Zefal Isotherm water bottle keeps water coldest?



In article <[email protected]>,
the black rose <[email protected]> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > You're washing dishes anyways, right?

>
> *cough* I don't do dishes. I have a husband and 3 sons still at home
> who can do that.


"You" in the sense of the French "on," then, rather than "vous." Make
'em wash your bottles then.

The Lovely One generally leaves the washing-up to me,
--
Ryan Cousineau, [email protected] http://www.wiredcola.com
President, Fabrizio Mazzoleni Fan Club
 
Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> the black rose <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>
>>>You're washing dishes anyways, right?

>>
>>*cough* I don't do dishes. I have a husband and 3 sons still at home
>>who can do that.

>
>
> "You" in the sense of the French "on," then, rather than "vous." Make
> 'em wash your bottles then.


Ah, thanks for clearing that up. But actually, second person plural
would be appropriate, it's just ambiguous in English. I spent enough
years living in the South that I tend to use "you all" for that.

English used to have a unique second person singular (thou); it's just
that it fell out of use.

> The Lovely One generally leaves the washing-up to me,


Good for her! (You go girl!)

--
the black rose
GO LANCE GO!!!
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
 
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:20:08 GMT, the black rose
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Ah, thanks for clearing that up. But actually, second person plural
>would be appropriate, it's just ambiguous in English. I spent enough
>years living in the South that I tend to use "you all" for that.


that's "y'all".

There is a plural to "y'all:" "all y'all"

I always thought to translate "on" from French to English, one needed
to use the third person singular, as it is an impersonal construction.
But my French is in awful shape.
>
>English used to have a unique second person singular (thou); it's just
>that it fell out of use.


It persisted among Quaker communities, who insisted on its function as
a social leveler--plain speech, you see.

America bugs me with just how equal everyone seems to be in speech and
address. I don't *want* to be on a first-name basis with everybody.
I am uncomfortable when older people want me to call them by their
first names. It just seems...disrespectful.

In Tagalog, you can't even call your older brother by his first name;
he gets the honorific "kuya" (elder brother. Older sisters are
"ate"). My father remembers that there were, once upon a time, six
grades of seniority among siblings, each with its own title--but
that's fallen out of use.

Since I'm the oldest, I get to be Kuya. It's a nice title to have.

-Luigi
 
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:12:26 -0400, Luigi de Guzman
<[email protected]> wrote:
>America bugs me with just how equal everyone seems to be in speech and
>address. I don't *want* to be on a first-name basis with everybody.
>I am uncomfortable when older people want me to call them by their
>first names. It just seems...disrespectful.


See, I'm quite the opposite; I think the added crud required by
formality is entirely unnecessary in most circumstances. For
example, I have an uncle who I address simply by his first name, not
preceded by "Uncle". I'd do that with others, but most seem uptight
about it.

I don't like calling people "Mr. So-and-so". I prefer to call them
"Bob". Or "Mary".

Maybe somebody whose name is "Habibuhasadni Smith", I'd prefer to
call "Mr. Smith". <G>

While I prefer the casual tone [same goes for dress, BTW; shorts and
a t-shirt function better for my needs than a suit], it doesn't need
to be about respect or equality; I just am not interested in mincing
words. I prefer efficient conversation. Unfortunately, that's more
than offset by my preference for completeness and clarity, which
results in me going on and on in messages like this...
--
Rick Onanian
 
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 22:25:07 -0700, Ryan Cousineau <[email protected]>
wrote:
>But doesn't everyone just wash their bottles regularly? I put sports
>drink (SISU Hydrade), diluted orange juice, and water through my bottles
>regularly, but I also wash them after almost every use (I'm more lax if
>it just had water in it). You're washing dishes anyways, right?


I wash bottles when they become empty. I put un-empty bottles in the
refrigerator. I've got to put the contents of the bottle somewhere;
why not leave it in the bottle?

The problem happens if I forget to put the bottle in the fridge --
same as if you forget to empty the bottle. Also, if I pre-mix a
bunch of something I like, and then end up not using it for months
on end, it will grow black stuff even in the fridge.
--
Rick Onanian
 
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:34:17 -0400, Rick Onanian <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 11:12:26 -0400, Luigi de Guzman
><[email protected]> wrote:
>>America bugs me with just how equal everyone seems to be in speech and
>>address. I don't *want* to be on a first-name basis with everybody.
>>I am uncomfortable when older people want me to call them by their
>>first names. It just seems...disrespectful.

