remember what they are making these days but I think they are
doing some GM/Suzuki co-productions.

I thought I'd heard that some "American" cars were produced in metric
these days and had been for a while? Weren't Saturns metric, for example?
--
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
2018-04-10 03:04:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Rhino
Ed Stasiak
Ironically, all American cars are designed in metric then converted
to Imperial before going into production.
I assume that cars from American/Japanese partnerships are designed
and built in metric, right?
I’ve never had a Japanese car but I’d guess they’re metric throughout,
even if they’re made in the U.S. as it prevents manufacturing hassles,
where an imported Japanese metric nut wouldn’t fit on an American
Imperial made bolt?

But in the design phase, an American car from Chevy or Ford would
be designed in metric and call for an M12 bolt but it would be changed
to a 1/2” bolt for actual production.
number6
2018-04-10 01:56:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
For laughs and giggles, ask a European how far 5/8 of a mile is.
A Brit would easily know that as 5 furlongs ...
super70s
2018-04-09 10:44:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.

Or maybe I'm missing something here and Payday is offering a new version
that's dipped in chocolate.
trotsky
2018-04-09 10:55:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by super70s
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.
Obviously Rich is a welfare case and has a problem with the name "Payday".
Obveeus
2018-04-09 12:41:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by super70s
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.
Or maybe I'm missing something here and Payday is offering a new version
that's dipped in chocolate.
No chocolate...just a truckload of Anim8r killing power:

anim8rfsk
2018-04-09 14:48:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by super70s
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.
Or maybe I'm missing something here and Payday is offering a new version
that's dipped in chocolate.
http://youtu.be/vmXglmuj6cQ
:(
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2018-04-09 14:59:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by super70s
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.
Or maybe I'm missing something here and Payday is offering a new version
that's dipped in chocolate.
http://youtu.be/vmXglmuj6cQ
:(
I read this morning that allergies are caused (and/or made worse) by
baby wipes and experts are now recommending early/often exposure to peanuts:

https://www.ajc.com/news/world/food-allergies-may-linked-baby-wipes-study-says/mUM0mVStTA0iFEndaXYSfK/
anim8rfsk
2018-04-09 15:27:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by Obveeus
Post by super70s
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.
Or maybe I'm missing something here and Payday is offering a new version
that's dipped in chocolate.
http://youtu.be/vmXglmuj6cQ
:(
I read this morning that allergies are caused (and/or made worse) by
https://www.ajc.com/news/world/food-allergies-may-linked-baby-wipes-study-says
/mUM0mVStTA0iFEndaXYSfK/
The ones paid off by Chick fil A as part of their continuing scheme to
murder their customers, sure.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2018-04-09 16:48:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by Obveeus
Post by super70s
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.
Or maybe I'm missing something here and Payday is offering a new version
that's dipped in chocolate.
http://youtu.be/vmXglmuj6cQ
:(
I read this morning that allergies are caused (and/or made worse) by
https://www.ajc.com/news/world/food-allergies-may-linked-baby-wipes-study-says
/mUM0mVStTA0iFEndaXYSfK/
The ones paid off by Chick fil A as part of their continuing scheme to
murder their customers, sure.
Actually, the baby wipe cause seems quite plausible to me, just as the
anti-bacterial soap has caused so many problems by making bacteria
stronger (via evolutionary biology and only culling the weak bacteria).
The wipes have that same effect, washing away all of a person's natural
skin protection and opening it up for invasion.
anim8rfsk
2018-04-09 16:51:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by Obveeus
Post by super70s
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the
sizes
of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.
Or maybe I'm missing something here and Payday is offering a new version
that's dipped in chocolate.
http://youtu.be/vmXglmuj6cQ
:(
I read this morning that allergies are caused (and/or made worse) by
https://www.ajc.com/news/world/food-allergies-may-linked-baby-wipes-study-s
ays
/mUM0mVStTA0iFEndaXYSfK/
The ones paid off by Chick fil A as part of their continuing scheme to
murder their customers, sure.
Actually, the baby wipe cause seems quite plausible to me, just as the
anti-bacterial soap has caused so many problems by making bacteria
stronger (via evolutionary biology and only culling the weak bacteria).
The wipes have that same effect, washing away all of a person's natural
skin protection and opening it up for invasion.
Of course peanuts were killing people long before there *were* baby
wipes.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Obveeus
2018-04-09 16:57:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by anim8rfsk
Post by Obveeus
Post by Obveeus
Post by super70s
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the
sizes
of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.
Or maybe I'm missing something here and Payday is offering a new version
that's dipped in chocolate.
http://youtu.be/vmXglmuj6cQ
:(
I read this morning that allergies are caused (and/or made worse) by
https://www.ajc.com/news/world/food-allergies-may-linked-baby-wipes-study-s
ays
/mUM0mVStTA0iFEndaXYSfK/
The ones paid off by Chick fil A as part of their continuing scheme to
murder their customers, sure.
Actually, the baby wipe cause seems quite plausible to me, just as the
anti-bacterial soap has caused so many problems by making bacteria
stronger (via evolutionary biology and only culling the weak bacteria).
The wipes have that same effect, washing away all of a person's natural
skin protection and opening it up for invasion.
Of course peanuts were killing people long before there *were* baby
wipes.
...but lots fewer people, just as with a number of other allergens.
Basically, the clean freak types are damaging their children's immune
systems.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-09 19:02:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
...but lots fewer people, just as with a number of other allergens.
Basically, the clean freak types are damaging their children's immune
systems.
I am married to a meticulous German woman who likes things not only
spick and span, but totally disinfected as well.

No wonder one of my daughters is allergic to dust mites, hazelnuts, dog
and cat fur, etc.

Studies have shown that kids who grow up on farms have the fewest
allergies.

<https://www.theverge.com/2015/9/3/9256955/allergies-asthma-farm-kids-dust-endotoxins-a20>

One of my younger brothers is an M.D. and allergy specialist. The causes
for allergies he started listing were way too many for me to remember,
but it's mainly about having a good balance of exposure to small amounts
of toxins and harmful microbes that the body can build up resistance to
and *helpful* bacteria and viruses that help us digest food and perform
other bodily functions. And if you don't get exposed to certain things
by a very, very young age, you'll never be able to build up resistance
to them.

One final note: I also recently listened to a podcast (an older episode
of Scienece Vs., I think) that said that taking regular walks in the
woods is the best way to recover from just about any illness. It's not
just exposure to the fresh air, it also helps you regain *useful*
bacteria after killing them all off with broad spectrum antibiotics.

The Human Microbiome is just now starting to be untangled and
understood.
Rhino
2018-04-09 12:45:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by super70s
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.
Or maybe I'm missing something here and Payday is offering a new version
that's dipped in chocolate.
I'm Canadian and "chocolate bar" is the default phrasing in this
country, just as we say "washroom" rather than "restroom" and any number
of other things differently than the folks in the US. Most of us can
"speak American" so if an American asks us for directions to the
restroom or where the nearest supply of candy bars is, we will typically
know what they mean, mentally translate to Canadian for ourselves, and
then help them out :-)

As for candy bars that are not chocolate, I'm having trouble thinking of
any of those. I'm not sure we have Paydays up here: I've never seen one.
Mind you, I rarely buy "candy bars" so maybe they are common. Smarties -
very similar to M&Ms - don't get called "chocolate bars": I think we'd
tend to call them candies if we were to give a generic term but
honestly, if I went into a store, I'd ask for them by name as in "Do you
carry Smarties?".

