[TV show]"It's a toilet."

[Stefan Ram]

Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.

Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.

I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly
small and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.

So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Stefan Ram
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.

(Warning: words that might be deemed
offensive ahead!)

My reverse dictionary search revealed:

If Natalie wanted to say that it's a
"a shabby, shoddy, dirty place", she
could have said "It's a puke hole."
(US, 1973).

Maybe "toilet" is what the TV show
writers came up with after trying to
edit "puke hole" to something that can
be used in a TV show? After all, a toilet
is a kind of "puke hole".

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Stefan Ram

Post by Stefan Ram
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.

(Warning: words that might be deemed
offensive ahead!)
If Natalie wanted to say that it's a
"a shabby, shoddy, dirty place", she
could have said "It's a puke hole."
(US, 1973).
Maybe "toilet" is what the TV show
writers came up with after trying to
edit "puke hole" to something that can
be used in a TV show? After all, a toilet
is a kind of "puke hole".

Calling a place a toilet is a common enough statement in American
English when speaking of a dive. At a more distant time, it might have
been called an outhouse.

[Tony Cooper]

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly
small and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly
small and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been

Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly
small and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

[Lewis]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly
small and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

Not with "place" normally, but "It's a shithouse" certainly, and
mirroring Natalie's use of 'place' would not be at all unusual.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Lewis

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan
A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

I didn't realise that.

Post by Lewis
Not with "place" normally, but "It's a shithouse" certainly, and
mirroring Natalie's use of 'place' would not be at all unusual.

In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

[Paul Carmichael]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan
A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

I didn't realise that.

Post by Lewis
Not with "place" normally, but "It's a shithouse" certainly, and
mirroring Natalie's use of 'place' would not be at all unusual.

In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

And of course, the shithouse is an actual thing there. I've been told
that the ozzies think it's disgusting to have a toilet in the main house.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter Moylan
In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

And of course, the shithouse is an actual thing there. I've been told
that the ozzies think it's disgusting to have a toilet in the main house.

That was certainly my attitude when I were a lad. The world has moved
on, though, and now you would have to venture far out in the sticks to
find a traditional country dunny.

I still find it slightly offensive to have a crapper inside the house,
but there are compensations. No redback spiders on the seat, for example.

A luxury that one doesn't often see these days: a bookshelf in the
toilet. I installed one in the second-last house I owned, but in our
present house both toilets are in bathrooms - another assault on common
decency - so steam would ruin the books.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter Moylan
In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

And of course, the shithouse is an actual thing there. I've been told
that the ozzies think it's disgusting to have a toilet in the main house.

That was certainly my attitude when I were a lad. The world has moved
on, though, and now you would have to venture far out in the sticks to
find a traditional country dunny.
I still find it slightly offensive to have a crapper inside the house,
but there are compensations. No redback spiders on the seat, for example.
A luxury that one doesn't often see these days: a bookshelf in the
toilet. I installed one in the second-last house I owned, but in our
present house both toilets are in bathrooms - another assault on common
decency - so steam would ruin the books.

A bathroom is a room for taking a bath in? What a quaint etymologico-
architectural fallacy!

[charles]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter Moylan
In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

And of course, the shithouse is an actual thing there. I've been told
that the ozzies think it's disgusting to have a toilet in the main house.

That was certainly my attitude when I were a lad. The world has moved
on, though, and now you would have to venture far out in the sticks to
find a traditional country dunny.
I still find it slightly offensive to have a crapper inside the house,
but there are compensations. No redback spiders on the seat, for example.
A luxury that one doesn't often see these days: a bookshelf in the
toilet. I installed one in the second-last house I owned, but in our
present house both toilets are in bathrooms - another assault on common
decency - so steam would ruin the books.

A bathroom is a room for taking a bath in? What a quaint etymologico-
architectural fallacy!

it's a pondian problem.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter Moylan
In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

And of course, the shithouse is an actual thing there. I've been told
that the ozzies think it's disgusting to have a toilet in the main house.

That was certainly my attitude when I were a lad. The world has moved
on, though, and now you would have to venture far out in the sticks to
find a traditional country dunny.
I still find it slightly offensive to have a crapper inside the house,
but there are compensations. No redback spiders on the seat, for example.
A luxury that one doesn't often see these days: a bookshelf in the
toilet. I installed one in the second-last house I owned, but in our
present house both toilets are in bathrooms - another assault on common
decency - so steam would ruin the books.

A bathroom is a room for taking a bath in? What a quaint etymologico-
architectural fallacy!

it's a pondian problem.

It's a PTD problem.
He has two possible responses in such matters:
It's not how things are done in my experience, therefore it doesn't exist.
or
It's not how things are done in my experience, therefore it shouldn't exist.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter Moylan
In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

And of course, the shithouse is an actual thing there. I've been told
that the ozzies think it's disgusting to have a toilet in the main house.