>
>See, I'm quite the opposite; I think the added crud required by
>formality is entirely unnecessary in most circumstances. For
>example, I have an uncle who I address simply by his first name, not
>preceded by "Uncle". I'd do that with others, but most seem uptight
>about it.


I'd be scandalized.

I suppose it's cultural. I accord anyone as old as my father or
mother the same amount of deference that I would my own parents. Just
how I'm raised is all.

There are more things to bare efficiency in the world. If there
weren't, we'd all be riding recumbents.

-luigi
 
Luigi de Guzman wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:20:08 GMT, the black rose
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Ah, thanks for clearing that up. But actually, second person plural
>>would be appropriate, it's just ambiguous in English. I spent enough
>>years living in the South that I tend to use "you all" for that.

>
>
> that's "y'all".
>
> There is a plural to "y'all:" "all y'all"


*cringe* I only lived in the South for a while as an adult. I speak
standard midwestern American English. I never acclimated to Southern
culture, and I can't bring myself to say "y'all," I just can't. "You
all" is as close as I can get, and only because it's a terribly useful
construction.

Just to throw a spanner in the works, "y'all" isn't universal. In WV
where I used to live, it was "y'uns" and sometimes "youens." *cringe*

> I always thought to translate "on" from French to English, one needed
> to use the third person singular, as it is an impersonal construction.
> But my French is in awful shape.


Your phrase "one needed to use" is exactly analogous to the way the
French use "on," unless I'm completely mistaken.

>>English used to have a unique second person singular (thou); it's just
>>that it fell out of use.

>
>
> It persisted among Quaker communities, who insisted on its function as
> a social leveler--plain speech, you see.


Well yes, but even Quakers are starting to drop it. I've known Quakers
who didn't use "thou" at all.

> America bugs me with just how equal everyone seems to be in speech and
> address. I don't *want* to be on a first-name basis with everybody.
> I am uncomfortable when older people want me to call them by their
> first names. It just seems...disrespectful.


I think it's a modern thing. It sounds like you feel similarly to my
own feelings. I don't like calling older people by their first names.
When I was a child, I was not permitted to call *any* adult by their
first name, and I was required to use "Uncle" or "Aunt" even with my
parents' friends (the ones with whom *they* were on a first-name basis).

I also require my sons to be more formal then I see their friends being,
and I do NOT allow their friends to call me by my first name, period.
I've found it induces more respect from them, too. Teenaged boys can be
such scalawags, and I'm a small woman, I need all the advantage I can get.

But I've also been told I'm different from most Americans, by the wives
of foreign grad students when my husband was in grad school. *shrug*

> In Tagalog, you can't even call your older brother by his first name;
> he gets the honorific "kuya" (elder brother. Older sisters are
> "ate"). My father remembers that there were, once upon a time, six
> grades of seniority among siblings, each with its own title--but
> that's fallen out of use.
>
> Since I'm the oldest, I get to be Kuya. It's a nice title to have.


That's really interesting. Did your father spend time in the
Philippines then?

--
the black rose
GO LANCE GO!!!
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
 
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:39:01 GMT, the black rose
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Luigi de Guzman wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:20:08 GMT, the black rose
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>Ah, thanks for clearing that up. But actually, second person plural
>>>would be appropriate, it's just ambiguous in English. I spent enough
>>>years living in the South that I tend to use "you all" for that.

>>
>> that's "y'all".
>>
>> There is a plural to "y'all:" "all y'all"

>
>*cringe* I only lived in the South for a while as an adult. I speak
>standard midwestern American English. I never acclimated to Southern
>culture, and I can't bring myself to say "y'all," I just can't. "You
>all" is as close as I can get, and only because it's a terribly useful
>construction.


"Y'all" surely beats "you guys," particularly when addressing, say, a
girls soccer team.

>Just to throw a spanner in the works, "y'all" isn't universal. In WV
>where I used to live, it was "y'uns" and sometimes "youens." *cringe*


West Virginia, despite a coincidental geographical location south of
the Mason-Dixon line, isn't part of the South. We threw them out 140
years ago.

Pat

Email address works as is.
 
