[Dixonary] Round 2302: fulker - Progress Report

[Christopher Carson]

No DQs so far so FULKER is a go.

So far, 10 definitions have been received, from the following players:

Barrs, Bourne, Emery, Graham, Hart, Lodge, Madnick, Shefler, Stevens and
Widdis.

The word, in case you missed the initial posting, is FULKER. You still
have 24 hours to submit your fake definitions for this word, (which you
should of course send me by _email_). The deadline for definitions is

Friday, May 04, 2012 9:00 AM EDT.

[Frances Wetzstein]

FULKER

An important and primary member of a sled dog team; usually one of a pair of
leader dogs.

[Guerri Stevens]

Good definition, Frances! I would have voted for it.

Guerri

Frances Wetzstein wrote:
> FULKER
>
> An important and primary member of a sled dog team; usually one of a pair of
> leader dogs.
>
>

[Frances Wetzstein]

Wait a minute. Did I send this to the wrong place again? Guess I will
NEVER learn!!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
[mailto:dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Guerri Stevens
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 10:39 AM
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Round 2302: fulker - Progress Report


Good definition, Frances! I would have voted for it.

Guerri

Frances Wetzstein wrote:
> FULKER
>
> An important and primary member of a sled dog team; usually one of a
> pair of leader dogs.
>
>

[Dodi Schultz]

On 5/3/2012 10:55 AM, Frances Wetzstein wrote:
> Wait a minute. Did I send this to the wrong place again? Guess I will
> NEVER learn!!!!

Frances, you hit "Reply"--which IS the way to vote when you see the list
presented, but NEVER send a def that way. To send a def to the dealer,
always create a new message with the dealer's personal e-mail address in
the "To:" line.

As a general rule, ALWAYS make sure, before hitting "Send", that what
you're sending is going where you want it to go. This message I'm writing
(the one you're reading now) is being written in direct reply to a group
message (the one above, from you); the "To:" line on my message says
"dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com", and that tells me it's going to the group.

—Dodi

[Frances Wetzstein]

Thank you again, Dodi. I know you sent this information before but I'm not
sure where it is. I seem to be getting worse at this stuff lately. Guess I
must pay more attention.

Fran W.

[Dodi Schultz]

On 5/3/2012 11:56 AM, Frances Wetzstein wrote:
> Thank you again, Dodi. I know you sent this information before but I'm not
> sure where it is. I seem to be getting worse at this stuff lately. Guess I
> must pay more attention.

Frances, as long-time Dixonary players well know, I am severely
technologically challenged. The solution I've found is: When I learn
something (usually something most other computer users have known for a
decade), I either print it out or write it down, so I have it on PAPER, and
pin it to my bulletin board.

Sometimes I don't understand my own notes to myself, but that's a whole
other story, and I know I need to work on that . . .

—Dodi

[Steve Graham]

I have studied the "reply" phenomenon and I now believe that there is an
evil spirit lurking in all e-mail client software that automatically drags
the cursor to itself.

I do an e-mail newsletter for our hunting-dog club and when advising about
an upcoming event and provided a contact for that event, I always surround
that information with a DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE and warn people that if
they do, they will automatically receive some sarcastic remark from me.

There's always at least one person who doesn't take heed and I do believe
that it's an evil spirit at work in the software.

Steve Graham

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too
dark to read. Groucho Marx


-----Original Message-----
From: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com [mailto:dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com] On Behalf
Of Christopher Carson
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2012 5:27 AM
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Subject: [Dixonary] Round 2302: fulker - Progress Report

No DQs so far so FULKER is a go.

So far, 10 definitions have been received, from the following players:

Barrs, Bourne, Emery, Graham, Hart, Lodge, Madnick, Shefler, Stevens and
Widdis.

The word, in case you missed the initial posting, is FULKER. You still have
24 hours to submit your fake definitions for this word, (which you should of
course send me by _email_). The deadline for definitions is

Friday, May 04, 2012 9:00 AM EDT.

