Germans in Ham

[Harrison Hill]

"The Cage was not, however, Britain’s only secret interrogation centre
during and after World War II. MI5 also operated an interrogation centre,
code-named Camp 020, at Latchmere House, a Victorian mansion near Ham
Common in South-West London, whose 30 rooms were turned into cells with
hidden microphones.

"The first of the German spies who arrived in Britain in September 1940
were taken there. Vital information about a coming German invasion was
extracted at great speed. This indicates the use of extreme methods, but
these were desperate days demanding desperate measures. In charge was
Colonel Robin Stephens, known as ‘Tin Eye’, because of the monocle
fixed to his right eye.

"It was not a term of affection. The object of interrogation, Stephens
told his officers, was simple: ‘Truth in the shortest possible time.’
A top secret memo spoke of ‘special methods’, but did not elaborate.

"He arranged for an additional 92-cell block to be added to Latchmere
House, plus a punishment room — known chillingly as Cell 13 — which
was completely bare, with smooth walls and a linoleum floor.

"Close to 500 people passed through the gates of Camp 020. Principal
among them were German spies, many of whom were ‘turned’ and persuaded
— or maybe forced — to work for MI5.

"Its first inmates were members of the British Union of Fascists. Some
were held in cells brightly lit 24 hours a day, others in cells kept
in total darkness.

"Several prisoners were subjected to mock executions and were knocked
about by the guards. Some were apparently left naked for months at a
time.

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html>

Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a wealthy,
German neighbourhood.

[John Varela]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:09:49 UTC, Harrison Hill

"The Cage was not, however, Britains only secret interrogation centre
during and after World War II. MI5 also operated an interrogation centre,
code-named Camp 020, at Latchmere House, a Victorian mansion near Ham
Common in South-West London, whose 30 rooms were turned into cells with
hidden microphones.
"The first of the German spies who arrived in Britain in September 1940
were taken there. Vital information about a coming German invasion was
extracted at great speed. This indicates the use of extreme methods, but
these were desperate days demanding desperate measures. In charge was
Colonel Robin Stephens, known as Tin Eye, because of the monocle
fixed to his right eye.
"It was not a term of affection. The object of interrogation, Stephens
told his officers, was simple: Truth in the shortest possible time.
A top secret memo spoke of special methods, but did not elaborate.
"He arranged for an additional 92-cell block to be added to Latchmere
House, plus a punishment room  known chillingly as Cell 13  which
was completely bare, with smooth walls and a linoleum floor.
"Close to 500 people passed through the gates of Camp 020. Principal
among them were German spies, many of whom were turned and persuaded
 or maybe forced  to work for MI5.
"Its first inmates were members of the British Union of Fascists. Some
were held in cells brightly lit 24 hours a day, others in cells kept
in total darkness.
"Several prisoners were subjected to mock executions and were knocked
about by the guards. Some were apparently left naked for months at a
time.
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html>
Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a wealthy,
German neighbourhood.

I suppose it could be said that the prisoners were subjected to
English usage, which would make it on topic. Sort of.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by John Varela
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:09:49 UTC, Harrison Hill

[ Snip a torrent of off-topic stuff ]

Post by John Varela
I suppose it could be said that the prisoners were subjected to
English usage, which would make it on topic. Sort of.

Sort of. Harrison hasn't yet figured out what English usage is, or why
some posts are prefixed OT. Probably his mother never explained it to
him.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by John Varela
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:09:49 UTC, Harrison Hill

"The Cage was not, however, Britains only secret interrogation centre
during and after World War II. MI5 also operated an interrogation centre,
code-named Camp 020, at Latchmere House, a Victorian mansion near Ham
Common in South-West London, whose 30 rooms were turned into cells with
hidden microphones.
"The first of the German spies who arrived in Britain in September 1940
were taken there. Vital information about a coming German invasion was
extracted at great speed. This indicates the use of extreme methods, but
these were desperate days demanding desperate measures. In charge was
Colonel Robin Stephens, known as Tin Eye, because of the monocle
fixed to his right eye.
"It was not a term of affection. The object of interrogation, Stephens
told his officers, was simple: Truth in the shortest possible time.
A top secret memo spoke of special methods, but did not elaborate.
"He arranged for an additional 92-cell block to be added to Latchmere
House, plus a punishment room  known chillingly as Cell 13  which
was completely bare, with smooth walls and a linoleum floor.
"Close to 500 people passed through the gates of Camp 020. Principal
among them were German spies, many of whom were turned and persuaded
 or maybe forced  to work for MI5.
"Its first inmates were members of the British Union of Fascists. Some
were held in cells brightly lit 24 hours a day, others in cells kept
in total darkness.
"Several prisoners were subjected to mock executions and were knocked
about by the guards. Some were apparently left naked for months at a
time.
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-P

oWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-
war.html>

Post by John Varela

Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a wealthy,
German neighbourhood.

I suppose it could be said that the prisoners were subjected to
English usage, which would make it on topic. Sort of.

Whatever usage it was, it was completely succesful.
MI5 succeeded in capturing and turning or silencing -all- German spies.

This was crucial for the succes of the invasion.
German High Command was led to believe
that the real invasion would come north of the Seine.
Even after 'Normandy' had happened,
they believed for some time that it was nothing but a feint
and that the real invasion was still to come.
It delayed their Panzers,

Jan

[JNugent]

Post by Harrison Hill
"The Cage was not, however, Britain’s only secret interrogation centre
during and after World War II. MI5 also operated an interrogation centre,
code-named Camp 020, at Latchmere House, a Victorian mansion near Ham
Common in South-West London, whose 30 rooms were turned into cells with
hidden microphones.
"The first of the German spies who arrived in Britain in September 1940
were taken there. Vital information about a coming German invasion was
extracted at great speed. This indicates the use of extreme methods, but
these were desperate days demanding desperate measures. In charge was
Colonel Robin Stephens, known as ‘Tin Eye’, because of the monocle
fixed to his right eye.
"It was not a term of affection. The object of interrogation, Stephens
told his officers, was simple: ‘Truth in the shortest possible time.’
A top secret memo spoke of ‘special methods’, but did not elaborate.
"He arranged for an additional 92-cell block to be added to Latchmere
House, plus a punishment room — known chillingly as Cell 13 — which
was completely bare, with smooth walls and a linoleum floor.
"Close to 500 people passed through the gates of Camp 020. Principal
among them were German spies, many of whom were ‘turned’ and persuaded
— or maybe forced — to work for MI5.
"Its first inmates were members of the British Union of Fascists. Some
were held in cells brightly lit 24 hours a day, others in cells kept
in total darkness.
"Several prisoners were subjected to mock executions and were knocked
about by the guards. Some were apparently left naked for months at a
time.
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html>
Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a wealthy,
German neighbourhood.

it isn't the only Ham in southern England.