We ARE a separate country and have variations in our version of English
from that spoken in Britain and also the US version. We use British
spellings for most words - colour, doughnut, etc. - but not all of them.
For instance, we put "tires" on our cars, not "tyres", and we walk on
the "sidewalk" not the "pavement". We find car engines under the "hood",
not under the "bonnet" and we store our purchases in the "trunk" not the
"boot". But we refer to some car parts by the British terms, not the
American ones. (I've had repair manuals for many of my cars and
motorcycles and most of them have a handy listing of the American and
British terms for various components to help you translate from one to
the other. For instance, "generator" and "alternator" are both names for
the same part on a car; in Canada, we use "alternator" which, if memory
serves, is the British name for that part.)
--
Rhino
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-09 16:22:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
We ARE a separate country and have variations in our version of English
from that spoken in Britain and also the US version. We use British
spellings for most words - colour, doughnut, etc. - but not all of them.
For instance, we put "tires" on our cars, not "tyres", and we walk on
the "sidewalk" not the "pavement". We find car engines under the "hood",
not under the "bonnet" and we store our purchases in the "trunk" not the
"boot". But we refer to some car parts by the British terms, not the
American ones. (I've had repair manuals for many of my cars and
motorcycles and most of them have a handy listing of the American and
British terms for various components to help you translate from one to
the other. For instance, "generator" and "alternator" are both names for
the same part on a car; in Canada, we use "alternator" which, if memory
serves, is the British name for that part.)
Then I am absolutely certain you will understand how difficult it is for
me sometimes as a technical translator of German to English to keep
track of the differences in...

* vocabulary (truck/lorry, wrench/spanner)
* spelling (magnetize/magnetise, center/centre)
* phrasing (on welfare/on the dole, off his rocker/round the bend)
* weights and measures (back on topic here)
* lots of other things (eg. or e.g.? Mr. or Mr?)

I always need to know the target dialect the customer wants, because
there is really no such thing as "international English" ("globish" is
something entirely different). In fact, most of my translations are into
British English, but I've also translated detailed descriptions of
hundreds of European wines for the Australian and New Zealand markets in
the paaast.

Question: Is it "sidewalk" or "pavement" in Australia and New Zealand?

Answer: Neither, they say "footpath"!

At least I grew up just over the border, an hour south of Vancouver and
was regularly exposed to the CBC and CTV's spellings (and pronunciation)
of words for the first 24 years of my life. (Say this and then have an
American say the same thing: "I've never been here before, but it's on
my schedule to come again for some processed cheese and miniature
marshmellows." By my, count five of those words are pronounced
differently.)
Rhino
2018-04-09 17:15:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
We ARE a separate country and have variations in our version of English
from that spoken in Britain and also the US version. We use British
spellings for most words - colour, doughnut, etc. - but not all of them.
For instance, we put "tires" on our cars, not "tyres", and we walk on
the "sidewalk" not the "pavement". We find car engines under the "hood",
not under the "bonnet" and we store our purchases in the "trunk" not the
"boot". But we refer to some car parts by the British terms, not the
American ones. (I've had repair manuals for many of my cars and
motorcycles and most of them have a handy listing of the American and
British terms for various components to help you translate from one to
the other. For instance, "generator" and "alternator" are both names for
the same part on a car; in Canada, we use "alternator" which, if memory
serves, is the British name for that part.)
Then I am absolutely certain you will understand how difficult it is for
me sometimes as a technical translator of German to English to keep
track of the differences in...
* vocabulary (truck/lorry, wrench/spanner)
* spelling (magnetize/magnetise, center/centre)
* phrasing (on welfare/on the dole, off his rocker/round the bend)
* weights and measures (back on topic here)
* lots of other things (eg. or e.g.? Mr. or Mr?)
One of the things that tends to push Canadians in one direction or the
other - British or American - is the relative absence of a recognition
that there is a distinct Canadian vocabulary, colloquialisms, etc. For
instance, I use Thunderbird as my email client and newsreader and it has
underlined "magnetise" and "centre" as typos in your list because I'm
using the American version of the program. I could have used the British
version but didn't have a choice of a Canadian version. Apparently,
we're not a big enough market to justify someone creating one. Or maybe
developers had trouble finding formal documentation on just what
constitutes proper Canadian English; that was certainly a challenge for
me when I tried to find such documentation.
Post by Darrel Knutson
I always need to know the target dialect the customer wants, because
there is really no such thing as "international English" ("globish" is
something entirely different). In fact, most of my translations are into
British English, but I've also translated detailed descriptions of
hundreds of European wines for the Australian and New Zealand markets in
the paaast.
Question: Is it "sidewalk" or "pavement" in Australia and New Zealand?
Answer: Neither, they say "footpath"!
The Brits use "footpath" too but I've never been clear on the
distinction between "pavement" and "footpath". By the same token, I
understand that they do use the word "truck" (in the sense of a vehicle)
but I'm not sure what it means to them; I gather that anything I (or an
American) would call a truck would be a lorry to them. (And to an
Australian or South African, it might be a "combie" or "ute".)
Post by Darrel Knutson
At least I grew up just over the border, an hour south of Vancouver and
was regularly exposed to the CBC and CTV's spellings (and pronunciation)
of words for the first 24 years of my life. (Say this and then have an
American say the same thing: "I've never been here before, but it's on
my schedule to come again for some processed cheese and miniature
marshmellows." By my, count five of those words are pronounced
differently.)
Most Canadians would pronounce "schedule" the way the Americans do:
"skedule" but some might pronounce it the British way as "shedule". I'm
torn on "processed": some would say "praw-cessed" and some would say
"pro-cessed". Most Canadians would say "min-na-cher" rather than
"mi-ni-a-chure". I'm not sure what the other two words are that you
think Americans would pronounce differently from Canadians. By the way,
you've misspelled marshmallows ;-)

The main thing is that Canadians would absolutely understand what an
American was saying regardless of which pronunciation they chose on
those words and a Canadian might well use *either* pronunciation
depending on which pronunciation occurred to them at that moment. For
instance, if I'd just seen a program in which people said "praw-cessed"
a few times, I might use that pronunciation myself if I had occasion to
say the word myself; I might say "pro-cessed" without that immediate
precedent.

Word choice tends to be different. It feels unnatural to me to say
"candy bar" and I doubt I would ever say it in conversation. By the same
token, I'd always say "pop machine" - or maybe "coke machine" for a
vending machine that sold soft drinks. (We say "pop" where most
Americans say "soda", although apparently people in Michigan also say
"pop".)