[Dodi Schultz]

On 5/3/2012 12:37 PM, Steve Graham wrote:

> I have studied the "reply" phenomenon and I now believe that there is
> an evil spirit lurking in all e-mail client software that
> automatically drags the cursor to itself.
>
> I do an e-mail newsletter for our hunting-dog club and when advising
> about an upcoming event and provided a contact for that event, I
> always surround that information with a DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE
> and warn people that if they do, they will automatically receive some
> sarcastic remark from me.
>
> There's always at least one person who doesn't take heed and I do
> believe that it's an evil spirit at work in the software.

I totally believe this. Further, I believe that these evil spirits can
travel among the computers of Dixonary players via some sort of unholy
exchange of technobodily substances when they meet at GoogleGroups.

Much hardware is also possessed. Let me tell you about the eerily bizarre
behavior of my printer and fax . . .

—Dodi

[Steve Graham]

And speaking of an evil Spirit, have you seen the news story that Spirit
Airlines wants to charge travelers $100 for carry-on baggage to put in the
overhead bins?

Steve Graham

Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too
dark to read. Groucho Marx

[Guerri Stevens]

What -- are they expecting you wear onboard all the clothes you'll need
for your entire trip, plus have pockets in which you'll have toiletries
and other stuff? I am assuming here that they either don't permit or
charge exorbitantly for checked luggage.

Why not simply raise their rates? I mean have you ever seen anyone get
on board with nothing?

This reminds me of a recent encounter I had in a supermarket. I couldn't
find something, and one of the store managers was helping me locate it.
I happened to mention that I'd noticed that another product was now
smaller than it had been before. He told me that the manufacturer had to
make it smaller otherwise the price would have to go up. I was able to
control myself but it wasn't easy.

Guerri

Steve Graham wrote:
> And speaking of an evil Spirit, have you seen the news story that Spirit
> Airlines wants to charge travelers $100 for carry-on baggage to put in the
> overhead bins?

[stamps]

This has been going on for a very long time. Often they don't even make the
product smaller, they just put less of the product in the same size box.

--
Salsgiver.com Webmail

Fiber Optic Internet and Voice are here!
Find out more at http://www.gotlit.com


---------- Original Message -----------
From: Guerri Stevens <guerri (AT) tapcis (DOT) com>
To: dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com
Sent: Thu, 03 May 2012 20:55:19 -0400
Subject: Re: [Dixonary] Round 2302: fulker - OT (very)

> This reminds me of a recent encounter I had in a supermarket. I
> couldn't find something, and one of the store managers was helping
> me locate it. I happened to mention that I'd noticed that another
> product was now smaller than it had been before. He told me that the
> manufacturer had to make it smaller otherwise the price would have
> to go up. I was able to control myself but it wasn't easy.
>
> Guerri
>
> Steve Graham wrote:
> > And speaking of an evil Spirit, have you seen the news story that Spirit
> > Airlines wants to charge travelers $100 for carry-on baggage to put in
the
> > overhead bins?
------- End of Original Message -------

[stamps]

I wonder if you can put your children in the overhead bin and save $$$.

--
Salsgiver.com Webmail

Fiber Optic Internet and Voice are here!
Find out more at http://www.gotlit.com


---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Steve Graham" <sdgraham (AT) duckswild (DOT) com>
To: <dixonary (AT) googlegroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Thu, 3 May 2012 17:44:08 -0700
Subject: RE: [Dixonary] Round 2302: fulker - OT (very)

> And speaking of an evil Spirit, have you seen the news story that Spirit
> Airlines wants to charge travelers $100 for carry-on baggage to put
> in the overhead bins?
>
> Steve Graham
>
> Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog
> it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx
------- End of Original Message -------

[Guerri Stevens]

Yes, it has been going on for a long time, but I was stunned by the
manager's statement. Do they think we are stupid?

Guerri

stamps wrote:
> This has been going on for a very long time. Often they don't even make the
> product smaller, they just put less of the product in the same size box.