That was certainly my attitude when I were a lad. The world has moved
on, though, and now you would have to venture far out in the sticks to
find a traditional country dunny.
I still find it slightly offensive to have a crapper inside the house,
but there are compensations. No redback spiders on the seat, for example.
A luxury that one doesn't often see these days: a bookshelf in the
toilet. I installed one in the second-last house I owned, but in our
present house both toilets are in bathrooms - another assault on common
decency - so steam would ruin the books.

A bathroom is a room for taking a bath in? What a quaint etymologico-
architectural fallacy!

it's a pondian problem.

It's a PTD problem.
It's not how things are done in my experience, therefore it doesn't exist.
or
It's not how things are done in my experience, therefore it shouldn't exist.

You wanted "stooge" status? You've earned it. Congratulations.

Conceivably you are unaware that the enormous range of terms and
euphemisms for That Room are a perpetual source of AUE merriment.

Perhaps you also do not realize that in constructing a structure, it
is more economical to locate all equipment requiring plumbing to
be close together.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 13:55:47 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter Moylan
In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

And of course, the shithouse is an actual thing there. I've been told
that the ozzies think it's disgusting to have a toilet in the main house.

That was certainly my attitude when I were a lad. The world has moved
on, though, and now you would have to venture far out in the sticks to
find a traditional country dunny.
I still find it slightly offensive to have a crapper inside the house,
but there are compensations. No redback spiders on the seat, for example.
A luxury that one doesn't often see these days: a bookshelf in the
toilet. I installed one in the second-last house I owned, but in our
present house both toilets are in bathrooms - another assault on common
decency - so steam would ruin the books.

A bathroom is a room for taking a bath in? What a quaint etymologico-
architectural fallacy!

it's a pondian problem.

It's a PTD problem.
It's not how things are done in my experience, therefore it doesn't exist.
or
It's not how things are done in my experience, therefore it shouldn't exist.

You wanted "stooge" status? You've earned it. Congratulations.
Conceivably you are unaware that the enormous range of terms and
euphemisms for That Room are a perpetual source of AUE merriment.
Perhaps you also do not realize that in constructing a structure, it
is more economical to locate all equipment requiring plumbing to
be close together.

Conceivably you are unaware of the type of construction in a house
where walls with a door are constructed separating the toilet and the
tub/shower area, but the plumbing connections remain adjacent. In
some houses I've seen, the toilet is accessed through the bathroom,
and in some the toilet (and a hand sink) is accessed through the
bathroom and also from a direct entrance.

While indoor plumbing has probably been adopted in most Jersey City
houses, perhaps this particular design aspect has not yet reached
Jersey City.

[Ross Clark]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 13:55:47 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter Moylan
In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

And of course, the shithouse is an actual thing there. I've been told
that the ozzies think it's disgusting to have a toilet in the main house.

That was certainly my attitude when I were a lad. The world has moved
on, though, and now you would have to venture far out in the sticks to
find a traditional country dunny.
I still find it slightly offensive to have a crapper inside the house,
but there are compensations. No redback spiders on the seat, for example.
A luxury that one doesn't often see these days: a bookshelf in the
toilet. I installed one in the second-last house I owned, but in our
present house both toilets are in bathrooms - another assault on common
decency - so steam would ruin the books.

A bathroom is a room for taking a bath in? What a quaint etymologico-
architectural fallacy!

it's a pondian problem.

It's a PTD problem.
It's not how things are done in my experience, therefore it doesn't exist.
or
It's not how things are done in my experience, therefore it shouldn't exist.

You wanted "stooge" status? You've earned it. Congratulations.
Conceivably you are unaware that the enormous range of terms and
euphemisms for That Room are a perpetual source of AUE merriment.
Perhaps you also do not realize that in constructing a structure, it
is more economical to locate all equipment requiring plumbing to
be close together.

Conceivably you are unaware of the type of construction in a house
where walls with a door are constructed separating the toilet and the
tub/shower area, but the plumbing connections remain adjacent. In
some houses I've seen, the toilet is accessed through the bathroom,
and in some the toilet (and a hand sink) is accessed through the
bathroom and also from a direct entrance.

My previous house (built early 1950s) had the toilet in one room,
tub/shower and hand sink in adjacent room, with separate entrances.
I was credibly informed that this separation was required by the
building code of the time, though clearly it no longer is.

Post by Tony Cooper
While indoor plumbing has probably been adopted in most Jersey City
houses, perhaps this particular design aspect has not yet reached
Jersey City.

[Quinn C]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 13:55:47 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by charles

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter Moylan
In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

And of course, the shithouse is an actual thing there. I've been told
that the ozzies think it's disgusting to have a toilet in the main house.