There are a number of videos on unusual terms found in Canadian English
but I have to say that some of the terms in them are dubious. I saw an
article just the other day (in Business Insider??) that had a list of 20
or 30 Canadian English terms and quite a few of them were wrong: we just
don't use the words they listed the way they describe. So take any such
articles with a grain of salt.
--
Rhino
suzeeq
2018-04-09 17:25:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
We ARE a separate country and have variations in our version of English
from that spoken in Britain and also the US version. We use British
spellings for most words - colour, doughnut, etc. - but not all of them.
For instance, we put "tires" on our cars, not "tyres", and we walk on
the "sidewalk" not the "pavement". We find car engines under the "hood",
not under the "bonnet" and we store our purchases in the "trunk" not the
"boot". But we refer to some car parts by the British terms, not the
American ones. (I've had repair manuals for many of my cars and
motorcycles and most of them have a handy listing of the American and
British terms for various components to help you translate from one to
the other. For instance, "generator" and "alternator" are both names for
the same part on a car; in Canada, we use "alternator" which, if memory
serves, is the British name for that part.)
Then I am absolutely certain you will understand how difficult it is for
me sometimes as a technical translator of German to English to keep
track of the differences in...
* vocabulary (truck/lorry, wrench/spanner)
* spelling (magnetize/magnetise, center/centre)
* phrasing (on welfare/on the dole, off his rocker/round the bend)
* weights and measures (back on topic here)
* lots of other things (eg. or e.g.? Mr. or Mr?)
One of the things that tends to push Canadians in one direction or the
other - British or American - is the relative absence of a recognition
that there is a distinct Canadian vocabulary, colloquialisms, etc. For
instance, I use Thunderbird as my email client and newsreader and it has
underlined "magnetise" and "centre" as typos in your list because I'm
using the American version of the program. I could have used the British
version but didn't have a choice of a Canadian version. Apparently,
we're not a big enough market to justify someone creating one. Or maybe
developers had trouble finding formal documentation on just what
constitutes proper Canadian English; that was certainly a challenge for
me when I tried to find such documentation.
Post by Darrel Knutson
I always need to know the target dialect the customer wants, because
there is really no such thing as "international English" ("globish" is
something entirely different). In fact, most of my translations are into
British English, but I've also translated detailed descriptions of
hundreds of European wines for the Australian and New Zealand markets in
the paaast.
Question: Is it "sidewalk" or "pavement" in Australia and New Zealand?
Answer: Neither, they say "footpath"!
The Brits use "footpath" too but I've never been clear on the
distinction between "pavement" and "footpath". By the same token, I
understand that they do use the word "truck" (in the sense of a vehicle)
but I'm not sure what it means to them; I gather that anything I (or an
American) would call a truck would be a lorry to them. (And to an
Australian or South African, it might be a "combie" or "ute".)
Post by Darrel Knutson
At least I grew up just over the border, an hour south of Vancouver and
was regularly exposed to the CBC and CTV's spellings (and pronunciation)
of words for the first 24 years of my life. (Say this and then have an
American say the same thing: "I've never been here before, but it's on
my schedule to come again for some processed cheese and miniature
marshmellows." By my, count five of those words are pronounced
differently.)
"skedule" but some might pronounce it the British way as "shedule". I'm
torn on "processed": some would say "praw-cessed" and some would say
"pro-cessed". Most Canadians would say "min-na-cher" rather than
"mi-ni-a-chure". I'm not sure what the other two words are that you
think Americans would pronounce differently from Canadians. By the way,
you've misspelled marshmallows ;-)
The main thing is that Canadians would absolutely understand what an
American was saying regardless of which pronunciation they chose on
those words and a Canadian might well use *either* pronunciation
depending on which pronunciation occurred to them at that moment. For
instance, if I'd just seen a program in which people said "praw-cessed"
a few times, I might use that pronunciation myself if I had occasion to
say the word myself; I might say "pro-cessed" without that immediate
precedent.
Word choice tends to be different. It feels unnatural to me to say
"candy bar" and I doubt I would ever say it in conversation. By the same
token, I'd always say "pop machine" - or maybe "coke machine" for a
vending machine that sold soft drinks. (We say "pop" where most
Americans say "soda", although apparently people in Michigan also say
"pop".)
Many call it pop throughout the midwest too, and places in the west. I
never heard it called soda until I moved to California.
anim8rfsk
2018-04-09 17:50:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by suzeeq
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
We ARE a separate country and have variations in our version of English
from that spoken in Britain and also the US version. We use British
spellings for most words - colour, doughnut, etc. - but not all of them.
For instance, we put "tires" on our cars, not "tyres", and we walk on
the "sidewalk" not the "pavement". We find car engines under the "hood",
not under the "bonnet" and we store our purchases in the "trunk" not the
"boot". But we refer to some car parts by the British terms, not the
American ones. (I've had repair manuals for many of my cars and
motorcycles and most of them have a handy listing of the American and
British terms for various components to help you translate from one to
the other. For instance, "generator" and "alternator" are both names for
the same part on a car; in Canada, we use "alternator" which, if memory
serves, is the British name for that part.)
Then I am absolutely certain you will understand how difficult it is for
me sometimes as a technical translator of German to English to keep
track of the differences in...
* vocabulary (truck/lorry, wrench/spanner)
* spelling (magnetize/magnetise, center/centre)
* phrasing (on welfare/on the dole, off his rocker/round the bend)
* weights and measures (back on topic here)
* lots of other things (eg. or e.g.? Mr. or Mr?)
One of the things that tends to push Canadians in one direction or the
other - British or American - is the relative absence of a recognition
that there is a distinct Canadian vocabulary, colloquialisms, etc. For
instance, I use Thunderbird as my email client and newsreader and it has
underlined "magnetise" and "centre" as typos in your list because I'm
using the American version of the program. I could have used the British
version but didn't have a choice of a Canadian version. Apparently,
we're not a big enough market to justify someone creating one. Or maybe
developers had trouble finding formal documentation on just what
constitutes proper Canadian English; that was certainly a challenge for
me when I tried to find such documentation.
Post by Darrel Knutson
I always need to know the target dialect the customer wants, because
there is really no such thing as "international English" ("globish" is
something entirely different). In fact, most of my translations are into
British English, but I've also translated detailed descriptions of
hundreds of European wines for the Australian and New Zealand markets in
the paaast.
Question: Is it "sidewalk" or "pavement" in Australia and New Zealand?
Answer: Neither, they say "footpath"!
The Brits use "footpath" too but I've never been clear on the
distinction between "pavement" and "footpath". By the same token, I
understand that they do use the word "truck" (in the sense of a vehicle)
but I'm not sure what it means to them; I gather that anything I (or an
American) would call a truck would be a lorry to them. (And to an
Australian or South African, it might be a "combie" or "ute".)
Post by Darrel Knutson
At least I grew up just over the border, an hour south of Vancouver and
was regularly exposed to the CBC and CTV's spellings (and pronunciation)
of words for the first 24 years of my life. (Say this and then have an
American say the same thing: "I've never been here before, but it's on
my schedule to come again for some processed cheese and miniature
marshmellows." By my, count five of those words are pronounced
differently.)
"skedule" but some might pronounce it the British way as "shedule". I'm
torn on "processed": some would say "praw-cessed" and some would say
"pro-cessed". Most Canadians would say "min-na-cher" rather than
"mi-ni-a-chure". I'm not sure what the other two words are that you
think Americans would pronounce differently from Canadians. By the way,
you've misspelled marshmallows ;-)
The main thing is that Canadians would absolutely understand what an
American was saying regardless of which pronunciation they chose on
those words and a Canadian might well use *either* pronunciation
depending on which pronunciation occurred to them at that moment. For
instance, if I'd just seen a program in which people said "praw-cessed"
a few times, I might use that pronunciation myself if I had occasion to
say the word myself; I might say "pro-cessed" without that immediate
precedent.
Word choice tends to be different. It feels unnatural to me to say
"candy bar" and I doubt I would ever say it in conversation. By the same
token, I'd always say "pop machine" - or maybe "coke machine" for a
vending machine that sold soft drinks. (We say "pop" where most
Americans say "soda", although apparently people in Michigan also say
"pop".)
Many call it pop throughout the midwest too, and places in the west. I
never heard it called soda until I moved to California.
In 7th grade, in Phoenix, we had a girl from NYC move in mid semester,
and she said 'sody pop' and it was the first time any of us ever heard
'pop' used in that context.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Ed Stasiak
2018-04-09 17:59:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
suzeeq
Rhino
We say "pop" where most Americans say "soda", although apparently
people in Michigan also say "pop".
Many call it pop throughout the midwest too, and places in the west.
I never heard it called soda until I moved to California.
Requisite map;

Loading Image...