[France International/Mike Shefler]

The answer to that question is, yes, they think that for the most part,
we _are_ stupid. Otherwise why would they make the most ridiculous claims.

On 5/4/2012 6:12 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
> Yes, it has been going on for a long time, but I was stunned by the
> manager's statement. Do they think we are stupid?
>
> Guerri
>
> stamps wrote:
>> This has been going on for a very long time. Often they don't even
>> make the product smaller, they just put less of the product in the
>> same size box.
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4975 - Release Date: 05/03/12
>
>

[John Barrs]

Us Brits of course have had the sizes and weights problem compounded by the
metrification process--- at one point it was actually illegal even for a
street-trader to use 'old measures' but that is no longer true -- however,
what used to be 4oz is now almost always 100g - (110 would be nearer) --
what used to be 8 oz did go to 250g ( about 9 oz) at an increased price for
a very short time but has now very often reduced to 200g. They have just
over the last 4 months taken "units" of cheese from 500g (about 18 oz) to
400g and recently to 350g (about 12 oz) without changing packaging at all
(except of course to say the new weight) and certainly the price is only a
little more (becasue of the world recession) so they are getting us both
ways, coming and going, reducing the weight and increasing the price

By the way, nearly all prelabelled foodstuff in Europe will have the weight
as - for example - "450g e" - what the "e" means is that it is an
approximate weight - this is an EU allowance for minor variations in bulk
marketing of say chunks of cheese using the same preprinted packaging. I am
not sure quite how approximate it has to be, I think 5% is allowed - but a
5% error on 500g is just about an ounce and I bet I know which way the
error will nearly always be

I now mostly think in metric, most of my age think in imperial but can just
about work with metric (they have to). My children have no idea what an
imperial measure is. - Except of course our delightful oddments like: toget
a driving licence they have to know how many metres it takes to stop a car
going at a speed measured in miles/hour - the car will be sold as doing x
mpg but fuel is always sold in litres; and while milk is sold labelled in
both units the packs are metric sizes; draught beer is still sold in pints
(our pints, not yours) and bottled beers are usually 9fl oz. although that
is changing to metric 250 ml (260 would be nearer and 285 would be nearer
the haf-pint they used to be

JohnnyB "Oh to be in England now that spring is here"

On 4 May 2012 16:17, France International/Mike Shefler <stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com
> wrote:

> The answer to that question is, yes, they think that for the most part, we
> _are_ stupid. Otherwise why would they make the most ridiculous claims.
>
>
> On 5/4/2012 6:12 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>
>> Yes, it has been going on for a long time, but I was stunned by the
>> manager's statement. Do they think we are stupid?
>>
>> Guerri
>>
>> stamps wrote:
>>
>>> This has been going on for a very long time. Often they don't even make
>>> the product smaller, they just put less of the product in the same size box.
>>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4975 - Release Date: 05/03/12
>>
>>
>>

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi John,

The "e" actually means "weighted average". So the *average *weight of a
chunk of cheese has to be at least 450g (or more), but an *individual*
chunk is allowed to weight slightly less. Without the "e" mark, the
printed content is taken to be the minimum (so the average weight will
be slightly more).

At least, that's how I understand it. I am not a lawyer.

