Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching
Learnglish.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Discussion Groups / English Usage / November 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

"Natural" again

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
cybercypher - 24 Nov 2007 14:02 GMT
This is a link to a NY Times article titled "Being Skeptical of
Green", By DAN MITCHELL, Published: November 24, 2007.

http://link.toolbot.com/nytimes.com/95446

Here's an excerpt:
[quote]
Titled “The Six Sins of Greenwashing,” the report is based on a study
of 1,018 consumer products that make environmental claims. Of those,
according to the report, “all but one made claims that are
demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences.”

The firm said, for example, that the “sin of vagueness” is committed
when insecticides are sold as “chemical free.” In fact, the report
points out, “nothing is chemical-free.” Also watch out for
“nontoxic,” “all natural” and “earth friendly.”

The “Sin of Irrelevance” shows up, the report said, when a claim
essentially means nothing. Many products, like oven cleaners, are
sold as being free of chlorofluorocarbons, but CFCs have been banned
for three decades.

And the report said the “Sin of the Lesser of Two Evils” applied to
products like “organic tobacco” and “green” herbicides.

These and the other “sins” mean “both that the individual consumer
has been misled and that the potential environmental benefit of his
or her purchase has been squandered,” the report concludes.
[/quote]

It's an interesting little exposé on the misuse and abuse of language
by retailers.

Care for some grilled organic meat with that organic tobacco salad,
sir?
Vinny Burgoo - 24 Nov 2007 17:14 GMT
In alt.usage.english, cybercypher wrote:

[...]

>[quote]
>Titled “The Six Sins of Greenwashing,” the report is based on a study
>of 1,018 consumer products that make environmental claims. Of those,
>according to the report, “all but one made claims that are
>demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences.”
[...]
>[/quote]
>
>It's an interesting little exposé on the misuse and abuse of language
>by retailers.

It is. Thanks.

>Care for some grilled organic meat with that organic tobacco salad,
>sir?

Care for some fat-free all-natural olive oil on that, sir?

I read somewhere recently (I hope not here) that you can put "fat free"
(or perhaps "low fat") on products that contain nothing but fat
providing there are no more than X grams of fat per serving. The example
given was pre-filled, push-to-pump sprays* that dispense a measured
amount of cooking oil with every push of the button.

*Totally OT: I've been looking for something to use as an oil spray for
years. Does anyone know where I might be able to get one? The woman in
Sainsbury's - the most upmarket supermarket hereabouts - clearly thought
I was insane. She muttered something about tipping the bottle with
greater care and sidled away. Any old thing will do as long as it hasn't
contained anything with too strong a flavour. Now that winter's almost
here, I'll be using my ancient all-natural coal-fired-and-cracked
cast-iron range more often and it's handy to be able to spray small
amounts of oil where it's needed when griddling rather than tipping it
on, no matter how carefully, and watching it trickle down the front onto
the mostly-natural dust and dirt that coats, in a most natural way, the
all-natural bricks that comprise the kitchen floor. I currently use an
old soy sauce bottle with a narrow spout, but it's not ideal.)

Signature

V

Peter Duncanson - 24 Nov 2007 17:41 GMT
>*Totally OT: I've been looking for something to use as an oil spray for
>years. Does anyone know where I might be able to get one? The woman in
>Sainsbury's - the most upmarket supermarket hereabouts - clearly thought
>I was insane. She muttered something about tipping the bottle with
>greater care and sidled away.

You could perhaps reuse a "Dettol Anti-Bacterial Surface
Cleanser" bottle. It has a trigger operated manual pump. The top
unscrews for refilling.

The original content appears be safe, so there should be no
problem once the bottle has been cleaned. Scroll down here[1]:
http://www.dettol.co.uk/sf_allhome.shtml

[1] I originally typed "Scroll down her". This should be only to
a consenting "her".

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Vinny Burgoo - 26 Nov 2007 09:38 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Peter Duncanson wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:14:54 +0000, Vinny Burgoo

>>*Totally OT: I've been looking for something to use as an oil spray for
>>years. Does anyone know where I might be able to get one? The woman in
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>problem once the bottle has been cleaned. Scroll down here[1]:
>http://www.dettol.co.uk/sf_allhome.shtml

As Mike mentions, viscosity is a problem with sprays intended for
water-based stuff. If they work at all, you get more dribble than spray.
Plus that's too big. And, despite what the website says, possible too
smelly. Perfumes and the like linger on the plastic and make the oil
taste very bitter.

>[1] I originally typed "Scroll down her". This should be only to
>a consenting "her".

AKA a "window of opportunity".

Signature

V

Father Ignatius - 24 Nov 2007 17:46 GMT
Vinny Burgoo <hlunnh@yahoo.co.uk> het geskryf:

> *Totally OT: I've been looking for something to use as an
> oil spray for years. Does anyone know where I might be
> able to get one? The woman in Sainsbury's - the most
> upmarket supermarket hereabouts - clearly thought I was
> insane. She muttered something about tipping the bottle
> with greater care and sidled away.