That was certainly my attitude when I were a lad. The world has moved
on, though, and now you would have to venture far out in the sticks to
find a traditional country dunny.
I still find it slightly offensive to have a crapper inside the house,
but there are compensations. No redback spiders on the seat, for example.
A luxury that one doesn't often see these days: a bookshelf in the
toilet. I installed one in the second-last house I owned, but in our
present house both toilets are in bathrooms - another assault on common
decency - so steam would ruin the books.

A bathroom is a room for taking a bath in? What a quaint etymologico-
architectural fallacy!

it's a pondian problem.

It's a PTD problem.
It's not how things are done in my experience, therefore it doesn't exist.
or
It's not how things are done in my experience, therefore it shouldn't exist.

You wanted "stooge" status? You've earned it. Congratulations.
Conceivably you are unaware that the enormous range of terms and
euphemisms for That Room are a perpetual source of AUE merriment.
Perhaps you also do not realize that in constructing a structure, it
is more economical to locate all equipment requiring plumbing to
be close together.

Conceivably you are unaware of the type of construction in a house
where walls with a door are constructed separating the toilet and the
tub/shower area, but the plumbing connections remain adjacent. In
some houses I've seen, the toilet is accessed through the bathroom,
and in some the toilet (and a hand sink) is accessed through the
bathroom and also from a direct entrance.

My previous house (built early 1950s) had the toilet in one room,
tub/shower and hand sink in adjacent room, with separate entrances.
I was credibly informed that this separation was required by the
building code of the time, though clearly it no longer is.

I grew up in a house where the toilet was separated from the bathroom,
with the tub and separate(!) shower, by a wall (made from glass bricks.)
So the two rooms were obviously adjacent. I think the layout was
different before the house was extended, but I'm not sure how exactly.
The layout that I lived in meant that the bathroom was only accessible
through the parents' bedroom, so off limits at night.

In Japan, when I lived in a (tiny) house, the toilet was near the
entrance, and the bathroom at the far end of the house. Which means the
plumbing ran along that side of the house, touching the kitchen (or the
kitchen part of the big room) on the way.

In Japan, toilet and bath have to be separate, if only because the floor
of the bathroom is where you stand or squat when you clean yourself,
with the shower or, more traditionally, with a bucket of water, before
going inside the tub. But frankly, the Japanese wouldn't have it any
other way, I'm sure. After all, you have to change slippers when you
enter and exit the toilet.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
Conceivably you are unaware of the type of construction in a house
where walls with a door are constructed separating the toilet and the
tub/shower area, but the plumbing connections remain adjacent. In
some houses I've seen, the toilet is accessed through the bathroom,
and in some the toilet (and a hand sink) is accessed through the
bathroom and also from a direct entrance.

Some hotel rooms are done that way.

Post by Tony Cooper
While indoor plumbing has probably been adopted in most Jersey City

I wouldn't know. I am not from Jersey City.

Post by Tony Cooper
houses, perhaps this particular design aspect has not yet reached
Jersey City.

Screw your Jersey-hatred.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan
A luxury that one doesn't often see these days: a bookshelf in the
toilet. I installed one in the second-last house I owned, but in our
present house both toilets are in bathrooms - another assault on common
decency - so steam would ruin the books.

A bathroom is a room for taking a bath in? What a quaint etymologico-
architectural fallacy!

How so? It's clear that Peter M. understood this.

Although it's much more likely showers that actually take place in
there.

But none of his toilets seem to be in a half bathroom, where you can't
have a bath (or shower).

[Kerr-Mudd,John]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2021 18:01:04 GMT, Quinn C

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Peter Moylan
A luxury that one doesn't often see these days: a bookshelf in the
toilet. I installed one in the second-last house I owned, but in our
present house both toilets are in bathrooms - another assault on
common decency - so steam would ruin the books.

A bathroom is a room for taking a bath in? What a quaint etymologico-
architectural fallacy!

How so? It's clear that Peter M. understood this.
Although it's much more likely showers that actually take place in
there.
But none of his toilets seem to be in a half bathroom, where you can't
have a bath (or shower).

I expect you have old-fashioned faucets instead of proper British taps
too!

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
I expect you have old-fashioned faucets instead of proper British taps
too!

Is that an attempt at asserting that tnose are not alternative names for
the same device, as the are in American English and in plumbers' supply
catalogues?

Are you suggesting that beer kegs used to have faucets?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
I expect you have old-fashioned faucets instead of proper British
taps too!

That reminds me of the young woman whose university studies were
strongly focused on ancient Egyptian plumbing. She was a pharaoh faucet
major.

ObSpelling: the squiggler in my composition window has objected to both
"pharaoh" and "faucet". I can see why it doesn't like "faucet", but
what's the alternative way to write "pharaoh"?

(It also objects to "squiggler".)

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
I expect you have old-fashioned faucets instead of proper British
taps too!