See: https://tinyurl.com/y9k79mgw

[occam]

Post by JNugent

Post by Harrison Hill
"The Cage was not, however, Britain’s only secret interrogation centre
during and after World War II. MI5 also operated an interrogation centre,
code-named Camp 020, at Latchmere House, a Victorian mansion near Ham
Common in South-West London, whose 30 rooms were turned into cells with
hidden microphones.
"The first of the German spies who arrived in Britain in September 1940
were taken there. Vital information about a coming German invasion was
extracted at great speed. This indicates the use of extreme methods, but
these were desperate days demanding desperate measures. In charge was
Colonel Robin Stephens, known as ‘Tin Eye’, because of the monocle
fixed to his right eye.
"It was not a term of affection. The object of interrogation, Stephens
told his officers, was simple: ‘Truth in the shortest possible time.’
A top secret memo spoke of ‘special methods’, but did not elaborate.
"He arranged for an additional 92-cell block to be added to Latchmere
House, plus a punishment room — known chillingly as Cell 13 — which
was completely bare, with smooth walls and a linoleum floor.
"Close to 500 people passed through the gates of Camp 020. Principal
among them were German spies, many of whom were ‘turned’ and persuaded
— or maybe forced — to work for MI5.
"Its first inmates were members of the British Union of Fascists.  Some
were held in cells brightly lit 24 hours a day, others in cells kept
in total darkness.
"Several prisoners were subjected to mock executions and were knocked
about by the guards. Some were apparently left naked for months at a
time.
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223831/How-Britain-tortured-Nazi-PoWs-The-horrifying-interrogation-methods-belie-proud-boast-fought-clean-war.html>
Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a wealthy,
German neighbourhood.

it isn't the only Ham in southern England.
See: https://tinyurl.com/y9k79mgw

Mmm..., Ham Sandwich. Here is a place sign for the vegetarians amongst us.

Loading Image...

[occam]

Post by occam

Post by JNugent
it isn't the only Ham in southern England.
See: https://tinyurl.com/y9k79mgw

Mmm..., Ham Sandwich. Here is a place sign for the vegetarians amongst us.

(whoops)

Loading Image...

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by occam

Post by occam

Post by JNugent
it isn't the only Ham in southern England.
See: https://tinyurl.com/y9k79mgw

Mmm..., Ham Sandwich. Here is a place sign for the vegetarians amongst us.

(whoops)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qwamg4sjs1dd8ow/cheddar%20gorge.jpg?dl=0

Bleedin veggies and their cheese. Pass the Rennies.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by JNugent

Post by Harrison Hill
Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a
wealthy, German neighbourhood.

it isn't the only Ham in southern England.
See: https://tinyurl.com/y9k79mgw

What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

[occam]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by JNugent

Post by Harrison Hill
Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a
wealthy, German neighbourhood.

it isn't the only Ham in southern England.
See: https://tinyurl.com/y9k79mgw

What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by JNugent

Post by Harrison Hill
Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a
wealthy, German neighbourhood.

it isn't the only Ham in southern England.
See: https://tinyurl.com/y9k79mgw

What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
vehicle width:
Loading Image...

2.0m
6'-6"

similarly max height:
Loading Image...
and max length:
Loading Image...

[RHDraney]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

[Cheryl]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

I suppose (given that you are arguing with Americans and Canadians),
that they might "have a licence" without having to have read "The
Highway Code".

With a licence or with a license?
Be in practice or be in practise?

[Cheryl]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

Anyone with a local licence, I suppose, but I still don't see a reason
for putting in unnecessary symbols even if the authorities do realize
they have to train anyone they issue a license to that it isn't a dash
or a minus sign.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

Anyone with a local licence, I suppose, but I still don't see a reason
for putting in unnecessary symbols even if the authorities do realize
they have to train anyone they issue a license to that it isn't a dash
or a minus sign.

Fot anyone who hasn't looked at the image: the ASCII representation as
6'-6" is not accurate. The ' and " are in a higher position. The dash is
shorter than a minus and its left end is under the ' .

[Mark Brader]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label?

[That's] a dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a
minus sign.

Fot anyone who hasn't looked at the image: the ASCII representation as
6'-6" is not accurate. The ' and " are in a higher position. The dash is
shorter than a minus and its left end is under the ' .

Indeed, what it looks most like is not a dash *or* a minus sign, either
of which would be longer, but a hyphen, for which "-" is a correct ASCII
representation after all. But it's too *high* to be a hyphen, either.
It's just a weird mark.

All this just to avoid writing 6'6" properly, i.e. with no space after the
foot mark.

Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...
Loading Image...

(Oh.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt
It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

Why? Not around here, they're not. If the prime isn't salient enough, how
does the hyphen make it any more so?

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

Should the driver of an automobile be expected to know the highway
code for signs regarding lorry and load width restrictions?

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 18:24:52 GMT, Tony Cooper

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No
giants or midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f
000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in
their right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic
on a sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure
out that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the
effort, particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are
supposed to be familiar with the highway code which includes the
format for road signs. All measurements in feet and inches are
indicated with a dash separating the two figures. This shouldn't be
coming as a shock to anyone with a licence!

Should the driver of an automobile be expected to know the highway
code for signs regarding lorry and load width restrictions?

They shouldn't need to worry in those cases; but if it makes them do some
mental subtraction is that really a big issue?

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 09:01:54 -0700 (PDT), Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

Should the driver of an automobile be expected to know the highway
code for signs regarding lorry and load width restrictions?

Why shouldn't they? It's not only a warning to prohibited vehicles
but also a fair indication of driving conditions for those that are
permitted to use the road. Anyway, the driving test requires that
you learn them, so as far as the Government is concerned, yes
the should!

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
2.0m
6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

Including a tourist whose licence is from a different country?

Personally, I didn't think that the '-' was a minus sign. It was
intuitively obvious that it was intended to indicate a range.

[occam]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
       2.0m
       6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

Including a tourist whose licence is from a different country?
Personally, I didn't think that the '-' was a minus sign. It was
intuitively obvious that it was intended to indicate a range.

A range from 6' to 6", as your original joke suggested?

[Cheryl]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
       2.0m
       6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

Including a tourist whose licence is from a different country?
Personally, I didn't think that the '-' was a minus sign. It was
intuitively obvious that it was intended to indicate a range.

A range from 6' to 6", as your original joke suggested?

