The meaning and the subject of "Who uses it"? has been covered, but
what has not been covered is "Why use it?".
That question is more interesting to me.
When someone says/writes "I have the receipts", to indicate that they
have proof or evidence of a situation or crime, why do they say that
instead of the simpler and more understandable "I have proof of this"
or "I have the evidence that proves this."?
It seems that people pick up on new phrases or word usage just because
others have, and not because it expresses the thought better.
Most here who are not Americans seem to think that "receipts" in this
context is an Americanism, a mistake, and an inappropropriate usage.
However, my bottom dollar would be bet on the belief that if some -
say, British or even South African - popular writer would use
"receipts" in this context that it would spread. Some other writer
would use it, and then another, and finally it would no longer be an >Americanism but recognized as common usage in that sphere.
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real >conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket.
In article <mqa24ltljg7qpg1h3tn7a9lilv3gj10qd9@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real >>conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket.
The same is true of many British people.
The meaning and the subject of "Who uses it"? has been covered, but
what has not been covered is "Why use it?".
That question is more interesting to me.
When someone says/writes "I have the receipts", to indicate that they
have proof or evidence of a situation or crime, why do they say that
instead of the simpler and more understandable "I have proof of this"
or "I have the evidence that proves this."?
It seems that people pick up on new phrases or word usage just because
others have, and not because it expresses the thought better.
Most here who are not Americans seem to think that "receipts" in this
context is an Americanism, a mistake, and an inappropropriate usage.
However, my bottom dollar would be bet on the belief that if some -
say, British or even South African - popular writer would use
"receipts" in this context that it would spread. Some other writer
would use it, and then another, and finally it would no longer be an Americanism but recognized as common usage in that sphere.
There are quite a few "Americanisms" or "Britishisms" that are now
used commonly in writings and speech in places that are not the US or
the UK.
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
No question here. Just an observation.
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
No question here. Just an observation.
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> writes:
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
But not LBW. I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.
No question here. Just an observation.
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
8< snip >8
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
I studied (British) English for 5 years and I have no clue what 'sticky >wicket' means. I think the English have great expressions. Sometimes I
pick them up, but that's not always easy, because I don't use them often >enough.
One that did stick was one I learned through gaming with an Englishman.
At one point he said: 'I don't know you from Adam.', something which I
was never taught. They should have taught us more things like that.
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
8< snip >8
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
I studied (British) English for 5 years and I have no clue what 'sticky wicket' means. I think the English have great expressions. Sometimes I
pick them up, but that's not always easy, because I don't use them often enough.
One that did stick was one I learned through gaming with an Englishman.
At one point he said: 'I don't know you from Adam.', something which I
was never taught. They should have taught us more things like that.
"The home keeper was on a pair, vulnerable to anything from a yorker
to a chinaman, when he fell to a googly given plenty of air. Silly
mid on appealed for leg before, Dicky Bird's finger shot up and the
tail collapsed. Not surprisingly, the skipper took the light. Next
morning the night watchman, defiantly out of his popping crease,
snicked a cover drive off a no ball straight through the gullies and
on a fast outfield third man failed to stop the boundary
... etc. etc."
"Readers in England, the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, India, >Pakistan, Sri Lanka and anglophone Africa would understand every word"
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 17:03:52 -0000 (UTC), richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
(Richard Tobin) wrote:
In article <mqa24ltljg7qpg1h3tn7a9lilv3gj10qd9@4ax.com>,
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> wrote:
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket.
The same is true of many British people.
I've heard cricket commentators speak of a batsman "stepping up to the
plate" without apparently realising that that's a whole 'nother ball
game. In cricket a batsman "steps up the the crease".
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:53:49 +0200, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
8< snip >8
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
I studied (British) English for 5 years and I have no clue what 'sticky
wicket' means. I think the English have great expressions. Sometimes I
pick them up, but that's not always easy, because I don't use them often
enough.
One that did stick was one I learned through gaming with an Englishman.
At one point he said: 'I don't know you from Adam.', something which I
was never taught. They should have taught us more things like that.
I didn't know that was a Britishism. I also see/hear a variation of
that: I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an ox,
let alone an Off one.
On 29/06/2026 17:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:53:49 +0200, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
8< snip >8
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
I studied (British) English for 5 years and I have no clue what 'sticky
wicket' means. I think the English have great expressions. Sometimes I
pick them up, but that's not always easy, because I don't use them often >> enough.
One that did stick was one I learned through gaming with an Englishman.
At one point he said: 'I don't know you from Adam.', something which I
was never taught. They should have taught us more things like that.