Cheers,
Hugo


Op 4-5-2012 23:08, John Barrs schreef:
> Us Brits of course have had the sizes and weights problem compounded
> by the metrification process--- at one point it was actually illegal
> even for a street-trader to use 'old measures' but that is no longer
> true -- however, what used to be 4oz is now almost always 100g - (110
> would be nearer) -- what used to be 8 oz did go to 250g ( about 9 oz)
> at an increased price for a very short time but has now very often
> reduced to 200g. They have just over the last 4 months taken "units"
> of cheese from 500g (about 18 oz) to 400g and recently to 350g (about
> 12 oz) without changing packaging at all (except of course to say the
> new weight) and certainly the price is only a little more (becasue of
> the world recession) so they are getting us both ways, coming and
> going, reducing the weight and increasing the price
>
> By the way, nearly all prelabelled foodstuff in Europe will have the
> weight as - for example - "450g e" - what the "e" means is that it is
> an approximate weight - this is an EU allowance for minor variations
> in bulk marketing of say chunks of cheese using the same preprinted
> packaging. I am not sure quite how approximate it has to be, I think
> 5% is allowed - but a 5% error on 500g is just about an ounce and I
> bet I know which way the error will nearly always be
>
> I now mostly think in metric, most of my age think in imperial but can
> just about work with metric (they have to). My children have no idea
> what an imperial measure is. - Except of course our delightful
> oddments like: toget a driving licence they have to know how many
> metres it takes to stop a car going at a speed measured in miles/hour
> - the car will be sold as doing x mpg but fuel is always sold in
> litres; and while milk is sold labelled in both units the packs are
> metric sizes; draught beer is still sold in pints (our pints, not
> yours) and bottled beers are usually 9fl oz. although that is changing
> to metric 250 ml (260 would be nearer and 285 would be nearer the
> haf-pint they used to be
>
> JohnnyB "Oh to be in England now that spring is here"
>
> On 4 May 2012 16:17, France International/Mike Shefler
> <stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com <mailto:stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com>> wrote:
>
> The answer to that question is, yes, they think that for the most
> part, we _are_ stupid. Otherwise why would they make the most
> ridiculous claims.
>
>
> On 5/4/2012 6:12 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>
> Yes, it has been going on for a long time, but I was stunned
> by the manager's statement. Do they think we are stupid?
>
> Guerri
>
> stamps wrote:
>
> This has been going on for a very long time. Often they
> don't even make the product smaller, they just put less of
> the product in the same size box.
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4975 - Release
> Date: 05/03/12
>
>
>

[Hugo Kornelis]

Just after sending the previous mail, found a link with a good description:
http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/pdf/uk-07044-packaged-goods-guidance-2007.pdf

Page 4, paragraph 6 describes the average system and opposes it to the
old "minimum" system.
Page 6, paragraph 18 has a table with the maximum tolerable negative error.

Cheers,
Hugo

Op 4-5-2012 23:08, John Barrs schreef:
> Us Brits of course have had the sizes and weights problem compounded
> by the metrification process--- at one point it was actually illegal
> even for a street-trader to use 'old measures' but that is no longer
> true -- however, what used to be 4oz is now almost always 100g - (110
> would be nearer) -- what used to be 8 oz did go to 250g ( about 9 oz)
> at an increased price for a very short time but has now very often
> reduced to 200g. They have just over the last 4 months taken "units"
> of cheese from 500g (about 18 oz) to 400g and recently to 350g (about
> 12 oz) without changing packaging at all (except of course to say the
> new weight) and certainly the price is only a little more (becasue of
> the world recession) so they are getting us both ways, coming and
> going, reducing the weight and increasing the price
>
> By the way, nearly all prelabelled foodstuff in Europe will have the
> weight as - for example - "450g e" - what the "e" means is that it is
> an approximate weight - this is an EU allowance for minor variations
> in bulk marketing of say chunks of cheese using the same preprinted
> packaging. I am not sure quite how approximate it has to be, I think
> 5% is allowed - but a 5% error on 500g is just about an ounce and I
> bet I know which way the error will nearly always be
>
> I now mostly think in metric, most of my age think in imperial but can
> just about work with metric (they have to). My children have no idea
> what an imperial measure is. - Except of course our delightful
> oddments like: toget a driving licence they have to know how many
> metres it takes to stop a car going at a speed measured in miles/hour
> - the car will be sold as doing x mpg but fuel is always sold in
> litres; and while milk is sold labelled in both units the packs are
> metric sizes; draught beer is still sold in pints (our pints, not
> yours) and bottled beers are usually 9fl oz. although that is changing
> to metric 250 ml (260 would be nearer and 285 would be nearer the
> haf-pint they used to be
>
> JohnnyB "Oh to be in England now that spring is here"
>
> On 4 May 2012 16:17, France International/Mike Shefler
> <stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com <mailto:stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com>> wrote:
>
> The answer to that question is, yes, they think that for the most
> part, we _are_ stupid. Otherwise why would they make the most
> ridiculous claims.
>
>
> On 5/4/2012 6:12 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>
> Yes, it has been going on for a long time, but I was stunned
> by the manager's statement. Do they think we are stupid?
>
> Guerri
>
> stamps wrote:
>
> This has been going on for a very long time. Often they
> don't even make the product smaller, they just put less of
> the product in the same size box.
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4975 - Release
> Date: 05/03/12
>
>
>