That's what's puzzling about the sign. It looks like a very peculiar
range, or else subtraction. Presumably the locals are familiar with that
way of indicating feet and inches, but I used that measurement system
for a long time before we went metric, and never encountered that
convention before, not even on traffic signs. So if I were going to
drive in the UK, I would be puzzled by it.

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Cheryl
That's what's puzzling about the sign. It looks like a very peculiar
range, or else subtraction. Presumably the locals are familiar with that
way of indicating feet and inches, but I used that measurement system
for a long time before we went metric, and never encountered that
convention before, not even on traffic signs. So if I were going to
drive in the UK, I would be puzzled by it.

It's not something that affects most drivers, since it's very rare for
a public road to be too narrow or a bridge too low for an ordinary
car. And I doubt most people have an accurate idea of how wide or
tall their car is anyway.

-- Richard

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Cheryl

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator
for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
       2.0m
       6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

Including a tourist whose licence is from a different country?
Personally, I didn't think that the '-' was a minus sign. It was
intuitively obvious that it was intended to indicate a range.

A range from 6' to 6", as your original joke suggested?

That's what's puzzling about the sign. It looks like a very peculiar
range, or else subtraction. Presumably the locals are familiar with that
way of indicating feet and inches, but I used that measurement system
for a long time before we went metric, and never encountered that
convention before, not even on traffic signs. So if I were going to
drive in the UK, I would be puzzled by it.

It isn't limited to the UK. Mark Brader gave urls to four examples none
of which is British. Brit signs of that type are in red circles. The
examples are not. I think they are US.

Post by Cheryl
http://lostcharlotteblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/clearance-sign_seigle-avenue1.jpg
http://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/gw_bridgeheight_cropped_ddi-649x485.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/12/article-0-130F43D1000005DC-165_634x364.jpg
http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/2010/09/2010-09-11-parkway1jpg-fa75d440bc1211c7.jpg

I wonder whether someone, somewhere, experimented with different formats
to discover which was most readily understood at a glance by a driver?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 02 Aug 2018 12:16:41 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Cheryl

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No
giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator
for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
       2.0m
       6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are supposed
to be familiar with the highway code which includes the format for road
signs. All measurements in feet and inches are indicated with a dash
separating the two figures. This shouldn't be coming as a shock to
anyone with a licence!

Including a tourist whose licence is from a different country?
Personally, I didn't think that the '-' was a minus sign. It was
intuitively obvious that it was intended to indicate a range.

A range from 6' to 6", as your original joke suggested?

That's what's puzzling about the sign. It looks like a very peculiar
range, or else subtraction. Presumably the locals are familiar with that
way of indicating feet and inches, but I used that measurement system
for a long time before we went metric, and never encountered that
convention before, not even on traffic signs. So if I were going to
drive in the UK, I would be puzzled by it.

It isn't limited to the UK. Mark Brader gave urls to four examples none
of which is British. Brit signs of that type are in red circles. The
examples are not. I think they are US.

Post by Cheryl
http://lostcharlotteblog.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/clearance-sign_seigle-avenue1.jpg
http://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/gw_bridgeheight_cropped_ddi-649x485.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/05/12/article-0-130F43D1000005DC-165_634x364.jpg
http://media.syracuse.com/news/photo/2010/09/2010-09-11-parkway1jpg-fa75d440bc1211c7.jpg

I wonder whether someone, somewhere, experimented with different formats
to discover which was most readily understood at a glance by a driver?

This is a low bridge a couple of miles from me. The height signs are
black on white in red triangles:
https://goo.gl/maps/aTwXdcynNW42

There are advance warning signs at road junctions before the bridge.
They have the same style of red triangle height signs plus direction
signs saying "Alternative route avoiding low bridge".
https://goo.gl/maps/z9NnVLJJYwm

The height in feet and inches is given as 11'-0".
11' would give the same information but I suppose there is benefit in
using a single standard representation.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:18:32 +0300, occam

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches"
label? No giants or midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a
delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg

2.0m

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a
minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in
their lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all!
Who in their right mind is driving down a main road expecting
arithmetic on a sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would
figure out that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put
them to the effort, particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are
supposed to be familiar with the highway code which includes the
format for road signs. All measurements in feet and inches are
indicated with a dash separating the two figures. This shouldn't
be coming as a shock to anyone with a licence!

Including a tourist whose licence is from a different country?
Personally, I didn't think that the '-' was a minus sign. It was
intuitively obvious that it was intended to indicate a range.

A range from 6' to 6", as your original joke suggested?

Yes. Of course it looked back to front, which is why I was puzzled. If
it had been 6"-6' then I would have had no doubt that it was a range.
That's one of the common uses of a dash.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 21:33:41 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:18:32 +0300, occam

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches"
label? No giants or midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a
delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg

2.0m

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in
their lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all!
Who in their right mind is driving down a main road expecting
arithmetic on a sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would
figure out that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put
them to the effort, particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are
supposed to be familiar with the highway code which includes the
format for road signs. All measurements in feet and inches are
indicated with a dash separating the two figures. This shouldn't
be coming as a shock to anyone with a licence!

Including a tourist whose licence is from a different country?
Personally, I didn't think that the '-' was a minus sign. It was
intuitively obvious that it was intended to indicate a range.

A range from 6' to 6", as your original joke suggested?

Yes. Of course it looked back to front, which is why I was puzzled. If
it had been 6"-6' then I would have had no doubt that it was a range.
That's one of the common uses of a dash.

Just wondering.
Has 6-6 ever been used as a common way of representing
6 feet 6 inches ?
Ditto 6'6" ?

Perhaps 6'-6" combines two different representations:
6-6 and 6'6".

[Madrigal Gurneyhalt]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 21:33:41 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 11:18:32 +0300, occam

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches"
label? No giants or midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a
delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg

2.0m

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in
their lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all!
Who in their right mind is driving down a main road expecting
arithmetic on a sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would
figure out that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put
them to the effort, particularly when they're driving?

It shouldn't be a question of figuring out anything. Drivers are
supposed to be familiar with the highway code which includes the
format for road signs. All measurements in feet and inches are
indicated with a dash separating the two figures. This shouldn't
be coming as a shock to anyone with a licence!

Including a tourist whose licence is from a different country?
Personally, I didn't think that the '-' was a minus sign. It was
intuitively obvious that it was intended to indicate a range.

A range from 6' to 6", as your original joke suggested?

Yes. Of course it looked back to front, which is why I was puzzled. If
it had been 6"-6' then I would have had no doubt that it was a range.
That's one of the common uses of a dash.