(and of course the correct term is “pop”)
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-09 19:19:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ed Stasiak
suzeeq
Rhino
We say "pop" where most Americans say "soda", although apparently
people in Michigan also say "pop".
Many call it pop throughout the midwest too, and places in the west.
I never heard it called soda until I moved to California.
Requisite map;
https://piedtype.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/softdrinksmap.png
(and of course the correct term is "pop")
Except the media centers of L.A. and NYC, which is why we drinkers of
"pop" hear "soda" so often, but still rarely use it ourselves.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-09 19:02:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
One of the things that tends to push Canadians in one direction or the
other - British or American - is the relative absence of a recognition
that there is a distinct Canadian vocabulary, colloquialisms, etc. For
instance, I use Thunderbird as my email client and newsreader and it has
underlined "magnetise" and "centre" as typos in your list because I'm
using the American version of the program. I could have used the British
version but didn't have a choice of a Canadian version. Apparently,
we're not a big enough market to justify someone creating one. Or maybe
developers had trouble finding formal documentation on just what
constitutes proper Canadian English; that was certainly a challenge for
me when I tried to find such documentation.
Thunderbird is a community project. Simply learn programming and all
about localization files, do all the i18n work, and see that an en-ca
language version becomes part of the regular updates and releases. Easy!
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
I always need to know the target dialect the customer wants, because
there is really no such thing as "international English" ("globish" is
something entirely different). In fact, most of my translations are into
British English, but I've also translated detailed descriptions of
hundreds of European wines for the Australian and New Zealand markets in
the paaast.
Question: Is it "sidewalk" or "pavement" in Australia and New Zealand?
Answer: Neither, they say "footpath"!
The Brits use "footpath" too but I've never been clear on the
distinction between "pavement" and "footpath". By the same token, I
understand that they do use the word "truck" (in the sense of a vehicle)
but I'm not sure what it means to them; I gather that anything I (or an
American) would call a truck would be a lorry to them. (And to an
Australian or South African, it might be a "combie" or "ute".)
To my knowledge, Brits still prefer "lorry" to "truck", but even in the
UK they are driven by "truck drivers".
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
At least I grew up just over the border, an hour south of Vancouver and
was regularly exposed to the CBC and CTV's spellings (and pronunciation)
of words for the first 24 years of my life. (Say this and then have an
American say the same thing: "I've never been here before, but it's on
my schedule to come again for some processed cheese and miniature
marshmellows." By my, count five of those words are pronounced
differently.)
"skedule" but some might pronounce it the British way as "shedule". I'm
torn on "processed": some would say "praw-cessed" and some would say
"pro-cessed". Most Canadians would say "min-na-cher" rather than
"mi-ni-a-chure". I'm not sure what the other two words are that you
think Americans would pronounce differently from Canadians. By the way,
you've misspelled marshmallows ;-)
English is never easy in any dialect. All of us have effed up spelling
to deal with.

word: US, CA

been: ben, bean
schedule: skedyual, shedual (what I always heard in Vancover)
again: a-gen, a-gain
procesed: prahsest, prohsest
miniature: minachur, min-ih-ah-chur (heard on TV commercials)

Them mallows ain't mellow.
Post by Rhino
The main thing is that Canadians would absolutely understand what an
American was saying regardless of which pronunciation they chose on
those words and a Canadian might well use *either* pronunciation
depending on which pronunciation occurred to them at that moment. For
instance, if I'd just seen a program in which people said "praw-cessed"
a few times, I might use that pronunciation myself if I had occasion to
say the word myself; I might say "pro-cessed" without that immediate
precedent.
It also may depend on the situation, who you are talking to, the
preceding and following words, especially if used in fixed combinations
(call "collocations"), the sounds preceding and following, and so many
other things.
Post by Rhino
Word choice tends to be different. It feels unnatural to me to say
"candy bar" and I doubt I would ever say it in conversation. By the same
token, I'd always say "pop machine" - or maybe "coke machine" for a
vending machine that sold soft drinks. (We say "pop" where most
Americans say "soda", although apparently people in Michigan also say
"pop".)
We proudly say "pop" in Washington State, too. Linguists have put
together some pretty interesting maps of the US showing preferred word
and pronunciation choices. (No reference here, from Linguistics text
books of long ago.)
Post by Rhino
There are a number of videos on unusual terms found in Canadian English
but I have to say that some of the terms in them are dubious. I saw an
article just the other day (in Business Insider??) that had a list of 20
or 30 Canadian English terms and quite a few of them were wrong: we just
don't use the words they listed the way they describe. So take any such
articles with a grain of salt.
What?! You don't really say things like, "Hey there, let's go for a cold
high-test after the hockey match, eh?" :-)

