Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 17:00:18 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Evidence or proof.
In this case, there is evidence that armed forces (I'm guessing IDF) are >*deliberately* targeting children.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean anything.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 17:00:18 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Evidence or proof.
In this case, there is evidence that armed forces (I'm guessing IDF) are *deliberately* targeting children.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean >anything.
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Le 26/06/2026 |a 16:01, athel.cb@gmail.com a |-crit :
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean
anything.
Google Web Search finds numerous examples of "But the receipts are there
for all to see" on Twitter (X), Instagram, and other antisocial
networks, and, as far as I can see, none elsewhere. I think I'd write
this use of 'receipts' off as random noise - or deliberate misquotation
in order to stir it by someone who is not a native English speaker - or
as a transcription error if the original was spoken. I can't think what
the original might be, though.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 17:00:18 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Evidence or proof.
In this case, there is evidence that armed forces (I'm guessing IDF) are >*deliberately* targeting children.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 17:00:18 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
The normal meaning of "receipt" in US English is "a document that
proves payment". A cash register receipt is proof that you paid for
the item.
In this case, the meaning used is "proof that it happened". However,
the statement is false. Proof that the children were killed is
available, but that is not proof of intent (targeting). The target
was the location. There is no proof that there was knowledge of who
would be at the target location, so no proof of intent.
What seems more likely is that outdated information was used to
determine the target. A colossal fuck-up, with distasterous results,
but no intent to kill children.
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:46:28 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 17:00:18 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
The normal meaning of "receipt" in US English is "a document that
proves payment". A cash register receipt is proof that you paid for
the item.
Yes, that's the normal meaning in South African English as well. This
is obviously new usage, and its seems, from the responses so far, that
no one in either aue or aeu is familiar with it.
In this case, the meaning used is "proof that it happened". However,
the statement is false. Proof that the children were killed is
available, but that is not proof of intent (targeting). The target
was the location. There is no proof that there was knowledge of who
would be at the target location, so no proof of intent.
On the other hand, if it means evidence, rather than proof, it might
be more accurate.
But my question was about English usage, and not the veracity of the
claim.
And the writer seemed to think that his readers would be familiar with
that usage.
What seems more likely is that outdated information was used to
determine the target. A colossal fuck-up, with distasterous results,
but no intent to kill children.
I don't think the writer was referring to a single incident, but to an >observed pattern.
Le 26/06/2026 |a 16:01, athel.cb@gmail.com a |-crit :
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean
anything.
Google Web Search finds numerous examples of "But the receipts are
there for all to see" on Twitter (X), Instagram, and other antisocial
networks, and, as far as I can see, none elsewhere. I think I'd
write this use of 'receipts' off as random noise - or deliberate
misquotation in order to stir it by someone who is not a native
English speaker - or as a transcription error if the original was
spoken. I can't think what the original might be, though.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:17:14 +0100, Hibou <vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Google Web Search finds numerous examples of "But the receipts are there >for all to see" on Twitter (X), Instagram, and other antisocial
networks, and, as far as I can see, none elsewhere. I think I'd write
this use of 'receipts' off as random noise - or deliberate misquotation
in order to stir it by someone who is not a native English speaker - or
as a transcription error if the original was spoken. I can't think what >the original might be, though.
Yes, it's not the first time I've seen it used like that, so ity
obviously means something to someone -- it's not simply an error.
While not exactly a neologism, it's using an existing word to mean
something it hasn't meant previously. Perhaps I should do a search in
one of those urban dictionaries.
Steve Hayes posted:
Receipts - English usage-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 24 June 2026
-a-a-a-a "In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
-a-a-a-a before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But >>>> -a-a-a-a the receipts are there for all to see..."
-a-a-a-a What does "receipts" mean in this context? [...]
There's plenty of newspaper coverage of the UN report, but I don't think
I've seen any verbatim quoting of what the UN person said. Thus, we
can't tell whether he said "receipts" or that word turned up in
second-hand reports.
My guess is that whoever said it was not a native speaker of English,
who used a word that would have made sense in his own native language.
Le 27/06/2026 a 06:47, Peter Moylan a ocrit :
Steve Hayes posted:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never >>>> before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But >>>> the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context? [...]
There's plenty of newspaper coverage of the UN report, but I don't think I've seen any verbatim quoting of what the UN person said. Thus, we
can't tell whether he said "receipts" or that word turned up in
second-hand reports.
My guess is that whoever said it was not a native speaker of English,
who used a word that would have made sense in his own native language.
As far as I can see, all the examples on the Web are retweets (re-exes?)
or the equivalent on other networks of some source that remains obscure.