This is surprising to me, as these are a standard item in
"home stores" around here.  I'd expect you to have a choice
of competing celebrity-chef lines, in fact, with price-tags
to match.  I expect that, once you stumble upon the mother
lode, idyll be like opening a nartery, a veritable nartery.

Anyway, FWIW, I got my latest from Woolies, which is likely
to imply it's an M&S line.

However, IME, they're not a great technology, and tend to
have a short service life (about as long as it takes for a
surprising amount of money to change hands, in fact), they
seem to crud up into uselessness if not used more frequently
than I use mine[1], and buying further up-market seems no
guarantee of increased satisfaction.

The latest one I got recommended mixing oil and water to
overcome this.  I'm not convinced that this is Totally
Scientific.  But, that said, I yust hoiked mine out of the
cupboard, Shook Vigorously and away it went <shrug>.

I stumbled across my preferred solution when I discovered
that, next to the non-stick [aerosol] spray was a
non-non-stick olive oil spray.  In a choice of flavours,
yet, including - ah-ha! - plain.

A basting brush, or selected and dedicated paintbrush of
choice, and a saucer or tea-cup holding a little oil, also
provides a more robust solution that offers a pleasing
degree of control over the process, esp. in the case where
the spray seems a little wussy for the job.

> as long as it hasn't contained anything with too strong a
> flavour. Now that winter's almost here, I'll be using my
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> currently use an old soy sauce bottle with a narrow
> spout, but it's not ideal.)

[1]  Although paps I'm bean unfair: I tend to buy my olive
oil from local farms.  I have no idea whether oil spray
manufacturers regard such homegrowns as abominations.
Vinny Burgoo - 26 Nov 2007 09:39 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Father Ignatius wrote:

[...]

>A basting brush, or selected and dedicated paintbrush of
>choice, and a saucer or tea-cup holding a little oil, also
>provides a more robust solution that offers a pleasing
>degree of control over the process, esp. in the case where
>the spray seems a little wussy for the job.

Too much fuss and clutter. Grab and spray is what I want.

But thanks.

Signature

V

HVS - 24 Nov 2007 17:51 GMT
On 24 Nov 2007, Vinny Burgoo wrote

> *Totally OT: I've been looking for something to use as an oil
> spray for years. Does anyone know where I might be able to get
> one?

We got ours from Lakeland;  works fine:

http://www.lakeland.co.uk/product.aspx/!11333

Signature

Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed

Peter Duncanson - 24 Nov 2007 18:04 GMT
>On 24 Nov 2007, Vinny Burgoo wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>http://www.lakeland.co.uk/product.aspx/!11333

That looks better than the improvisation I suggested.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

the Omrud - 24 Nov 2007 18:07 GMT
usenet@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk had it ...

> On 24 Nov 2007, Vinny Burgoo wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> http://www.lakeland.co.uk/product.aspx/!11333

Oooh, goody, that's some of our Christmas shopping sorted out.  Ta.

Signature

David

Vinny Burgoo - 26 Nov 2007 09:42 GMT
In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote:
>On 24 Nov 2007, Vinny Burgoo wrote

>> *Totally OT: I've been looking for something to use as an oil
>> spray for years. Does anyone know where I might be able to get
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>http://www.lakeland.co.uk/product.aspx/!11333

£7 and just the ticket. Excellent. Thanks.

And it seem there's a Lakeland store in Shrewsbury, so no exorbitant p&p
and no pithering about with non-Royal Mail couriers getting lost three
days running and returning the parcel to the depot.

ObAUE: A link at the website:

       frequently asked questions (with answers)

I've not seen that before. Is the parenthesis necessary, in English
usage? I imagine Lakeland is just being cute.

Signature

V

LFS - 26 Nov 2007 09:53 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, HVS wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> and no pithering about with non-Royal Mail couriers getting lost three
> days running and returning the parcel to the depot.

Warning: if you visit a Lakeland store at this time of year and they are
offering free samples of their brandy beans, on no account should you
try them. If you do, your life will never be the same again. You will
become instantly addicted. They are very good value (almost as good as
IKEA chocolate and orange biscuits) so feeding your addiction is not
likely to drive you to crime but they don't half do damage to your girth.

> ObAUE: A link at the website:
>
>         frequently asked questions (with answers)
>
> I've not seen that before. Is the parenthesis necessary, in English
> usage? I imagine Lakeland is just being cute.

I suppose it is possible that they anticipate literalism among visitors
to their site.

(Where is Rudolf, my fellow Lakeland fan, these days?)

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Amethyst Deceiver - 26 Nov 2007 11:08 GMT
>> ObAUE: A link at the website:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> (Where is Rudolf, my fellow Lakeland fan, these days?)

I have no idea. Will I do. We drove to John Lewis at Cheadle yesterday in
search of the one circular needle size they don't have. I should have
suggested a visit to the local Lakeland for a jam thermometer but I think
OldBloke would have rebelled. Instead we went to Costco and got YoungBloke's
Christmas present.
Vinny Burgoo - 26 Nov 2007 20:29 GMT
In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote:

>Warning: if you visit a Lakeland store at this time of year and they
>are offering free samples of their brandy beans, on no account should
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>is not likely to drive you to crime but they don't half do damage to
>your girth.