[John Barrs]

Hugh

Thanks - I wasn't quite sure what it meant... but I suspect "weighted
average" as a term becasue it means something rather different than an
average weight - at its best it could mean the mode value - that is the one
that most commonly occurs - but it could mean that some interesting
statistical formulae are applied and then, yes, the lawyers would have to
be invoked to provide a meaning.

JohnnyB

On 4 May 2012 22:39, Hugo Kornelis <hugo (AT) perfact (DOT) info> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> The "e" actually means "weighted average". So the *average *weight of a
> chunk of cheese has to be at least 450g (or more), but an *individual*chunk is allowed to weight slightly less. Without the "e" mark, the printed
> content is taken to be the minimum (so the average weight will be slightly
> more).
>
> At least, that's how I understand it. I am not a lawyer.
>
> Cheers,
> Hugo
>
>
> Op 4-5-2012 23:08, John Barrs schreef:
>
> Us Brits of course have had the sizes and weights problem compounded by
> the metrification process--- at one point it was actually illegal even for
> a street-trader to use 'old measures' but that is no longer true --
> however, what used to be 4oz is now almost always 100g - (110 would be
> nearer) -- what used to be 8 oz did go to 250g ( about 9 oz) at an
> increased price for a very short time but has now very often reduced to
> 200g. They have just over the last 4 months taken "units" of cheese from
> 500g (about 18 oz) to 400g and recently to 350g (about 12 oz) without
> changing packaging at all (except of course to say the new weight) and
> certainly the price is only a little more (becasue of the world recession)
> so they are getting us both ways, coming and going, reducing the weight and
> increasing the price
>
> By the way, nearly all prelabelled foodstuff in Europe will have the
> weight as - for example - "450g e" - what the "e" means is that it is an
> approximate weight - this is an EU allowance for minor variations in bulk
> marketing of say chunks of cheese using the same preprinted packaging. I am
> not sure quite how approximate it has to be, I think 5% is allowed - but a
> 5% error on 500g is just about an ounce and I bet I know which way the
> error will nearly always be
>
> I now mostly think in metric, most of my age think in imperial but can
> just about work with metric (they have to). My children have no idea what
> an imperial measure is. - Except of course our delightful oddments like:
> toget a driving licence they have to know how many metres it takes to stop
> a car going at a speed measured in miles/hour - the car will be sold as
> doing x mpg but fuel is always sold in litres; and while milk is sold
> labelled in both units the packs are metric sizes; draught beer is still
> sold in pints (our pints, not yours) and bottled beers are usually 9fl oz.
> although that is changing to metric 250 ml (260 would be nearer and 285
> would be nearer the haf-pint they used to be
>
> JohnnyB "Oh to be in England now that spring is here"
>
> On 4 May 2012 16:17, France International/Mike Shefler <
> stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com> wrote:
>
>> The answer to that question is, yes, they think that for the most part,
>> we _are_ stupid. Otherwise why would they make the most ridiculous claims.
>>
>>
>> On 5/4/2012 6:12 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, it has been going on for a long time, but I was stunned by the
>>> manager's statement. Do they think we are stupid?
>>>
>>> Guerri
>>>
>>> stamps wrote:
>>>
>>>> This has been going on for a very long time. Often they don't even make
>>>> the product smaller, they just put less of the product in the same size box.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4975 - Release Date: 05/03/12
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[John Barrs]

Hugo

thanks very much for the link -- the next is a joke (I think) now I
understand the nature of both the EU - needing 32 pages to express what is
in essence a simple idea - and also the nature of business which requires
the EU to be so exhaustive about this simple idea.