Seriously, if I didn't live in Germany, I would have probably ended up
in Canada (with my twin brother living just 8 km south of the border).
You guys really live up to your reputation of having the friendliest
people in the world.
Rhino
2018-04-09 19:44:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
One of the things that tends to push Canadians in one direction or the
other - British or American - is the relative absence of a recognition
that there is a distinct Canadian vocabulary, colloquialisms, etc. For
instance, I use Thunderbird as my email client and newsreader and it has
underlined "magnetise" and "centre" as typos in your list because I'm
using the American version of the program. I could have used the British
version but didn't have a choice of a Canadian version. Apparently,
we're not a big enough market to justify someone creating one. Or maybe
developers had trouble finding formal documentation on just what
constitutes proper Canadian English; that was certainly a challenge for
me when I tried to find such documentation.
Thunderbird is a community project. Simply learn programming and all
about localization files, do all the i18n work, and see that an en-ca
language version becomes part of the regular updates and releases. Easy!
I have some experience with i18n from my Java days - Java takes
considerable pains to accomodate i18n - but the work involved in finding
all the things that are slightly different in Canada would NOT be easy.
I'm not sure there really *is* a standard Canadian version of English
that has been thoroughly documented AND corresponds to the way Canadian
English speakers speak. And then there are the regional differences on
top of that. For instance, my friend from BC once used the word
"skookum" and I had no idea what that word meant because it's used on
the West Coast but not here in Central Canada. (If I remember correctly,
it means solid or well-built.)
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
I always need to know the target dialect the customer wants, because
there is really no such thing as "international English" ("globish" is
something entirely different). In fact, most of my translations are into
British English, but I've also translated detailed descriptions of
hundreds of European wines for the Australian and New Zealand markets in
the paaast.
Question: Is it "sidewalk" or "pavement" in Australia and New Zealand?
Answer: Neither, they say "footpath"!
The Brits use "footpath" too but I've never been clear on the
distinction between "pavement" and "footpath". By the same token, I
understand that they do use the word "truck" (in the sense of a vehicle)
but I'm not sure what it means to them; I gather that anything I (or an
American) would call a truck would be a lorry to them. (And to an
Australian or South African, it might be a "combie" or "ute".)
To my knowledge, Brits still prefer "lorry" to "truck", but even in the
UK they are driven by "truck drivers".
Post by Rhino
Post by Darrel Knutson
At least I grew up just over the border, an hour south of Vancouver and
was regularly exposed to the CBC and CTV's spellings (and pronunciation)
of words for the first 24 years of my life. (Say this and then have an
American say the same thing: "I've never been here before, but it's on
my schedule to come again for some processed cheese and miniature
marshmellows." By my, count five of those words are pronounced
differently.)
"skedule" but some might pronounce it the British way as "shedule". I'm
torn on "processed": some would say "praw-cessed" and some would say
"pro-cessed". Most Canadians would say "min-na-cher" rather than
"mi-ni-a-chure". I'm not sure what the other two words are that you
think Americans would pronounce differently from Canadians. By the way,
you've misspelled marshmallows ;-)
English is never easy in any dialect. All of us have effed up spelling
to deal with.
word: US, CA
been: ben, bean
Actually, I would tend to say "bin" but never "ben".
Post by Darrel Knutson
schedule: skedyual, shedual (what I always heard in Vancover)
again: a-gen, a-gain
That's fair. I'm sure I say "a-gen" (hard 'g') most of the time.
Post by Darrel Knutson
procesed: prahsest, prohsest
miniature: minachur, min-ih-ah-chur (heard on TV commercials)
Them mallows ain't mellow.
Post by Rhino
The main thing is that Canadians would absolutely understand what an
American was saying regardless of which pronunciation they chose on
those words and a Canadian might well use *either* pronunciation
depending on which pronunciation occurred to them at that moment. For
instance, if I'd just seen a program in which people said "praw-cessed"
a few times, I might use that pronunciation myself if I had occasion to
say the word myself; I might say "pro-cessed" without that immediate
precedent.
It also may depend on the situation, who you are talking to, the
preceding and following words, especially if used in fixed combinations
(call "collocations"), the sounds preceding and following, and so many
other things.
Yup.
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
Word choice tends to be different. It feels unnatural to me to say
"candy bar" and I doubt I would ever say it in conversation. By the same
token, I'd always say "pop machine" - or maybe "coke machine" for a
vending machine that sold soft drinks. (We say "pop" where most
Americans say "soda", although apparently people in Michigan also say
"pop".)
We proudly say "pop" in Washington State, too. Linguists have put
together some pretty interesting maps of the US showing preferred word
and pronunciation choices. (No reference here, from Linguistics text
books of long ago.)
I remember a cop show that ran several seasons ago called Detroit 187
that was set in Detroit and actually filmed there for the most part. One
of the detectives was from New York and had just relocated to Detroit so
they had a bit of fun with him by referring to soda as pop. I thought
that usage had possibly just crept across the border - Detroit is a
border city after all - and was localized to Detroit and the immediate
vicinity but as you and some of the others have pointed out, it's much
more widespread than that in the US. I'm not sure *why* it's so
widespread though.
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
There are a number of videos on unusual terms found in Canadian English
but I have to say that some of the terms in them are dubious. I saw an
article just the other day (in Business Insider??) that had a list of 20
or 30 Canadian English terms and quite a few of them were wrong: we just
don't use the words they listed the way they describe. So take any such
articles with a grain of salt.
What?! You don't really say things like, "Hey there, let's go for a cold
high-test after the hockey match, eh?" :-)
The only time I've heard the term "high-test" used was to refer to
premium gasoline and even that was a long time ago. :-) We've got any
number of terms for beer and other alcoholic beverages. I don't think
I've ever heard any Canadian use the phrase "hockey match": "hockey
game" or just "the game" are what people say.

The use of "eh" is an ongoing joke and has been for decades. I think
you'd find it a lot less common than you might think.

I remember a bit from an American comedian performing in Montreal that
amused me. He said "I've figured out this whole Canadian accent thing. A
Canadian accent is just a backwards New York accent. In New York, you
would say 'Eh, don't touch my car!'. In Canada, you say "Don't touch my
car, eh!". :-)
Post by Darrel Knutson
Seriously, if I didn't live in Germany, I would have probably ended up
in Canada (with my twin brother living just 8 km south of the border).
You guys really live up to your reputation of having the friendliest
people in the world.
That's a common belief about Canadians, no doubt about it. I've heard it
asserted that if you step on a Canadian's foot, he will apologize to YOU
(for being in the way) rather than expecting you to apologize to him. We
even repeat that claim amongst ourselves.

I'm really not sure if it's true that we are supremely friendly/polite.
I suppose I have a conflict of interest in even having an opinion on the
matter ;-) But living here I see plenty of impatience and rudeness so
anyone coming here and expecting us all to be positively saintly is
likely to be somewhat disappointed.

I've done some travelling in both the US and Europe and didn't find
people there to be significantly more or less friendly than they are here.
--
Rhino
The Horny Goat
2018-04-10 00:50:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:15:33 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
The main thing is that Canadians would absolutely understand what an
American was saying regardless of which pronunciation they chose on
those words and a Canadian might well use *either* pronunciation
depending on which pronunciation occurred to them at that moment. For
instance, if I'd just seen a program in which people said "praw-cessed"
a few times, I might use that pronunciation myself if I had occasion to
say the word myself; I might say "pro-cessed" without that immediate
precedent.
While I've never been to Texas I've never had any difficulty
communicating in any of the 20+ states I _have_ been in. (Which
includes Florida, Georgia and North and South Carolina - which given
I'm from Vancouver is significant)

Neither have I had difficulty communicating in the UK or Hong Kong.

Culturally there is a world of difference and one treads on dangerous
territory with slang but the language is not nearly so different as
you may have been led to believe.

Something guaranteed to irk most any Canadian is that any profession
that they love their country is viewed by more than a few Americans as
being anti-US.

Nope - we respect the USA but we love our own country.

Just like most people worldwide. Seems like a simple concept but a lot
of Americans don't get it.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-10 10:01:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:15:33 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
The main thing is that Canadians would absolutely understand what an
American was saying regardless of which pronunciation they chose on
those words and a Canadian might well use *either* pronunciation
depending on which pronunciation occurred to them at that moment. For
instance, if I'd just seen a program in which people said "praw-cessed"
a few times, I might use that pronunciation myself if I had occasion to
say the word myself; I might say "pro-cessed" without that immediate
precedent.
While I've never been to Texas I've never had any difficulty
communicating in any of the 20+ states I _have_ been in. (Which
includes Florida, Georgia and North and South Carolina - which given
I'm from Vancouver is significant)
Neither have I had difficulty communicating in the UK or Hong Kong.
Culturally there is a world of difference and one treads on dangerous
territory with slang but the language is not nearly so different as
you may have been led to believe.
Something guaranteed to irk most any Canadian is that any profession
that they love their country is viewed by more than a few Americans as
being anti-US.
Nope - we respect the USA but we love our own country.
Just like most people worldwide. Seems like a simple concept but a lot
of Americans don't get it.
It's not the accents of North America that I have problems with, nor
Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa for the most part. It's the
local dialects spoken by 95% of people in the UK that get me. When I
spent a week up in York, the only people I understood were the
shopkeepers from Africa and Asia. Yet because of my bubble gum,
Hollywood, West Coast accent, not a single person had a problem
understanding me.