Just wondering.
Has 6-6 ever been used as a common way of representing
6 feet 6 inches ?
Ditto 6'6" ?
6-6 and 6'6".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

No, yes, and therefore no.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Just wondering.
Has 6-6 ever been used as a common way of representing
6 feet 6 inches ?
Ditto 6'6" ?
6-6 and 6'6".

You could say, "He's really tall! He's six foot six! But a six-six center
isn't unusual in basketball." But, as Maddie says, no reason to write it
other than 6' 6".

[RHDraney]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
      2.0m
      6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the effort,
particularly when they're driving?

I don't recall seeing a dash between the feet and inches on a bridge
clearance sign (where it would be for height, not width)...but I do
remember being confused once by a recipe that called for something like
"2-1/4 cups" of something...is that a cup and three-quarters or
something more algebraic?...should I measure out two cups and then set a
quarter-cup of that measurement aside for some secondary purpose that
will come up later?...r

[bill van]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
      2.0m
      6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the
effort, particularly when they're driving?

I don't recall seeing a dash between the feet and inches on a bridge
clearance sign (where it would be for height, not width)...but I do
remember being confused once by a recipe that called for something like
"2-1/4 cups" of something...is that a cup and three-quarters or
something more algebraic?...should I measure out two cups and then set
a quarter-cup of that measurement aside for some secondary purpose that
will come up later?...r

I would never read that as meaning two cups minus a quarter cup. To me,
it says two and a quarter cups. I've seen various ways of visually
presenting that kind of number and not all of them or clear and there
are, I think, no universal rules. Publications have style guides for
that kind of thing, either their own or someone else's such as the AP
Style Guide. I don't recall with certainty now how my last paper did
it, but I'm now inclined to "2 1/4 cups". No confusing hyphen.

bill

[Mark Brader]

Post by bill van

Post by RHDraney
I don't recall seeing a dash between the feet and inches on a bridge
clearance sign...

(See my last posting in the thread. I didn't remember it either.)

Post by bill van

Post by RHDraney
but I do remember being confused once by a recipe that called for
something like "2-1/4 cups" of something...

I would never read that as meaning two cups minus a quarter cup. To me,
it says two and a quarter cups.

Yes, this use of a hyphen used to be pretty standard in typewritten
material where the typewriter didn't have the appropriate fraction
as a single character. Of course it has no place in typeset or
handwritten matter.

I know what it means, but it still bothers me -- I *want* to read the
hyphen as a minus sign.

Post by bill van
I don't recall with certainty now how my last paper did
it, but I'm now inclined to "2 1/4 cups". No confusing hyphen.

I've been known to use the style "2+1/4" if fraction characters aren't
available. But that's just me; I don't think I've ever seen anyone
else do it.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by bill van

Post by RHDraney
I don't recall seeing a dash between the feet and inches on a bridge
clearance sign...

(See my last posting in the thread. I didn't remember it either.)

Post by bill van

Post by RHDraney
but I do remember being confused once by a recipe that called for
something like "2-1/4 cups" of something...

I would never read that as meaning two cups minus a quarter cup. To me,
it says two and a quarter cups.

Yes, this use of a hyphen used to be pretty standard in typewritten
material where the typewriter didn't have the appropriate fraction
as a single character.

Most typewriters had a slash, Shirley?

Post by Mark Brader
Of course it has no place in typeset or
handwritten matter.
I know what it means, but it still bothers me -- I *want* to read the
hyphen as a minus sign.

Post by bill van
I don't recall with certainty now how my last paper did
it, but I'm now inclined to "2 1/4 cups". No confusing hyphen.

I've been known to use the style "2+1/4" if fraction characters aren't
available. But that's just me; I don't think I've ever seen anyone
else do it.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

...I do remember being confused once by a recipe that called for
something like "2-1/4 cups" of something...

To me, [that] says two and a quarter cups.

Yes, this use of a hyphen used to be pretty standard in typewritten
material where the typewriter didn't have the appropriate fraction
as a single character.

Most typewriters had a slash, Shirley?

What did you think that was after the "1"?

The problem was that in "2¼", the "2" and the "¼" are supposed to be
adjacent since spaces aren't possible within a number; but if you have
to write "¼" as "1/4", you find that "21/4" doesn't work. You could
manipulate the typewriter to elevate the "1" and lower the "4", but
that method has its own inconveniences.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

...I do remember being confused once by a recipe that called for
something like "2-1/4 cups" of something...

To me, [that] says two and a quarter cups.

Yes, this use of a hyphen used to be pretty standard in typewritten
material where the typewriter didn't have the appropriate fraction
as a single character.

Most typewriters had a slash, Shirley?

What did you think that was after the "1"?

It was a slash, obviously.

Post by Mark Brader
The problem was that in "2¼", the "2" and the "¼" are supposed to be
adjacent since spaces aren't possible within a number; but if you have
to write "¼" as "1/4", you find that "21/4" doesn't work.

No, but 2 1/4 does.

Post by Mark Brader
You could
manipulate the typewriter to elevate the "1" and lower the "4", but
that method has its own inconveniences.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

...I do remember being confused once by a recipe that called for
something like "2-1/4 cups" of something...

To me, [that] says two and a quarter cups.

Yes, this use of a hyphen used to be pretty standard in typewritten
material where the typewriter didn't have the appropriate fraction
as a single character.

Most typewriters had a slash, Shirley?

What did you think that was after the "1"?

It was a slash, obviously.

Post by Mark Brader
The problem was that in "2¼", the "2" and the "¼" are supposed to be
adjacent since spaces aren't possible within a number; but if you have
to write "¼" as "1/4", you find that "21/4" doesn't work.

No, but 2 1/4 does.

"2 1/4 cups stuff" could be misunderstood as two separate quarter-cups
of stuff, probably to be used at different times. Of course there are
other ways to write that in recipes, and such possibilities are among
the reasons to read the whole recipe before starting it. (It's also
helpful to understand the recipe will enough to know whether 1 cup or 2
1/4 cups looks right, but everybody has to be inexperienced at some point.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

The problem was that in "2ź", the "2" and the "ź" are supposed to be
adjacent since spaces aren't possible within a number; but if you have
to write "ź" as "1/4", you find that "21/4" doesn't work. You could
manipulate the typewriter to elevate the "1" and lower the "4", but
that method has its own inconveniences.

Why would Brader type z-dot to mean "1/4"?

[Richard Tobin]

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why would Brader type z-dot to mean "1/4"?

He didn't. His message contained a Latin-1 quarter symbol and the
message had the header

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"

so there was nothing wrong there.

The question is why Google Groups displays it wrongly. It shows me
a z with an acute accent, but "show original" shows it correctly.