I didn't know that was a Britishism. I also see/hear a variation of
that: I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an ox,
let alone an Off one.
Good point. One imagines that Adam ought to have predated the invention
of farming, and hence the need for oxen to pull a plough.
"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> posted:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
8< snip >8
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
I studied (British) English for 5 years and I have no clue what 'sticky
wicket' means. I think the English have great expressions. Sometimes I
pick them up, but that's not always easy, because I don't use them often
enough.
One that did stick was one I learned through gaming with an Englishman.
At one point he said: 'I don't know you from Adam.', something which I
was never taught. They should have taught us more things like that.
Once Richard Dawkins was criticizing Stephen J. Goould's assumption that all >his readers were as passionate about rounders (sorry, baseball) as he was and >wondered how US readers would react if he wrote something like this in a >serious book:
"The home keeper was on a pair, vulnerable to anything from a yorker to a >chinaman, when he fell to a googly given plenty of air. Silly mid on appealed >for leg before, Dicky BirdAs finger shot up and the tail collapsed. Not >surprisingly, the skipper took the light. Next morning the night watchman, >defiantly out of his popping crease, snicked a cover drive off a no ball >straight through the gullies and on a fast outfield third man failed to
stop the boundary a etc. etc.o
"Readers in England, the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka and anglophone Africa would understand every word, but Americans, >after enduring a page or two, would rightly protest."
Good point. One imagines that Adam ought to have predated the invention
of farming, and hence the need for oxen to pull a plough.
On 29/06/2026 17:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
I didn't know that was a Britishism. I also see/hear a variationGood point. One imagines that Adam ought to have predated the
of that: I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an
ox, let alone an Off one.
invention of farming, and hence the need for oxen to pull a plough.
On 30/06/26 05:30, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 29/06/2026 17:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
I didn't know that was a Britishism. I also see/hear a variationGood point. One imagines that Adam ought to have predated the
of that: I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an
ox, let alone an Off one.
invention of farming, and hence the need for oxen to pull a plough.
In my mind the "off" refers to a particular side of the road. That
suggests an ox-cart rather than a plough, because when ploughing a field >there isn't, I feel, any distinction between the on side and the off
side. The phrase couldn't exist until Adam had developed the habit of
driving on one side of the road.
On 29/06/2026 07:33, Mike Spencer wrote:
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> writes:
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
But not LBW. I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.
Did he go on to explain a 'googly'? BrE had 'googly' before Google came along.
On 30/06/26 05:30, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 29/06/2026 17:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
I didn't know that was a Britishism. I also see/hear a variationGood point. One imagines that Adam ought to have predated the
of that: I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an
ox, let alone an Off one.
invention of farming, and hence the need for oxen to pull a plough.
In my mind the "off" refers to a particular side of the road. That
suggests an ox-cart rather than a plough, because when ploughing a field there isn't, I feel, any distinction between the on side and the off
side. The phrase couldn't exist until Adam had developed the habit of
driving on one side of the road.
occam <occam@nowhere.nix> writes:
On 29/06/2026 07:33, Mike Spencer wrote:
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> writes:
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
But not LBW. I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.
Did he go on to explain a 'googly'? BrE had 'googly' before Google came
along.
No. Enlightenment awaited.
I knew about the googol long before Google morphed and coopted it but
nothing like that ever came up with my Brit informant.
One trip to the UK, we stopped to watch a cricket match. There was a
young lad - maybe 9 to 12 years-old - sitting on the grass a bit away
from the pitch. He seemed friendly, so I explained that we were
Americans, knew nothing about cricket, and asked if he could give me a general rundown of what was transpiring.
He shot me a look of pure disdain at my ignorance, but did give me a
general description of how the game is played. I nodded apprecievely,
but asked for some clarification of some of his statements.
Finally, evidently deciding I was hopelessly incapable of
understanding simple concepts - and quite possibly mentally deficient
- he stood, dusted himself off and went away. I spotted him later
sitting on the grass on the far side of the pitch.
athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
"The home keeper was on a pair, vulnerable to anything from a yorker
to a chinaman, when he fell to a googly given plenty of air. Silly
mid on appealed for leg before, Dicky Bird's finger shot up and the
tail collapsed. Not surprisingly, the skipper took the light. Next
morning the night watchman, defiantly out of his popping crease,
snicked a cover drive off a no ball straight through the gullies and
on a fast outfield third man failed to stop the boundary
... etc. etc."
"Readers in England, the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, India,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka and anglophone Africa would understand every word"
Amusing, but it's by no means true that all - or even most - readers
in England would understand every word.
That's from Leftpondia. But mounting a horse from the left AFAIK is pondia-independent as the ox tradition may also be.
For extra credit: How many shoes on a shod ox?
For example: if the cap on a jar is tight, it may not be possible to
undo it with bare hands, but it may be possible with a cloth (I mean in
the case where there is enough friction for a proper grip with either).
Now the cloth can't make you any stronger, but what it can do is pad the
lid and defer the onset of pain - and the limit does seem to be pain,
not strength (this is why lepers with no feeling in their hands lose
their digits). Simples, I think!
Le 29/06/2026 |a 21:36, Tony Cooper a |-crit :
One trip to the UK, we stopped to watch a cricket match. There was
a young lad - maybe 9 to 12 years-old - sitting on the grass a bit
away from the pitch. He seemed friendly, so I explained that we
were Americans, knew nothing about cricket, and asked if he could
give me a general rundown of what was transpiring.
He shot me a look of pure disdain at my ignorance, but did give me
a general description of how the game is played. I nodded
apprecievely, but asked for some clarification of some of his
statements.
Finally, evidently deciding I was hopelessly incapable of
understanding simple concepts - and quite possibly mentally
deficient - he stood, dusted himself off and went away. I spotted
him later sitting on the grass on the far side of the pitch.
I wonder if this is related: I seem to observe that it's impossible
to explain simple mechanical ideas to some people (or other ideas for
that matter). Perhaps they've just never thought about mechanics, and
so it's just so much Greek to them.
For example: if the cap on a jar is tight, it may not be possible to
undo it with bare hands, but it may be possible with a cloth (I mean
in the case where there is enough friction for a proper grip with
either). Now the cloth can't make you any stronger, but what it can
do is pad the lid and defer the onset of pain - and the limit does
seem to be pain, not strength (this is why lepers with no feeling in
their hands lose their digits). Simples, I think!
(Some jars we buy are beyond even this. I used to use an old chain
wrench on them, but this was oily and risky. I now have a strap
wrench for the purpose, though even then it's sometimes touch and go.
The commercial grippers one can buy don't look nearly as sturdy as
the wrench).
As with lids, so with cricket?
On 30/06/26 16:03, Hibou wrote:
(Some jars we buy are beyond even this. I used to use an old chain
wrench on them, but this was oily and risky. I now have a strap
wrench for the purpose, though even then it's sometimes touch and go.
The commercial grippers one can buy don't look nearly as sturdy as
the wrench).
One way I tackle that problem is to hit the edge of the lid with the
back of a knife. With luck, you'll cause just enough distortion to let
the vacuum out.
As with lids, so with cricket?
Cricket is more complicated than lids.
(Some jars we buy are beyond even this. I used to use an old chain
wrench on them, but this was oily and risky. I now have a strap
wrench for the purpose, though even then it's sometimes touch and go.
The commercial grippers one can buy don't look nearly as sturdy as
the wrench).
One way I tackle that problem is to hit the edge of the lid with the
back of a knife. With luck, you'll cause just enough distortion to let
the vacuum out.
In article <1782752346-12588@newsgrouper.org>,
athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
"The home keeper was on a pair, vulnerable to anything from a yorker
to a chinaman, when he fell to a googly given plenty of air. Silly
mid on appealed for leg before, Dicky Bird's finger shot up and the
tail collapsed. Not surprisingly, the skipper took the light. Next
morning the night watchman, defiantly out of his popping crease,
snicked a cover drive off a no ball straight through the gullies and
on a fast outfield third man failed to stop the boundary
... etc. etc."
"Readers in England, the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, India, >Pakistan, Sri Lanka and anglophone Africa would understand every word"
Amusing, but it's by no means true that all - or even most - readers
in England would understand every word.
(I'm still wrestling with the morality of foie gras, of gavage. Do the
ducks and geese suffer? Can only the conscious suffer, and are they conscious? What is consciousness anyway?rCa)
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 10:12:04 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 30/06/26 05:30, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 29/06/2026 17:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
I didn't know that was a Britishism. I also see/hear a variationGood point. One imagines that Adam ought to have predated the
of that: I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an
ox, let alone an Off one.
invention of farming, and hence the need for oxen to pull a plough.
In my mind the "off" refers to a particular side of the road. That
suggests an ox-cart rather than a plough, because when ploughing a field >there isn't, I feel, any distinction between the on side and the off
side. The phrase couldn't exist until Adam had developed the habit of >driving on one side of the road.
