"More things than you can shake a stick at"

[occam]

"More things than you can shake a stick at" is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.

According to Collins Dictionary:

"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.

Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It it known or used across the Atlantic?

[Snidely]

Post by occam
"More things than you can shake a stick at" is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It seems to be like trying to point [your finger] at all the items in a
large warehouse [other scales available]. Why shaking a stick? Well,
a stick is a pointer, and trying to point at each of all those items in
quick succession is going to look shaky.

Post by occam
It it known or used across the Atlantic?

Sure.

/dps

[lar3ryca]

Post by Snidely

"More things than you can shake a stick at"  is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It seems to be like trying to point [your finger] at all the items in a
large warehouse [other scales available].  Why shaking a stick?  Well, a
stick is a pointer, and trying to point at each of all those items in
quick succession is going to look shaky.

It it known or used across the Atlantic?

Common in Canada.

[Ross Clark]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Snidely

"More things than you can shake a stick at"  is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It seems to be like trying to point [your finger] at all the items in
a large warehouse [other scales available].  Why shaking a stick?
Well, a stick is a pointer, and trying to point at each of all those
items in quick succession is going to look shaky.

It it known or used across the Atlantic?

Common in Canada.

Agreed (I'm a historical CanEng speaker). The expression is so familiar
that I've never wondered about its origin.

OED has quotations of "shake a stick" from 1818 and says that it's
"originally and chiefly US". But no clue as to where the image comes from.

[occam]

Post by Ross Clark

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Snidely

"More things than you can shake a stick at"  is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It seems to be like trying to point [your finger] at all the items in
a large warehouse [other scales available].  Why shaking a stick? 
Well, a stick is a pointer, and trying to point at each of all those
items in quick succession is going to look shaky.

It it known or used across the Atlantic?

Common in Canada.

Agreed (I'm a historical CanEng speaker). The expression is so familiar
that I've never wondered about its origin.

Same here. Until, one day, I did.

P.S. I find the explanation above a little unconvincing. If there are a
lot of objects out there, I would attempt to point at them, not shake my
stick at them.

Post by Ross Clark
OED has quotations of "shake a stick" from 1818 and says that it's
"originally and chiefly US". But no clue as to where the image comes from.

[Snidely]

Post by occam

Post by Ross Clark

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Snidely

"More things than you can shake a stick at"  is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It seems to be like trying to point [your finger] at all the items in
a large warehouse [other scales available].  Why shaking a stick? 
Well, a stick is a pointer, and trying to point at each of all those
items in quick succession is going to look shaky.

It it known or used across the Atlantic?

Common in Canada.

Agreed (I'm a historical CanEng speaker). The expression is so familiar
that I've never wondered about its origin.

Same here. Until, one day, I did.
P.S. I find the explanation above a little unconvincing. If there are a
lot of objects out there, I would attempt to point at them, not shake my
stick at them.

Did you read carefully? What does pointing quickly at different things
look like?

I will grant you my explanation is pure speculation, and the canoe may
be upstream of the rapids with no steering device. Feel free to
provide something better.

Post by occam

Post by Ross Clark
OED has quotations of "shake a stick" from 1818 and says that it's
"originally and chiefly US". But no clue as to where the image comes from.

/dps

[occam]

Post by occam

Post by Ross Clark

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Snidely

"More things than you can shake a stick at"  is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It seems to be like trying to point [your finger] at all the items in
a large warehouse [other scales available].  Why shaking a stick? 
Well, a stick is a pointer, and trying to point at each of all those
items in quick succession is going to look shaky.

It it known or used across the Atlantic?

Common in Canada.

Agreed (I'm a historical CanEng speaker). The expression is so familiar
that I've never wondered about its origin.

Same here. Until, one day, I did.
P.S. I find the explanation above a little unconvincing. If there are a
lot of objects out there, I would attempt to point at them, not shake my
stick at them.

Did you read carefully?  What does pointing quickly at different things
look like?
I will grant you my explanation is pure speculation, and the canoe may
be upstream of the rapids with no steering device.  Feel free to provide
something better.