-- Richard

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Richard Tobin

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Why would Brader type z-dot to mean "1/4"?

He didn't. His message contained a Latin-1 quarter symbol and the
message had the header
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
so there was nothing wrong there.
The question is why Google Groups displays it wrongly. It shows me a
z with an acute accent, but "show original" shows it correctly.

We've been through this before. If the original is in Latin-1, GG tries
to interpret it as if the code was UTF-8.

The problem is that GG ignores the Content-Type header. And there's no
way to fix this, because GG also ignores bug reports.

(Google is not the only organisation with this problem. When I hit a bug
in Yahoo mail, I discovered that there's no mechanism to report
problems. There are no humans at the end of the line, only yahoos.)

(This evening I discovered that a friend of mine has lost her internet
connection, because of a fault in her ISP, called Dodo. The line is as
dead as a ...)

[Peter T. Daniels]

[Brader's screwing with the attributions and the names repaired]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Mark Brader

Post by bill van

Post by RHDraney
I don't recall seeing a dash between the feet and inches on a bridge
clearance sign...

(See my last posting in the thread. I didn't remember it either.)

Post by bill van

Post by RHDraney
but I do remember being confused once by a recipe that called for
something like "2-1/4 cups" of something...

I would never read that as meaning two cups minus a quarter cup. To me,
it says two and a quarter cups.

Yes, this use of a hyphen used to be pretty standard in typewritten
material where the typewriter didn't have the appropriate fraction
as a single character.

Most typewriters had a slash, Shirley?

And even a space bar.

[Cheryl]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
      2.0m
      6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the
effort, particularly when they're driving?

I don't recall seeing a dash between the feet and inches on a bridge
clearance sign (where it would be for height, not width)...but I do
remember being confused once by a recipe that called for something like
"2-1/4 cups" of something...is that a cup and three-quarters or
something more algebraic?...should I measure out two cups and then set a
quarter-cup of that measurement aside for some secondary purpose that
will come up later?...r

I don't recall seeing that in a recipe, but some recipes are a bit
confusing because of the way in which they are written out.

[Quinn C]

Post by Cheryl

Post by RHDraney

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
      2.0m
      6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the
effort, particularly when they're driving?

I don't recall seeing a dash between the feet and inches on a bridge
clearance sign (where it would be for height, not width)...but I do
remember being confused once by a recipe that called for something like
"2-1/4 cups" of something...is that a cup and three-quarters or
something more algebraic?...should I measure out two cups and then set a
quarter-cup of that measurement aside for some secondary purpose that
will come up later?...r

I don't recall seeing that in a recipe,

I have, and it let me pause for half a second.

Post by Cheryl
but some recipes are a bit
confusing because of the way in which they are written out.

There's certainly worse than the example.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
      2.0m
      6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the
effort, particularly when they're driving?

I don't recall seeing a dash between the feet and inches on a bridge
clearance sign (where it would be for height, not width)...
The sign sure looks like it's about width. The bridge might look like

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-rail-over-road-bridge-with-a-t-junction-showing-warning-signs-for-90649211.html

Post by RHDraney
but I do
remember being confused once by a recipe that called for something like
"2-1/4 cups" of something...is that a cup and three-quarters or
something more algebraic?...should I measure out two cups and then set a
quarter-cup of that measurement aside for some secondary purpose that
will come up later?...r

Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought the
6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were really
confused. In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be really
intelligent to make a mistake like that.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused. In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused.  In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly. I still think a less intelligent
person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not even have
noticed it. (Did you think my "really intelligent" was sarcasm? I wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

[musika]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused.  In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly.  I still think a less intelligent
person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not even have
noticed it.  (Did you think my "really intelligent" was sarcasm?  I
wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by musika

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused.  In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly.  I still think a less
intelligent person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not
even have noticed it.  (Did you think my "really intelligent" was
sarcasm?  I wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

I've never driven anything that would have clearance problems, so I
don't pay enough attention (or am not intelligent enough) to notice
whether the signs have hyphens.

[musika]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by musika
Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

I've never driven anything that would have clearance problems, so I
don't pay enough attention (or am not intelligent enough) to notice
whether the signs have hyphens.

<Loading Image...>

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by musika

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by musika
Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

I've never driven anything that would have clearance problems, so I
don't pay enough attention (or am not intelligent enough) to notice
whether the signs have hyphens.

<http://11foot8.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/2-13-2009-006-1024x768.jpg>

Yes, that's exactly the kind of sign I've never paid attention, because
that's exactly the kind of vehicle I've never driven. Exactly one of
the kinds.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by musika

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused.  In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly.  I still think a less intelligent
person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not even have
noticed it.  (Did you think my "really intelligent" was sarcasm?  I
wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

I don't think I've ever seen a sign specifying maximum widths. Sometimes
a truck transporting, say, half a house sliced longitudinally will be
preceded and followed by service vehicles with banners proclaiming
"Oversize Load."

The clearance warnings on low overpasses don't have hyphens between the
feet and inches.

[Richard Yates]

Post by musika

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused.  In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly.  I still think a less intelligent
person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not even have
noticed it.  (Did you think my "really intelligent" was sarcasm?  I
wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

They are common here with the hyphen:

https://tinyurl.com/ycvahldb

[Peter Moylan]

Post by musika

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused. In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly. I still think a less
intelligent person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not
even have noticed it. (Did you think my "really intelligent" was
sarcasm? I wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

[Richard Yates]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:56:17 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by musika

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused. In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly. I still think a less
intelligent person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not
even have noticed it. (Did you think my "really intelligent" was
sarcasm? I wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

This one:

[Mark Brader]

Post by Peter Moylan
One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

Loading Image...

That one's in England, but they're not unknown on this continent:

Loading Image...

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan
One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/28/article-0-1737A630000005DC-513_634x436.jpg
http://images.metro-magazine.com/post/L-Enviro500-N-America-low-height-2014.jpg

I must admit that I forgot all about buses. (And giraffes.)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan
One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/28/article-0-1737A630000005DC-513_634x436.jpg
http://images.metro-magazine.com/post/L-Enviro500-N-America-low-height-2014.jpg

I must admit that I forgot all about buses. (And giraffes.)

Nota lot of giraffes on Australian roads! However, what about
kangaroos: how high do they jump?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan
One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a
12-foot limit, and on the same pole there was a "no trucks"
symbol. How many non-truck vehicles would have trouble with
that limit?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/28/article-0-1737A630000005DC-513_634x436.jpg
That one's in England, but they're not unknown on this
http://images.metro-magazine.com/post/L-Enviro500-N-America-low-height-2014.jpg

I must admit that I forgot all about buses. (And giraffes.)