On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 20:39:01 GMT, the black rose
<[email protected]> wrote:

>*cringe* I only lived in the South for a while as an adult. I speak
>standard midwestern American English. I never acclimated to Southern
>culture, and I can't bring myself to say "y'all," I just can't. "You
>all" is as close as I can get, and only because it's a terribly useful
>construction.
>


I acclimated awfully quickly. The climate and food suit me. I'm also
a bit of a lexical hermit-crab: I attach interesting words, phrases,
and expressions to my shell. I guess I learned to do that quickly
when I was a little kid--we moved an awful lot.

>Just to throw a spanner in the works, "y'all" isn't universal. In WV
>where I used to live, it was "y'uns" and sometimes "youens." *cringe*


Fascinating!

>> It persisted among Quaker communities, who insisted on its function as
>> a social leveler--plain speech, you see.

>
>Well yes, but even Quakers are starting to drop it. I've known Quakers
>who didn't use "thou" at all.
>


My history teacher in high school said that, in her family, at least,
the "thou" passed from common use in her mother's generation (1940s?)

>> America bugs me with just how equal everyone seems to be in speech and
>> address. I don't *want* to be on a first-name basis with everybody.
>> I am uncomfortable when older people want me to call them by their
>> first names. It just seems...disrespectful.

>
>I think it's a modern thing. It sounds like you feel similarly to my
>own feelings. I don't like calling older people by their first names.


I'm on last-name basis with some of my best friends; a lot of
Americans can't seem to tell the difference between *decorum* and
*intimacy*. One can be intimately decorous in one's manners of
speech, and detract from neither from his decorum nor the intimacy
with which he olds the person with whom he is speaking.

There is, for me, one more practical benefit to a bit of formality:
it helps me remember names. First names are so similar and
forgettable to me: I think I know a dozen girls named "Sarah," for
instance. But if I can refer to an older stranger by his last name,
that's a lot easier for me to remember. But maybe that's just me.

>I also require my sons to be more formal then I see their friends being,
>and I do NOT allow their friends to call me by my first name, period.
>I've found it induces more respect from them, too. Teenaged boys can be
>such scalawags, and I'm a small woman, I need all the advantage I can get.


Good on you. There's been a universal surrender to incivility,
especially where teenage boys are concerned. If we don't insist on
good manners--at the very least in those spheres of life which we
ourselves control--then these guys don't get socialized in that habit
*at all*.
>
>> In Tagalog, you can't even call your older brother by his first name;
>> he gets the honorific "kuya" (elder brother. Older sisters are
>> "ate"). My father remembers that there were, once upon a time, six
>> grades of seniority among siblings, each with its own title--but
>> that's fallen out of use.
>>
>> Since I'm the oldest, I get to be Kuya. It's a nice title to have.

>
>That's really interesting. Did your father spend time in the
>Philippines then?


We're Filipino. We left the Philippines when I was four, but I have,
in most respects, had a pretty Filipino upbringing. My younger
brothers were born when we had settled here in the US.

-Luigi

"Ako'y isang Pinoy
Sa puso't diwa--
Pinoy naisinilang
Sa ating bansa..."
 
Luigi de Guzman wrote:
> I acclimated awfully quickly. The climate and food suit me. I'm also
> a bit of a lexical hermit-crab: I attach interesting words, phrases,
> and expressions to my shell. I guess I learned to do that quickly
> when I was a little kid--we moved an awful lot.


Heh. There's a marine creature that sticks bits of the environment onto
its carapace for camouflage -- I don't recall if it's a type of hermit
crab or some other little crawly thing.

As for the South -- the climate suits me (I like heat), but the food
disagrees with me as much as the culture does. It's definitely my own
fault that I don't get along in the South; I grew up in southern
California, where making fun of the South was an Olympic sport when I
was a child. ;-) I can't get past the childhood prejudice that they're
all violent under a veneer of civility. The bias got reinforced when I
was introduced to the statistic that 75% of the inmates in US prisons
(at least men's prisons) are either from the South or their parents
were, and further reinforced when our neighbors there were high school
dropouts who kept a loaded gun by the front door. It was dangerous to
make them angry.

>>That's really interesting. Did your father spend time in the
>>Philippines then?

>
>
> We're Filipino. We left the Philippines when I was four, but I have,
> in most respects, had a pretty Filipino upbringing. My younger
> brothers were born when we had settled here in the US.