OK, here's another speculation:

<https://etymologyotd.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/phrase-more-x-than-you-can-shake-a-stick-at-from-to-cut-wood-into-shingles/>

Summary: It appears that the first use was American (not British)

1- "The phrase is certainly an Americanism and the first known use of it
to mean an abundance was in 1818, in the Lancaster Journal of
Pennsylvania; “We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can shake a
stick at”.

According to the author, the phrase may be based on a 19th century
meaning of 'shakes' which was a term for wood that is split into pieces,
hence:

"I think it’s likely that the phrase meant something similar to ‘More
taverns than there are pieces you could split a log into’."

[Etymonline does not document this alternative meaning of shakes.]

[jerryfriedman]

Post by occam

Post by occam

Post by Ross Clark

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Snidely

"More things than you can shake a stick at"  is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It seems to be like trying to point [your finger] at all the items in
a large warehouse [other scales available].  Why shaking a stick? 
Well, a stick is a pointer, and trying to point at each of all those
items in quick succession is going to look shaky.

It it known or used across the Atlantic?

Common in Canada.

Agreed (I'm a historical CanEng speaker). The expression is so familiar
that I've never wondered about its origin.

Same here. Until, one day, I did.
P.S. I find the explanation above a little unconvincing. If there are a
lot of objects out there, I would attempt to point at them, not shake my
stick at them.

Did you read carefully?  What does pointing quickly at different things
look like?
I will grant you my explanation is pure speculation, and the canoe may
be upstream of the rapids with no steering device.  Feel free to provide
something better.

<https://etymologyotd.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/phrase-more-x-than-you-can-shake-a-stick-at-from-to-cut-wood-into-shingles/>
Summary: It appears that the first use was American (not British)
1- "The phrase is certainly an Americanism and the first known use of it
to mean an abundance was in 1818, in the Lancaster Journal of
Pennsylvania; “We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can shake a
stick at”.
According to the author, the phrase may be based on a 19th century
meaning of 'shakes' which was a term for wood that is split into pieces,
"I think it’s likely that the phrase meant something similar to ‘More
taverns than there are pieces you could split a log into’."

I have the gravest possible doubts.

Post by occam
[Etymonline does not document this alternative meaning of shakes.]

Disgraceful. It's in the OED: "Pieces of split timber,
a kind of shingles" and described as "chiefly U.S."
It's one of the senses in section III, "Something produced
by shaking," but I don't see a sense of the verb that
could produce wooden shingles.

"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wooden+shakes%2Cwooden+shingles&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en-US&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false

https://tinyurl.com/5n8v9634

and probably significantly less well-known, though people
interested in house construction will know it.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Snidely]

On Monday or thereabouts, jerryfriedman declared ...

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam

Post by occam

Post by Ross Clark

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Snidely

"More things than you can shake a stick at"  is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It seems to be like trying to point [your finger] at all the items in
a large warehouse [other scales available].  Why shaking a stick? 
Well, a stick is a pointer, and trying to point at each of all those
items in quick succession is going to look shaky.

It it known or used across the Atlantic?

Common in Canada.

Agreed (I'm a historical CanEng speaker). The expression is so familiar
that I've never wondered about its origin.

Same here. Until, one day, I did.
P.S. I find the explanation above a little unconvincing. If there are a
lot of objects out there, I would attempt to point at them, not shake my
stick at them.

Did you read carefully?  What does pointing quickly at different things
look like?
I will grant you my explanation is pure speculation, and the canoe may
be upstream of the rapids with no steering device.  Feel free to provide
something better.

<https://etymologyotd.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/phrase-more-x-than-you-can-shake-a-stick-at-from-to-cut-wood-into-shingles/>
Summary: It appears that the first use was American (not British)
1- "The phrase is certainly an Americanism and the first known use of it
to mean an abundance was in 1818, in the Lancaster Journal of
Pennsylvania; “We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can shake a
stick at”.
According to the author, the phrase may be based on a 19th century
meaning of 'shakes' which was a term for wood that is split into pieces,
"I think it’s likely that the phrase meant something similar to ‘More
taverns than there are pieces you could split a log into’."

I have the gravest possible doubts.

But is a nice, tidy explanantion. I think it does beat mine.

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam
[Etymonline does not document this alternative meaning of shakes.]

Disgraceful. It's in the OED: "Pieces of split timber,
a kind of shingles" and described as "chiefly U.S."
It's one of the senses in section III, "Something produced
by shaking," but I don't see a sense of the verb that
could produce wooden shingles.
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

IME "shingles" go on roofs and "shakes" are used as siding. In the
PNW, cedar was popular for shakes. Imitation shakes abound, with a
moulded set of ridges to imitate the grain. Shakes preferentially are
thicker at the bottom end, and the grain runs vertically. Rows of
shakes are lapped over other rows, which does not differentiate them
from shingles. Neither does the shape or the direction of the grain.
Both are related to having rain run off well.

Post by jerryfriedman
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=wooden+shakes%2Cwooden+shingles&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en-US&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false
https://tinyurl.com/5n8v9634
and probably significantly less well-known, though people
interested in house construction will know it.

I'm trying to work this into "Bond. James Bond", but I can't find
anything stirring enough.

/dps

[occam]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam

Post by occam

Post by Ross Clark

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Snidely

"More things than you can shake a stick at"  is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It seems to be like trying to point [your finger] at all the items in
a large warehouse [other scales available].  Why shaking a stick? 
Well, a stick is a pointer, and trying to point at each of all those
items in quick succession is going to look shaky.

It it known or used across the Atlantic?

Common in Canada.

Agreed (I'm a historical CanEng speaker). The expression is so familiar
that I've never wondered about its origin.

Same here. Until, one day, I did.
P.S. I find the explanation above a little unconvincing. If there are a
lot of objects out there, I would attempt to point at them, not shake my
stick at them.

Did you read carefully?  What does pointing quickly at different things
look like?
I will grant you my explanation is pure speculation, and the canoe may
be upstream of the rapids with no steering device.  Feel free to provide
something better.

<https://etymologyotd.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/phrase-more-x-than-you-
can-shake-a-stick-at-from-to-cut-wood-into-shingles/>
Summary: It appears that the first use was American (not British)
1- "The phrase is certainly an Americanism and the first known use of it
to mean an abundance was in 1818, in the Lancaster Journal of
Pennsylvania; “We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can shake a
stick at”.
According to the author, the phrase may be based on a 19th century
meaning of 'shakes' which was a term for wood that is split into pieces,
"I think it’s likely that the phrase meant something similar to ‘More
taverns than there are pieces you could split a log into’."

I have the gravest possible doubts.

I agree. Shakes (verb) in the original expression is being explained by
a noun of the same spelling?

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam
[Etymonline does not document this alternative meaning of shakes.]

Disgraceful.  It's in the OED: "Pieces of split timber,
a kind of shingles" and described as "chiefly U.S."
It's one of the senses in section III, "Something produced
by shaking," but I don't see a sense of the verb that
could produce wooden shingles.
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?
content=wooden+shakes%2Cwooden+shingles&year_start=1800&year_end=2022&corpus=en-US&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=false
https://tinyurl.com/5n8v9634
and probably significantly less well-known, though people
interested in house construction will know it.

[jerryfriedman]

..

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam
<https://etymologyotd.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/phrase-more-x-than-you-
can-shake-a-stick-at-from-to-cut-wood-into-shingles/>
Summary: It appears that the first use was American (not British)
1- "The phrase is certainly an Americanism and the first known use of it
to mean an abundance was in 1818, in the Lancaster Journal of
Pennsylvania; “We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can shake a
stick at”.
According to the author, the phrase may be based on a 19th century
meaning of 'shakes' which was a term for wood that is split into pieces,
"I think it’s likely that the phrase meant something similar to ‘More
taverns than there are pieces you could split a log into’."

I have the gravest possible doubts.

I agree. Shakes (verb) in the original expression is being explained by
a noun of the same spelling?

..

And you can't get shakes from a mere stick, and I'd think
it would be "into", not "at".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by jerryfriedman
..

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam
<https://etymologyotd.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/phrase-more-x-than-you-
can-shake-a-stick-at-from-to-cut-wood-into-shingles/>
Summary: It appears that the first use was American (not British)
1- "The phrase is certainly an Americanism and the first known use of it
to mean an abundance was in 1818, in the Lancaster Journal of
Pennsylvania; “We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can shake a
stick at”.
According to the author, the phrase may be based on a 19th century
meaning of 'shakes' which was a term for wood that is split into pieces,
"I think it’s likely that the phrase meant something similar to ‘More
taverns than there are pieces you could split a log into’."

I have the gravest possible doubts.

I agree. Shakes (verb) in the original expression is being explained by
a noun of the same spelling?

..
And you can't get shakes from a mere stick, and I'd think
it would be "into", not "at".

Can you not get shakes from a spear?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by jerryfriedman
And you can't get shakes from a mere stick, and I'd think
it would be "into", not "at".

Can you not get shakes from a spear?

Don't add malt, because a spear's not very effective at mixing.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by jerryfriedman
..

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam
<https://etymologyotd.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/phrase-more-x-than-you-
can-shake-a-stick-at-from-to-cut-wood-into-shingles/>
Summary: It appears that the first use was American (not British)
1- "The phrase is certainly an Americanism and the first known use of it
to mean an abundance was in 1818, in the Lancaster Journal of
Pennsylvania; “We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can shake a
stick at”.
According to the author, the phrase may be based on a 19th century
meaning of 'shakes' which was a term for wood that is split into pieces,
"I think it’s likely that the phrase meant something similar to ‘More
taverns than there are pieces you could split a log into’."

I have the gravest possible doubts.

I agree. Shakes (verb) in the original expression is being explained by
a noun of the same spelling?

..
And you can't get shakes from a mere stick, and I'd think
it would be "into", not "at".

Can you not get shakes from a spear?

I believe the practice has been barred.

--
Jerry Friedman

[lar3ryca]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by jerryfriedman
..

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam
<https://etymologyotd.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/phrase-more-x-than-you-
can-shake-a-stick-at-from-to-cut-wood-into-shingles/>
Summary: It appears that the first use was American (not British)
1- "The phrase is certainly an Americanism and the first known use of it
to mean an abundance was in 1818, in the Lancaster Journal of
Pennsylvania; “We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can shake a
stick at”.
According to the author, the phrase may be based on a 19th century
meaning of 'shakes' which was a term for wood that is split into pieces,
"I think it’s likely that the phrase meant something similar to ‘More
taverns than there are pieces you could split a log into’."

I have the gravest possible doubts.

I agree. Shakes (verb) in the original expression is being explained by
a noun of the same spelling?

..
And you can't get shakes from a mere stick, and I'd think
it would be "into", not "at".

Can you not get shakes from a spear?

I believe the practice has been barred.

Since he's no longer with us, perhaps we should use the past tense:

WouldIWasShookSpeared

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam
"I think it’s likely that the phrase meant something similar to ‘More
taverns than there are pieces you could split a log into’."

I have the gravest possible doubts.

I agree. Shakes (verb) in the original expression is being explained by
a noun of the same spelling?

..
And you can't get shakes from a mere stick, and I'd think
it would be "into", not "at".

Can you not get shakes from a spear?

Since you can get them from milk, a spear certainly ought to be
sufficient.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by jerryfriedman
..

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by occam
<https://etymologyotd.wordpress.com/2017/02/04/phrase-more-x-than-you-
can-shake-a-stick-at-from-to-cut-wood-into-shingles/>
Summary: It appears that the first use was American (not British)
1- "The phrase is certainly an Americanism and the first known use of it
to mean an abundance was in 1818, in the Lancaster Journal of
Pennsylvania; "We have in Lancaster as many Taverns as you can shake a
stick at".
According to the author, the phrase may be based on a 19th century
meaning of 'shakes' which was a term for wood that is split into pieces,
"I think it's likely that the phrase meant something similar to 'More
taverns than there are pieces you could split a log into'."

I have the gravest possible doubts.

I agree. Shakes (verb) in the original expression is being explained by
a noun of the same spelling?

..
And you can't get shakes from a mere stick, and I'd think
it would be "into", not "at".

You can, if you pilot a Boeing.
(more advanced planes such as Airbus don't have sticks,
and hence no stick-shaker)

Jan

[Joy Beeson]

Post by jerryfriedman
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

A shake is an obsolete kind of shingle.

[occam]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

A shake is an obsolete kind of shingle.

I did not know shingles could become obsolete. :-)

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by occam

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

A shake is an obsolete kind of shingle.

I did not know shingles could become obsolete. :-)

I have a friend who'd whish that they were.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by occam

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

A shake is an obsolete kind of shingle.

I did not know shingles could become obsolete. :-)

If they had, varicella zoster would rustle up a fresh supply.

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by occam

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

A shake is an obsolete kind of shingle.

I did not know shingles could become obsolete. :-)

If they had, varicella zoster would rustle up a fresh supply.

Shingles will (basically) die out over the next few decades in those
jurisdictions with childhood varicella vaccination and good vaccine uptake.
Which is good, it is miserable.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by occam

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

A shake is an obsolete kind of shingle.

I did not know shingles could become obsolete. :-)

If they had, varicella zoster would rustle up a fresh supply.

Shingles will (basically) die out over the next few decades in those
jurisdictions with childhood varicella vaccination and good vaccine uptake.
Which is good, it is miserable.

Doesn't that depend on the outcome of the "Vaccinations are poison"
attitude that seemed to gain hold in the last decade or so?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by occam

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

A shake is an obsolete kind of shingle.

I did not know shingles could become obsolete. :-)

If they had, varicella zoster would rustle up a fresh supply.

Shingles will (basically) die out over the next few decades in those
jurisdictions with childhood varicella vaccination and good vaccine uptake.
Which is good, it is miserable.

Doesn't that depend on the outcome of the "Vaccinations are poison"
attitude that seemed to gain hold in the last decade or so?

Shingles won't die out just by itself
even without interference by antipropagandists.
It will require a sustained and coordinated world-wide effort.
(compare smallpox and polio)

Jan

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by occam

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

A shake is an obsolete kind of shingle.

I did not know shingles could become obsolete. :-)

If they had, varicella zoster would rustle up a fresh supply.

Shingles will (basically) die out over the next few decades in those
jurisdictions with childhood varicella vaccination and good vaccine uptake.
Which is good, it is miserable.

Doesn't that depend on the outcome of the "Vaccinations are poison" attitude
that seemed to gain hold in the last decade or so?

Whence my qualifier of ‘good vaccine uptake.’ I am lucky enough to live
somewhere with quite little mistrust of vaccines, though Northern Ireland is
right there and has much more mistrust, I suppose I will be dealing with
varicella for the foreseeable with the open border.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by occam

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

A shake is an obsolete kind of shingle.

I did not know shingles could become obsolete. :-)

If they had, varicella zoster would rustle up a fresh supply.

Shingles will (basically) die out over the next few decades in those
jurisdictions with childhood varicella vaccination and good vaccine uptake.
Which is good, it is miserable.

Doesn't that depend on the outcome of the "Vaccinations are poison"
attitude that seemed to gain hold in the last decade or so?

Whence my qualifier of 'good vaccine uptake.' I am lucky enough to live
somewhere with quite little mistrust of vaccines, though Northern Ireland is
right there and has much more mistrust, I suppose I will be dealing with
varicella for the foreseeable with the open border.

It is more true belief than mistrust.
It comes with fundamentalist protestantism,
(also in the Dutch Bible Belt)

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Shingles will (basically) die out over the next few decades in those
jurisdictions with childhood varicella vaccination and good vaccine
uptake. Which is good, it is miserable.

We've had good success stories with vaccination, but in time people
become careless and vaccination levels drop.

Polio was declared extinct in 2019. Try telling that to the people of Gaza.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Shingles will (basically) die out over the next few decades in those
jurisdictions with childhood varicella vaccination and good vaccine
uptake. Which is good, it is miserable.

We've had good success stories with vaccination, but in time people
become careless and vaccination levels drop.
Polio was declared extinct in 2019. Try telling that to the people of Gaza.

Smallpox was supposed to be extinct by 1978. In July 1968 a
photographic technician who worked in a darkroom in the Medical School
of the University of Birmingham (about 100 m from where I worked) came
down with smallpox. He infected his mother, who became the last known
case.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Shingles will (basically) die out over the next few decades in those
jurisdictions with childhood varicella vaccination and good vaccine
uptake. Which is good, it is miserable.

We've had good success stories with vaccination, but in time people
become careless and vaccination levels drop.
Polio was declared extinct in 2019. Try telling that to the people of Gaza.

Smallpox was supposed to be extinct by 1978.

In the wild, and it was.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
In July 1968 a photographic technician who worked in a darkroom in the
Medical School of the University of Birmingham (about 100 m from where I
worked) came down with smallpox. He infected his mother, who became the
last known case.

1978, and 'He' was a 'She'.

Yes, but Britain was a great power, in those days,
(or so they believed)
so they felt that they could do bioweapons research,

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Shingles will (basically) die out over the next few decades in those
jurisdictions with childhood varicella vaccination and good vaccine
uptake. Which is good, it is miserable.

We've had good success stories with vaccination, but in time people
become careless and vaccination levels drop.
Polio was declared extinct in 2019. Try telling that to the people of Gaza.

Smallpox was supposed to be extinct by 1978.

In the wild, and it was.

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
In July 1968 a photographic technician who worked in a darkroom in the
Medical School of the University of Birmingham (about 100 m from where I
worked) came down with smallpox. He infected his mother, who became the
last known case.

1978,

Yes, you're right. I wasn't at Birmingham in 1968. However, it was a
typo rather than a symptom of Alzheimer.

July 1978 was the month I went to Chile for the first time. I was quite
cross that I needed a vaccination certificate. Didn't they know in
South America that there was no more smallpox? However, they knew
better than I did.

Post by J. J. Lodder
and 'He' was a 'She'.

Are you sure? I remember her as a he. However, the web agrees with you,
so my recollection is faulty: Janet Parker. Actually I'm not sure that
her identity and sex were ever mentioned at that time.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Yes, but Britain was a great power, in those days,
(or so they believed)
so they felt that they could do bioweapons research,

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
July 1978 was the month I went to Chile for the first time. I was
quite cross that I needed a vaccination certificate. Didn't they
know in South America that there was no more smallpox? However, they
knew better than I did.

In 1970 I needed a smallpox vaccination to visit the USA.

Some people I was travelling with weren't vaccinated. In Honolulu they
were told to go into a room near the immigration desk. Later they told
me that they didn't get the vaccination. In the room, they just had to
exit by another door.

Not long afterwards, the USA dropped the requirement for smallpox
vaccination.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
July 1978 was the month I went to Chile for the first time. I was
quite cross that I needed a vaccination certificate. Didn't they
know in South America that there was no more smallpox? However, they
knew better than I did.

In 1970 I needed a smallpox vaccination to visit the USA.

Do you mean you had to get one specifically for that, or just show
that you had already been vaccinated?

(At that time, childhood smallpox vaccination was routine in the USA;
I'm surprised if it wasn't also in Australia.)

Post by Peter Moylan
Some people I was travelling with weren't vaccinated. In Honolulu they
were told to go into a room near the immigration desk. Later they told
me that they didn't get the vaccination. In the room, they just had to
exit by another door.
Not long afterwards, the USA dropped the requirement for smallpox
vaccination.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
July 1978 was the month I went to Chile for the first time. I
was quite cross that I needed a vaccination certificate. Didn't
they know in South America that there was no more smallpox?
However, they knew better than I did.

In 1970 I needed a smallpox vaccination to visit the USA.

Do you mean you had to get one specifically for that, or just show
that you had already been vaccinated?
(At that time, childhood smallpox vaccination was routine in the
USA; I'm surprised if it wasn't also in Australia.)