That reminds me of the young woman whose university studies were
strongly focused on ancient Egyptian plumbing. She was a pharaoh faucet
major.
ObSpelling: the squiggler in my composition window has objected to both
"pharaoh" and "faucet". I can see why it doesn't like "faucet", but
what's the alternative way to write "pharaoh"?

You're asking me? *I* don't even know what the AusE or possibly ComE way
is to write "faucet"!

Both pass unmolested in my Thunderbird on AmE settings.

Post by Peter Moylan
(It also objects to "squiggler".)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
I expect you have old-fashioned faucets instead of proper British
taps too!

That reminds me of the young woman whose university studies were
strongly focused on ancient Egyptian plumbing. She was a pharaoh faucet
major.
ObSpelling: the squiggler in my composition window has objected to both
"pharaoh" and "faucet". I can see why it doesn't like "faucet",

Nor do I. What's wrong with "tap"? (For your pun, of course, it does
need to be "faucet".)

Post by Peter Moylan
but
what's the alternative way to write "pharaoh"?

None that I know of. On the news this morning they were making a big
fuss about a procession of pharaoh mummies through Cairo (or should I
write Cairo (Egypt) so that PTD doesn't think it was Cairo in
Illinois?). They were claiming it was to increase pride in ordinary
Egyptians of their heritage, but that was obviously nonsense, as all of
the inscriptions were in English, not in Arabic, so the real purpose
must have been so that foreign television crews and tourists could take
photographs.

Post by Peter Moylan
(It also objects to "squiggler".)

[Ross Clark]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
I expect you have old-fashioned faucets instead of proper British
taps too!

That reminds me of the young woman whose university studies were
strongly focused on ancient Egyptian plumbing. She was a pharaoh faucet
major.
ObSpelling: the squiggler in my composition window has objected to both
"pharaoh" and "faucet". I can see why it doesn't like "faucet",

Nor do I. What's wrong with "tap"? (For your pun, of course, it does
need to be "faucet".)

Post by Peter Moylan
 but
what's the alternative way to write "pharaoh"?

None that I know of. On the news this morning they were making a big
fuss about a procession of pharaoh mummies through Cairo (or should I
write Cairo (Egypt) so that PTD doesn't think it was Cairo in
Illinois?). They were claiming it was to increase pride in ordinary
Egyptians of their heritage, but that was obviously nonsense, as all of
the inscriptions were in English, not in Arabic, so the real purpose
must have been so that foreign television crews and tourists could take
photographs.

I thought the Pharaohs would probably have appreciated the _son et
lumière_. No wonder the security was tight -- local Islamists must be
furious at all this fuss over a bunch of idolaters. And it's not like
they can go and blow up a pyramid to make a statement.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan
(It also objects to "squiggler".)

[Madhu]

Post by Ross Clark
I thought the Pharaohs would probably have appreciated the _son et

I seldom see the definite article before Pharaoh.

Is that because the P- in Pharaoh is already the definite article (in
egyptian)

Post by Ross Clark
lumière_. No wonder the security was tight -- local Islamists must be
furious at all this fuss over a bunch of idolaters. And it's not like
they can go and blow up a pyramid to make a statement.

[Madhu]

Post by Madhu

Post by Ross Clark
I thought the Pharaohs would probably have appreciated the _son et

I seldom see the definite article before Pharaoh.

Then I wonder where you read about pharaohs.

Post by Madhu
Is that because the P- in Pharaoh is already the definite article (in
egyptian)

No.
It's because that's how the definite article is used in English.

But I do see an anamalous distribution that I cannot explain. (when I
expect to see "the Pharaoh" I see "Pharaoh", of course there would be
only one Pharaoh at a time and it would refer to him but it doesn't
matter what is name is - it can't be a proper nound)

Apparently others do too
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/328181/pharaoh-or-the-pharaoh
but i got more from your followup than that webpage (i almost wrote
article)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Madhu

Post by Ross Clark
I thought the Pharaohs would probably have appreciated the _son et

I seldom see the definite article before Pharaoh.

Then I wonder where you read about pharaohs.

Post by Madhu
Is that because the P- in Pharaoh is already the definite article (in
egyptian)

No.
It's because that's how the definite article is used in English.

But I do see an anamalous distribution that I cannot explain. (when I
expect to see "the Pharaoh" I see "Pharaoh", of course there would be

you still haven't said where you see this

only one Pharaoh at a time and it would refer to him but it doesn't
matter what is name is - it can't be a proper nound)

"Pharaoh" is used in place of a proper name sometimes in Exodus,
which is authority enough for that to be imitated elsewhere. You won't
find "King" used that way -- because we aren't translating in the early
17th century from a language whose idioms we're not sufficiently
familiar with..

Apparently others do too
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/328181/pharaoh-or-the-pharaoh
article)

Why do people constantly send me to web pages that demand that
I accept their cookies? (Even just the "necessary" ones, whatever
that means.)