Thanks for the warning. I shall do my best to ignore it.

>>  ObAUE: A link at the website:
>>          frequently asked questions (with answers)
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>(Where is Rudolf, my fellow Lakeland fan, these days?)

Dunno. Didn't he move to Texas or something?

(I missed a few minutes towards the end of last-night's Cranford. How
did Dame Eileen die?)

Signature

V

LFS - 26 Nov 2007 21:14 GMT
>> (Where is Rudolf, my fellow Lakeland fan, these days?)
>
> Dunno. Didn't he move to Texas or something?

You could be right.

> (I missed a few minutes towards the end of last-night's Cranford. How
> did Dame Eileen die?)

She became very agitated about the advent of the railway, complained of
a frightful headache, went upstairs and crashed to the floor behind her
bedroom door. A stroke, one presumes.

The best bit was the synchronised ice cream eating.

(Just sent you an email about a high point in my day that you may
appreciate.)

Signature

Laura
(emulate St. George for email)

Vinny Burgoo - 27 Nov 2007 19:16 GMT
In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote:

[...]

>>  (I missed a few minutes towards the end of last-night's Cranford.
>>How  did Dame Eileen die?)
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>The best bit was the synchronised ice cream eating.

I shall look out for that during the repeat later tonight. If I miss it
again, it'll either be because (a) I'm asleep (I hope so) or (b) I have
been distracted by the scruffy* man waving his arms in the corner of the
screen.

*Why are the sign-language people always so scruffy? (And why are they
there at all? Aren't the subtitles more informative?)

Signature

V

Father Ignatius - 27 Nov 2007 20:12 GMT
Vinny Burgoo <hlunnh@yahoo.co.uk> het geskryf:

> *Why are the sign-language people always so scruffy? (And
> why are they there at all? Aren't the subtitles more
> informative?)

But blind people cannot see subtitles, yes?

Signature

Nat

-----

"When a man steals your wife, there is no better revenge
than to let him keep her."

    ---Sacha Guitry

Don Aitken - 27 Nov 2007 20:31 GMT
>In alt.usage.english, LFS wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>*Why are the sign-language people always so scruffy? (And why are they
>there at all? Aren't the subtitles more informative?)

I've attempted to watch programmes with a signer in a corner of the
screen, but I can't do it - I find it totally impossible to take in
anything else while the arm-waving and grimacing is going on. Maybe
I'll try taping a piece of cardboard over that corner.

Signature

Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

Vinny Burgoo - 27 Nov 2007 21:48 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Don Aitken wrote:

>I've attempted to watch programmes with a signer in a corner of the
>screen, but I can't do it - I find it totally impossible to take in
>anything else while the arm-waving and grimacing is going on. Maybe
>I'll try taping a piece of cardboard over that corner.

Ah, but when the signers "fall silent", the screen proper expands to
fill the whole screen. During quiet moments, the screen proper would be
one-quarter cardboard.

Signature

V

Sara Lorimer - 27 Nov 2007 22:20 GMT
> I've attempted to watch programmes with a signer in a corner of the
> screen, but I can't do it - I find it totally impossible to take in
> anything else while the arm-waving and grimacing is going on. Maybe
> I'll try taping a piece of cardboard over that corner.

Wait wait wait. What? The show has people doing sign language in one
corner? And you can't turn it off?

Signature

SML

Peter Duncanson - 28 Nov 2007 01:31 GMT
>> I've attempted to watch programmes with a signer in a corner of the
>> screen, but I can't do it - I find it totally impossible to take in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Wait wait wait. What? The show has people doing sign language in one
>corner? And you can't turn it off?

These are repeats of recently shown BBC programmes. They are
rebroadcast with signers in an after-midnight slot on BBC1
called "Sign Zone". Sign Zone lasts 1.45 to 3 hours during which
time several shows are broadcast.

I think I've occasionally seen similar repeats with signing on
non-BBC channels, but I wouldn't swear to it.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Oleg Lego - 28 Nov 2007 06:30 GMT
>> I've attempted to watch programmes with a signer in a corner of the
>> screen, but I can't do it - I find it totally impossible to take in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Wait wait wait. What? The show has people doing sign language in one
>corner? And you can't turn it off?

One of the funniest bits I ever saw on _Saturday Night Live_ was a
parody of a news program including something for the "hard of
hearing".

News Guy: Today in Washington, Senator Frisbee held a press
conference...

Guy in corner of screen: <cupping hands around mouth, and shouting>
TODAY IN WASHINGTON, SENATOR FRISBEE HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE...
Mike Lyle - 27 Nov 2007 23:17 GMT
[...]
>> I shall look out for that during the repeat later tonight. If I miss
>> it again, it'll either be because (a) I'm asleep (I hope so) or (b)
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> anything else while the arm-waving and grimacing is going on. Maybe
> I'll try taping a piece of cardboard over that corner.

