On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:48:54 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from martin contains these words:

The first documented manufacture of the condom as we know it today is
attributed to Goodyear and Hancock, in the 1840's, who invented the
vulcanisation process.

But these were not very successful because nobody wanted a huge
delta-winged condom.

except Batman :-)
--
Martin

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from Janet Baraclough contains these words:
The message
from John Towill contains these words:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:02:25 GMT, Janet Baraclough wrote:

Snip
Anything to oblige, Rodger. There are numerous apocryphal tales of
EU
regulations, like "henceforward, bananas must be straight not bent",
which are just that. Urban legend. I suspect the one-size condoms
are,
er, a load of old codswallop.

Janet.
So THAT is why they are called cod-pieces!

Early condoms were made from fish skin.

Early condoms were made from very thin leather, usually sheepskin, or
from the covering of sheep's small intestines.

In the mid-forties I had a students' vacation job at the Ford assembly plant
in Port Elizanbeth. My job was to cover the rear window shelf with
leatherette, using pure latex as the glue. My place on the assembly line
was extremely popular with many of the workmen, who used to wander by with
suitably shaped pieces of waxed wood which they would casually dip into the
pot of latex as they passed.

Cod is Anglo-Saxon for a pocket or pouch.

Franz

"martin" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:47:04 GMT, Jaques d'Alltrades
wrote:

The message
from Janet Baraclough contains these words:
The message
from John Towill contains these words:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:02:25 GMT, Janet Baraclough wrote:

Snip
Anything to oblige, Rodger. There are numerous apocryphal tales
of EU
regulations, like "henceforward, bananas must be straight not
bent",
which are just that. Urban legend. I suspect the one-size condoms
are,
er, a load of old codswallop.

Janet.
So THAT is why they are called cod-pieces!

Early condoms were made from fish skin.

Early condoms were made from very thin leather, usually sheepskin, or
from the covering of sheep's small intestines.

amongst other materials tortoise shells!

So that's what that tower-shaped tortioseshell box on the mantlepiece was
for!

http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~lesleyah/ocbcond.htm

Franz

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:23:59 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann"
wrote:

In the mid-forties I had a students' vacation job at the Ford assembly plant
in Port Elizanbeth. My job was to cover the rear window shelf with
leatherette, using pure latex as the glue. My place on the assembly line
was extremely popular with many of the workmen, who used to wander by with
suitably shaped pieces of waxed wood which they would casually dip into the
pot of latex as they passed.

Nowadays they sell releasing agent cheap :-)
--
Martin

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 05:48:57 GMT, lid
(Rodger Whitlock) wrote:

snip
~
~ObGardening: Two kinds of snowdrops in flower at the moment. One
~clump was grown from seed as Galanthus reginae-olgae and has been
~in flower for two or three weeks. Frankly, its flowers are
~squinny and don't amount to much. The other group came from God
~knows where, is just coming into flower, and has a more rounded
~flower of much better appearance, with some hints of leaves
~emerging. I've got the galanthus book around here somewhere, but
~I'm lazy and wonder if these descriptions ring bells with any of
~the urglers.
~
I had the galanthus book just a couple of feet from the PC so couldn't
resist looking.

There are two subspecies - one G regina-olgae subsp. regina-olgae and
the other G regina-olgae subsp. vernalis. The latter's obviously
spring flowering.

G regina-olgae "will produce good-sized clumps in 3-5 years, which is
when they look their best"
Leaves absent or 1-3cm long at flowering.

There is also G. peshmenii which is also autumn flowering, with
similar leaf length at flowering. The leaves are described as flaccid
when fully developed.

"The species are easily distinguished,however, becasue G peshmenii has
leaves that are glaucescent to almost glaucous, not green to
glaucescent with a prominent grey stripe as in G reginae-olgae. The
leaves of G. peshmenii are also narrower, and usually longer than G
reginae-olgae."

All quotes taken from Snowdrops, by Bishop et al, 2001.

btw, for anyone within reach of London, the RHS is doing a snowdrops
day in February in the London Halls. Lectures and demonstrations.
Costs £15 and I think it's the 18th Feb. Weekday.


--
jane

Don't part with your illusions. When they are gone,
you may still exist but you have ceased to live.
Mark Twain

Please remove onmaps from replies, thanks!

Nick Maclaren wrote in message ...
In article ,
martin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:23:16 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
wrote:

Withdraw from the EU. Then we won't get stupid EU regulations,
and the rest of the stupid regulations will clearly be home-grown, so we
can
hold our own politicians to account for them.

The mindless interpretation and enforcement of EU directives is a UK
problem.

Those of us with long memories will remember that it was no different
before we joined the EU,

Wrong. Even if you choose to believe that the quality of govt
regulations is no worse since accession to the EU, the
increase in the volume of regulations is beyond dispute.

but that fact is conveniently forgotten by
the Little Englanders.