Oops! I assumed from your name that you were a combination of Italian
and Spanish, hehe. I'm Heinz 57 Varieties myself. My mom was from
midwestern US farm folk (pretty much White Anglo-Saxon Protestant,
though one of my great-grandfathers on that side was named Alonzo, which
makes me wonder), and my dad was the son of a Canadian farmer and a
quebecoise aristocrat (whose family disowned her for marrying such a
peasant). I'm directly related to the Legers of Montreal (although they
don't know it); the cardinal who went to Africa in the late '60s to work
with the lepers was my grandmother's cousin.

ObCycling: Yesterday was the first sunny day we've had since June (it
has literally rained every single day since July 1st), and I forgot the
sunscreen before I rode with my husband yesterday afternoon. I've got a
REALLY impressive sunburn, OUCH. His legs are fine this morning.
Really, we loafed along the whole 12 miles, and he walks a lot so it's
not like he went into it totally out of shape.

--
the black rose
GO LANCE GO!!!
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
 
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> >> America bugs me with just how equal everyone seems to be in speech and
> >> address. I don't *want* to be on a first-name basis with everybody.
> >> I am uncomfortable when older people want me to call them by their
> >> first names. It just seems...disrespectful.

> >
> >I think it's a modern thing. It sounds like you feel similarly to my
> >own feelings. I don't like calling older people by their first names.

>
> I'm on last-name basis with some of my best friends; a lot of
> Americans can't seem to tell the difference between *decorum* and
> *intimacy*. One can be intimately decorous in one's manners of
> speech, and detract from neither from his decorum nor the intimacy
> with which he olds the person with whom he is speaking.


Because there's a consciousness of insider/outsider as well as
hierarchy imbedded in the Japanese language, conveying intimacy while
conveying respect is easy to do. It's much harder in English.

> Good on you. There's been a universal surrender to incivility,
> especially where teenage boys are concerned. If we don't insist on
> good manners--at the very least in those spheres of life which we
> ourselves control--then these guys don't get socialized in that habit
> *at all*.


People don't seem to extend themselves in the area of civilizing
teenaged boys, which I think is essential to them becoming young men.
I have played hard ass ***** twice recently in this area. The first
time, the boys were not being malicious, just being boys. It was at
the local shopping center, where they have an antique carosel for
little kids to ride for a quarter. There's a sign on the carosel
saying that it isn't for kids over 100 pounds and not to maltreat it
in about a half dozen ways. The boys were easily over 100 pounds and
they were goofing around with it, pushing it faster than its
mechanical capacity, etc. Adults were sitting there, watching them do
it, some with tots in hand, waiting for them to be done so that the
little ones could ride. I basically, in a jolly fashion, told them to
cut it out, and they in equally good humor cut it out, and got off.

Second time, I was at a park. It was after dark. Some boys were
knocking over the trash cans and spilling the garbage out over the
walk, and then stomping on the trash cans, trying to bend them out of
usuability. I stormed up to them, yelling my head off, telling them
that it was our park, that they had no right to do that, and used, I
confess, a variety of rather colorful language. They laughed, and
proceeded to tip over and crush the second set of cans. Since my
friends thought that my yelling was because my bike was being stolen
(ob bike content!) they came running along. Now that I had
enforcement, three adult males, the boys ran off, laughing, and
scattered.

What I don't understand is why people stand by when teenagers do this
sort of thing. They need to have boundaries set.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
no sig this evening
 
"Claire Petersky" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> What I don't understand is why people stand by when teenagers do this
> sort of thing. They need to have boundaries set.


"Not my kid, not my responsibility"

And, confronting a pack of teenage boys may be detrimental to your health.
Or so we see on te news everyday.

Pete
Not a thought I subscribe to, but there it is...
 
On 25 Jul 2004 19:03:43 -0700, [email protected] (Claire Petersky)
wrote:
>>
>> I'm on last-name basis with some of my best friends; a lot of
>> Americans can't seem to tell the difference between *decorum* and
>> *intimacy*. One can be intimately decorous in one's manners of
>> speech, and detract from neither from his decorum nor the intimacy
>> with which he olds the person with whom he is speaking.

>
>Because there's a consciousness of insider/outsider as well as
>hierarchy imbedded in the Japanese language, conveying intimacy while
>conveying respect is easy to do. It's much harder in English.