That reminds me of a good tip for election night from Bernard Levin. You
draw a moustache on the screen with a felt-tip, and see how often one of
the talking heads fits into it.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

R H Draney - 28 Nov 2007 00:42 GMT
Mike Lyle filted:

>That reminds me of a good tip for election night from Bernard Levin. You
>draw a moustache on the screen with a felt-tip, and see how often one of
>the talking heads fits into it.

Since we don't have Dan Rather to kick around any more, this "Winky Dink and
You" approach is just the thing to make democracy *fun* again....r

Signature

"He come in the night when one sleep on a bed.
With a hand he have the basket and foods."
- David Sedaris explains the Easter rabbit

Amethyst Deceiver - 28 Nov 2007 11:23 GMT
> *Why are the sign-language people always so scruffy? (And why are they
> there at all? Aren't the subtitles more informative?)

The sign language people I generally see aren't scruffy.
Subtitles are far less informative for, say, children.
CBeebies signs everything on weekend afternoons, I tune it out.
Vinny Burgoo - 29 Nov 2007 19:49 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:

>> *Why are the sign-language people always so scruffy? (And why are they
>> there at all? Aren't the subtitles more informative?)
>
>The sign language people I generally see aren't scruffy.
>Subtitles are far less informative for, say, children.
>CBeebies signs everything on weekend afternoons, I tune it out.

But everyone on children's TV is scruffy, so perhaps the signers don't
stand out. (Innit! Yeah! Wicked! Nameen?)

I couldn't find a screenshot of a signer in action so you'll just have
to take my word that the Sign Zone signers wear scruffy sweatshirts and
sometimes look like they haven't washed for a week.

As for my parenthesised question, the answer is that it's the law.
Specifically, it's the Communications Act 2003, which says that 5% of
all broadcast time on any channel must include sign language by 2013.
This is because some deaf people whose first language is signing
apparently have trouble understanding subtitles - and not just
preliterate children. Some adults too, apparently. I wonder why that is.
(And Evan's post hasn't dewondered the wondering.)

Signature

V
Friends! Brethren! Countrymen! It's exactly 234 years since the start of the
Boston Tea Party. Hurrah!

Donna Richoux - 29 Nov 2007 22:39 GMT
> As for my parenthesised question, the answer is that it's the law.
> Specifically, it's the Communications Act 2003, which says that 5% of
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> preliterate children. Some adults too, apparently. I wonder why that is.
> (And Evan's post hasn't dewondered the wondering.)

Signing is not a one-to-one correspondence with the local language.
People who known sign don't know English. They have to learn that
separately, if they can. Without that, written sentences of English
don't make any more sense to them than written sentences in Croatian
would mean to you or me.

Signature

Best -- Donna Richoux

Amethyst Deceiver - 30 Nov 2007 12:26 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Amethyst Deceiver wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> But everyone on children's TV is scruffy, so perhaps the signers don't
> stand out. (Innit! Yeah! Wicked! Nameen?)

CBeebies doesn't have that kind of language, you know. It has Postman Pat.

> I couldn't find a screenshot of a signer in action so you'll just have
> to take my word that the Sign Zone signers wear scruffy sweatshirts
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> preliterate children. Some adults too, apparently. I wonder why that
> is. (And Evan's post hasn't dewondered the wondering.)

They may not learn written English. They may have another language but share
sign.
Evan Kirshenbaum - 28 Nov 2007 17:23 GMT
> *Why are the sign-language people always so scruffy? (And why are
> they there at all? Aren't the subtitles more informative?)

While I typically prefer subtitles to dubbing, if I were to watch a
Spanish-language movie, I suspect that I would find an English dub
more informative than Spanish subtitles, even though I could probably
more-or-less[1] follow the latter.  ASL (or BSL) is the first language
of most of the people who would be using the signed translation.
Their English reading may be considerably less fluent.

[1] More less than more these days.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |Of course, over the first 10^-10
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |seconds and 10^-30 cubic
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |centimeters it averages out to
                                      |zero, but when you look in
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |detail....
   (650)857-7572                      |            Philip Morrison

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Vinny Burgoo - 29 Nov 2007 19:46 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

>> *Why are the sign-language people always so scruffy? (And why are
>> they there at all? Aren't the subtitles more informative?)
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>[1] More less than more these days.

But don't deaf people read a lot? Isn't reading a bit of a lifeline for
them? Aren't they better readers than the bulk of the population?

I can appreciate (just about) that sign languages are primary languages
but ...

No. I don't get it at all. Unless the deaf live in a ghetto of the deaf,
written forms of the languages used by most people where they live must
be equally important to them. Must be.

Signature

V
I'd pursue this further but I'm distracted by a loud ringing in my left ear.

Evan Kirshenbaum - 29 Nov 2007 21:51 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> deaf, written forms of the languages used by most people where they
> live must be equally important to them. Must be.

For many of them, I suspect that their communication is pretty much
limited to other deaf people and friends and relatives who have
learned to sign to a greater or lesser degree.  I know families that
have, say, an elderly grandmother living with them who only speaks
Mandarin or Italian.  I suspect that it's much the same thing.  Or the
same as English speakers who move to China or India or Israel and
never really pick up the written language with any fluency.