In British English, isn't the "off wing" the (what we call a "fender)
one on the passenger side of an automobile?
I wonder if this is related: I seem to observe that it's impossible to explain simple mechanical ideas to some people (or other ideas for that matter).
On 29/06/2026 07:33, Mike Spencer wrote:
But not LBW. I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.Did he go on to explain a 'googly'? BrE had 'googly' before Google came >along.
No question here. Just an observation.
On 30/06/26 05:30, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 29/06/2026 17:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
I didn't know that was a Britishism. I also see/hear a variationGood point. One imagines that Adam ought to have predated the
of that: I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an
ox, let alone an Off one.
invention of farming, and hence the need for oxen to pull a plough.
In my mind the "off" refers to a particular side of the road. That
suggests an ox-cart rather than a plough, because when ploughing a field >there isn't, I feel, any distinction between the on side and the off
side. The phrase couldn't exist until Adam had developed the habit of
driving on one side of the road.
Jars in Denmark often come with a loose 'ring' around the lid. When you
turn the ring - which is easy - the lid is loosened and easy to remove.
Den 30.06.2026 kl. 08.03 skrev Hibou:
For example: if the cap on a jar is tight, it may not be possible to
undo it with bare hands, but it may be possible with a cloth (I mean in
the case where there is enough friction for a proper grip with either).
Now the cloth can't make you any stronger, but what it can do is pad the
lid and defer the onset of pain - and the limit does seem to be pain,
not strength (this is why lepers with no feeling in their hands lose
their digits). Simples, I think!
Jars in Denmark often come with a loose 'ring' around the lid. When you
turn the ring - which is easy - the lid is loosened and easy to remove.
I tried to find a picture, but they just look like the jars have a
normal lid.
Jars in Denmark often come with a loose 'ring' around the lid. When you
turn the ring - which is easy - the lid is loosened and easy to remove.
I tried to find a picture, but they just look like the jars have a
normal lid.
Something like these?
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg#/media/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg>
Jars in Denmark often come with a loose 'ring' around the lid. When you
turn the ring - which is easy - the lid is loosened and easy to remove.
I tried to find a picture, but they just look like the jars have a
normal lid.
Something like these?
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg#/media/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg>
Jars in Denmark often come with a loose 'ring' around the lid. When you
turn the ring - which is easy - the lid is loosened and easy to remove.
I tried to find a picture, but they just look like the jars have a
normal lid.
Something like these?
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg#/media/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg>
Probably this:
https://www.packagingstrategies.com/articles/93294-easy-open-orbit-cap-helps-consumers-of-all-ages
Den 30.06.2026 kl. 11.36 skrev Richard Tobin:
Jars in Denmark often come with a loose 'ring' around the lid. When you >>>> turn the ring - which is easy - the lid is loosened and easy to remove. >>>>
I tried to find a picture, but they just look like the jars have a
normal lid.
Something like these?
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg#/media/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg>
Probably this:
https://www.packagingstrategies.com/articles/93294-easy-open-orbit-cap-helps-consumers-of-all-ages
Exactly. That picture is better that what I could find.
If I try to explain the first idea, they understand it
immediately but if I then start to explain the second idea they switch
in a deflection mechanism
On 30/06/26 16:03, Hibou wrote:
For example: if the cap on a jar is tight, it may not be possible to
undo it with bare hands, but it may be possible with a cloth (I mean
in the case where there is enough friction for a proper grip with
either). Now the cloth can't make you any stronger, but what it can
do is pad the lid and defer the onset of pain - and the limit does
seem to be pain, not strength (this is why lepers with no feeling in
their hands lose their digits). Simples, I think!
(Some jars we buy are beyond even this. I used to use an old chain
wrench on them, but this was oily and risky. I now have a strap
wrench for the purpose, though even then it's sometimes touch and go.
The commercial grippers one can buy don't look nearly as sturdy as
the wrench).
One way I tackle that problem is to hit the edge of the lid with the
back of a knife. With luck, you'll cause just enough distortion to let
the vacuum out.
In article <t3echmxih3.ln2@news.ducksburg.com>,n_jar_array.jpg>
Adam Funk <a24061@ducksburg.com> wrote:
Jars in Denmark often come with a loose 'ring' around the lid. When you
turn the ring - which is easy - the lid is loosened and easy to remove.
I tried to find a picture, but they just look like the jars have a
normal lid.
Something like these?