They're in rather short supply old, chap. That mindset seems
to have been taken over by europhiliacs who believe that the
drawbridge can be drawn up around the EU, protecting its
little nonsenses from the big bad world.

--
Anton

In article ,
anton wrote:

The mindless interpretation and enforcement of EU directives is a UK
problem.

Those of us with long memories will remember that it was no different
before we joined the EU,

Wrong. Even if you choose to believe that the quality of govt
regulations is no worse since accession to the EU, the
increase in the volume of regulations is beyond dispute.

So? The rate of increase has not changed. It was increasing
rapidly before we joined, and had been for a long time. The UKrats
seized on the EU as an opportunity and an excuse, but there is not
a scrap of evidence it is even a part of the cause of the increase.

but that fact is conveniently forgotten by
the Little Englanders.

They're in rather short supply old, chap. That mindset seems
to have been taken over by europhiliacs who believe that the
drawbridge can be drawn up around the EU, protecting its
little nonsenses from the big bad world.

I am afraid that you are simply one of the suckers that has been
taken in by the Big Lie, promulgated from Whitehall and the Little
England press. UK politicians have no views of there own, nowadays.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:37:00 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
wrote:


Nick Maclaren wrote in message ...
In article ,
martin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:23:16 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
wrote:

Withdraw from the EU. Then we won't get stupid EU regulations,
and the rest of the stupid regulations will clearly be home-grown, so we
can
hold our own politicians to account for them.

The mindless interpretation and enforcement of EU directives is a UK
problem.

Those of us with long memories will remember that it was no different
before we joined the EU,

Wrong. Even if you choose to believe that the quality of govt
regulations is no worse since accession to the EU, the
increase in the volume of regulations is beyond dispute.

The EU issues directives, in UK Westminster and Whitehall turns them
into regulations.
If one compares a directive with what Westminster turns it into, one
will see that Westminster is the entity generating a ridiculous
number of ambiguous regulations. I blame the UK civil service.


but that fact is conveniently forgotten by
the Little Englanders.


They're in rather short supply old, chap. That mindset seems
to have been taken over by europhiliacs who believe that the
drawbridge can be drawn up around the EU, protecting its
little nonsenses from the big bad world.

In January the EU will have a population of 450 million. Perhaps
drawing up the drawbridge is not such a bad idea. It's time for UK to
decide which side of the bridge it wants to be on.
--
Martin

Nick Maclaren wrote in message ...
In article ,
anton wrote:

The mindless interpretation and enforcement of EU directives is a UK
problem.

Those of us with long memories will remember that it was no different
before we joined the EU,

Wrong. Even if you choose to believe that the quality of govt
regulations is no worse since accession to the EU, the
increase in the volume of regulations is beyond dispute.

So? The rate of increase has not changed. It was increasing
rapidly before we joined, and had been for a long time.

Source? I seem to recollect a plateauing in the 1980, f'rinstance.

The UKrats
seized on the EU as an opportunity and an excuse, but there is not
a scrap of evidence it is even a part of the cause of the increase.

You're overegging the pudding so madly that you can only be wrong. The
source of many of these regs is the EU, and that's
at the very least a 'scrap of evidence'. You lose.


but that fact is conveniently forgotten by
the Little Englanders.

They're in rather short supply old, chap. That mindset seems
to have been taken over by europhiliacs who believe that the
drawbridge can be drawn up around the EU, protecting its
little nonsenses from the big bad world.

I am afraid that you are simply one of the suckers

back on topic, but it's a reference failure. Now my stagshorn
sumach.........

that has been
taken in by the Big Lie, promulgated from Whitehall and the Little
England press. UK politicians have no views of there own, nowadays.


Dear oh dear. And there was me thinking that I was a well-informed observer
of matters political. Back to my current
currant pruning.

have fun

--
Anton

In message , martin
writes
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:37:00 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
wrote:


Nick Maclaren wrote in message ...
In article ,
martin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:23:16 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
wrote:

Withdraw from the EU. Then we won't get stupid EU regulations,
and the rest of the stupid regulations will clearly be home-grown, so we
can
hold our own politicians to account for them.

The mindless interpretation and enforcement of EU directives is a UK
problem.

Those of us with long memories will remember that it was no different
before we joined the EU,

Wrong. Even if you choose to believe that the quality of govt
regulations is no worse since accession to the EU, the
increase in the volume of regulations is beyond dispute.

The EU issues directives, in UK Westminster and Whitehall turns them
into regulations.
If one compares a directive with what Westminster turns it into, one
will see that Westminster is the entity generating a ridiculous
number of ambiguous regulations. I blame the UK civil service.