I shelved my principles for a moment and put the question to Google's AI (what words in other languages sound like "receipts" in English), and it reminded me that 'rocits' in French (stories, accounts) is pronounced
quite like our 'receipts'. There are similar words in Spanish and Portuguese, it says.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:01:17 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean >anything.
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
It was something I saw on social media. I wasn't replying to it, but
asking the question here.
To me "receipt" can mean one of two things. neither of which makes
sense in that context:
1. A written acknowledgement of payment received.
2. (old-fashioned) a recipe for making something from combined
ingredients -- like a cake, a pie, or a potion.
In this case, the meaning used is "proof that it happened". However,
the statement is false. Proof that the children were killed is
available, but that is not proof of intent (targeting). The target
was the location. There is no proof that there was knowledge of who
would be at the target location, so no proof of intent.
The statement claims there is evidence, but that has not surfaced.
What is known is that the school where the children were killed was
next to an IRG naval base. The location had been part of the naval
base property, but had been walled off and no longer connected to the
naval base. Evidently, the change was not known when the missle was launched.
The missle was aimed using out-dated information. A terrible error,
but not deliberate targeting of children.
Or what's received, e.g. box-office takings.
"The first night was a distinct success... Receipts in the first week reached -u475" - Clarke, 'Secret Life of Wilkie Collins', 1988.
There's plenty of newspaper coverage of the UN report, but I don't think
I've seen any verbatim quoting of what the UN person said. Thus, we
can't tell whether he said "receipts" or that word turned up in
second-hand reports.
My guess is that whoever said it was not a native speaker of English,
who used a word that would have made sense in his own native language.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:46:28 -0400, Tony Cooper
The normal meaning of "receipt" in US English is "a document that
proves payment". A cash register receipt is proof that you paid for
the item.
Yes, that's the normal meaning in South African English as well. This
is obviously new usage, and its seems, from the responses so far, that
no one in either aue or aeu is familiar with it.
Google Web Search finds numerous examples of "But the receipts are there
for all to see" on Twitter (X), Instagram, and other antisocial
networks, and, as far as I can see, none elsewhere. I think I'd write
this use of 'receipts' off as random noise - or deliberate misquotation
in order to stir it by someone who is not a native English speaker - or
as a transcription error if the original was spoken. I can't think what
the original might be, though.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:24:25 +0100, Hibou wrote:
Or what's received, e.g. box-office takings.
"The first night was a distinct success... Receipts in the first week
reached -u475" - Clarke, 'Secret Life of Wilkie Collins', 1988.
OP asked 'in this context'.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:57:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
The statement claims there is evidence, but that has not surfaced.
What is known is that the school where the children were killed was
next to an IRG naval base. The location had been part of the naval
base property, but had been walled off and no longer connected to the
naval base. Evidently, the change was not known when the missle was
launched.
The missle was aimed using out-dated information. A terrible error,
but not deliberate targeting of children.
You're talking about Iran, I'm talking about Gaza. Not sure which one
the OP means.
On 27/06/26 04:17, Hibou wrote:
Le 26/06/2026 a 16:01, athel.cb@gmail.com a ocrit :
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never >>>> before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean
anything.
Google Web Search finds numerous examples of "But the receipts are
there for all to see" on Twitter (X), Instagram, and other antisocial
networks, and, as far as I can see, none elsewhere. I think I'd
write this use of 'receipts' off as random noise - or deliberate
misquotation in order to stir it by someone who is not a native
English speaker - or as a transcription error if the original was
spoken. I can't think what the original might be, though.
There's plenty of newspaper coverage of the UN report, but I don't think
I've seen any verbatim quoting of what the UN person said. Thus, we
can't tell whether he said "receipts" or that word turned up in
second-hand reports.
My guess is that whoever said it was not a native speaker of English,
who used a word that would have made sense in his own native language.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 05:25:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:46:28 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 17:00:18 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
The normal meaning of "receipt" in US English is "a document that
proves payment". A cash register receipt is proof that you paid for
the item.
Yes, that's the normal meaning in South African English as well. This
is obviously new usage, and its seems, from the responses so far, that
no one in either aue or aeu is familiar with it.
Not "obviously". Not "no one". Not new to me.
And the writer seemed to think that his readers would be familiar with
that usage.
The usage is fairly new, but it's been around long enough that those
of us who follow the news wouldn't have found it strange. US news, at
least.
In the 2020 Democratic presidential debate, Amy Klobuchar said she was
"the only one up here with the receipts". She was referring to
having been a proven winner in several elections.
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/26/809640557/what-amy-klobuchar-is-really-saying-when-she-talks-about-having-receipts
Klobuchar used it in a nationally televised debate with millions of
viewers. While the speakers appear to be delivering off-the-cuff
responses, they've pre-prepared their comments and rehearsed them many
times. They wouldn't include a word that no one would be familiar
with.