I was vaccinated for several things as a child, but smallpox wasn't one
of them. Australians only got a smallpox vaccination when travelling to
countries where it was still a problem.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Adam Funk
(At that time, childhood smallpox vaccination was routine in the
USA; I'm surprised if it wasn't also in Australia.)

I was vaccinated for several things as a child, but smallpox wasn't one
of them. Australians only got a smallpox vaccination when travelling to
countries where it was still a problem.

In July 1964 South Africa started requiring passports for people
crossing the border of Lesotho (then a British Protectorate more
widely known as "Basutoland"). It also required smallpox vaccinations,
as there had been an outbreak of smallpox in Swaziland, now better
known as ESwatini.

I had never been vaccinated as a child (me father was a health nut and
didn't believe in it) but was planning to visit Lesotho, so I got a
vaccination and the necessary certificate, and for several days I was
sick as a dog, and had to write one of my university exams from the
sick room.

I arrived at the Lesotho border with several friends, and on the South
African side there was a little wooden hut in a sea of mud that had
been levelled to build an immigration post. Several of my friends had
neglected to get vaccination certificates, but he said they could go
through if they police on the Lesotho side let them, and they could
get vaccinated in the hospital in Maseru. So we went through and the
police and the Lesotho side let us through, and we called at the
hospital where the unvaccinated among us got their vaccinations and
certificates. They suffered no ill-effects afterwards as they had all
been vaccinated as children, whereas as a child I (well actually my
parents) had had to show an exception certificate at every government
school at which I was enrolled.

There was similar weirdness on the Swaziland border the following
year, but on that occasion the scare was not over smallpox but foot &
mouth disease.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Adam Funk

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
July 1978 was the month I went to Chile for the first time. I
was quite cross that I needed a vaccination certificate. Didn't
they know in South America that there was no more smallpox?
However, they knew better than I did.

In 1970 I needed a smallpox vaccination to visit the USA.

Do you mean you had to get one specifically for that, or just show
that you had already been vaccinated?
(At that time, childhood smallpox vaccination was routine in the
USA; I'm surprised if it wasn't also in Australia.)

I was vaccinated for several things as a child, but smallpox wasn't one
of them. Australians only got a smallpox vaccination when travelling to
countries where it was still a problem.

OK. I know I had one in the USA (the scar has mostly faded but I used
to be able to find it easily).

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
"Shakes" is much less common than "shingles" in my
country

A shake is an obsolete kind of shingle.

You would have no trouble buying them on line.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Joy Beeson]

Post by jerryfriedman
You would have no trouble buying them on line.

Odds are that it would be "shake-style shingles" rather than shakes.

Shakes substituted skilled hand labor for expensive imports, and would
be both very high in price and inferior in quality today.


A while back I became curious as the whether linen crash is still
around. The *word* is still around, but the fabric isn't.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
You would have no trouble buying them on line.

Odds are that it would be "shake-style shingles" rather than shakes.
Shakes substituted skilled hand labor for expensive imports, and would
be both very high in price and inferior in quality today.

Well, you probably can't buy them in most, if not all, building supply
outlets, but about 10 years ago, I went to see a fellow about making a
tractor part for me, as he was well known in the area as being an
excellent machinist.

I noticed a machine just outside his shop, and asked him what it was. He
said it was a shake cutter. He was quite proud of it, and offered to
show me how it operated,

He grabbed a block of cedar, dropped it into the machine, and after a
few adjustment, fired up the gas engine, and the whole mechanism started
up. It ran on hydraulics, and the mechanical linkages caused it to feed
the cedar block, pushing it against a saw. As you may know, shakes are
tapered, and this beast actually shifted the angle of the block on each
successive pass, making the most of the block.

When the block was gone, it stopped.
He is/was a very clever fellow.
I have no idea if he's still alive.

Post by Joy Beeson
A while back I became curious as the whether linen crash is still
around. The *word* is still around, but the fabric isn't.

[Janet]

In article <vdpo4d$ceh0$***@dont-email.me>, ***@invalid.ca
says...

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
You would have no trouble buying them on line.

Odds are that it would be "shake-style shingles" rather than shakes.

or perhaps,"shaker-style" shingles, tapered cedar, as
opposed to the modern shingles made of bitumen of
asphalt.