The Whitehall drudges enjoy doing it like that though. Therein lies the
problem. UK interpretation of EU directives is usually gold plated with
every possible bell and whistle added to maximise cost and ambiguity.

Other EU countries seldom bother to enforce rules like the UK does. Most
of the stupid regulations are due to over zealous UK interpretation.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote in message ...
In message , martin
writes
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:37:00 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
wrote:


Nick Maclaren wrote in message ...
In article ,
martin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:23:16 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
Those of us with long memories will remember that it was no different
before we joined the EU,

Wrong. Even if you choose to believe that the quality of govt
regulations is no worse since accession to the EU, the
increase in the volume of regulations is beyond dispute.

The EU issues directives, in UK Westminster and Whitehall turns them
into regulations.
If one compares a directive with what Westminster turns it into, one
will see that Westminster is the entity generating a ridiculous
number of ambiguous regulations.

Don't be silly. Look at the current draft EU constitution for a model of
vagueness & ambiguity. The whole idea is to keep things nice & vague, to
avoid popular disquiet, until all of a sudden something has become part of
the acquis communautaire.

I blame the UK civil service.


Wrongly, in general. Laws in the UK are supposed to be clear, and this
country has a major problem in translating eurowaffle
into regulations that are clear. The continental tradition of
vague laws that the local bigwig & his friends can interpret
according to whim or the size of the bung is the way we are heading, but
luckily we haven't got the whole nine yards- yet.

The Whitehall drudges enjoy doing it like that though. Therein lies the
problem.

Nope. The problem lies in trying to stick together two alien
legal traditions.

UK interpretation of EU directives is usually gold plated with
every possible bell and whistle added to maximise cost and ambiguity.


See above.

Other EU countries seldom bother to enforce rules like the UK does.

True. Some other EU countries have a corrupted
political class, and even more corruption at local level than we have.
This, of course, is related to your point about
enforcement of rules. Now which way do you want to go?

Most of the stupid regulations are due to over zealous UK interpretation.



No, the rules largely stem from EU directives, and are
indeed often largely ignored elsewhere. What a lousy system.

--
Anton

Martin Brown wrote in message ...
In message , martin
writes
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 07:37:00 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
wrote:


Nick Maclaren wrote in message ...
In article ,
martin wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:23:16 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
Those of us with long memories will remember that it was no different
before we joined the EU,

Wrong. Even if you choose to believe that the quality of govt
regulations is no worse since accession to the EU, the
increase in the volume of regulations is beyond dispute.

The EU issues directives, in UK Westminster and Whitehall turns them
into regulations.
If one compares a directive with what Westminster turns it into, one
will see that Westminster is the entity generating a ridiculous
number of ambiguous regulations.

Don't be silly. Look at the current draft EU constitution for a model of
vagueness & ambiguity. The whole idea is to keep things nice & vague, to
avoid popular disquiet, until all of a sudden something has become part of
the acquis communautaire.

I blame the UK civil service.


Wrongly, in general. Laws in the UK are supposed to be clear, and this
country has a major problem in translating eurowaffle
into regulations that are clear. The continental tradition of
vague laws that the local bigwig & his friends can interpret
according to whim or the size of the bung is the way we are heading, but
luckily we haven't got the whole nine yards- yet.

The Whitehall drudges enjoy doing it like that though. Therein lies the
problem.

Nope. The problem lies in trying to stick together two alien
legal traditions.

UK interpretation of EU directives is usually gold plated with
every possible bell and whistle added to maximise cost and ambiguity.


See above.

Other EU countries seldom bother to enforce rules like the UK does.

True. Some other EU countries have a corrupted
political class, and even more corruption at local level than we have.
This, of course, is related to your point about
enforcement of rules. Now which way do you want to go?

Most of the stupid regulations are due to over zealous UK interpretation.



No, the rules largely stem from EU directives, and are
indeed often largely ignored elsewhere. What a lousy system.

--
Anton

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:31:50 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
wrote:

I blame the UK civil service.


Wrongly, in general. Laws in the UK are supposed to be clear,

"supposed"!!

What the UK public sees as legislation is the output from the UK civil
service.

and this
country has a major problem in translating eurowaffle
into regulations that are clear.

The Euro directives need no translation, often they are clearer than
Whitehall's poor attempt's at using the English language.
Whitehall English has been a joke for decades and has nothing to do
with UK's membership of the EU.

The continental tradition of
vague laws that the local bigwig & his friends can interpret
according to whim or the size of the bung is the way we are heading, but
luckily we haven't got the whole nine yards- yet.

Read a few copies of Private Eye and you will see that UK local
government has more than exceded 9 yards.


The Whitehall drudges enjoy doing it like that though. Therein lies the
problem.

Nope. The problem lies in trying to stick together two alien
legal traditions.

rubbish.


UK interpretation of EU directives is usually gold plated with
every possible bell and whistle added to maximise cost and ambiguity.