She also used that phrase in her subsequent political appearances
during the campaign.
I see the usage frequently in US political reporting. It's used in
headlines and body text in many sources.
On 6/26/2026 11:00 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
When that reporter said "receipts", he was actually uttering another
word but his voice was disturbed by something, something like a curse.
So he actually was NOT saying "receipts", but "evidences" as for
example, or words that sound like "receipts" but to mean evidences. It
has the same number of syllables as "receipts".
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 00:31:22 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
Not "obviously". Not "no one". Not new to me.
If that is the case, why didn't you say so?
I see the usage frequently in US political reporting. It's used in >headlines and body text in many sources.
How long has it been around?
On 26/06/2026 20:17, Hibou wrote:
Google Web Search finds numerous examples of "But the receipts are there
for all to see" on Twitter (X), Instagram, and other antisocial
networks, and, as far as I can see, none elsewhere. I think I'd write
this use of 'receipts' off as random noise - or deliberate misquotation
in order to stir it by someone who is not a native English speaker - or
as a transcription error if the original was spoken. I can't think what
the original might be, though.
One possible interpretation of "receipt" is "proof". The word for both "proof" and 'receipt' in Greek is +#-C-i+|+|+|++++ (ap||deixi).
Multiple people have said this.
The thread has been odd. Several gave the current colloquial usage, but several other people acted as if no one had. Perhaps AUE is having propagation problesm.
Yes, this. In my (BrE) understanding, 'having the receipts' can mean
having the proof
In the US the word "receipts" has been used with the meaning "evidence
or proof at hand" for several years. The usage - as in your quote -
would cause no notice to many US readers.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 00:31:22 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 05:25:52 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:46:28 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 17:00:18 +0200, Steve Hayes
<hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never >>>>> before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
The normal meaning of "receipt" in US English is "a document that >>>>proves payment". A cash register receipt is proof that you paid for >>>>the item.
Yes, that's the normal meaning in South African English as well. This
is obviously new usage, and its seems, from the responses so far, that
no one in either aue or aeu is familiar with it.
Not "obviously". Not "no one". Not new to me.
If that is the case, why didn't you say so?
And the writer seemed to think that his readers would be familiar with >>>that usage.
The usage is fairly new, but it's been around long enough that those
of us who follow the news wouldn't have found it strange. US news, at >>least.
Well it would have helped if you had said that earlier.
In the 2020 Democratic presidential debate, Amy Klobuchar said she was
"the only one up here with the receipts". She was referring to
having been a proven winner in several elections.
https://www.npr.org/2020/02/26/809640557/what-amy-klobuchar-is-really-saying-when-she-talks-about-having-receipts
Klobuchar used it in a nationally televised debate with millions of >>viewers. While the speakers appear to be delivering off-the-cuff >>responses, they've pre-prepared their comments and rehearsed them many >>times. They wouldn't include a word that no one would be familiar
with.
She also used that phrase in her subsequent political appearances
during the campaign.
I see the usage frequently in US political reporting. It's used in >>headlines and body text in many sources.
How long has it been around?
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:10:27 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" ><toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:00 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
When that reporter said "receipts", he was actually uttering another
word but his voice was disturbed by something, something like a curse.
So he actually was NOT saying "receipts", but "evidences" as for
example, or words that sound like "receipts" but to mean evidences. It
has the same number of syllables as "receipts".
Except that he was typing it on his own social media account.
And I've just seen a post from Tony Cooper saying that lots of people
say "receipts" in similar contexts.
Phil <phil@anonymous.invalid> wrote or quoted:
Yes, this. In my (BrE) understanding, 'having the receipts' can mean >>having the proof
When someone accuses a person of having stolen some goods,
the person might say, "I have the shopping receipts!".
Those receipts /prove/ that the person has not stolen those
goods.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:10:27 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:00 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
When that reporter said "receipts", he was actually uttering another
word but his voice was disturbed by something, something like a curse.
So he actually was NOT saying "receipts", but "evidences" as for
example, or words that sound like "receipts" but to mean evidences. It
has the same number of syllables as "receipts".
Except that he was typing it on his own social media account.
In article <lfpv3ltg5v5brql4489a2dpb49kf6r5f57@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US the word "receipts" has been used with the meaning
"evidence or proof at hand" for several years. The usage - as in
your quote - would cause no notice to many US readers.
I've never come across it in Britain, though it seems a perfectly
plausible metaphor.
Verily, in article <92fu3l1dloim0vmmtov4os9u3ufckufugi@4ax.com>, did >hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 19:17:14 +0100, Hibou
<vpaereru-unmonitored@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:
Google Web Search finds numerous examples of "But the receipts are there >> >for all to see" on Twitter (X), Instagram, and other antisocial
networks, and, as far as I can see, none elsewhere. I think I'd write
this use of 'receipts' off as random noise - or deliberate misquotation
in order to stir it by someone who is not a native English speaker - or
as a transcription error if the original was spoken. I can't think what
the original might be, though.