Even for those (probably the majority) who can read English, they're
not going to do it anywhere near as fluently as seeing ASL.  Also, you
have to factor in another problem with learning the language as a deaf
person: When you or I see "there" where "they're" should be, or "no"
for "know", or (to take an example brought up here recently) "Al Gore
rhythm" for "algorithm" in a subtitle, we laugh, but we have no
trouble figuring out what was meant.  Deaf people, on the other hand,
have little or no notion of homophony in spoken language, and such
errors will almost certainly completely derail them--they have to
simply learn that pairs of words are arbitrarily substituted for one
another, just as we would have to learn that one Chinese character is
often erroneously substituted for another because both are pronounced
similarly.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |quite another to be willfully
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |ignorant
                                      |                   Cecil Adams
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
   (650)857-7572

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Peter Duncanson - 29 Nov 2007 21:58 GMT
>In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>written forms of the languages used by most people where they live must
>be equally important to them. Must be.

I hope the ringing has subsided.

Imagine being deaf and trying to watch one of these broadcasts
using all the provided facilities.

Simultaneously:

1. Watch the action,
2. Lipread,
3. Read the subtitles,
4. Watch the signer.

You have only two eyes and they point to the same place?
Hard luck.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robert Bannister - 30 Nov 2007 00:56 GMT
> You have only two eyes and they point to the same place?
> Hard luck.

Clearly programmes like CNN, who run unrelated text below the news, are
unaware of this.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Mike Lyle - 29 Nov 2007 23:25 GMT
> In alt.usage.english, Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> deaf, written forms of the languages used by most people where they
> live must be equally important to them. Must be.

Good heavens man! Can't you see it's racist to teach
Hearing-Moderated-and-Successful people to read English? To do so would
be to imply that Sign, and therefore its users, were in some way
inferior.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

jerry_friedman@yahoo.com - 29 Nov 2007 23:45 GMT
...

> But don't deaf people read a lot? Isn't reading a bit of a lifeline for
> them? Aren't they better readers than the bulk of the population?

Maybe not.

"How Do Profoundly Deaf Children Learn to Read?

"Susan Goldin-Meadow & Rachel I. Mayberry

[...]

"Reading requires two related, but separable, capabilities: (1)
familiarity with a language, and (2) understanding the mapping between
that language and the printed word (Chamberlain & Mayberry, 2000;
Hoover & Gough, 1990). Children who are profoundly deaf are
disadvantaged on both counts. Not surprisingly, then, reading is
difficult for profoundly deaf children. But some deaf children do
manage to read fluently...."

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0938-8982.00022?cookieSet=1&jou
rnalCode=ldrp

(abstract only).

"Goldin-Meadow" is a nice name.

--
Jerry Friedman
Vinny Burgoo - 30 Nov 2007 17:05 GMT
In alt.usage.english, jerry_friedman@yahoo.com wrote:

>> But don't deaf people read a lot? Isn't reading a bit of a lifeline for
>> them? Aren't they better readers than the bulk of the population?
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>"Susan Goldin-Meadow & Rachel I. Mayberry

[snip explanation]

Ah! (That "Ah!" is also a response to the explanations posted by others,
for which many thanks.) I stand corrected.

The poor devils.

>"Goldin-Meadow" is a nice name.

As is Mayberry. Both are prime fodder for a Tolkien spoof.

Signature

V
I don't think I've ever met anyone who was born deaf.

Father Ignatius - 30 Nov 2007 18:02 GMT
How could a new-born[e?] have been married for years?
Evan Kirshenbaum - 30 Nov 2007 20:03 GMT
> I don't think I've ever met anyone who was born deaf.

The woman who taught my ASL class was.  As was one of her sons (whom I
also met), her parents and her husband.  There was a deaf kid I knew
growing up, and I think he was born deaf, but I'm not sure.

Signature

Evan Kirshenbaum                       +------------------------------------
   HP Laboratories                    |When you're ready to break a rule,
   1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141   |you _know_ that you're ready; you
   Palo Alto, CA  94304               |don't need anyone else to tell
                                      |you. (If you're not that certain,
   kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com             |then you're _not_ ready.)
   (650)857-7572                      |              Tom Phoenix

   http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

the Omrud - 26 Nov 2007 22:33 GMT
hlunnh@yahoo.co.uk had it ...

> (I missed a few minutes towards the end of last-night's Cranford. How
> did Dame Eileen die?)

Behind the bedroom door.  Of a headache.  After being told that the
railway was coming.

I'm distraught.  She was acting the pants off Dame Judi.

Signature

David

Vinny Burgoo - 27 Nov 2007 19:22 GMT
In alt.usage.english, the Omrud wrote:
>hlunnh@yahoo.co.uk had it ...

>> (I missed a few minutes towards the end of last-night's Cranford. How
>> did Dame Eileen die?)
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
>I'm distraught.  She was acting the pants off Dame Judi.

I can see how that might have been distressing. But you could have
averted your gaze.