JohnnyB

On 4 May 2012 22:42, Hugo Kornelis <hugo (AT) perfact (DOT) info> wrote:

> Just after sending the previous mail, found a link with a good
> description:
>
> http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/pdf/uk-07044-packaged-goods-guidance-2007.pdf
>
> Page 4, paragraph 6 describes the average system and opposes it to the old
> "minimum" system.
> Page 6, paragraph 18 has a table with the maximum tolerable negative error.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Hugo
>
> Op 4-5-2012 23:08, John Barrs schreef:
>
> Us Brits of course have had the sizes and weights problem compounded by
> the metrification process--- at one point it was actually illegal even for
> a street-trader to use 'old measures' but that is no longer true --
> however, what used to be 4oz is now almost always 100g - (110 would be
> nearer) -- what used to be 8 oz did go to 250g ( about 9 oz) at an
> increased price for a very short time but has now very often reduced to
> 200g. They have just over the last 4 months taken "units" of cheese from
> 500g (about 18 oz) to 400g and recently to 350g (about 12 oz) without
> changing packaging at all (except of course to say the new weight) and
> certainly the price is only a little more (becasue of the world recession)
> so they are getting us both ways, coming and going, reducing the weight and
> increasing the price
>
>
> By the way, nearly all prelabelled foodstuff in Europe will have the
> weight as - for example - "450g e" - what the "e" means is that it is an
> approximate weight - this is an EU allowance for minor variations in bulk
> marketing of say chunks of cheese using the same preprinted packaging. I am
> not sure quite how approximate it has to be, I think 5% is allowed - but a
> 5% error on 500g is just about an ounce and I bet I know which way the
> error will nearly always be
>
> I now mostly think in metric, most of my age think in imperial but can
> just about work with metric (they have to). My children have no idea what
> an imperial measure is. - Except of course our delightful oddments like:
> toget a driving licence they have to know how many metres it takes to stop
> a car going at a speed measured in miles/hour - the car will be sold as
> doing x mpg but fuel is always sold in litres; and while milk is sold
> labelled in both units the packs are metric sizes; draught beer is still
> sold in pints (our pints, not yours) and bottled beers are usually 9fl oz.
> although that is changing to metric 250 ml (260 would be nearer and 285
> would be nearer the haf-pint they used to be
>
> JohnnyB "Oh to be in England now that spring is here"
>
> On 4 May 2012 16:17, France International/Mike Shefler <
> stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com> wrote:
>
>> The answer to that question is, yes, they think that for the most part,
>> we _are_ stupid. Otherwise why would they make the most ridiculous claims.
>>
>>
>> On 5/4/2012 6:12 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, it has been going on for a long time, but I was stunned by the
>>> manager's statement. Do they think we are stupid?
>>>
>>> Guerri
>>>
>>> stamps wrote:
>>>
>>>> This has been going on for a very long time. Often they don't even make
>>>> the product smaller, they just put less of the product in the same size box.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>> No virus found in this message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4975 - Release Date: 05/03/12
>>>
>>>
>>>
>

[Hugo Kornelis]

Hi John,

That was only the simplified explanation. I first found the official
text of the legislation (a British one, but one that incorporates the EU
rules). It was a bit shorter (24 pages, I think), and impossible to
understand for any sane human being. ;)