Yes, it's not the first time I've seen it used like that, so ity
obviously means something to someone -- it's not simply an error.
While not exactly a neologism, it's using an existing word to mean
something it hasn't meant previously. Perhaps I should do a search in
one of those urban dictionaries.
It means proof in the sense of hard evidence. If I tell you that I have
the receipts for my statements, I mean that I can produce evidence if >needed.
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:57:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
The statement claims there is evidence, but that has not surfaced.
What is known is that the school where the children were killed
was next to an IRG naval base. The location had been part of the
naval base property, but had been walled off and no longer
connected to the naval base. Evidently, the change was not known
when the missle was launched.
The missle was aimed using out-dated information. A terrible
error, but not deliberate targeting of children.
You're talking about Iran, I'm talking about Gaza. Not sure which
one the OP means.
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:01:17 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
<user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
anything.
It was something I saw on social media. I wasn't replying to it, but
asking the question here.
To me "receipt" can mean one of two things. neither of which makes
sense in that context:
1. A written acknowledgement of payment received.
2. (old-fashioned) a recipe for making something from combined
ingredients -- like a cake, a pie, or a potion.
OT, because relating to the matter at hand:
(from a Dutch newspaper) ><https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/2025/gunshot-palestine-children-israel-war~v1819649/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F>
While deliberate intent is of course hard to prove,
the material evidence certainly points that way,
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:40:29 +0200, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:57:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
The statement claims there is evidence, but that has not surfaced.
What is known is that the school where the children were killed was
next to an IRG naval base. The location had been part of the naval
base property, but had been walled off and no longer connected to the
naval base. Evidently, the change was not known when the missle was
launched.
The missle was aimed using out-dated information. A terrible error,
but not deliberate targeting of children.
You're talking about Iran, I'm talking about Gaza. Not sure which one
the OP means.
I see. The problem seems to be that Peter's post, which contained "In
all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see...", does not indicate if the
journalist was referring to the school missle strike or actions in
Gaza.
I made an assumption, and so did you.
Verily, in article <k2004llnlo51ukuku5mjok7qcre17627i1@4ax.com>, did >hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 00:31:22 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
Not "obviously". Not "no one". Not new to me.
If that is the case, why didn't you say so?
Multiple people have said this.
The thread has been odd. Several gave the current colloquial usage, but >several other people acted as if no one had. Perhaps AUE is having >propagation problesm.
--I see the usage frequently in US political reporting. It's used in
headlines and body text in many sources.
How long has it been around?
At least since 2019. I don't hear it now as much as I did a few years
ago.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 05:25:52 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:46:28 -0400, Tony Cooper
The normal meaning of "receipt" in US English is "a document that
proves payment". A cash register receipt is proof that you paid for
the item.
Yes, that's the normal meaning in South African English as well. This
is obviously new usage, and its seems, from the responses so far, that
no one in either aue or aeu is familiar with it.
No one?
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:10:27 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:00 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never >> >> before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
When that reporter said "receipts", he was actually uttering another
word but his voice was disturbed by something, something like a curse.
So he actually was NOT saying "receipts", but "evidences" as for
example, or words that sound like "receipts" but to mean evidences. It
has the same number of syllables as "receipts".
Except that he was typing it on his own social media account.
And to alt.conspiracy and alt.politics.org.fbi
You should have removed the cross-posting in your reply,
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:16:51 -0400, The True Melissa ><thetruemelissa@gmail.com> wrote:
Verily, in article <k2004llnlo51ukuku5mjok7qcre17627i1@4ax.com>, did >>hayesstw@telkomsa.net deliver unto us this message:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 00:31:22 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
Not "obviously". Not "no one". Not new to me.
If that is the case, why didn't you say so?
Multiple people have said this.
The thread has been odd. Several gave the current colloquial usage, but >>several other people acted as if no one had. Perhaps AUE is having >>propagation problesm.
No one said so in the initial replies to my question, from which it
appeared that no one here knew.
Two of the initial replies were from Tony Cooper, who, as it turns
out, did know, but did not reveal that in his initial replies.
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
Evidence or proof.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 11:01:56 -0400, Tony Cooper
<tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:40:29 +0200, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:57:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
The statement claims there is evidence, but that has not surfaced.
What is known is that the school where the children were killed was
next to an IRG naval base. The location had been part of the naval
base property, but had been walled off and no longer connected to the
naval base. Evidently, the change was not known when the missle was
launched.
The missle was aimed using out-dated information. A terrible error,
but not deliberate targeting of children.