Dame Eileen did play a blinder but they're all good, in their own ways -
even the young doctor with the monotonous voice and unvarying facial
expression (he always looks like he's silently swallowing wind to make
himself belch). He doesn't do much acting but somehow it suits the
character. (It worked when he played Octavian in _Rome_ too, but how
many more parts are there out there requiring a flat voice and the
demeanour of someone perpetually on the verge of belching? If you have
shares in the young man's career, sell them now.)

The best bits are generally when the old ladies are in pursuit of
gossip. They all move together, a gaggle of geese, raised noses
twitching here and there, eyes unable to blink because of the
excitement. Laugh-out-loud stuff, and you don't get that very often in
historical dramas.

But the funniest bit so far has to be that cat sh.tting noisily in the
thigh-boot that had been worn at Waterloo. If they can beat that, the
show will run for ever ... no, there'll be lots of re-runs ... it's a
runny good show ... some pun about diarrhoea, anyway.

Signature

V

the Omrud - 27 Nov 2007 22:15 GMT
hlunnh@yahoo.co.uk had it ...

> Dame Eileen did play a blinder but they're all good, in their own ways -
> even the young doctor with the monotonous voice and unvarying facial
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> demeanour of someone perpetually on the verge of belching? If you have
> shares in the young man's career, sell them now.)

I am impressed by the sheer awfulness of Annette Crosbie's daughter,
who has entirely lost her accent and managed to make herself
profoundly unattractive.

> The best bits are generally when the old ladies are in pursuit of
> gossip. They all move together, a gaggle of geese, raised noses
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> show will run for ever ... no, there'll be lots of re-runs ... it's a
> runny good show ... some pun about diarrhoea, anyway.

We especially liked the cry of "There are ladies running!" and have
taken to repeating it whenever the occasion arises.  I have a soft
spot for Barbara Flynn, at its height in the Beiderbecke Tapes (etc),
possibly the most perfectly English series ever to grace our screens.

Signature

David

the Omrud - 24 Nov 2007 18:01 GMT
hlunnh@yahoo.co.uk had it ...

> In alt.usage.english, cybercypher wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> given was pre-filled, push-to-pump sprays* that dispense a measured
> amount of cooking oil with every push of the button.

And by converse, the delicious Marmite (tm) is banned from Healthy
Eating establishments because it's 12% salt.  But even I don't eat
much more than 10g of the stuff in a day, so the total amount of salt
ingested is small.

Signature

David

Mike Lyle - 24 Nov 2007 18:36 GMT
[...]

> *Totally OT: I've been looking for something to use as an oil spray
> for years. Does anyone know where I might be able to get one? The
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> comprise the kitchen floor. I currently use an old soy sauce bottle
> with a narrow spout, but it's not ideal.)

How about a house-plant mister, Mister? (Garden centre.) Or maybe one of
those plastic bottles with spray attached that hairdressers use --Boots?
Only thing is that these are intended for water, so perhaps oil would be
too viscous for them. A trigger oil-can from Halfords would eject oil
very nicely, but you'd have to spread it over the hotplate with a cloth
or something.

I imagine you've already rejected:
http://thecookskitchen.com/browse_2448
and:
http://www.lakeland.co.uk/SearchResults.aspx?kw=oil+mister&src=gaute&sq=oil%20spray

Both too pricey for my taste, especially with p&p (but at least they
don't call it "shipping").

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Vinny Burgoo - 26 Nov 2007 09:42 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Mike Lyle wrote:

>> *Totally OT: I've been looking for something to use as an oil spray
>> for years. Does anyone know where I might be able to get one?

>How about a house-plant mister, Mister? (Garden centre.) Or maybe one of
>those plastic bottles with spray attached that hairdressers use --Boots?
>Only thing is that these are intended for water, so perhaps oil would be
>too viscous for them.

Yes, viscosity is key (and also core) when formulating an
outcomes-focused strategy for differently-tasking spraying equipment.

>A trigger oil-can from Halfords would eject oil very nicely, but you'd
>have to spread it over the hotplate with a cloth or something.

That would be going from A to A via B and C, if I may say so.

Signature

V

Paul Wolff - 27 Nov 2007 01:20 GMT
>In alt.usage.english, Mike Lyle wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>Yes, viscosity is key (and also core) when formulating an
>outcomes-focused strategy for differently-tasking spraying equipment.

Enough viscosityism here!  What about the surface tension?  We
tensionists demand equal rites.  A droplet isn't a droplet without that
huggy liquid skin.  Poo! and Bah! to viscosity.  Viscous, thick and
slow, tensionist, mist and go!

>>A trigger oil-can from Halfords would eject oil very nicely, but you'd
>>have to spread it over the hotplate with a cloth or something.

Completely out of the question.  It would lead to globular warming, as
sure as eggs is eggs.

>That would be going from A to A via B and C, if I may say so.

We could just about allow that.
Signature

Paul
In bocca al Lupo!

Vinny Burgoo - 27 Nov 2007 19:10 GMT
In alt.usage.english, Paul Wolff wrote:
>>In alt.usage.english, Mike Lyle wrote:

>>Yes, viscosity is key (and also core) when formulating an
>>outcomes-focused strategy for differently-tasking spraying equipment.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>huggy liquid skin.  Poo! and Bah! to viscosity.  Viscous, thick and
>slow, tensionist, mist and go!