See above.

Other EU countries seldom bother to enforce rules like the UK does.

True. Some other EU countries have a corrupted
political class, and even more corruption at local level than we have.

That's hard to believe. Did you ever wonder why most UK government
computer projects are a failure?
or why a company gets more contracts after a failure?

This, of course, is related to your point about
enforcement of rules. Now which way do you want to go?

Most of the stupid regulations are due to over zealous UK interpretation.



No, the rules largely stem from EU directives,

the rules should match 100% an EU directive.

and are
indeed often largely ignored elsewhere. What a lousy system.

If you had ever looked at an EU directive you would have noticed
a) it was already translated into English
b) a dam site clearer than the rubbish that it is converted into by
Whitehall.
c) as I said elsewhere EU directives are sometimes the direct result
of English trade bodies. (the Recreational Craft Directive for
example)

Read any copy of Private Eye if you think there is no corruption in
UK.
--
Martin

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:31:50 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
wrote:

I blame the UK civil service.


Wrongly, in general. Laws in the UK are supposed to be clear,

"supposed"!!

What the UK public sees as legislation is the output from the UK civil
service.

and this
country has a major problem in translating eurowaffle
into regulations that are clear.

The Euro directives need no translation, often they are clearer than
Whitehall's poor attempt's at using the English language.
Whitehall English has been a joke for decades and has nothing to do
with UK's membership of the EU.

The continental tradition of
vague laws that the local bigwig & his friends can interpret
according to whim or the size of the bung is the way we are heading, but
luckily we haven't got the whole nine yards- yet.

Read a few copies of Private Eye and you will see that UK local
government has more than exceded 9 yards.


The Whitehall drudges enjoy doing it like that though. Therein lies the
problem.

Nope. The problem lies in trying to stick together two alien
legal traditions.

rubbish.


UK interpretation of EU directives is usually gold plated with
every possible bell and whistle added to maximise cost and ambiguity.


See above.

Other EU countries seldom bother to enforce rules like the UK does.

True. Some other EU countries have a corrupted
political class, and even more corruption at local level than we have.

That's hard to believe. Did you ever wonder why most UK government
computer projects are a failure?
or why a company gets more contracts after a failure?

This, of course, is related to your point about
enforcement of rules. Now which way do you want to go?

Most of the stupid regulations are due to over zealous UK interpretation.



No, the rules largely stem from EU directives,

the rules should match 100% an EU directive.

and are
indeed often largely ignored elsewhere. What a lousy system.

If you had ever looked at an EU directive you would have noticed
a) it was already translated into English
b) a dam site clearer than the rubbish that it is converted into by
Whitehall.
c) as I said elsewhere EU directives are sometimes the direct result
of English trade bodies. (the Recreational Craft Directive for
example)

Read any copy of Private Eye if you think there is no corruption in
UK.
--
Martin

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 10:31:50 +0000 (UTC), "anton"
wrote:

I blame the UK civil service.


Wrongly, in general. Laws in the UK are supposed to be clear,

"supposed"!!

What the UK public sees as legislation is the output from the UK civil
service.

and this
country has a major problem in translating eurowaffle
into regulations that are clear.

The Euro directives need no translation, often they are clearer than
Whitehall's poor attempt's at using the English language.
Whitehall English has been a joke for decades and has nothing to do
with UK's membership of the EU.

The continental tradition of
vague laws that the local bigwig & his friends can interpret
according to whim or the size of the bung is the way we are heading, but
luckily we haven't got the whole nine yards- yet.

Read a few copies of Private Eye and you will see that UK local
government has more than exceded 9 yards.


The Whitehall drudges enjoy doing it like that though. Therein lies the
problem.

Nope. The problem lies in trying to stick together two alien
legal traditions.

rubbish.


UK interpretation of EU directives is usually gold plated with
every possible bell and whistle added to maximise cost and ambiguity.


See above.

Other EU countries seldom bother to enforce rules like the UK does.

True. Some other EU countries have a corrupted
political class, and even more corruption at local level than we have.

That's hard to believe. Did you ever wonder why most UK government
computer projects are a failure?
or why a company gets more contracts after a failure?

This, of course, is related to your point about
enforcement of rules. Now which way do you want to go?

Most of the stupid regulations are due to over zealous UK interpretation.



No, the rules largely stem from EU directives,

the rules should match 100% an EU directive.

and are
indeed often largely ignored elsewhere. What a lousy system.

If you had ever looked at an EU directive you would have noticed
a) it was already translated into English
b) a dam site clearer than the rubbish that it is converted into by
Whitehall.
c) as I said elsewhere EU directives are sometimes the direct result
of English trade bodies. (the Recreational Craft Directive for
example)

Read any copy of Private Eye if you think there is no corruption in
UK.
--
Martin