Indian English is quite another matter. You have to understand lots of
words that are archiac in another dialects (I once saw a book entitled
"A Multifarious Selection of English Verbs". Multifarious?) and quite a
few loan words from Hindi and other languages. But since I used to be
fluent in Nepali and reached a converstational level in Hindi, I have a
very good handle on their pronunciation, preferring unaspirated
retroflex t's and d's, instead of the actually better aspriated
interdental t's and d's. When they say "I have to talk to him" we hear
"I have to dock with him", for instance. They've been speaking English
in India for over 450 years, so it's really no wonder there are
differences from other dialects and influences from different languages.
BTR1701
2018-04-10 01:35:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
We ARE a separate country and have variations in our version of English
from that spoken in Britain and also the US version. We use British
spellings for most words - colour, doughnut, etc. - but not all of them.
For instance, we put "tires" on our cars, not "tyres", and we walk on
the "sidewalk" not the "pavement". We find car engines under the "hood",
not under the "bonnet" and we store our purchases in the "trunk" not the
"boot". But we refer to some car parts by the British terms, not the
American ones. (I've had repair manuals for many of my cars and
motorcycles and most of them have a handy listing of the American and
British terms for various components to help you translate from one to
the other. For instance, "generator" and "alternator" are both names for
the same part on a car; in Canada, we use "alternator" which, if memory
serves, is the British name for that part.)
Then I am absolutely certain you will understand how difficult it is for
me sometimes as a technical translator of German to English to keep
track of the differences in...
* vocabulary (truck/lorry, wrench/spanner)
* spelling (magnetize/magnetise, center/centre)
* phrasing (on welfare/on the dole, off his rocker/round the bend)
* weights and measures (back on topic here)
* lots of other things (eg. or e.g.? Mr. or Mr?)
I always need to know the target dialect the customer wants, because
there is really no such thing as "international English" ("globish" is
something entirely different). In fact, most of my translations are into
British English, but I've also translated detailed descriptions of
hundreds of European wines for the Australian and New Zealand markets in
the paaast.
Question: Is it "sidewalk" or "pavement" in Australia and New Zealand?
I hate how Brits call the "ground" the "floor".


"He ran down the street and tripped and fell to the floor."

When it should be:

"He ran down the street and tripped and fell to the ground."

Floors are inside. When you're outside, it's the ground.
suzeeq
2018-04-10 01:46:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
We ARE a separate country and have variations in our version of English
from that spoken in Britain and also the US version. We use British
spellings for most words - colour, doughnut, etc. - but not all of them.
For instance, we put "tires" on our cars, not "tyres", and we walk on
the "sidewalk" not the "pavement". We find car engines under the "hood",
not under the "bonnet" and we store our purchases in the "trunk" not the
"boot". But we refer to some car parts by the British terms, not the
American ones. (I've had repair manuals for many of my cars and
motorcycles and most of them have a handy listing of the American and
British terms for various components to help you translate from one to
the other. For instance, "generator" and "alternator" are both names for
the same part on a car; in Canada, we use "alternator" which, if memory
serves, is the British name for that part.)
Then I am absolutely certain you will understand how difficult it is for
me sometimes as a technical translator of German to English to keep
track of the differences in...
* vocabulary (truck/lorry, wrench/spanner)
* spelling (magnetize/magnetise, center/centre)
* phrasing (on welfare/on the dole, off his rocker/round the bend)
* weights and measures (back on topic here)
* lots of other things (eg. or e.g.? Mr. or Mr?)
I always need to know the target dialect the customer wants, because
there is really no such thing as "international English" ("globish" is
something entirely different). In fact, most of my translations are into
British English, but I've also translated detailed descriptions of
hundreds of European wines for the Australian and New Zealand markets in
the paaast.
Question: Is it "sidewalk" or "pavement" in Australia and New Zealand?
I hate how Brits call the "ground" the "floor".
"He ran down the street and tripped and fell to the floor."
"He ran down the street and tripped and fell to the ground."
Floors are inside. When you're outside, it's the ground.
A lot of Americans say that too. I agree, it's annoying.
FPP
2018-04-10 04:56:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
We ARE a separate country and have variations in our version of English
from that spoken in Britain and also the US version. We use British
spellings for most words - colour, doughnut, etc. - but not all of them.
For instance, we put "tires" on our cars, not "tyres", and we walk on
the "sidewalk" not the "pavement". We find car engines under the "hood",
not under the "bonnet" and we store our purchases in the "trunk" not the
"boot". But we refer to some car parts by the British terms, not the
American ones. (I've had repair manuals for many of my cars and
motorcycles and most of them have a handy listing of the American and
British terms for various components to help you translate from one to
the other. For instance, "generator" and "alternator" are both names for
the same part on a car; in Canada, we use "alternator" which, if memory
serves, is the British name for that part.)
Then I am absolutely certain you will understand how difficult it is for
me sometimes as a technical translator of German to English to keep
track of the differences in...
* vocabulary (truck/lorry, wrench/spanner)
* spelling (magnetize/magnetise, center/centre)
* phrasing (on welfare/on the dole, off his rocker/round the bend)
* weights and measures (back on topic here)
* lots of other things (eg. or e.g.? Mr. or Mr?)
I always need to know the target dialect the customer wants, because
there is really no such thing as "international English" ("globish" is
something entirely different). In fact, most of my translations are into
British English, but I've also translated detailed descriptions of
hundreds of European wines for the Australian and New Zealand markets in
the paaast.
Question: Is it "sidewalk" or "pavement" in Australia and New Zealand?
I hate how Brits call the "ground" the "floor".
"He ran down the street and tripped and fell to the floor."
"He ran down the street and tripped and fell to the ground."
Floors are inside. When you're outside, it's the ground.
So the phrase "getting in on the ground floor" must really piss you off...
trotsky
2018-04-10 09:51:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
Post by BTR1701
Post by Darrel Knutson
Post by Rhino
We ARE a separate country and have variations in our version of English
from that spoken in Britain and also the US version. We use British
spellings for most words - colour, doughnut, etc. - but not all of them.
For instance, we put "tires" on our cars, not "tyres", and we walk on
the "sidewalk" not the "pavement". We find car engines under the "hood",
not under the "bonnet" and we store our purchases in the "trunk" not the
"boot". But we refer to some car parts by the British terms, not the
American ones. (I've had repair manuals for many of my cars and
motorcycles and most of them have a handy listing of the American and
British terms for various components to help you translate from one to
the other. For instance, "generator" and "alternator" are both names for
the same part on a car; in Canada, we use "alternator" which, if memory
serves, is the British name for that part.)
Then I am absolutely certain you will understand how difficult it is for
me sometimes as a technical translator of German to English to keep
track of the differences in...
* vocabulary (truck/lorry, wrench/spanner)
* spelling (magnetize/magnetise, center/centre)
* phrasing (on welfare/on the dole, off his rocker/round the bend)
* weights and measures (back on topic here)
* lots of other things (eg. or e.g.? Mr. or Mr?)
I always need to know the target dialect the customer wants, because
there is really no such thing as "international English" ("globish" is
something entirely different). In fact, most of my translations are into
British English, but I've also translated detailed descriptions of
hundreds of European wines for the Australian and New Zealand markets in
the paaast.
Question: Is it "sidewalk" or "pavement" in Australia and New Zealand?
I hate how Brits call the "ground" the "floor".
"He ran down the street and tripped and fell to the floor."
"He ran down the street and tripped and fell to the ground."
Floors are inside. When you're outside, it's the ground.
So the phrase "getting in on the ground floor" must really piss you off...
Freud would've found Thanny remarkable for his anal retentivity.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-10 10:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by FPP
So the phrase "getting in on the ground floor" must really piss you off...
There are grounds to stay grounded: I'll be floored.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-10 10:01:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BTR1701
I hate how Brits call the "ground" the "floor".
"He ran down the street and tripped and fell to the floor."
"He ran down the street and tripped and fell to the ground."
Floors are inside. When you're outside, it's the ground.
I don't hate it, but I also find it odd that when you tell a Brit to
walk up to the top of a five-storey building, he'll claim it has only
four floors.
The Horny Goat
2018-04-09 21:39:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Apr 2018 08:45:06 -0400, Rhino
Post by Rhino
We ARE a separate country and have variations in our version of English
from that spoken in Britain and also the US version. We use British
spellings for most words - colour, doughnut, etc. - but not all of them.
For instance, we put "tires" on our cars, not "tyres", and we walk on
the "sidewalk" not the "pavement". We find car engines under the "hood",
not under the "bonnet" and we store our purchases in the "trunk" not the
"boot". But we refer to some car parts by the British terms, not the
American ones. (I've had repair manuals for many of my cars and
motorcycles and most of them have a handy listing of the American and
British terms for various components to help you translate from one to
the other. For instance, "generator" and "alternator" are both names for
the same part on a car; in Canada, we use "alternator" which, if memory
serves, is the British name for that part.)
Most Canadians also know enough not to say 'fanny' (which in
Canadian-ese means one's posterior) in the presence of a Brit since it
has another much much much ruder meaning in the UK than in North
America.