[returns from googling]

Crikey! I always thought the two properties were related.

(I still don't quite believe that they aren't.)

>>>A trigger oil-can from Halfords would eject oil very nicely, but
>>>you'd have to spread it over the hotplate with a cloth or something.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>
>We could just about allow that.

I don't want no favours.

Signature

V

Arcadian Rises - 24 Nov 2007 19:30 GMT
> The "Sin of Irrelevance" shows up, the report said, when a claim
> essentially means nothing. Many products, like oven cleaners, are
> sold as being free of chlorofluorocarbons, but CFCs have been banned
> for three decades.

The most revolting sin of Irrelevance I believe is the " fat free"
claim on the box with candies loaded with sugar and other things
supposedly bad for you;  the "fat  free" claim allievates the guilt
and it makes you  feel virtuous  for ingesting those  zillions of
calories.
R H Draney - 24 Nov 2007 21:26 GMT
Arcadian Rises filted:

>> The "Sin of Irrelevance" shows up, the report said, when a claim
>> essentially means nothing. Many products, like oven cleaners, are
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>and it makes you  feel virtuous  for ingesting those  zillions of
>calories.

A few years ago I somehow managed to buy both the regular and "sugar-free"
versions of the same instant flavored coffee...a close look at the nutritional
information on the label revealed that the latter had a *much* higher percentage
of its calories from fat and was therefore, according to the prevailing wisdom
of the time, less healthful....

(And then there's that peanut butter with "cholesterol free!" plastered across
the label in letters bigger than those of the brand name)....r

Signature

"He come in the night when one sleep on a bed.
With a hand he have the basket and foods."
- David Sedaris explains the Easter rabbit

Oleg Lego - 24 Nov 2007 21:49 GMT
>Arcadian Rises filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>of its calories from fat and was therefore, according to the prevailing wisdom
>of the time, less healthful....

Does this not make sense to you? Some folks need to reduce sugars, and
some need to reduce fat. For those that need to reduce sugars, the fat
may not be a problem at all.

>(And then there's that peanut butter with "cholesterol free!" plastered across
>the label in letters bigger than those of the brand name)....r

Here's to truth in advertising! I was thinking I might market sugar,
with the banner reading "No sugar added!"
R H Draney - 25 Nov 2007 03:41 GMT
Oleg Lego filted:

>>A few years ago I somehow managed to buy both the regular and "sugar-free"
>>versions of the same instant flavored coffee...a close look at the nutritional
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>some need to reduce fat. For those that need to reduce sugars, the fat
>may not be a problem at all.

It made sense to me after some thought, but at first it was counter-intuitive
that the "diet" version of the same product was more fattening than the
non-"diet"....

>>(And then there's that peanut butter with "cholesterol free!" plastered across
>>the label in letters bigger than those of the brand name)....r
>
>Here's to truth in advertising! I was thinking I might market sugar,
>with the banner reading "No sugar added!"

I want to boost a leaf from the people who market "krab" that's never known the
presence of a crustacean...my idea is to sell bits of "textured vegetable
protein" under the trademark name "beaf"....r

Signature

"He come in the night when one sleep on a bed.
With a hand he have the basket and foods."
- David Sedaris explains the Easter rabbit

Oleg Lego - 25 Nov 2007 06:10 GMT
>Oleg Lego filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>presence of a crustacean...my idea is to sell bits of "textured vegetable
>protein" under the trademark name "beaf"....r

Great! If you ever do it, see if you can get the UPC code _48815_!
Richard Bollard - 27 Nov 2007 21:35 GMT
[...]

>A few years ago I somehow managed to buy both the regular and "sugar-free"
>versions of the same instant flavored coffee...

<stops here, walks away shaking head>
Signature

Richard Bollard
Canberra Australia

To email, I'm at AMT not spAMT.

R H Draney - 28 Nov 2007 00:46 GMT
Richard Bollard filted:

>>A few years ago I somehow managed to buy both the regular and "sugar-free"
>>versions of the same instant flavored coffee...
>
><stops here, walks away shaking head>

The label says "coffee", but it might be more accurate to call it "frou-frou
cocoa"....r

Signature

"He come in the night when one sleep on a bed.
With a hand he have the basket and foods."
- David Sedaris explains the Easter rabbit

Robert Bannister - 24 Nov 2007 22:24 GMT
>>The "Sin of Irrelevance" shows up, the report said, when a claim
>>essentially means nothing. Many products, like oven cleaners, are
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and it makes you  feel virtuous  for ingesting those  zillions of
> calories.

I've just been plastering my mother's toast with an Italian marmalade
that makes the surprising claim to "100% real fruit" - I suppose unreal
fruit would have been more expensive.

Signature

Rob Bannister

Arcadian Rises - 24 Nov 2007 23:05 GMT
> I've just been plastering my mother's toast with an Italian marmalade
> that makes the surprising claim to "100% real fruit" - I suppose unreal
> fruit would have been more expensive.

The question is how would only 50% real fruit look like? Half
reaLfruit and half real animal?
Peter Duncanson - 25 Nov 2007 00:38 GMT
>> I've just been plastering my mother's toast with an Italian marmalade
>> that makes the surprising claim to "100% real fruit" - I suppose unreal
>> fruit would have been more expensive.
>
>The question is how would only 50% real fruit look like? Half
>reaLfruit and half real animal?

I recall reading, long ago here in the UK, that some marmalades
and jams were bulked out with carrot. Carrot is an unreal fruit
without being a real animal.

Signature

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

Robert Bannister - 26 Nov 2007 00:34 GMT
>>>I've just been plastering my mother's toast with an Italian marmalade
>>>that makes the surprising claim to "100% real fruit" - I suppose unreal
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and jams were bulked out with carrot. Carrot is an unreal fruit
> without being a real animal.

Perhaps if it had "100% citrus fruit", it would have been more convincing.

Signature

Rob Bannister

cybercypher - 25 Nov 2007 01:28 GMT
> On Nov 24, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> The question is how would only 50% real fruit look like? Half
> reaLfruit and half real animal?

Maybe like the incredibly shiny apples in American grocery stores:
mostly real fruit but significantly enough real paraffin.
R H Draney - 25 Nov 2007 03:44 GMT
cybercypher filted:

>> On Nov 24, Robert Bannister <robb...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>Maybe like the incredibly shiny apples in American grocery stores:
>mostly real fruit but significantly enough real paraffin.

I think Arcadian has the right idea...the animal half is in the form of
gelatine....

Flashback to a "street fair" in old town Scottsdale some ten years ago, where
one vendor was hawking his jars of "fruit salsa"...I couldn't resist the urge to
point out that *any* salsa containing tomato and/or chilis was a "fruit
salsa"....r

Signature

"He come in the night when one sleep on a bed.
With a hand he have the basket and foods."
- David Sedaris explains the Easter rabbit

Peter Moylan - 25 Nov 2007 07:33 GMT
>> The "Sin of Irrelevance" shows up, the report said, when a claim
>> essentially means nothing. Many products, like oven cleaners, are
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> and it makes you  feel virtuous  for ingesting those  zillions of
> calories.

Ditto for "cholesterol free". As far as I know, the small amounts of
cholesterol that we ingest have little effect on our health. The nasty
stuff is manufactured inside our bodies from ingredients supplied to us
from those cholesterol free foods.

Signature

Peter Moylan                             http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Father Ignatius - 25 Nov 2007 11:03 GMT
Peter Moylan <peter@DIESPAMMERSDIEpmoylan.org> het geskryf:

> Ditto for "cholesterol free". As far as I know, the small
> amounts of cholesterol that we ingest have little effect
> on our health.

I understand that most ([almost?] all?) ingested cholesterol
is digested, leading to a positive effect on our health [up
to the onset of obesity, anywaze].

Signature

Nat

-----

"I'm nearly thirty, you know.  I'm not fifteen.  By now, I
should be able to talk to a woman without accidentally
saying 'nipples' or 'gusset'.  Or. Or, 'Did you know you can
make candles out of human fat?'"

    ---Jeff Murdock, /Coupling/

Mike Lyle - 25 Nov 2007 15:56 GMT
[...]
> Ditto for "cholesterol free". As far as I know, the small amounts of
> cholesterol that we ingest have little effect on our health. The nasty
> stuff is manufactured inside our bodies from ingredients supplied to
> us from those cholesterol free foods.

I remember an Australian fat-free salad dressing which used mango pulp
to provide a sort-of unctuousness: it would have tasted a lot better, I
thought, if it hadn't had sugar added. You might like to experiment
along those lines.

Signature

Mike.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Stupot - 25 Nov 2007 07:56 GMT
> This is a link to a NY Times article titled "Being Skeptical of
> Green", By DAN MITCHELL, Published: November 24, 2007.
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> Care for some grilled organic meat with that organic tobacco salad,
> sir?
I've seen organic water for sale.

Signature

Stupot           http://insignity.blogspot.com

cybercypher - 25 Nov 2007 08:50 GMT
Stupot <ten.no.edonretni@nampahc.trauts> wrote
[..]
> I've seen organic water for sale.

Of course: liquid CO2 without the usual chemical fertilizers.
R H Draney - 25 Nov 2007 17:55 GMT
cybercypher filted:

>Stupot <ten.no.edonretni@nampahc.trauts> wrote
>[..]
>> I've seen organic water for sale.
>
>Of course: liquid CO2 without the usual chemical fertilizers.

Liquid CO2, eh?...is this the result of the attempt to melt dry ice so you can
take a bath without getting wet?...r

Signature

"He come in the night when one sleep on a bed.
With a hand he have the basket and foods."
- David Sedaris explains the Easter rabbit

Roland Hutchinson - 26 Nov 2007 05:08 GMT
> cybercypher filted:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Liquid CO2, eh?...is this the result of the attempt to melt dry ice so you
> can take a bath without getting wet?...r

He must be under a lot of pressure to bathe.

Signature

Roland Hutchinson              Will play viola da gamba for food.

NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to
remove spam.  If your message looks like spam I may not see it.

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2012 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.