You're talking about Iran, I'm talking about Gaza. Not sure which one
the OP means.
I see. The problem seems to be that Peter's post, which contained "In
all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see...", does not indicate if the >>journalist was referring to the school missle strike or actions in
Gaza.
I made an assumption, and so did you.
I am the OP (in this NG), and I quoted one paragraph from the original >article to give enough context for people to see the context in which
trope I was talking about appeared.
If I had wanted to discuss the content of the article, I would have
quoted more of it, or perhaps even copied the whole thing, and named
the author, whose name I have forgotten, and I'd probably find it
difficult to find it again now.
And to alt.conspiracy and alt.politics.org.fbiDO you wanna patch those old NNTP server programs
You should have removed the cross-posting in your reply,
Israel has, of course responded by saying that the claims were based on
lies, and on witness statements from on-the-ground witnesses who cannot
be trusted. Its response included saying that all Palestinians,
including children, were terrorists.
On 28/06/26 04:49, Richard Tobin wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
In the US the word "receipts" has been used with the meaning
"evidence or proof at hand" for several years.-a The usage - as in
your quote - would cause no notice to many US readers.
I've never come across it in Britain, though it seems a perfectly
plausible metaphor.
Interesting. So it's a known meaning in AmE, but was a mystery to the
rest of us. A good example of American usage that, for some reason,
never crossed the oceans.
I've marked this thread "ignore"
There have been many people passing through this newsgroup that should
be ignored. In my opinion, this Mr. Man-wai Chang character tops the
list.
Anyone who attributes word usage choices to curses, magic, witchcraft
and for other bizarre reasons must be dictating his posts. He
couldn't be typing because his arms are constrainted in a
straitjacket. Or should be.
In article <lfpv3ltg5v5brql4489a2dpb49kf6r5f57@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
In the US the word "receipts" has been used with the meaning "evidence
or proof at hand" for several years. The usage - as in your quote -
would cause no notice to many US readers.
I've never come across it in Britain, though it seems a perfectly
plausible metaphor.
-- Richard
Le 27/06/2026 |a 06:47, Peter Moylan a |-crit :
Steve Hayes posted:
Receipts - English usage-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a 24 June 2026
-a-a-a-a "In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never
-a-a-a-a before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
-a-a-a-a the receipts are there for all to see..."
-a-a-a-a What does "receipts" mean in this context? [...]
There's plenty of newspaper coverage of the UN report, but I don't think I've seen any verbatim quoting of what the UN person said. Thus, we
can't tell whether he said "receipts" or that word turned up in second-hand reports.
My guess is that whoever said it was not a native speaker of English,
who used a word that would have made sense in his own native language.
As far as I can see, all the examples on the Web are retweets (re-exes?) or the equivalent on other networks of some source that remains obscure.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 23:10:35 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:10:27 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:00 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never >>>>> before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But >>>>> the receipts are there for all to see..."
When that reporter said "receipts", he was actually uttering another
word but his voice was disturbed by something, something like a curse. >>>>
So he actually was NOT saying "receipts", but "evidences" as for
example, or words that sound like "receipts" but to mean evidences. It >>>> has the same number of syllables as "receipts".
Except that he was typing it on his own social media account.
And to alt.conspiracy and alt.politics.org.fbi
You should have removed the cross-posting in your reply,
I've marked this thread "ignore"
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:58:54 +0200, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 05:25:52 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:46:28 -0400, Tony Cooper
The normal meaning of "receipt" in US English is "a document that
proves payment". A cash register receipt is proof that you paid for
the item.
Yes, that's the normal meaning in South African English as well. This
is obviously new usage, and its seems, from the responses so far, that
no one in either aue or aeu is familiar with it.
No one?
No one whose replies I had seen in these newsgroups up to Sat, 27 Jun
2026 05:25:52 +0200,
On 27/06/26 21:40, s|b wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:57:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
The statement claims there is evidence, but that has not surfaced.
What is known is that the school where the children were killed
was next to an IRG naval base. The location had been part of the
naval base property, but had been walled off and no longer
connected to the naval base. Evidently, the change was not known
when the missle was launched.
The missle was aimed using out-dated information. A terrible
error, but not deliberate targeting of children.
You're talking about Iran, I'm talking about Gaza. Not sure which
one the OP means.
The original accusation, that Israel was deliberately targeting
children, came from the UN's Independent International Commission of
Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory. All subsequent commentary
on the matter, by journalists and subsequently by twitterers, was a
reaction to that UN statement. So it was definitely about Gaza, with
some side comment about settler violence in the occupied West Bank.
Israel has, of course responded by saying that the claims were based on
lies, and on witness statements from on-the-ground witnesses who cannot
be trusted. Its response included saying that all Palestinians,
including children, were terrorists.