Cheers,
Hugo

Op 5-5-2012 0:05, John Barrs schreef:
> Hugo
>
> thanks very much for the link -- the next is a joke (I think) now I
> understand the nature of both the EU - needing 32 pages to express
> what is in essence a simple idea - and also the nature of business
> which requires the EU to be so exhaustive about this simple idea.
>
> JohnnyB
>
> On 4 May 2012 22:42, Hugo Kornelis <hugo (AT) perfact (DOT) info
> <mailto:hugo (AT) perfact (DOT) info>> wrote:
>
> Just after sending the previous mail, found a link with a good
> description:
> http://www.reading.ac.uk/foodlaw/pdf/uk-07044-packaged-goods-guidance-2007.pdf
>
> Page 4, paragraph 6 describes the average system and opposes it to
> the old "minimum" system.
> Page 6, paragraph 18 has a table with the maximum tolerable
> negative error.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Hugo
>
> Op 4-5-2012 23:08, John Barrs schreef:
>> Us Brits of course have had the sizes and weights problem
>> compounded by the metrification process--- at one point it was
>> actually illegal even for a street-trader to use 'old measures'
>> but that is no longer true -- however, what used to be 4oz is now
>> almost always 100g - (110 would be nearer) -- what used to be 8
>> oz did go to 250g ( about 9 oz) at an increased price for a very
>> short time but has now very often reduced to 200g. They have just
>> over the last 4 months taken "units" of cheese from 500g (about
>> 18 oz) to 400g and recently to 350g (about 12 oz) without
>> changing packaging at all (except of course to say the new
>> weight) and certainly the price is only a little more (becasue of
>> the world recession) so they are getting us both ways, coming and
>> going, reducing the weight and increasing the price
>>
>>
>> By the way, nearly all prelabelled foodstuff in Europe will have
>> the weight as - for example - "450g e" - what the "e" means is
>> that it is an approximate weight - this is an EU allowance for
>> minor variations in bulk marketing of say chunks of cheese using
>> the same preprinted packaging. I am not sure quite how
>> approximate it has to be, I think 5% is allowed - but a 5% error
>> on 500g is just about an ounce and I bet I know which way the
>> error will nearly always be
>>
>> I now mostly think in metric, most of my age think in imperial
>> but can just about work with metric (they have to). My children
>> have no idea what an imperial measure is. - Except of course our
>> delightful oddments like: toget a driving licence they have to
>> know how many metres it takes to stop a car going at a speed
>> measured in miles/hour - the car will be sold as doing x mpg but
>> fuel is always sold in litres; and while milk is sold labelled in
>> both units the packs are metric sizes; draught beer is still sold
>> in pints (our pints, not yours) and bottled beers are usually 9fl
>> oz. although that is changing to metric 250 ml (260 would be
>> nearer and 285 would be nearer the haf-pint they used to be
>>
>> JohnnyB "Oh to be in England now that spring is here"
>>
>> On 4 May 2012 16:17, France International/Mike Shefler
>> <stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com <mailto:stamps (AT) salsgiver (DOT) com>> wrote:
>>
>> The answer to that question is, yes, they think that for the
>> most part, we _are_ stupid. Otherwise why would they make the
>> most ridiculous claims.
>>
>>
>> On 5/4/2012 6:12 AM, Guerri Stevens wrote:
>>
>> Yes, it has been going on for a long time, but I was
>> stunned by the manager's statement. Do they think we are
>> stupid?
>>
>> Guerri
>>
>> stamps wrote:
>>
>> This has been going on for a very long time. Often
>> they don't even make the product smaller, they just
>> put less of the product in the same size box.
>>
>>
>>
>> -----
>> No virus found in this message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
>> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4975 -
>> Release Date: 05/03/12
>>
>>
>>
>

[Guerri Stevens]

I heard the tail end of another Spirit story this morning. The gist
seemed to be that some veteran had bought a ticket with no trip
insurance. The man was, or became, ill (I assumed terminally ill) and
asked for a refund as his doctors had forbidden him to fly. Spirit
refused. The price was low, under $150. There was a lot of outrage
against Spirit for this.

Guerri

Steve Graham wrote:
> And speaking of an evil Spirit, have you seen the news story that Spirit
> Airlines wants to charge travelers $100 for carry-on baggage to put in the
> overhead bins?
>
> Steve Graham
>
> Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too
> dark to read. Groucho Marx
>
>
>
>