[Peter Moylan]

Why do people constantly send me to web pages that demand that I
accept their cookies? (Even just the "necessary" ones, whatever that
means.)

The necessary ones are the ones needed to track your browsing history.
They are necessary in order to customise advertising directed to you.

Luckily, most web browsers have "delete all cookies" as an option. I
thought Firefox had an option to delete all cookies on exit, but I can
no longer find it.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Why do people constantly send me to web pages that demand that I
accept their cookies? (Even just the "necessary" ones, whatever that
means.)

The necessary ones are the ones needed to track your browsing history.
They are necessary in order to customise advertising directed to you.
Luckily, most web browsers have "delete all cookies" as an option. I
thought Firefox had an option to delete all cookies on exit, but I can
no longer find it.

That would be fine if I could protect from deletion specific cookies
that I select (because they store passwords), but I haven't found out
how to do that in Chrome. Lewis may know.

For those who think that I never mention PTD except to say something
nasty about him, I will add that I am completely of the same mind as he
is on this particular issue. It's become almost impossible to go
anywhere on the web without being faced with a demand to accept
cookies. I have also been wondering what "necessary" means.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Why do people constantly send me to web pages that demand that I
accept their cookies? (Even just the "necessary" ones, whatever that
means.)

The necessary ones are the ones needed to track your browsing history.
They are necessary in order to customise advertising directed to you.

Seems like that's the purpose of the categories listed below "necessary."

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan
Luckily, most web browsers have "delete all cookies" as an option. I
thought Firefox had an option to delete all cookies on exit, but I can
no longer find it.

That would be fine if I could protect from deletion specific cookies
that I select (because they store passwords), but I haven't found out
how to do that in Chrome. Lewis may know.

Exactly. (Except I was warned off Chrome years ago because it's
nothing but a tool for Google to gather victims for more advertising.)

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
For those who think that I never mention PTD except to say something
nasty about him, I will add that I am completely of the same mind as he
is on this particular issue. It's become almost impossible to go
anywhere on the web without being faced with a demand to accept
cookies. I have also been wondering what "necessary" means.

But what made this mention necessary? The simple agreement is all the
acknowledgment that civil discourse calls for.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Why do people constantly send me to web pages that demand that I
accept their cookies? (Even just the "necessary" ones, whatever that
means.)

I hope you've understood by now that the pages that don't "demand" this
are the ones that place the cookies into your machine without asking.

Many websites now ask, because Europeans have a right to be asked, and
reject cookies. As an American, you don't have that right, but many
sites offer the service to you anyway.

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan
The necessary ones are the ones needed to track your browsing history.
They are necessary in order to customise advertising directed to you.

That would be false advertising and could lead to fines.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Seems like that's the purpose of the categories listed below "necessary."

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan
Luckily, most web browsers have "delete all cookies" as an option. I
thought Firefox had an option to delete all cookies on exit, but I can
no longer find it.

That would be fine if I could protect from deletion specific cookies
that I select (because they store passwords), but I haven't found out
how to do that in Chrome. Lewis may know.

In Firefox, I achieve some of this control with the Cookie AutoDelete
plugin and its exception function, but it may not be fine-grained enough
for everyone.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Exactly. (Except I was warned off Chrome years ago because it's
nothing but a tool for Google to gather victims for more advertising.)

Good call. Google recently announced that they don't use cookies for
that purpose any more, because they have "other ways" to identify
people. Chrome makes that extra easy.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Quinn C

Post by Peter T. Daniels

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan
Luckily, most web browsers have "delete all cookies" as an
option. I thought Firefox had an option to delete all cookies
on exit, but I can no longer find it.

That would be fine if I could protect from deletion specific
cookies that I select (because they store passwords), but I
haven't found out how to do that in Chrome. Lewis may know.

In Firefox, I achieve some of this control with the Cookie
AutoDelete plugin and its exception function, but it may not be
fine-grained enough for everyone.

Post by Peter T. Daniels
Exactly. (Except I was warned off Chrome years ago because it's
nothing but a tool for Google to gather victims for more
advertising.)

I was put off Chrome for a different reason. In my work I often had to
download some software or other, and Chrome would tag along for the
ride. (There was fine print saying "Do you want to install Chrome as
well?", but it was easy to overlook the need to untick the box.) As a
result, I frequently had to uninstall the Chrome I hadn't asked for in
the first place.

Uninstalling Chrome caused Microsoft Excel to stop working, and I wasted
a lot of time trying to get it working again. That was Google's fault
for writing a buggy uninstaller, but it was also Microsoft's fault for
storing Excel settings in a central registry.

[Snidely]

Post by Peter Moylan

Why do people constantly send me to web pages that demand that I
accept their cookies? (Even just the "necessary" ones, whatever that
means.)

The necessary ones are the ones needed to track your browsing history.
They are necessary in order to customise advertising directed to you.
Luckily, most web browsers have "delete all cookies" as an option. I
thought Firefox had an option to delete all cookies on exit, but I can
no longer find it.

That would be fine if I could protect from deletion specific cookies that I
select (because they store passwords), but I haven't found out how to do that
in Chrome. Lewis may know.
For those who think that I never mention PTD except to say something nasty
about him, I will add that I am completely of the same mind as he is on this
particular issue. It's become almost impossible to go anywhere on the web
without being faced with a demand to accept cookies. I have also been
wondering what "necessary" means.

Isn't that because of EU privacy laws? They can't collect cookies
without your permission, which you can't give without being asked.
Guess when these messages started appearing.

As to "necessary", that's in the mind of the web designer, but I would
include the cookies that store your password. For many purposes, your
history on the site, especially if the page required any "stateful"
information that the state-less HTML doesn't help with, such as whether
you are logged in or not. For certain types of design, your history is
often needed to patch up the back button ("single page" is a term for
some of these designs; of course, they need javascript to do the jquery
to load the actual content, so some people might not see any of these
pages).

Many of the prompts for cookie permission lead you to a dialog that
allows you to say "none", in which case you won't get much out of the
page, "all" in which case you are fully tracked, or "don't sell my
information" which can lead to you seeing random ads instead of focused
ads, but most features of the page should work.

Of course, sometimes the prompts just give you a choice of "all" or
"why are you here, then?"

/dps

[Quinn C]

Post by Snidely
Many of the prompts for cookie permission lead you to a dialog that
allows you to say "none", in which case you won't get much out of the
page, "all" in which case you are fully tracked, or "don't sell my
information" which can lead to you seeing random ads instead of focused
ads, but most features of the page should work.

Not my experience. Most pages I visit work just fine with maximum
rejected cookies, and if they don't, I usually just go somewhere else.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter Moylan

Why do people constantly send me to web pages that demand that I
accept their cookies? (Even just the "necessary" ones, whatever that
means.)

The necessary ones are the ones needed to track your browsing history.
They are necessary in order to customise advertising directed to you.
Luckily, most web browsers have "delete all cookies" as an option. I
thought Firefox had an option to delete all cookies on exit, but I can
no longer find it.

Most browsers can "open link in a private window"[1] which means any &
all cookies are discarded when you close that window.
I tend to use that facility when some website I am unlikely to ever
visit again wants to load my machine down with hordes of tracking cookies.

[1] I mainly use Opera & Firefox and both offer this option.

[Madhu]

"Pharaoh" is used in place of a proper name sometimes in Exodus, which
is authority enough for that to be imitated elsewhere. You won't find
"King" used that way -- because we aren't translating in the early
17th century from a language whose idioms we're not sufficiently
familiar with..

Yes, this is plausible and probably correct.

Why do people constantly send me to web pages that demand that I
accept their cookies? (Even just the "necessary" ones, whatever that
means.)

stackexchange is one of the sites that work without javascript and
cookies. If you turn off javascript it probably won't ask prompt you
with those dialogs. Maybe you can use a browser extension like
"NoScript"

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 07:03:09 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
I expect you have old-fashioned faucets instead of proper British
taps too!

That reminds me of the young woman whose university studies were
strongly focused on ancient Egyptian plumbing. She was a pharaoh faucet
major.
ObSpelling: the squiggler in my composition window has objected to both
"pharaoh" and "faucet". I can see why it doesn't like "faucet",

Nor do I. What's wrong with "tap"? (For your pun, of course, it does
need to be "faucet".)

Post by Peter Moylan
but
what's the alternative way to write "pharaoh"?

None that I know of. On the news this morning they were making a big
fuss about a procession of pharaoh mummies through Cairo (or should I
write Cairo (Egypt) so that PTD doesn't think it was Cairo in
Illinois?).

So ignorant that he doesn't know they're pronounced differently and
are not confusable? And that one is associated with pharaohs, and
the other isn't?

But, the big question is "Would a BBC presenter know how to pronounce
'Cairo in the American state of Illinois"?

Where are the indignant reproofs against his personal attacks?

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were claiming it was to increase pride in ordinary
Egyptians of their heritage, but that was obviously nonsense, as all of
the inscriptions were in English, not in Arabic, so the real purpose
must have been so that foreign television crews and tourists could take
photographs.

The "real purpose" is that the Cairo Museum is overcrowded, and a
new museum has been constructed with superior conservation
provisions and facilities.

That was the purpose of the move, but not the purpose of the use of
English inscriptions.

Does he ever pause for even a moment to _think_ before typing
one of his indignant outrages? Colonel Blimp is apparently alive
and unwell and hiding in Marseilles.

The offsetting Aggressive Question™ is "Does PTD ever pause for even a
moment to grasp the intended meaning of what he responds to?".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Tony Cooper
On Sun, 4 Apr 2021 07:03:09 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan
what's the alternative way to write "pharaoh"?

None that I know of. On the news this morning they were making a big
fuss about a procession of pharaoh mummies through Cairo (or should I
write Cairo (Egypt) so that PTD doesn't think it was Cairo in
Illinois?).

So ignorant that he doesn't know they're pronounced differently and
are not confusable? And that one is associated with pharaohs, and
the other isn't?

But, the big question is "Would a BBC presenter know how to pronounce
'Cairo in the American state of Illinois"?

Is that really your concern? You think that's the "big question"?

Post by Tony Cooper

Where are the indignant reproofs against his personal attacks?

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were claiming it was to increase pride in ordinary
Egyptians of their heritage, but that was obviously nonsense, as all of
the inscriptions were in English, not in Arabic, so the real purpose
must have been so that foreign television crews and tourists could take
photographs.

The "real purpose" is that the Cairo Museum is overcrowded, and a
new museum has been constructed with superior conservation
provisions and facilities.

That was the purpose of the move, but not the purpose of the use of
English inscriptions.

Does he ever pause for even a moment to _think_ before typing
one of his indignant outrages? Colonel Blimp is apparently alive
and unwell and hiding in Marseilles.

The offsetting Aggressive Question™ is "Does PTD ever pause for even a
moment to grasp the intended meaning of what he responds to?".

Nothing whatsoever in the above has anything whatsoever to do
with what BBC presenters do or do not know about the pronunciation
of Cairo, Illinois. The asinine insult consisted solely in the suggestion
that one PTD would not know the difference between Cairo, Egypt,
and Cairo, Illinois, in something he himself wrote, and which one is
associated with pharaohs.

So keep your stooge-instigation to yourself. This time, he managed
even without your interference.

[Horace LaBadie]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
I expect you have old-fashioned faucets instead of proper British
taps too!

That reminds me of the young woman whose university studies were
strongly focused on ancient Egyptian plumbing. She was a pharaoh faucet
major.
ObSpelling: the squiggler in my composition window has objected to both
"pharaoh" and "faucet". I can see why it doesn't like "faucet", but
what's the alternative way to write "pharaoh"?

Try looking up "American Pharoah."

Post by Peter Moylan
(It also objects to "squiggler".)

[Jerry Friedman]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
I expect you have old-fashioned faucets instead of proper British
taps too!

That reminds me of the young woman whose university studies were
strongly focused on ancient Egyptian plumbing. She was a pharaoh faucet
major.
ObSpelling: the squiggler in my composition window has objected to both
"pharaoh" and "faucet". I can see why it doesn't like "faucet", but
what's the alternative way to write "pharaoh"?

Maybe it was a grammar squiggle. The software isn't good at recognizing
puns.

Post by Peter Moylan
(It also objects to "squiggler".)

Hmph.

[Chrysi Cat]

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
I expect you have old-fashioned faucets instead of proper British
taps too!

That reminds me of the young woman whose university studies were
strongly focused on ancient Egyptian plumbing. She was a pharaoh faucet
major.
ObSpelling: the squiggler in my composition window has objected to both
"pharaoh" and "faucet". I can see why it doesn't like "faucet", but
what's the alternative way to write "pharaoh"?

Maybe it was a grammar squiggle. The software isn't good at recognizing
puns.

There are grammar checkers in newsagent software that people actually
leave ON these days?!?

To the first part, I'm PRETTY sure ("p. sure" in most of my other groups
and chats; see that latest discussion in "Mondeoman") that my
Thunderbird doesn't even HAVE a grammar checker, and you couldn't pay me
to turn it on if it turned out that it indeed DID [does? Conditionals
are my Kryptonite if anything is]. I would also be inclined to turn a
grammar checker off in anything but MS Word if I DID notice a green
squiggle, and of course that final part points out the last issue about
it possibly being a grammar issue--I can't think of a single program
where all the squiggles are in the same colour for both spelling and
grammatical objections.

Post by Jerry Friedman

Post by Peter Moylan
(It also objects to "squiggler".)

Hmph.

[Lewis]

Post by Paul Carmichael

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan
A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

I didn't realise that.

Post by Lewis
Not with "place" normally, but "It's a shithouse" certainly, and
mirroring Natalie's use of 'place' would not be at all unusual.

In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

And of course, the shithouse is an actual thing there. I've been told
that the ozzies think it's disgusting to have a toilet in the main house.

Uh... Al the Ozzies I know have toilets in their houses or apartments,.
Were you perhaps reading 19th century cowboy stories?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan
A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

Well, the orange loser might, but sensible Americans don't take him as
a model (though we have someone in this group who does).

Post by Peter Moylan
I didn't realise that.

Post by Lewis
Not with "place" normally, but "It's a shithouse" certainly, and
mirroring Natalie's use of 'place' would not be at all unusual.