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 23:10:35 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 12:10:27 +0800, "Mr. Man-wai Chang"
<toylet.toylet@gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2026 11:00 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never >> >> before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
When that reporter said "receipts", he was actually uttering another
word but his voice was disturbed by something, something like a curse.
So he actually was NOT saying "receipts", but "evidences" as for
example, or words that sound like "receipts" but to mean evidences. It
has the same number of syllables as "receipts".
Except that he was typing it on his own social media account.
And to alt.conspiracy and alt.politics.org.fbi
You should have removed the cross-posting in your reply,
I've marked this thread "ignore"
On Sat, 27 Jun 2026 13:25:50 +0200, nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.l-war~v1819649/?referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F>
Lodder) wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2026 15:01:17 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com
<user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> posted:
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026Who are you replying to? If it's some nutter then "receipts" could mean >> >anything.
"In all my years covering conflicts in the Middle East, I've never >> >> before seen armed forces *deliberately* targeting children. But
the receipts are there for all to see..."
What does "receipts" mean in this context?
It was something I saw on social media. I wasn't replying to it, but
asking the question here.
To me "receipt" can mean one of two things. neither of which makes
sense in that context:
1. A written acknowledgement of payment received.
2. (old-fashioned) a recipe for making something from combined
ingredients -- like a cake, a pie, or a potion.
OT, because relating to the matter at hand:
(from a Dutch newspaper) ><https://www.volkskrant.nl/kijkverder/v/2025/gunshot-palestine-children-israe
tps%3A%2F%2Fwww.volkskrant.nl%2Fprivacygate-confirm%3FredirectUri%3D%252Fkijkverder%252Fv%252F2025%252Fgunshot-palestine-children-israel-war~v1819649%252F%253Freferrer%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.google.com%25252F&isLoggedIn=false>While deliberate intent is of course hard to prove,
the material evidence certainly points that way,
That link led me to this one, where the result is too out of focus to
read:
<https://myprivacy.dpgmedia.nl/consent?siteKey=PUBX2BuuZfEPJ6vF&callbackUrl=ht
Are you saying that Dutch has a similar trope to the AmE one?
Steve, stop trying to justify your sketchy thought processes. I agreeNot Steve, me. Because what Steve said can be fun
with Jan (and Athel, his first response to your message).
....
Subsequently you expand your audience to alt.conspiracy and alt.politics.org.fbi. Very odd decision.
I don't think I'd ever heard it before, but I was in no doubt about its meaning and origin when I saw it here. "Receipts" are such a common and crucial type of evidence in cases where someone is accused of receiving stolen goods, misappropriation of public funds, etc. A proper receipt
will show not only that you bought it, but when, where, for how much,
and from whom. [...]
Dutch has 'retu' for 'receipt' with the meaning of proof of having given something/having delivered something. (same as 'bewijs van ontvangst')
From French of course.
It has 'recept' for English 'recipe', (usually culinary)
On 6/28/2026 3:35 PM, occam wrote:
Steve, stop trying to justify your sketchy thought processes. I agree
with Jan (and Athel, his first response to your message).
....
Subsequently you expand your audience to alt.conspiracy and
alt.politics.org.fbi. Very odd decision.
Not Steve, me. Because what Steve said can be fun
if posted in alt.conspirawcy. :)
That link led me to this one, where the result is too out of focus to
read:
<https://myprivacy.dpgmedia.nl/consent?siteKey=PUBX2BuuZfEPJ6vF&callbackUrl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.volkskrant.nl%2Fprivacygate-confirm%3FredirectUri%3D%252Fkijkverder%252Fv%252F2025%252Fgunshot-palestine-children-israel-war~v1819649%252F%253Freferrer%253Dhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.google.com%25252F&isLoggedIn=false>
Are you saying that Dutch has a similar trope to the AmE one?
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Are you saying that Dutch has a similar trope to the AmE one?
Of course not. It seems to be a typically American abuse of language.
Dutch has 're|ou' for 'receipt' with the meaning of proof of having given something/having delivered something. (same as 'bewijs van ontvangst')
From French of course.
It has 'recept' for English 'recipe', (usually culinary)
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:01:47 +0200, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
Are you saying that Dutch has a similar trope to the AmE one?
Of course not. It seems to be a typically American abuse of language.
Dutch has 'retu' for 'receipt' with the meaning of proof of having given something/having delivered something. (same as 'bewijs van ontvangst')
From French of course.
It has 'recept' for English 'recipe', (usually culinary)
You're generalising again. You won't hear 'retu' (French for 'received')
in Flanders, where we also speak Dutch.
(They really use retu in the Netherlands? How weird is that?)
Not Steve, me [Man-wai] . Because what Steve said can be fun
if posted in alt.conspirawcy. EfOe
Just recently I was complaining that, each time I put a lot of effort
into making something idiot-proof, someone designs a better idiot.