When one forgets it tends to be memorable.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-10 10:01:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Most Canadians also know enough not to say 'fanny' (which in
Canadian-ese means one's posterior) in the presence of a Brit since it
has another much much much ruder meaning in the UK than in North
America.
When one forgets it tends to be memorable.
The day I told a group of English teachers from Britain that President
Clinton was getting into trouble for patting his secretary on the fanny
was the day I learned that they call a "fanny pack" a "bum bag". "Bum"
here meaning butt, not a homeless person.

Francis "Fanny" Farmer was a famous actress from Washington State who
suffered mental problems (I believe her daughter wrote a book about
her). She'd have had more in Britain with a name like that.
The Horny Goat
2018-04-11 14:56:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Darrel Knutson
The day I told a group of English teachers from Britain that President
Clinton was getting into trouble for patting his secretary on the fanny
was the day I learned that they call a "fanny pack" a "bum bag". "Bum"
here meaning butt, not a homeless person.
Francis "Fanny" Farmer was a famous actress from Washington State who
suffered mental problems (I believe her daughter wrote a book about
her). She'd have had more in Britain with a name like that.
Oh dear. Yes I expect she would - though you've probably mispelled her
name since Frances is the female version.

I have had some interesting chats with my daughter's English boyfriend
though in fairness I'm pretty sure each of us understands the
respective dialect.
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-11 19:08:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by Darrel Knutson
The day I told a group of English teachers from Britain that President
Clinton was getting into trouble for patting his secretary on the fanny
was the day I learned that they call a "fanny pack" a "bum bag". "Bum"
here meaning butt, not a homeless person.
Francis "Fanny" Farmer was a famous actress from Washington State who
suffered mental problems (I believe her daughter wrote a book about
her). She'd have had more in Britain with a name like that.
Oh dear. Yes I expect she would - though you've probably mispelled her
name since Frances is the female version.
I looked again, it is in fact "Frances".
Post by The Horny Goat
I have had some interesting chats with my daughter's English boyfriend
though in fairness I'm pretty sure each of us understands the
respective dialect.
And "whilst" we with North American dialects may sometimes call our
politicians "dicks" and "pricks", speakers of British English call them
"twats" and "cunts". I guess it all depends on your perspective, huh?
trotsky
2018-04-09 23:18:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by super70s
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
And aren't you the one always harping about the high number of
"illegals" (undocumented aliens) in the US? They buy candy bars too.
Wonder what his problem is with "candy bar" anyway, some weird Canadian
thing? It wouldn't even be accurate to describe a Payday as a "chocolate
bar" because it contains no chocolate.
Or maybe I'm missing something here and Payday is offering a new version
that's dipped in chocolate.
It was a limited edition apparently:

Loading Image...


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Ed Stasiak
2018-04-10 02:43:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
trotsky
http://www.mikescandywrappers.com/photos/paydaychoc1005.jpg
Serv. Size 1/2 bar
Come on now, who eats half a candy bar?!
b***@gmail.com
2018-07-09 09:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
Its strange that Rich wouldn't mention Canada, either.
trotsky
2018-07-09 10:58:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
Its strange that Rich wouldn't mention Canada, either.
Obviously that wouldn't make tatal (sic) sense.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Horny Goat
2018-07-09 18:54:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
Its strange that Rich wouldn't mention Canada, either.
To what extent has a country "gone metric" when package sizes of 454
grams are commonplace?
trotsky
2018-07-09 22:49:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
Post by b***@gmail.com
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of
the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because
centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
Probably because it makes tatal sense to everyone but those in the US of
A, Liberia and Burma.
Its strange that Rich wouldn't mention Canada, either.
To what extent has a country "gone metric" when package sizes of 454
grams are commonplace?
"In for a penny, in for a pound" as Ray Liotta says in "Cop Land".


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
David Johnston
2018-04-09 16:28:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the sizes of the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why? Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it sounds better?
I wonder why you called it a chocolate bar when it isn't one.
Obveeus
2018-04-09 16:54:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar.  They mentioned the
sizes of the two bars.  But in metric, centimeters.  I wonder why?
Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it
sounds better?
I wonder why you called it a chocolate bar when it isn't one.
He was just confirming his inner fears that the bigger the bar, the
darker it must be.
Connor
2018-04-09 17:24:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Obveeus
Post by David Johnston
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar.  They mentioned the
sizes of the two bars.  But in metric, centimeters.  I wonder why?
Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it
sounds better?
I wonder why you called it a chocolate bar when it isn't one.
He was just confirming his inner fears that the bigger the bar, the
darker it must be.
Hahaha!

Little Richie has lots of fears. Also he is obsessed with the US, especially our TV! Very strange. Doesn't have a life!
the dog from that film you saw
2018-04-10 15:44:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by David Johnston
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar.  They mentioned the
sizes of the two bars.  But in metric, centimeters.  I wonder why?
Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it
sounds better?
I wonder why you called it a chocolate bar when it isn't one.
#



and why is american chocolate so awful?
do americans not realise that in the civilised world chocolate doesn't
have that vomit aftertaste to it?
Darrel Knutson
2018-04-11 18:31:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by the dog from that film you saw
Post by David Johnston
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They mentioned the
sizes of the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I wonder why?
Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch) and it
sounds better?
I wonder why you called it a chocolate bar when it isn't one.
#
and why is american chocolate so awful?
do americans not realise that in the civilised world chocolate doesn't
have that vomit aftertaste to it?
I've heard it has to do with licensing deals. A Cadbury chocolate bar
from England is good, one from Canada sold in the US is not. I recall
that it was Hershey's doing, probably because eating one of their
chocolate bars is like biting into and chewing on a wax candle and any
competition would kill their business. They even forced a specialty
import shop in NYC to stop importing Cadbury bars from England.