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg#/media/File:Maso
Probably this:onsumers-of-all-ages
https://www.packagingstrategies.com/articles/93294-easy-open-orbit-cap-helps-c
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:50:58 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 30/06/26 16:03, Hibou wrote:
For example: if the cap on a jar is tight, it may not be possible to
undo it with bare hands, but it may be possible with a cloth (I mean
in the case where there is enough friction for a proper grip with
either). Now the cloth can't make you any stronger, but what it can
do is pad the lid and defer the onset of pain - and the limit does
seem to be pain, not strength (this is why lepers with no feeling in
their hands lose their digits). Simples, I think!
(Some jars we buy are beyond even this. I used to use an old chain
wrench on them, but this was oily and risky. I now have a strap
wrench for the purpose, though even then it's sometimes touch and go.
The commercial grippers one can buy don't look nearly as sturdy as
the wrench).
One way I tackle that problem is to hit the edge of the lid with the
back of a knife. With luck, you'll cause just enough distortion to let
the vacuum out.
Long ago, I was instructed that the main cause of hard-to-open
lids was 'slippery hands' -- that largely holds up, for me.
Wash your hands to get rid of grease and sweat.
Or, any (non-slippery) cloth or rubber mat gives a good grip.
I also 'rap with the back of a knife' for the problem lid but my
guess was not about letting vacuum out -- rather, I've figured
that I was breaking bonds.
Since most of the lids are metal, what works for the most
resistant lids is running hot water over them, to take
advantage of the coefficient of expansionn of metals.
On 30/06/26 17:17, Hibou wrote:
(I'm still wrestling with the morality of foie gras, of gavage. Do the
ducks and geese suffer? Can only the conscious suffer, and are they
conscious? What is consciousness anyway?rCa)
ObSF: Pate de foie gras, a short story by Isaac Asimov.
Den 30.06.2026 kl. 11.16 skrev Adam Funk:
Jars in Denmark often come with a loose 'ring' around the lid. When youSomething like these?
turn the ring - which is easy - the lid is loosened and easy to remove.
I tried to find a picture, but they just look like the jars have a
normal lid.
<https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg#/media/File:Mason_jar_array.jpg>
No. Imagine making a circle out of a metal band 5 mm wide just large
enough to be pulled over the lid of a jar so it looks as if the lid is
wider than normal. That's close to what it is, but the ring is loose
enough to turn easily, and somehow, when you do, the lid is popped.
No. Imagine making a circle out of a metal band 5 mm wide just large
enough to be pulled over the lid of a jar so it looks as if the lid is
wider than normal. That's close to what it is, but the ring is loose
enough to turn easily, and somehow, when you do, the lid is popped.
It looks as though there is no way to re-seal the jar, is that the case?
Le 29/06/2026 a 21:36, Tony Cooper a ocrit :
One trip to the UK, we stopped to watch a cricket match. There was a
young lad - maybe 9 to 12 years-old - sitting on the grass a bit away
from the pitch. He seemed friendly, so I explained that we were
Americans, knew nothing about cricket, and asked if he could give me a
general rundown of what was transpiring.
He shot me a look of pure disdain at my ignorance, but did give me a
general description of how the game is played. I nodded apprecievely,
but asked for some clarification of some of his statements.
Finally, evidently deciding I was hopelessly incapable of
understanding simple concepts - and quite possibly mentally deficient
- he stood, dusted himself off and went away. I spotted him later
sitting on the grass on the far side of the pitch.
I wonder if this is related: I seem to observe that it's impossible to >explain simple mechanical ideas to some people (or other ideas for that >matter). Perhaps they've just never thought about mechanics, and so it's >just so much Greek to them.
In article <87bjcsjccr.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>,
Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
No. Imagine making a circle out of a metal band 5 mm wide just large
enough to be pulled over the lid of a jar so it looks as if the lid is
wider than normal. That's close to what it is, but the ring is loose
enough to turn easily, and somehow, when you do, the lid is popped.
It looks as though there is no way to re-seal the jar, is that the case?
No, they re-seal just like any screw lid. That is, the lid is tight
against the jar, but the vacuum that was there originally has gone.
I think the main point is that to open a new jar you don't have to simultaneously overcome the static friction of the screw thread and
the suction of the vacuum. It's only after you have successfully
started turning that it engages with the flat lid.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:50:58 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 30/06/26 16:03, Hibou wrote:
For example: if the cap on a jar is tight, it may not be possible to
undo it with bare hands, but it may be possible with a cloth (I mean
in the case where there is enough friction for a proper grip with
either). Now the cloth can't make you any stronger, but what it can
do is pad the lid and defer the onset of pain - and the limit does
seem to be pain, not strength (this is why lepers with no feeling in
their hands lose their digits). Simples, I think!