Nota lot of giraffes on Australian roads! However, what about
kangaroos: how high do they jump?

Sometimes high enough to put their feet through the windscreen of your
car. That's why you need to take care when driving through kangaroo country.

Kangaroos wouldn't have trouble with things like railway bridges and
freeway overpasses, but there is one hazard. When building a major road
through a rural area, it has become standard to provide two kinds of
animal crossings: a sort of horizontal rope ladder high above the road
for climbing animals, and a tunnel under the road.

Some of those tunnels are big enough to accommodate a slow-moving
kangaroo, but those who try to go through at speed injure themselves by
hitting their head on the roof.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan
One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/28/article-0-1737A630000005DC-513_634x436.jpg

Bus drivers following a modified route sometimes had problems with the
bridge next to Oxford Station.

Post by Mark Brader
http://images.metro-magazine.com/post/L-Enviro500-N-America-low-height-2014.jpg

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Peter Moylan
One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot
limit, and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many
non-truck vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/01/28/article-0-1737A630000005DC-51
3_634x436.jpg
http://images.metro-magazine.com/post/L-Enviro500-N-America-low-height-
2014.jpg

And what about those googlestreetviewcars, how tall do they get?

(I'm off to check GSV for low bridges - I maybe some time.)

[Mark Brader]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
And what about those googlestreetviewcars, how tall do they get?

I have the impression they're about 9-10 feet. In this view the
camera seems to be about level with the top of the truck cab.
I don't know how high the other thing is, though.

http://www.qsview.com/@46.278581,-83.221761,91.66h,-2.51p,1z

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
And what about those googlestreetviewcars, how tall do they get?

I have the impression they're about 9-10 feet. In this view the
camera seems to be about level with the top of the truck cab.
I don't know how high the other thing is, though.

Nice catch!

[Richard Yates]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 11:38:44 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
And what about those googlestreetviewcars, how tall do they get?

I have the impression they're about 9-10 feet. In this view the
camera seems to be about level with the top of the truck cab.
I don't know how high the other thing is, though.

Nice catch!

But what's that three-fingered alien crawling down from the roof?

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Richard Yates
On Wed, 8 Aug 2018 11:38:44 -0000 (UTC), "Kerr-Mudd,John"

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John

Post by Mark Brader

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
And what about those googlestreetviewcars, how tall do they get?

I have the impression they're about 9-10 feet. In this view the
camera seems to be about level with the top of the truck cab.
I don't know how high the other thing is, though.

Nice catch!

But what's that three-fingered alien crawling down from the roof?

Don't you know _why_ Google is mapping the earth?

It's not for our benefit.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:56:17 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by musika

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused. In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly. I still think a less
intelligent person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not
even have noticed it. (Did you think my "really intelligent" was
sarcasm? I wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

RV (Recreational Vehicles) may have trouble with a 12-foot limit. The
actual vehicle may not be that high, but many have a satellite dish or
air conditioning unit on top. Fifth-wheelers are also high enough
when being driven to warrant caution about clearances. According to a
RV reader forum, 13'6' is not uncommon.

I thought I might have to explain what a fifth-wheeler is, but I see
they are known in OZ:

http://www.thegreynomads.com.au/your-rig/types-of-rigs/fifth-wheelers/

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2018 04:11:18 GMT, Tony Cooper
<***@invalid.com> wrote:

[]

Post by Tony Cooper
I thought I might have to explain what a fifth-wheeler is, but I see
http://www.thegreynomads.com.au/your-rig/types-of-rigs/fifth-wheelers/

I counted more than 5 wheels.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Richard Yates
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 12:56:17 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by musika

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused. In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly. I still think a less
intelligent person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not
even have noticed it. (Did you think my "really intelligent" was
sarcasm? I wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

RV (Recreational Vehicles) may have trouble with a 12-foot limit. The
actual vehicle may not be that high, but many have a satellite dish or
air conditioning unit on top. Fifth-wheelers are also high enough
when being driven to warrant caution about clearances. According to a
RV reader forum, 13'6' is not uncommon.
I thought I might have to explain what a fifth-wheeler is, but I see
http://www.thegreynomads.com.au/your-rig/types-of-rigs/fifth-wheelers/

5th wheelers are pretty rare in the UK, but not unknown.

[RHDraney]

Post by Peter Moylan
One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

While a truck was in fact involved in the incident reported here

the situation does not require that one
be used....

I remember many years ago when one of the auto clubs in the US was
called upon to service a customer with this same need...usually they're
asked to plan routes that avoid city centers, pass near certain points
of interest, etc, but this customer wanted a route in which all overhead
clearances were greater than a specified height, to prevent precisely
the sort of accident in the above YouTube video....r

[Janet]

In article <pk0g8h$enc$***@dont-email.me>, ***@pmoylan.org.invalid
says...

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by musika

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused. In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly. I still think a less
intelligent person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not
even have noticed it. (Did you think my "really intelligent" was
sarcasm? I wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

Double decker buses. Their tops get ripped off surprisingly often.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-42278/Pupils-dramatic-escape-
bus-hits-bridge.html

Janet.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Janet
says...

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by musika

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused. In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".

I apologize for doubting you wrongly. I still think a less
intelligent person wouldn't have been misled by the hyphen--might not
even have noticed it. (Did you think my "really intelligent" was
sarcasm? I wasn't.)

Post by Peter Moylan
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

I too would have found 6'6" or 6' 6" more readable.

Do you not see those signs in the USA? They're there.

One of the examples, possibly produced by Mark, showed a 12-foot limit,
and on the same pole there was a "no trucks" symbol. How many non-truck
vehicles would have trouble with that limit?

Double decker buses. Their tops get ripped off surprisingly often.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-42278/Pupils-dramatic-escape-
bus-hits-bridge.html

It can get worse
<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5595883/Two-dead-45-hurt-double
-decker-bus-crashes-tree-Malta.html>

Jan

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 01:39:11 +1000, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Jerry Friedman
Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought
the 6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were
really confused. In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be
really intelligent to make a mistake like that.

Here's what I really thought. I thought that the 6'-6" sign made no
sense at all, so I was struggling to work out what it was supposed to
mean. The "range" interpretation was the most plausible I could think
of. Perhaps I'm dumb, but it didn't occur to me that it might mean 6'6".
If that's what they meant, why didn't they write it in a readable way?