From that point of view, Man-wai Chang can be refreshing. He is not a
better idiot. He has consistently been the same old idiot for many years.
On 28/06/2026 13:28, Peter Moylan wrote:You two are really trolling. It's not
(They really use re|ou in the Netherlands? How weird is that?)
Yes, and even 're|ouutje'
(becoming slightly obsolete though)
'Les Flamands'
are often quite silly with their language wars. [1]
They just don't want to know how much French influence
there is in real Dutch, as spoken by the Dutch.
(and as spoken by their own upper classes
until those language wars got started)
(explanation pour les Anglo-Saxons)
So the Flemish speak a peculiar 'purified' pseudo-Dutch
of their own making, which they pretend is the really pure Dutch.
At the same time they are blissfully unaware how much closer
their Flemish is to French than Dutch is.
They have banished words that seemed too French-derived, (like re|ou)
but the whole structure of their language is more French-like.
Le 28/06/2026 a 07:57, Ross Clark a ocrit :
I don't think I'd ever heard it before, but I was in no doubt about its
meaning and origin when I saw it here. "Receipts" are such a common and
crucial type of evidence in cases where someone is accused of receiving
stolen goods, misappropriation of public funds, etc. A proper receipt will >> show not only that you bought it, but when, where, for how much, and from >> whom. [...]
The meaning was deducible from context, but the choice of word looked like an
error. Better the mot juste, in this case 'evidence'; better plain English than a limping attempt at decoration.
Anyway, when buying a new metaphor it's wise to keep the receipt. Then if it doesn't suit, you can return it for a refund.
With a quizzical look, Hibou observed:
The meaning was deducible from context, but the choice of word looked
like an error. Better the mot juste, in this case 'evidence'; better
plain English than a limping attempt at decoration.
Much of the choice has to do with the impact you desire.-a Sometimes
plain English does that best, sometimes it doesn't.
There is also the impact the phrase has had on the speaker ... if a
bunch of recent usages has moved the phrase to the front, it might have displaced the plain English, and seem clearer to the speaker.
And there was a time when "evidence" and "proof" weren't plain English. Language evolves despite curmudgeons best efforts. [...]
Receipts - English usage 24 June 2026
Le 01/07/2026 a 03:40, Snidely a ocrit :
With a quizzical look, Hibou observed:
The meaning was deducible from context, but the choice of word looked like >>> an error. Better the mot juste, in this case 'evidence'; better plain
English than a limping attempt at decoration.
Much of the choice has to do with the impact you desire.a Sometimes plain >> English does that best, sometimes it doesn't.
In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration. Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting readers and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers shooting children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a stack of receipts?
There is also the impact the phrase has had on the speaker ... if a bunch >> of recent usages has moved the phrase to the front, it might have displaced >> the plain English, and seem clearer to the speaker.
Metaphors are dangerous, because they so often die or become clichos or both.
Standard words generally have a much longer life.
In a world where so many try to ginger up their sentences, plain English has great power.
And there was a time when "evidence" and "proof" weren't plain English.
Language evolves despite curmudgeons best efforts. [...]
Is it only curmudgeons, surly miserly people, who object to linguistic misuse? What about the good people of aue and aeu, who love the language and would rather not see it come to harm?
Would it be curmudgeonly to object to someone using our carefully sharpened chisels as screwdrivers?
Remember when Hibou bragged outrageously?-a That was Tuesday:
Le 01/07/2026 |a 03:40, Snidely a |-crit :
Much of the choice has to do with the impact you desire.-a Sometimes
plain English does that best, sometimes it doesn't.
In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces
deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration.
Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting readers
and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers shooting
children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a stack of
receipts?
You mean a stack of register papers.-a Try to get it right.
[that's intended to be minor irony. or pointing the petard back at you]
You are acting as if the entire audience had the reaction you're
having.-a While I'm not claiming they didn't, we both lack the data to support either claim.-a I am going to assume that there were enough
people who weren't confused or bothered by the usage that we should
consider it acceptable in the context. [...]
Remember when Hibou bragged outrageously? That was Tuesday:
In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces
deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration.
Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting
readers and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers
shooting children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a
stack of receipts?
You mean a stack of register papers. Try to get it right.
[that's intended to be minor irony. or pointing the petard back at
you]
You are acting as if the entire audience had the reaction you're
having. While I'm not claiming they didn't, we both lack the data to
support either claim. I am going to assume that there were enough
people who weren't confused or bothered by the usage that we should
consider it acceptable in the context.
On 01/07/26 20:21, Snidely wrote:
Remember when Hibou bragged outrageously? That was Tuesday:
[Topic: the use of "receipts" to mean "proof" or "evidence".]