(Some jars we buy are beyond even this. I used to use an old chain
wrench on them, but this was oily and risky. I now have a strap
wrench for the purpose, though even then it's sometimes touch and go.
The commercial grippers one can buy don't look nearly as sturdy as
the wrench).
One way I tackle that problem is to hit the edge of the lid with the
back of a knife. With luck, you'll cause just enough distortion to let
the vacuum out.
Long ago, I was instructed that the main cause of hard-to-open
lids was 'slippery hands' -- that largely holds up, for me.
Wash your hands to get rid of grease and sweat.
Or, any (non-slippery) cloth or rubber mat gives a good grip.
I also 'rap with the back of a knife' for the problem lid but my
guess was not about letting vacuum out -- rather, I've figured
that I was breaking bonds.
Since most of the lids are metal, what works for the most
resistant lids is running hot water over them, to take
advantage of the coefficient of expansionn of metals.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 16:59:06 GMT, athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:
"s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> posted:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
8< snip >8
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
I studied (British) English for 5 years and I have no clue what 'sticky
wicket' means. I think the English have great expressions. Sometimes I
pick them up, but that's not always easy, because I don't use them often >>> enough.
One that did stick was one I learned through gaming with an Englishman.
At one point he said: 'I don't know you from Adam.', something which I
was never taught. They should have taught us more things like that.
Once Richard Dawkins was criticizing Stephen J. Goould's assumption that all >> his readers were as passionate about rounders (sorry, baseball) as he was and
wondered how US readers would react if he wrote something like this in a
serious book:
"The home keeper was on a pair, vulnerable to anything from a yorker to a
chinaman, when he fell to a googly given plenty of air. Silly mid on appealed
for leg before, Dicky BirdrCOs finger shot up and the tail collapsed. Not
surprisingly, the skipper took the light. Next morning the night watchman, >> defiantly out of his popping crease, snicked a cover drive off a no ball
straight through the gullies and on a fast outfield third man failed to
stop the boundary rCa etc. etc.rCY
"Readers in England, the West Indies, Australia, New Zealand, India, Pakistan,
Sri Lanka and anglophone Africa would understand every word, but Americans, >> after enduring a page or two, would rightly protest."
One trip to the UK, we stopped to watch a cricket match. There was a
young lad - maybe 9 to 12 years-old - sitting on the grass a bit away
from the pitch. He seemed friendly, so I explained that we were
Americans, knew nothing about cricket, and asked if he could give me a general rundown of what was transpiring.
He shot me a look of pure disdain at my ignorance, but did give me a
general description of how the game is played. I nodded apprecievely,
but asked for some clarification of some of his statements.
Finally, evidently deciding I was hopelessly incapable of
understanding simple concepts - and quite possibly mentally deficient
- he stood, dusted himself off and went away. I spotted him later
sitting on the grass on the far side of the pitch.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 16:50:58 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 30/06/26 16:03, Hibou wrote:
For example: if the cap on a jar is tight, it may not be possible to
undo it with bare hands, but it may be possible with a cloth (I mean
in the case where there is enough friction for a proper grip with
either). Now the cloth can't make you any stronger, but what it can
do is pad the lid and defer the onset of pain - and the limit does
seem to be pain, not strength (this is why lepers with no feeling in
their hands lose their digits). Simples, I think!
(Some jars we buy are beyond even this. I used to use an old chain
wrench on them, but this was oily and risky. I now have a strap
wrench for the purpose, though even then it's sometimes touch and go.
The commercial grippers one can buy don't look nearly as sturdy as
the wrench).
One way I tackle that problem is to hit the edge of the lid with the
back of a knife. With luck, you'll cause just enough distortion to let
the vacuum out.
Long ago, I was instructed that the main cause of hard-to-open
lids was 'slippery hands' -- that largely holds up, for me.
Wash your hands to get rid of grease and sweat.
Or, any (non-slippery) cloth or rubber mat gives a good grip.
I also 'rap with the back of a knife' for the problem lid but my
guess was not about letting vacuum out -- rather, I've figured
that I was breaking bonds.
Since most of the lids are metal, what works for the most
resistant lids is running hot water over them, to take
advantage of the coefficient of expansionn of metals.
In article <87bjcsjccr.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>,
Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
No. Imagine making a circle out of a metal band 5 mm wide just large
enough to be pulled over the lid of a jar so it looks as if the lid is
wider than normal. That's close to what it is, but the ring is loose
enough to turn easily, and somehow, when you do, the lid is popped.