In the course of Googling for enlightenment I found this:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-symbol-for-feet-and-inches

Tehsin Ud Din Khan Wazir, Electrical Engineer
Answered Nov 7, 2016 · Author has 225 answers and 1m answer views

The international standard symbol for a foot is "ft" (see ISO 31-1,
Annex A). In some cases, the foot is denoted by a prime, which is
often marked by an apostrophe, and the inch by a double prime; for
example, 2 feet 4 inches is sometimes denoted as 2'-4?, 2' 4? or
2'4?.

That wording is exactly the same as in Wikip which doesn't seem to refer
to a source:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_(unit)#International_foot>

According to this Chicago Manual of Style Q&A:
https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/qanda/data/faq/topics/HyphensEnDashesEmDashes/faq0007.html


Q. Can you offer any guidance as to how best to render people’s
height? I’ve seen “five feet, two inches” (tall),
“five-feet-two-inches” “five-feet-two,” “five-foot-two” (yikes!),
“five-two,” all of the preceding with the hyphens placed otherwise
or omitted, and, of course, good old 5' 2''. I’ve searched “Chicago”
but haven’t found the answer. Help!

A. Usually, a hyphen is unnecessary: write “five feet, two inches
tall,” “five feet, two inches,” “five foot two,” and so forth. But a
-> hyphen is helpful in expressions such as “five-two.” If you write
5'2", there’s no space after the sign for feet (a prime symbol). See
CMOS 7.85, section 1, under “number + noun.” See also 10.69.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:17:42 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by RHDraney

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
      2.0m
      6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the
effort, particularly when they're driving?

I don't recall seeing a dash between the feet and inches on a bridge
clearance sign (where it would be for height, not width)...
The sign sure looks like it's about width. The bridge might look like

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-rail-over-road-bridge-with-a-t-junction-showing-warning-signs-for-90649211.html

The signs in the red triangles are for height. There is a white-painted
H:

|______________|
| |
| |

which shows the part of the arched bridge which is at least the height
shown in the signs.

A vehicle carrying a load of that height will need to move into the
middle of the road, occupying lanes in both directions. That will
usually require someone to stop oncoming traffic.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by RHDraney
but I do
remember being confused once by a recipe that called for something like
"2-1/4 cups" of something...is that a cup and three-quarters or
something more algebraic?...should I measure out two cups and then set a
quarter-cup of that measurement aside for some secondary purpose that
will come up later?...r

Sorry to be cranky, but I don't believe Peter Moylan really thought the
6'-6" sign really meant a range, and I don't believe you were really
confused. In case I'm wrong, though, I'll say you have to be really
intelligent to make a mistake like that.

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Thu, 2 Aug 2018 09:17:42 -0600, Jerry Friedman

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by RHDraney

Post by Cheryl

Post by Madrigal Gurneyhalt

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
      2.0m
      6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Only by crazy people who've never encountered a road sign in their
lives before and therefore shouldn't be driving at all! Who in their
right mind is driving down a main road expecting arithmetic on a
sign?

Unexpected symbols are distracting. Sure, most people would figure out
that the '-' is essentially meaningless, but why put them to the
effort, particularly when they're driving?

I don't recall seeing a dash between the feet and inches on a bridge
clearance sign (where it would be for height, not width)...
The sign sure looks like it's about width. The bridge might look like

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-rail-over-road-bridge-with-a-t-junction-showing-warning-signs-for-90649211.html

The signs in the red triangles are for height. There is a white-painted
|______________|
| |
| |
which shows the part of the arched bridge which is at least the height
shown in the signs.
A vehicle carrying a load of that height will need to move into the
middle of the road, occupying lanes in both directions. That will
usually require someone to stop oncoming traffic.

...

Thanks, I see.

Maybe the bridge looked more like this.

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-narrow-bridge-road-sign-with-75-tontonne-limit-autumn-colours-20738119.html

[Anders D. Nygaard]

[...] I do
remember being confused once by a recipe that called for something like
"2-1/4 cups" of something...is that a cup and three-quarters or
something more algebraic?

One option would be to go for a more sensible unit of measurement:
765g (or, if you insist on your weird units, 27 oz)

...should I measure out two cups and then set a
quarter-cup of that measurement aside for some secondary purpose that
will come up later?...r

/Anders, Denmark.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 15:19:04 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

[...] I do
remember being confused once by a recipe that called for something like
"2-1/4 cups" of something...is that a cup and three-quarters or
something more algebraic?

765g (or, if you insist on your weird units, 27 oz)

It's a sensible option in the US where measuring cups are sold in
sets. A set of cups will include a full cup measure and a quarter-cup
measure.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Progressive-19-Pc-Ultimate-Measuring-Set/128764995?wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&wl13=1374&adid=22222222227046880766&wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=102548473472&wl4=pla-255696788280&wl5=9011775&wl6=&wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=local&wl12=128764995&wl13=1374&veh=sem

And, glass measuring cups have markings on the side to indicate cups,
fractions of cups, and ounces.

Something different from what you are used is not necessarily not
sensible or weird.

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

...should I measure out two cups and then set a
quarter-cup of that measurement aside for some secondary purpose that
will come up later?...r

/Anders, Denmark.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 15:19:04 +0200, "Anders D. Nygaard"

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

[...] I do
remember being confused once by a recipe that called for something like
"2-1/4 cups" of something...is that a cup and three-quarters or
something more algebraic?

765g (or, if you insist on your weird units, 27 oz)

It's a sensible option in the US where measuring cups are sold in
sets. A set of cups will include a full cup measure and a quarter-cup
measure.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Progressive-19-Pc-Ultimate-Measuring-Set/128764995?

wmlspartner=wlpa&selectedSellerId=0&wl13=1374&adid=22222222227046880766&
wl0=&wl1=g&wl2=c&wl3=102548473472&wl4=pla-255696788280&wl5=9011775&wl6=&
wl7=&wl8=&wl9=pla&wl10=8175035&wl11=local&wl12=128764995&wl13=1374&veh=s
em

Post by Tony Cooper
And, glass measuring cups have markings on the side to indicate cups,
fractions of cups, and ounces.
Something different from what you are used is not necessarily not
sensible or weird.

Measuring cups and spoons are not unknown in saneunitpondia.
(with standard sizes in ml)
Volume measure is often quite practical when cooking,

Jan

[Cheryl]

Post by Anders D. Nygaard

[...] I do remember being confused once by a recipe that called for
something like "2-1/4 cups" of something...is that a cup and
three-quarters or something more algebraic?

765g (or, if you insist on your weird units, 27 oz)

...should I measure out two cups and then set a quarter-cup of that
measurement aside for some secondary purpose that will come up later?...r

So there's a system of measurement in which every possible measurement
is a full unit, never part of a unit?