In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces
deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration.
Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting
readers and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers
shooting children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a
stack of receipts?
You mean a stack of register papers. Try to get it right.
[that's intended to be minor irony. or pointing the petard back at
you]
You are acting as if the entire audience had the reaction you're
having. While I'm not claiming they didn't, we both lack the data to
support either claim. I am going to assume that there were enough
people who weren't confused or bothered by the usage that we should consider it acceptable in the context.
Enough information flows around the world that we're usually aware of
words that are used differently in different countries. So, for example,
if I hear someone using "gas" for a liquid fuel, I know that that is perfectly normal AmE. I wouldn't say it myself, but I understand it when
I hear it.
That observation isn't confined to English. In most languages, people
who speak one dialect have a pretty good understanding of at least some
of the other dialects.
The present case is unusual because the non-Americans among us had never heard "receipts" being used in that way. We were completely blindsided
by it. For whatever reason, that usage had not escaped the borders of
north America. And the explanations were slow in coming. When we heard
that that meaning was understood by one person in Flanders and another
in Florida, it wasn't yet clear that a lot of Americans understood it.
I, like Hibou, am still uncomfortable with it. The news that started
this discussion was revelations by doctors of large numbers of young
children who had been killed by a single shot to the head. (Something
that doesn't often happen accidentally.) Using a cash register metaphor
for that sounds tasteless, and an attempt to trivialise the incidents.
We wouldn't be disagreeing if the meaning "recieipts"="evidence" was widespread in the English-speaking world; but it isn't.
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:
That observation isn't confined to English. In most languages, people
who speak one dialect have a pretty good understanding of at least some
of the other dialects.
Yes, but misunderstandings can still arise. The common everyday word for
baby is "guagua" in Chile, Peru and Ecuador; in Cuba and the Canary Islands the same word means bus. Elsewhere the word isn't used, but is understood with the bus meaning, and confusion can arise if you ask for the secci||n de guaguas in a shop in Madrid, as my wife once did. She wasn't interested in buying a bus.
Le 01/07/2026 |a 13:57, athel.cb@gmail.com a |-crit :
Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org> posted:
That observation isn't confined to English. In most languages,
people who speak one dialect have a pretty good understanding of
at least some of the other dialects.
Yes, but misunderstandings can still arise. The common everyday
word for baby is "guagua" in Chile, Peru and Ecuador; in Cuba and
the Canary Islands the same word means bus. Elsewhere the word
isn't used, but is understood with the bus meaning, and confusion
can arise if you ask for the secci||n de guaguas in a shop in
Madrid, as my wife once did. She wasn't interested in buying a
bus.
"I'm gasping for a fag!"
Le 01/07/2026 |a 03:40, Snidely a |-crit :
With a quizzical look, Hibou observed:
The meaning was deducible from context, but the choice of word looked
like an error. Better the mot juste, in this case 'evidence'; better
plain English than a limping attempt at decoration.
Much of the choice has to do with the impact you desire.-a Sometimes
plain English does that best, sometimes it doesn't.
In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces
deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration.
Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting readers
and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers shooting
children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a stack of >receipts?
Hibou wrote:
In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces
deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration.
Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting readers
and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers shooting
children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a stack of
receipts?
I suppose that depends on who the writer imagines the readers will be.
I take it that the writer is a journalist, and assumes that the
readers, or most of them, will be familiar with the idiom.
The problem that occurs to me is that apparently most of those who are familiar with the idiom are in the US, but it is the US media that
have done most to hide the events referred to, so that those most
familiar with the facts would find the idiom unfamiliar, and those
familiar with the idiom would find the facts incredible.
Le 02/07/2026 |a 04:16, Steve Hayes a |-crit :
Hibou wrote:
In this case the statement was a strong one, about armed forces
deliberately choosing children as targets. It needed no decoration.
Trying to enliven it with non-standard words risks distracting readers
and weakening it. If one has evoked an image of soldiers shooting
children, does it help to overlay that with a picture of a stack of
receipts?
I suppose that depends on who the writer imagines the readers will be.
I take it that the writer is a journalist, and assumes that the
readers, or most of them, will be familiar with the idiom.
The problem that occurs to me is that apparently most of those who are
familiar with the idiom are in the US, but it is the US media that
have done most to hide the events referred to, so that those most
familiar with the facts would find the idiom unfamiliar, and those
familiar with the idiom would find the facts incredible.
An unfamiliar metaphor can work well, and is probably (always?) a live
one. A familiar one may be worn out, dead or moribund, but there may
still be reason to use it. It may, for example, have become a common or
the usual way to say something (brand new-|, falling in love, cut >cornersrCa) and quite unremarkable.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:55:29 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 281,112 |