It looks as though there is no way to re-seal the jar, is that the case?
No, they re-seal just like any screw lid. That is, the lid is tight
against the jar, but the vacuum that was there originally has gone.
I think the main point is that to open a new jar you don't have to simultaneously overcome the static friction of the screw thread and
the suction of the vacuum. It's only after you have successfully
started turning that it engages with the flat lid.
-- Richard
On 1/07/2026 4:34 a.m., Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <87bjcsjccr.fsf@mothra.hsd1.ma.comcast.net>,
Radey Shouman <shouman@comcast.net> wrote:
No. Imagine making a circle out of a metal band 5 mm wide just large
enough to be pulled over the lid of a jar so it looks as if the lid is >>>> wider than normal. That's close to what it is, but the ring is loose
enough to turn easily, and somehow, when you do, the lid is popped.
It looks as though there is no way to re-seal the jar, is that the case?
No, they re-seal just like any screw lid. That is, the lid is tight
against the jar, but the vacuum that was there originally has gone.
I think the main point is that to open a new jar you don't have to
simultaneously overcome the static friction of the screw thread and
the suction of the vacuum. It's only after you have successfully
started turning that it engages with the flat lid.
-- Richard
Is this just the Mason jar, patented by John Landis Mason of New Jersey
in 1858?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mason_jar
Or is there a modern improvement? I've known these since my mother "put
up" fruit in them in the 1950s. But, to my recollection, unscrewing the
ring did not, of itself, lift the lid off.
WIWAL, I played lots of cricket (but always informal 'pick up' games)
yet I would probably struggle to give good answers to your
questions. The Laws of Cricket are arcane and complex.
On 29/06/2026 07:33, Mike Spencer wrote:
Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com> writes:Did he go on to explain a 'googly'? BrE had 'googly' before Google came along.
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
But not LBW. I had to have "leg before wicket" explained to me.
No question here. Just an observation.
On Mon, 29 Jun 2026 17:53:49 +0200, "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jun 2026 10:34:45 -0400, Tony Cooper wrote:
8< snip >8
Consider, for example, "sticky wicket". Most Americans have no real
conception of what a wicket is, and only a vague idea that it has
something to do with cricket. Yet, they'll say/write that this is a
sticky wicket instead of the simpler and more understandable "This is
a difficult situation". American readers/hearers will not consider
this a Britishism; they'll consider it part of our language.
I studied (British) English for 5 years and I have no clue what 'sticky
wicket' means. I think the English have great expressions. Sometimes I
pick them up, but that's not always easy, because I don't use them often
enough.
One that did stick was one I learned through gaming with an Englishman.
At one point he said: 'I don't know you from Adam.', something which I
was never taught. They should have taught us more things like that.
I didn't know that was a Britishism. I also see/hear a variation of
that: I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an ox,
let alone an Off one.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 10:12:04 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 30/06/26 05:30, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 29/06/2026 17:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
I didn't know that was a Britishism. I also see/hear a variationGood point. One imagines that Adam ought to have predated the
of that: I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an
ox, let alone an Off one.
invention of farming, and hence the need for oxen to pull a plough.
In my mind the "off" refers to a particular side of the road. That
suggests an ox-cart rather than a plough, because when ploughing a field
there isn't, I feel, any distinction between the on side and the off
side. The phrase couldn't exist until Adam had developed the habit of
driving on one side of the road.
In British English, isn't the "off wing" the (what we call a "fender)
one on the passenger side of an automobile?
instead, and see how that works out.-- Katy Jennison
Tony Cooper presented the following explanation :
On Tue, 30 Jun 2026 10:12:04 +1000, Peter Moylan <peter@pmoylan.org>
wrote:
On 30/06/26 05:30, Sam Plusnet wrote:
On 29/06/2026 17:26, Tony Cooper wrote:
I didn't know that was a Britishism. I also see/hear a variationGood point. One imagines that Adam ought to have predated the
of that: I didn't know him from Adam's Off-Ox.
I don't recall anything indicating Adam had anything to do with an
ox, let alone an Off one.
invention of farming, and hence the need for oxen to pull a plough.
In my mind the "off" refers to a particular side of the road. That
suggests an ox-cart rather than a plough, because when ploughing a field >>> there isn't, I feel, any distinction between the on side and the off
side. The phrase couldn't exist until Adam had developed the habit of
driving on one side of the road.
In British English, isn't the "off wing" the (what we call a "fender)
one on the passenger side of an automobile?
Or rather, not on the driver's side.
Which can obviously apply to wagons, but I wouldn't call it wrong for a plough.
Of course, the first plows were probably hand tools, maybe even starting with
a sharpened stick. And early fields would be quite small.
/dps
It looks as though there is no way to re-seal the jar, is that the case?
No, they re-seal just like any screw lid.-a That is, the lid is tight
against the jar, but the vacuum that was there originally has gone.
I think the main point is that to open a new jar you don't have to
simultaneously overcome the static friction of the screw thread and
the suction of the vacuum.-a It's only after you have successfully
started turning that it engages with the flat lid.
-- Richard
Is this just the Mason jar, patented by John Landis Mason of New Jersey
in 1858?
Den 30.06.2026 kl. 23.01 skrev Ross Clark:
It looks as though there is no way to re-seal the jar, is that the
case?
No, they re-seal just like any screw lid.-a That is, the lid is tight
against the jar, but the vacuum that was there originally has gone.
I think the main point is that to open a new jar you don't have to
simultaneously overcome the static friction of the screw thread and
the suction of the vacuum.-a It's only after you have successfully
started turning that it engages with the flat lid.
-- Richard
Is this just the Mason jar, patented by John Landis Mason of New
Jersey in 1858?
No, those are not the jars I'm talking about. Richard Tobin gave this
link to a picture:
https://www.packagingstrategies.com/articles/93294-easy-open-orbit-cap-helps-consumers-of-all-ages
My guess is it's American playfulness that means so many expressions originate there. Unfortunately, the inventors aren't always skilled or logical - or don't prioritise logic -
whence, perhaps, 'horseback riding' for
horse riding. (This could be a reminder to put the saddle on its back and not
its head.)
whence, perhaps, 'horseback riding' for horse riding. (This could be
a reminder to put the saddle on its back and not its head.)
My guess is it's American playfulness that means so many expressions >originate there. Unfortunately, the inventors aren't always skilled or >logical - or don't prioritise logic - whence, perhaps, 'horseback
riding' for horse riding. (This could be a reminder to put the saddle on
its back and not its head.)
On 29/06/26 15:27, Hibou wrote:
whence, perhaps, 'horseback riding' for horse riding. (This could be
a reminder to put the saddle on its back and not its head.)
There's something tickling at my memory, of a culture where people ride
on the shoulder/neck area of the horse. Is that just my imagination?
On 29/06/26 15:27, Hibou wrote:
whence, perhaps, 'horseback riding' for horse riding. (This could be
a reminder to put the saddle on its back and not its head.)
There's something tickling at my memory, of a culture where people ride
on the shoulder/neck area of the horse. Is that just my imagination?
I wonder if this is related: I seem to observe that it's impossible to explain simple mechanical ideas to some people (or other ideas for that matter). Perhaps they've just never thought about mechanics, and so it's just so much Greek to them.
There was a neuroscience/cognitive science study years ago called,
IIRC, On Turning Something Over in Your Mind, that found spatially distributed neural events in brain that mapped spatially the mental manipulation of three-dimensional asymmetric objects, pictures of
which were shown to the test subjects.
Maybe some people just don't have whatever circuits that do that
connected as well as others.
On 03/07/26 07:35, Mike Spencer wrote:
There was a neuroscience/cognitive science study years ago called,
IIRC, On Turning Something Over in Your Mind, that found spatially
distributed neural events in brain that mapped spatially the mental
manipulation of three-dimensional asymmetric objects, pictures of
which were shown to the test subjects.
Maybe some people just don't have whatever circuits that do that
connected as well as others.
In my university-level teaching I found that Chinese students, in
particular, had trouble with geometric concepts. They couldn't handle
spatial relationships because they couldn't keep the diagrams in their brains. I tended to put that down to a flaw in the Chinese educational system, rather than something innate in the brain.
I'll never be an artist because I can't visualise photographic-style pictures. I can't, for example, bring up the face of a person I know
well. I can visualise things like wire-frame diagrams, though, so I have
no real problem with geometry.
Le 30/06/2026 |a 08:55, Peter Moylan a |-crit :
On 30/06/26 17:17, Hibou wrote:
(I'm still wrestling with the morality of foie gras, of gavage. Do the
ducks and geese suffer? Can only the conscious suffer, and are they
conscious? What is consciousness anyway?rCa)
ObSF: Pate de foie gras, a short story by Isaac Asimov.
Thanks! Found it. Read it.
p.98 here:
<https://s3.us-west-1.wasabisys.com/luminist/EB/A/Asimov%20- %20Mysteries.pdf>
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:08:05 |
| Calls: | 949 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 281,239 |