Or possibly you're referring to the custom of weighing foodstuffs that
can be measured more easily and quickly by volume? That always seems a
bit excessively tedious for me unless you're counting calories and
really need to know how many are in your particular chicken breast, or
you are doing the kind of baking that requires extreme accuracy.

My grandmother was a good baker, but she didn't measure by weight or
volume for familiar recipes. She just added flour or milk or whatever
until the amount looked about right. That method doesn't work for me,
although I used to know how to knead bread dough until it felt right.

[occam]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Max. width 6'6". The dot (or dash?) is, I believe, a delineator for clarity.

A dash. This image from the GB Highway Code shows a sign for maximum
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/55b9f60aed915d155f000022/sign-giving-order-no-vehicle-width.jpg
     2.0m
     6'-6"

The "dash" actually hurts clarity, as it can be read as a minus sign....r

Perhaps, but if you are unclear about the sign and DO do the sum, you
are at least erring on the side of caution. 5'6" is less than 6'6".

[JNugent]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by JNugent

Post by Harrison Hill
Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a
wealthy, German neighbourhood.

it isn't the only Ham in southern England.
See: https://tinyurl.com/y9k79mgw

What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

It means that vehicles wider than that are advised to find a different
route to Ham. Such other routes do exist.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by JNugent

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by JNugent

Post by Harrison Hill
Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a
wealthy, German neighbourhood.

it isn't the only Ham in southern England.
See: https://tinyurl.com/y9k79mgw

What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

It means that vehicles wider than that are advised to find a different
route to Ham. Such other routes do exist.

I used to be puzzled by information painted on roads that said "narrows
road". It took me a while to realize that it was supposed to be read in
the opposite-to-natural order: "road narrows", which itself raises
questions of usage, as "narrow" as an intransitive verb is rather
unusual.

[JNugent]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by JNugent

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by JNugent

Post by Harrison Hill
Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a
wealthy, German neighbourhood.

it isn't the only Ham in southern England.
See: https://tinyurl.com/y9k79mgw

What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

It means that vehicles wider than that are advised to find a different
route to Ham. Such other routes do exist.

I used to be puzzled by information painted on roads that said "narrows
road". It took me a while to realize that it was supposed to be read in
the opposite-to-natural order: "road narrows", which itself raises
questions of usage, as "narrow" as an intransitive verb is rather unusual.

I have never seen a sign saying "Narrows road". In the UK we now have a
continental pictogram for it*, but when written, the warning was "Road
narrows".


[*<>Loading Image...,
<Loading Image...
not to be confused with:
<Loading Image...
"end of dual carriageway"]

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I used to be puzzled by information painted on roads that said "narrows
road". It took me a while to realize that it was supposed to be read in
the opposite-to-natural order: "road narrows", which itself raises
questions of usage, as "narrow" as an intransitive verb is rather
unusual.

No, it isn't.

[RHDraney]

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No giants or
midgets allowed?

Third and fourth lines of an incomplete limerick, reported by Tony
Randall to have been found in an ancient Egyptian tomb:

She had for her clients
Both pygmies and giants.

(The remaining lines are left as an exercise for the reader)....r

[Peter Moylan]

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No
giants or midgets allowed?

Third and fourth lines of an incomplete limerick, reported by Tony
She had for her clients Both pygmies and giants.
(The remaining lines are left as an exercise for the reader)....r

I couldn't find a good solution, although I did see a good one on the
web. This got me thinking, though, of the joke about the African giant
who married a pygmy woman.

It's too crude to repeat here, though.

[musika]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No
giants or midgets allowed?

Third and fourth lines of an incomplete limerick, reported by Tony
She had for her clients Both pygmies and giants.
(The remaining lines are left as an exercise for the reader)....r

I couldn't find a good solution, although I did see a good one on the
web. This got me thinking, though, of the joke about the African giant
who married a pygmy woman.
It's too crude to repeat here, though.

What I'd like to know is: Who put her up to it?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by musika

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by RHDraney

Post by Peter Moylan
What's the significance of that "6 foot to 6 inches" label? No
giants or midgets allowed?

Third and fourth lines of an incomplete limerick, reported by Tony
She had for her clients Both pygmies and giants.
(The remaining lines are left as an exercise for the reader)....r

I couldn't find a good solution, although I did see a good one on the
web. This got me thinking, though, of the joke about the African giant
who married a pygmy woman.
It's too crude to repeat here, though.

What I'd like to know is: Who put her up to it?

<polite applause> I didn't think of that angle.

In any case, it didn't work. The part was greater than the hole.

(That's not the crude part.)

[Quinn C]

Post by JNugent

Post by Harrison Hill
Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a wealthy,
German neighbourhood.

it isn't the only Ham in southern England.

And there are still more Germans in
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamm>.

"Not to be confused with Ham."

[J. J. Lodder]

"The Cage was not, however, Britain's only secret interrogation centre
during and after World War II. MI5 also operated an interrogation centre,
code-named Camp 020, at Latchmere House, a Victorian mansion near Ham
Common in South-West London, whose 30 rooms were turned into cells with
hidden microphones.

[-]

Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a wealthy,
German neighbourhood.

So you have dropped your claim that Latchmere House
was an internment camp for captured German pilots,
and you have seen in the meantime that my claim
that it was an MI5 prison for traitors and spies instead.

You might have admitted your error openly,
instead of making believe you said so all along,

Jan

[Harrison Hill]

Post by J. J. Lodder

"The Cage was not, however, Britain's only secret interrogation centre
during and after World War II. MI5 also operated an interrogation centre,
code-named Camp 020, at Latchmere House, a Victorian mansion near Ham
Common in South-West London, whose 30 rooms were turned into cells with
hidden microphones.

[-]

Many of them stayed. Ham in SW London is - to this day - a wealthy,
German neighbourhood.

So you have dropped your claim that Latchmere House
was an internment camp for captured German pilots,
and you have seen in the meantime that my claim
that it was an MI5 prison for traitors and spies instead.
You might have admitted your error openly,
instead of making believe you said so all along,

I might have done. Latchmere House "was an internment camp for
captured German pilots", is how I understand it. I'm sure MI5
wouldn't keep secrets from us. I've walked past the place
and read the blurb.

[Paul Carmichael]

Post by Harrison Hill
"Several prisoners were subjected to mock executions and were knocked
about by the guards. Some were apparently left naked for months at a
time.

That last bit is hardly torture. Unless it was cold.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Harrison Hill
"Several prisoners were subjected to mock executions and were knocked
about by the guards. Some were apparently left naked for months at a
time.

That last bit is hardly torture. Unless it was cold.

Guess they got a tan from standing in the English rain,

Jan