In AusE "shithouse" can be, and often is, used as an adjective.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan
A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

Well, the orange loser might, but sensible Americans don't take him as
a model (though we have someone in this group who does).

I don't know who that "someone" is, but please don't post his name. I
don't want to know.

[Snidely]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan
A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

Well, the orange loser might, but sensible Americans don't take him as
a model (though we have someone in this group who does).

I don't know who that "someone" is, but please don't post his name. I don't
want to know.

It's just a cheap shot by someone who should know better, and behaves
better towards most people. He does seem to like putting sand in the
shoes of "someone in this group", just to keep everbody irritated.

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly
small and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

That is, "shithouse place." "A shithouse" would be way
over the top in this circumstance, but not ungrammatical.

[Pamela]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not
particularly small and (at the time) still with plenty of
free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

Is it so different from Trump referring to "shithole countries"?

[HVS]

Post by Pamela

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not
particularly small and (at the time) still with plenty of
free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

Is it so different from Trump referring to "shithole countries"?

Insofar as Trump used "shithole", not "shithouse", yeah, it is.

Cheers,
Harvey

[CDB]

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper

Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she goes
into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place. Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since a
toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending on
the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a toilet
and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly small
and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place. Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

"It's a nice place"?

It was Ms Teeger who said "toilet".

Maybe she was thinking "dump".

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by CDB

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Peter Moylan

Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she goes
into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place. Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since a
toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending on
the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a toilet
and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly small
and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place. Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

"It's a nice place"?
It was Ms Teeger who said "toilet".

Horace forgot the italics. *Monk* (or _Monk_) is American.
It was written in Summit, New Jersey, in fact.

Post by CDB
Maybe she was thinking "dump".

That was Bette Davis.

[CDB]

Post by CDB

Post by Horace LaBadie

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place. Natalie: It's a toilet. I feel
it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative,
since a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy
(depending on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not
directly find a corresponding meaning. The bar also does
not look like a toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and
dark, not particularly small and (at the time) still with
plenty of free small tables. So, what does Natalie mean in
Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been Adrian: It's a nice
place. Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Monk is American, and no American would say that.

"It's a nice place"?
It was Ms Teeger who said "toilet".

Horace forgot the italics. *Monk* (or _Monk_) is American. It was
written in Summit, New Jersey, in fact.

Ah. Thank you. Sorry, Horace.

Post by CDB
Maybe she was thinking "dump".

That was Bette Davis.

In my memory, she's all about the breadstick. How did she get away with it?

[Peter T. Daniels]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly
small and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Not on American TV, it wouldn't, and especially not when
talking to Mr. Monk. If Stefan has gotten almost all the
way through Season 3 of *Monk* already, he should grasp
that just the word "toilet" is enough to make Mr. Monk cringe.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly
small and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Don't overthink it. She means it in a negative way.

A more natural exchange would have been
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a shithouse place.

Or just "It's a shithouse."

[Ross Clark]

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly
small and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

Green's Dictionary of Slang:
4 (orig. US) anywhere considered disgusting, esp. (show business) a
third-rate venue. (from 1961)

Notably used by Dustin Hoffman as Lenny Bruce in _Lenny_ (1974),
describing some of the establishments he worked in.

[Mark Brader]

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place.

Very much so.

[Lewis]

Post by Stefan Ram
Ms. Natalie Teeger said the she works in a bar. Later she
goes into that bar with Adrian Monk to pick up her check.
Adrian: It's a nice place.
Natalie: It's a toilet.
I feel it is clear that Natalie's saying is meant to be a
devaluation of the place. When I start thinking about it,
however, the comparison is not necessarily pejorative, since
a toilet can be both shabby but also very classy (depending
on the toilet). In dictionaries I do not directly find a
corresponding meaning. The bar also does not look like a
toilet and is somewhat inconspicuous and dark, not particularly
small and (at the time) still with plenty of free small tables.
So, what does Natalie mean in Monk S03E10, "Mr. Monk and the
Red Herring" (2005)?

It's a dump, a lousy place, maybe also dirty and smelly. To understand
"it's a toilet" think of the worst gas station bathroom you've ever
seen. That toilet.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Lewis
It's a dump, a lousy place, maybe also dirty and smelly. To understand
"it's a toilet" think of the worst gas station bathroom you've ever
seen. That toilet.

I remember it well. That was the one whose wall graffiti included the lines

It's no use standing on the seat
The crabs in here can jump six feet.

[Quinn C]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Lewis
It's a dump, a lousy place, maybe also dirty and smelly. To understand
"it's a toilet" think of the worst gas station bathroom you've ever
seen. That toilet.

I remember it well. That was the one whose wall graffiti included the lines
It's no use standing on the seat
The crabs in here can jump six feet.

I suspect this remark is not about crustaceans.