Perhaps I find it easier in my own mind to do it in English, because
of the habits of mind I have from Tagalog and Spanish, where polite
forms exist and are insisted-upon.


>
>> Good on you. There's been a universal surrender to incivility,
>> especially where teenage boys are concerned. If we don't insist on
>> good manners--at the very least in those spheres of life which we
>> ourselves control--then these guys don't get socialized in that habit
>> *at all*.

>
>People don't seem to extend themselves in the area of civilizing
>teenaged boys, which I think is essential to them becoming young men.

....
> They need to have boundaries set.


Quite right, as ever.

It's always so funny to me that everybody spouts this "it takes a
village" stuff, and then blissfully looks the other way and ignores
the actual kids running about everywhere. I can understand not
wanting to get involved, but consider the consequences: those idiots
get drivers' licences, and are the same yahoos that buzz you or throw
beer cans at you as they pass.


-Luigi

www.livejournal.com/users/ouij
Photos, rants, raves
 
Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Remember that three-quarters of the world doesn't have *any* clean
> water *at all*, hot, cold, or tepid.


Many of the same people have no personal experience with ice. Just
imagine trying to explain to someone what ice is when they have never
seen it for themselves....

-Buck
 
On 26 Jul 2004 06:46:17 -0700, [email protected] (Buck)
wrote:

>Luigi de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>> Remember that three-quarters of the world doesn't have *any* clean
>> water *at all*, hot, cold, or tepid.

>
>Many of the same people have no personal experience with ice. Just
>imagine trying to explain to someone what ice is when they have never
>seen it for themselves....


Yes there is that, as well. Gabriel Garcia Marquez described it best
in his memorable opening to _One Hundred Years of Solitude_:

"Many years later, before the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia
would remember that distant afternoon on which his father took him to
discover ice."


-Luigi
 
Luigi de Guzman wrote:
> On 25 Jul 2004 19:03:43 -0700, [email protected] (Claire Petersky)
> wrote:
>>They need to have boundaries set.

>
>
> Quite right, as ever.


It's not just boundaries. It's also that no one is teaching them
personal responsibility or self discipline.

You know, the typical kid these days spends more time at school, with
his friends, or in front of the TV with parents absent, then he does
with his parents. So how is he supposed to learn his parents' values?
What's the statistic? Most parents spend 15 minutes PER WEEK of one on
one time with their kids? How on earth do they expect their children to
learn anything?

Between that and all the women I've heard in grocery store lines during
the holidays b*tching about how their kids are driving them crazy and
they can't WAIT until school starts again to get them out of their hair,
I have to wonder why they even bother having children, if they like them
so little. If you don't like children, if you don't like spending time
with children, then don't have any, sheesh.

> It's always so funny to me that everybody spouts this "it takes a
> village" stuff, and then blissfully looks the other way and ignores
> the actual kids running about everywhere.


Ooh, don't get me started on that one. I've been TOLD by some of these
"it takes a village" twits that I SHOULDN'T HAVE THE RIGHT to teach my
own children my own values. Grr.

> I can understand not
> wanting to get involved, but consider the consequences: those idiots
> get drivers' licences, and are the same yahoos that buzz you or throw
> beer cans at you as they pass.


In Germany, grandmothers are formidable force for social order.
Misbehaving teenagers are often likely to get yelled at by the nearest
grandmother, followed by the teenager's parents, if present. I like
this idea...

-km, gleefully making plans for her white-haired years

--
the black rose
proud to be owned by a yorkie
http://community.webshots.com/user/blackrosequilts
 
the black rose <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> What's the statistic? Most parents spend 15 minutes PER WEEK of one on
> one time with their kids? How on earth do they expect their children to
> learn anything?


I thought that was 15 minutes/day, and it was with one's spouse, but
I'm not sure what statistic you are quoting.

Again, ob bike content: one way to get excellent listening time with
your kids is to captain a tandem with them. Once they realize that
with you in front and kid in back means that you mostly listen, and
they mostly talk, their mouths go a mile a minute. Well, at least my
kids do. And I hear it's the same for husband/wife tandem teams, just
as a warning of a stereotype. Anyway, since the kids can barely hear
you, they realize that they are not going to get long judgements or
criticisms from you, or at least, they won't be able to hear them as
you yell into the wind. So, they feel free to tell you exactly what's
on their minds. It's rather interesting.

Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm