Jo Lonergan wrote:
<snip Grauniad article>
> The comment site was full of Agaites defending their stoves. Feelings obviously
> run high. Perhaps I should cheer him up by mailing him that the Basel
> authorities have just decided to ban patio heaters outside restaurants and cafés
> (and been castigated as killjoys by the locals - since when did one expect to be
> able to sit outside in an extremely cold January?)
>

Is it something to do with having banned smoking inside?

Jo Lonergan wrote:

>the Basel
>authorities have just decided to ban patio heaters outside restaurants and cafés
>(and been castigated as killjoys by the locals - since when did one expect to be
>able to sit outside in an extremely cold January?)

In England the smoking ban seems to have initiated much of this
profligate use of energy.

Chris

On Jan 14, 5:37 pm, "Dave xxx" <d...@nospam.cooon> wrote:
> badriya wrote:
> > What do umrats think about the issue?  I instinctively incline to no
> > 3rd runway but have heard some of the arguments for it.  I think Susan
> > Kramer is a sensible person and probably has more information about it
> > than the average person and she is anti, as are some members of the
> > cabinet apparently.
>
> >[..]
>
> > Would umrats want to own a bit of that field and will it do any good?
> > It did once apparently but another time didn't help.
>
> I am happy for another runway, I would have rather they built another new
> Airport out at Cliff in Kent.

Reading that gave me an idea: What about an underground airport? Cut a
couple of long, wide tunnels in the chalk cliffs under Kent (see where
the idea came from?) and let the aeroplanes fly in and out like
swallows. True, it'd be a tricky approach, but they all land by
computer nowadays don't they? No noise to bother the Little
Englanders. And the passengers could get to and from London by using
that shiney new high-speed train that runs through Folkstone.

Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Jo Lonergan wrote:
>
>> the Basel
>> authorities have just decided to ban patio heaters outside restaurants and cafés
>> (and been castigated as killjoys by the locals - since when did one expect to be
>> able to sit outside in an extremely cold January?)
>
> In England the smoking ban seems to have initiated much of this
> profligate use of energy.

I'm not sure about initiated. Years before the ban was even mooted very
popular pubs were already using outdoor heaters (and huge umbrella-like
(and I mean umbrella (and I mean umbrella (...) there) there) canopies
to extend their winter, evening and bad weather use. The Turf in Oxford
is one such pub.

Colin

Colin Blackburn wrote:
>Chris J Dixon wrote:

>> In England the smoking ban seems to have initiated much of this
>> profligate use of energy.

>I'm not sure about initiated. Years before the ban was even mooted very
>popular pubs were already using outdoor heaters (and huge umbrella-like
>(and I mean umbrella (and I mean umbrella (...) there) there) canopies
>to extend their winter, evening and bad weather use. The Turf in Oxford
>is one such pub.
>
ERROR: unmatched parentheses

Perhaps we need to introduce a delimiter character to indicate
"umbrella" should be read literally?

Back to the discussion, thought, and on reconsidering, I have to
agree with you. Perhaps I really should have said "promoted".

Chris

Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Colin Blackburn wrote:
>> Chris J Dixon wrote:
>
>>> In England the smoking ban seems to have initiated much of this
>>> profligate use of energy.
>
>> I'm not sure about initiated. Years before the ban was even mooted very
>> popular pubs were already using outdoor heaters (and huge umbrella-like
>> (and I mean umbrella (and I mean umbrella (...) there) there) canopies
>> to extend their winter, evening and bad weather use. The Turf in Oxford
>> is one such pub.
>>
> ERROR: unmatched parentheses

Damn! I counted them out and I counted them back in again. No wonder I
only just scraped through my number theory last year.

> Perhaps we need to introduce a delimiter character to indicate
> "umbrella" should be read literally?

When we mean umbrella (don't start that again) literally perhaps we need
to use the term "water-repellent parasol-type device"

> Back to the discussion, thought, and on reconsidering, I have to
> agree with you. Perhaps I really should have said "promoted".

Yes, I'd agree. Pubs that wouldn't normally have had an outdoor area in
winter now do.

Colin

In message <6t8jukF9ljdvU1>, Colin Blackburn
<news> writes
>When we mean umbrella (don't start that again) literally perhaps we
>need to use the term "water-repellent parasol-type device"

I bought an umbrella (literally) once that wasn't water-repellant.

On Jan 15, 12:11 pm, Colin Blackburn <n> wrote:
> Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>
>
> Damn! I counted them out and I counted them back in again. No wonder I
> only just scraped through my number theory last year.
>> When we mean umbrella (don't start that again) literally perhaps we need
> to use the term "water-repellent parasol-type device"

Maybe we could add a "#undefine umbrella" prior to its use to mean a
real (but not necessarily effective) water-repellent parasol-type
device ... ?

> > Back to the discussion, thought, and on reconsidering, I have to
> > agree with you.  Perhaps I really should have said "promoted".
>
> Yes, I'd agree. Pubs that wouldn't normally have had an outdoor area in
> winter now do.

If they glass in their outdoor garden, to make a winter garden, does
it then become indoors in the view of the anti-smoking legislation?

ralphb wrote:
> On Jan 15, 12:11 pm, Colin Blackburn <n> wrote:
>> Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>> Colin Blackburn wrote:
>>> Back to the discussion, thought, and on reconsidering, I have to
>>> agree with you. Perhaps I really should have said "promoted".
>> Yes, I'd agree. Pubs that wouldn't normally have had an outdoor area in
>> winter now do.
>
> If they glass in their outdoor garden, to make a winter garden, does
> it then become indoors in the view of the anti-smoking legislation?

Yes it would if full glassed in. There has to be a certain degree of
openness for it to be outdoors. Whether this is enshrined in legislation
or interpreted by council officers I don't know.

Colin

Stephen <stephenbowden> wrote:
> It's a pity that the sub-editors highlighted the ill-judged and
> inaccurate remarks Monbiot made about Agas

Stephen, would you be willing to make the case for Agas here? Because
the article does contain some figures that apparently have been checked
(the one correction the article received was exactly about those
figures). I used to like Agas, which probably shows my class background.
:-) But that was from a very large distance, I don't think I've ever
seen one in real. Now I have doubts. From a very brief look at the
comments section, it seems the arguments in defence are about the Aga's
double use as heating. But there's also the comment, "I'm with you all
the way on the Aga issue. A very expensive, inefficient way of drying
tea towels, if my neighbours are anything to go by." If defending the
Aga depends on meticulous and responsible patterns of use, that would
probably make my doubts stronger.

Sebastian

On Jan 15, 2:22 pm, Sebastian Lisken <Sebastian.Lis...@Uni-Bielefeld-
deletethis.de> wrote:
> Stephen  <stephenbow> wrote:
>
> Stephen, would you be willing to make the case for Agas here? Because
> the article does contain some figures that apparently have been checked
> (the one correction the article received was exactly about those
> figures). I used to like Agas, which probably shows my class background.
> :-) But that was from a very large distance, I don't think I've ever
> seen one in real. Now I have doubts. From a very brief look at the
> comments section, it seems the arguments in defence are about the Aga's
> double use as heating. But there's also the comment, "I'm with you all
> the way on the Aga issue. A very expensive, inefficient way of drying
> tea towels, if my neighbours are anything to go by." If defending the
> Aga depends on meticulous and responsible patterns of use, that would
> probably make my doubts stronger.

When I read that Grauniad article a couple of days ago I remember
thinking that a similar argument could probably be made against
refrigerators. Since they run all the time, they are likely
responsible for the majority of domestic electicity consumption. The
poor don't have them (think global poor, not western european poor).
They aren't even really needed in Winter - we just keep running for
convenience.

However, I'm keeping my fridge, and I suspect the Home Counties set
will be wanting to keep their Agas. Can a much stronger case be made
for one or the other?

(Hmm, I've just noticed that "fridge" is not actually a true shortened
form of "refrigerator" - where did the "d" come from? Is there a term
for this modified short form? Is the apostrophe therefore not required
- not "'frige'" or "'fridge"? Are there other examples?)

"Ralph B" <google81> wrote in message
news:733f
On Jan 15, 2:22 pm, Sebastian Lisken <Sebastian.Lis...@Uni-Bielefeld-
deletethis.de> wrote:
> Stephen <stephenbow> wrote:
>
> Stephen, would you be willing to make the case for Agas here? Because
> the article does contain some figures that apparently have been checked
> (the one correction the article received was exactly about those
> figures). I used to like Agas, which probably shows my class background.
> :-) But that was from a very large distance, I don't think I've ever
> seen one in real. Now I have doubts. From a very brief look at the
> comments section, it seems the arguments in defence are about the Aga's
> double use as heating. But there's also the comment, "I'm with you all
> the way on the Aga issue. A very expensive, inefficient way of drying
> tea towels, if my neighbours are anything to go by." If defending the
> Aga depends on meticulous and responsible patterns of use, that would
> probably make my doubts stronger.

When I read that Grauniad article a couple of days ago I remember
thinking that a similar argument could probably be made against
refrigerators. Since they run all the time, they are likely
responsible for the majority of domestic electicity consumption. The
poor don't have them (think global poor, not western european poor).
They aren't even really needed in Winter - we just keep running for
convenience.

However, I'm keeping my fridge, and I suspect the Home Counties set
will be wanting to keep their Agas. Can a much stronger case be made
for one or the other?

(Hmm, I've just noticed that "fridge" is not actually a true shortened
form of "refrigerator" - where did the "d" come from? Is there a term
for this modified short form? Is the apostrophe therefore not required
- not "'frige'" or "'fridge"? Are there other examples?)

The first house we bought in Cornwall had a Rayburn, which is the working
class version of the Aga. It would burn anything and frequently did, for
there was no such thing as green back then. It did most of our cooking, kept
half the house warm and dried the washing in winter. We heard that the
people who bought our house had it removed. Heathens!
Steve Hague

Colin Blackburn wrote:
> ralphb wrote:
>
> Yes it would if full glassed in. There has to be a certain degree of
> openness for it to be outdoors. Whether this is enshrined in legislation
> or interpreted by council officers I don't know.
>

I think it has to have at least one wall missing.

I haven't noticed an increase in pub patio heaters in winter. They tend
to be used on spring and autumn evenings, but as much for families as
for smokers.

badriya wrote:
> What do umrats think about the issue? I instinctively incline to no
> 3rd runway but have heard some of the arguments for it. I think Susan
> Kramer is a sensible person and probably has more information about it
> than the average person and she is anti, as are some members of the
> cabinet apparently.
>
> [..]
>
> Would umrats want to own a bit of that field and will it do any good?
> It did once apparently but another time didn't help.
>
Are all the protestors who take this position prepared to give up the
use of planes from now on?

The Times had a nice little piece about how Emma Thomson was pledging
her support for the anti-runway campaign and then miraculously appeared
on the other side of the Atlantic a day or two later for the Golden
Globe Awards.

Ralph B wrote:
> On Jan 15, 2:22 pm, Sebastian Lisken <Sebastian.Lis...@Uni-Bielefeld-
> deletethis.de> wrote:
>
> When I read that Grauniad article a couple of days ago I remember
> thinking that a similar argument could probably be made against
> refrigerators. Since they run all the time, they are likely
> responsible for the majority of domestic electicity consumption. The
> poor don't have them (think global poor, not western european poor).
> They aren't even really needed in Winter - we just keep running for
> convenience.
>
> However, I'm keeping my fridge, and I suspect the Home Counties set
> will be wanting to keep their Agas. Can a much stronger case be made
> for one or the other?

I think the energy consumption of a good modern fridge is tiny in
comparison with that of an Aga. Fridges are really very efficient now
(I'm not talking about those huge US ones with ice-machines etc, which
may not be). And it's not an either/or - I bet the Aga set will have
huge fridges too.
>
> (Hmm, I've just noticed that "fridge" is not actually a true shortened
> form of "refrigerator" - where did the "d" come from? Is there a term
> for this modified short form? Is the apostrophe therefore not required
> - not "'frige'" or "'fridge"? Are there other examples?)

I suppose there must have been a time when people wrote >'frige< (I am
using chevrons to avoid confusion with quotes/apostrophes) or >'fridge<
but I can't remember it. I certain don't think I've ever seen the
former, since it would suggest that it rhymed with "oblige", and "frig"
would have further inappropriate connotations.

It's an interesting usage and I can't think of a parallel, although I'm
sure there must be some. It has led to the frequent misspelling of
"refridgerator".