For this reason, every time my family and I visit relatives in the US,
we taking along about 100 or so each of Ritter Sport and Milka Lila
chocolate bars for presents.
Tulip Renegade
2018-06-26 21:12:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. The
mentioned the sizes of the two bars. But in metric, centimeters.
wonder why? Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch
and it sounds better

As for that saying... "Size really does matter" Amazin
twist to perception and that subliminal messaging system that ou
minds are equipped with
A Friend
2018-06-27 00:08:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They
mentioned the sizes of the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I
wonder why? Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch)
and it sounds better?
As for that saying... "Size really does matter" Amazing
twist to perception and that subliminal messaging system that our
minds are equipped with.
You are perhaps too young to remember a TV ad campaign for cigarettes
that were just "a silly little millimeter longer" than the standard 100
mm for long cigarettes. (Regular ones were called 88s.) They were
called 101s and were manufactured by Chesterfield. Those who are not
too young to remember that now have the jingle running through their
heads. I'm sorry. But let's all sing along!

http://tinyurl.com/yagb5am9

There's a few familiar faces in that ad, including Captain Block of CAR
54.
RichA
2018-06-27 01:13:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They
mentioned the sizes of the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I
wonder why? Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch)
and it sounds better?
As for that saying... "Size really does matter" Amazing
twist to perception and that subliminal messaging system that our
minds are equipped with.
It's like when peope say something like "homelessness increases 200 percent!" Instead of just doubling or 2x.
Your Name
2018-06-27 01:20:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They
mentioned the sizes of the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I
wonder why? Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch)
and it sounds better?
As for that saying... "Size really does matter" Amazing
twist to perception and that subliminal messaging system that our
minds are equipped with.
It's like when peope say something like "homelessness increases 200
percent!" Instead of just doubling or 2x.
Or pricing items with and ending of "99c" just so they can be "under" a
certain value, for example something priced at "$9.99" can be
legitimately, if stupidly, advertised as being "under $10".

Even sillier is when a competing store then has the same product priced
at "$9.98" just so they can still claim to be cheaper. :-\

And that of course ignores the fact that anyone paying with cash (very
few these days) in countries where 1c and 2c coins have already been
discontinued can't actually pay the 9c or 8c, so the price at the
checkout counter gets rounded up anyway!
A Friend
2018-06-27 02:24:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Your Name
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. They
mentioned the sizes of the two bars. But in metric, centimeters. I
wonder why? Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch)
and it sounds better?
As for that saying... "Size really does matter" Amazing
twist to perception and that subliminal messaging system that our
minds are equipped with.
It's like when peope say something like "homelessness increases 200
percent!" Instead of just doubling or 2x.
Or pricing items with and ending of "99c" just so they can be "under" a
certain value, for example something priced at "$9.99" can be
legitimately, if stupidly, advertised as being "under $10".
Even sillier is when a competing store then has the same product priced
at "$9.98" just so they can still claim to be cheaper. :-\
And that of course ignores the fact that anyone paying with cash (very
few these days) in countries where 1c and 2c coins have already been
discontinued can't actually pay the 9c or 8c, so the price at the
checkout counter gets rounded up anyway!
I've got one that's even stupider: gasoline prices. They're always at,
say, $2.85 plus 9 mills a gallon. Mills haven't been a thing in U.S.
currency since before the Civil War. (I do dimly remember some
gasoline prices that ended in 5 mills, say around 1960.)
Micky DuPree
2018-07-08 08:33:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Friend
I've got one that's even stupider: gasoline prices. They're always
at, say, $2.85 plus 9 mills a gallon. Mills haven't been a thing in
U.S. currency since before the Civil War. (I do dimly remember some
gasoline prices that ended in 5 mills, say around 1960.)
The value of one S&H green stamp was 1 mill back in the mid-20th
century. Of course, you couldn't redeem just one stamp, or even ten for
a penny, but a book of 1200 could be redeemed for $1.20. My mom usually
saved up for things like a toaster, though.

ObTV: Here's an S&H green stamp commercial from 1968 with Joe Flynn and
William Christopher.



-Micky
A Friend
2018-07-08 19:57:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by A Friend
I've got one that's even stupider: gasoline prices. They're always
at, say, $2.85 plus 9 mills a gallon. Mills haven't been a thing in
U.S. currency since before the Civil War. (I do dimly remember some
gasoline prices that ended in 5 mills, say around 1960.)
The value of one S&H green stamp was 1 mill back in the mid-20th
century. Of course, you couldn't redeem just one stamp, or even ten for
a penny, but a book of 1200 could be redeemed for $1.20. My mom usually
saved up for things like a toaster, though.
I read somewhere that cash values were put on stamps and coupons in
order to avoid anti-littering laws in some jurisdictions. Coupons are
sometimes assigned a value of "1/20 of 1 cent," or half a mill.
Post by Micky DuPree
ObTV: Here's an S&H green stamp commercial from 1968 with Joe Flynn and
William Christopher.
http://youtu.be/6vaKZqdCL_Y
-Micky
Thanks! (The actress looks familiar, too, but I can't quite place her.)
Micky DuPree
2018-07-22 11:02:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by A Friend
I read somewhere that cash values were put on stamps and coupons in
order to avoid anti-littering laws in some jurisdictions. Coupons are
sometimes assigned a value of "1/20 of 1 cent," or half a mill.
I hadn't heard that. I have always wondered how one would go about
redeeming coupons for the cash value, though. If I collected enough of
them, to whom would I send them for my money?
Post by A Friend
Post by Micky DuPree
ObTV: Here's an S&H green stamp commercial from 1968 with Joe Flynn
and William Christopher.
http://youtu.be/6vaKZqdCL_Y
Thanks! (The actress looks familiar, too, but I can't quite place her.)
Me either. She reminds me a bit of the young woman who played the older
sister on _Family Affair_, but I'm pretty sure that actress was younger
than the one in the commercial.

-Micky
shawn
2018-07-22 11:15:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 11:02:28 +0000 (UTC),
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by A Friend
I read somewhere that cash values were put on stamps and coupons in
order to avoid anti-littering laws in some jurisdictions. Coupons are
sometimes assigned a value of "1/20 of 1 cent," or half a mill.
I hadn't heard that. I have always wondered how one would go about
redeeming coupons for the cash value, though. If I collected enough of
them, to whom would I send them for my money?
I think the days of being able to redeem them are long past. ;)
In the old days I would think you could go to the same place that you
would go to redeem them for actual things. Though you would need a LOT
of stamps to make it worth while.
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by A Friend
Post by Micky DuPree
ObTV: Here's an S&H green stamp commercial from 1968 with Joe Flynn
and William Christopher.
http://youtu.be/6vaKZqdCL_Y
Thanks! (The actress looks familiar, too, but I can't quite place her.)
Me either. She reminds me a bit of the young woman who played the older
sister on _Family Affair_, but I'm pretty sure that actress was younger
than the one in the commercial.
You got me to look her up and I'm surprised to see that Kathy Garver
(Cissy) is still quite an active actress.
anim8rfsk
2018-07-22 14:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Micky DuPree
Post by A Friend
I read somewhere that cash values were put on stamps and coupons in
order to avoid anti-littering laws in some jurisdictions. Coupons are
sometimes assigned a value of "1/20 of 1 cent," or half a mill.
I hadn't heard that. I have always wondered how one would go about
redeeming coupons for the cash value, though. If I collected enough of
them, to whom would I send them for my money?
Post by A Friend
Post by Micky DuPree
ObTV: Here's an S&H green stamp commercial from 1968 with Joe Flynn
and William Christopher.
http://youtu.be/6vaKZqdCL_Y
Thanks! (The actress looks familiar, too, but I can't quite place her.)
Me either. She reminds me a bit of the young woman who played the older
sister on _Family Affair_, but I'm pretty sure that actress was younger
than the one in the commercial.
-Micky
I don't recognize her, but it's definitely not Kathy Garver.

Garver would have been 23 in 1968 though.
--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/
Tulip Renegade
2018-07-12 16:20:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by RichA
American ad for a chocolate, er, "candy" bar. The
mentioned the sizes of the two bars. But in metric, centimeters.
wonder why? Because centimeters make larger numbers (2.54cm per inch
and it sounds better

WTH... who cares about the size. Unit o
Measure is really irrelevant when it comes to candy bars. They al
make you fat. So just eat the damn candy bar and don't worry abou
inches because sooner or later your muffin top will want more metrics
Loading...