Shaker-style is a well known phrase referring to the
traditional wood crafts made famous by Shakers.

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Joy Beeson
Shakes substituted skilled hand labor for expensive imports, and would
be both very high in price and inferior in quality today.

Well, you probably can't buy them in most, if not all, building supply
outlets,

Commercial tapered cedar roof shingles are easily
available here in UK, from professional timber suppliers.
Popular use on oak-framed buildings.

My husband used them to roof the summer house he made.

Janet.



but about 10 years ago, I went to see a fellow about
making a

Post by lar3ryca
tractor part for me, as he was well known in the area as being an
excellent machinist.
I noticed a machine just outside his shop, and asked him what it was. He
said it was a shake cutter. He was quite proud of it, and offered to
show me how it operated,
He grabbed a block of cedar, dropped it into the machine, and after a
few adjustment, fired up the gas engine, and the whole mechanism started
up. It ran on hydraulics, and the mechanical linkages caused it to feed
the cedar block, pushing it against a saw. As you may know, shakes are
tapered, and this beast actually shifted the angle of the block on each
successive pass, making the most of the block.
When the block was gone, it stopped.
He is/was a very clever fellow.
I have no idea if he's still alive.

Post by Joy Beeson
A while back I became curious as the whether linen crash is still
around. The *word* is still around, but the fabric isn't.

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
You would have no trouble buying them on line.

Odds are that it would be "shake-style shingles" rather than shakes.
Shakes substituted skilled hand labor for expensive imports, and would
be both very high in price and inferior in quality today.
A while back I became curious as the whether linen crash is still
around. The *word* is still around, but the fabric isn't.

“Crash is a coarse fabric with a rough, irregular surface, made from thick,
uneven yarns. Crash fabric is coarse linen-based rugged material made from both
dyed and raw yarns. The yarns used are often grey or white in color. Crash
fabrics are indistinct woven. Linen is generally used for the warp, while
blends of linen and jute, cotton, and wool, etc. were used for the filling. The
weave structure may vary from plain, twill to fancy. Crash fabric was very
thick, strong, rough and because of linen's characteristics it is absorbent
also.[1]”

I do wish that an acceptably environmentally-friendly method of producing linen
in volume could be developed, I love the fabric and it’s just currently very
uncommon even here, which historically made immense amounts of it.

[occam]

<snip>

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Joy Beeson
A while back I became curious as the whether linen crash is still
around. The *word* is still around, but the fabric isn't.

“Crash is a coarse fabric with a rough, irregular surface, made from thick,
uneven yarns. Crash fabric is coarse linen-based rugged material made from both
dyed and raw yarns. The yarns used are often grey or white in color. Crash
fabrics are indistinct woven. Linen is generally used for the warp, while
blends of linen and jute, cotton, and wool, etc. were used for the filling. The
weave structure may vary from plain, twill to fancy. Crash fabric was very
thick, strong, rough and because of linen's characteristics it is absorbent
also.[1]”
I do wish that an acceptably environmentally-friendly method of producing linen
in volume could be developed, I love the fabric and it’s just currently very
uncommon even here, which historically made immense amounts of it.

I feel the same way about hemp, except that it _is_ an environmentally
desirable plant. Not only has it many more uses than linen, growing it
has a positive effect on decarbonizing the atmosphere. Fast growing,
with over 25000 uses (according to one video) it seems criminal to
ignore it. Note, hemp =/= cannabis.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 13:03:38 +0200

Post by occam
<snip>

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Joy Beeson
A while back I became curious as the whether linen crash is still
around. The *word* is still around, but the fabric isn't.

“Crash is a coarse fabric with a rough, irregular surface, made from thick,
uneven yarns. Crash fabric is coarse linen-based rugged material made from both
dyed and raw yarns. The yarns used are often grey or white in color. Crash
fabrics are indistinct woven. Linen is generally used for the warp, while
blends of linen and jute, cotton, and wool, etc. were used for the filling. The
weave structure may vary from plain, twill to fancy. Crash fabric was very
thick, strong, rough and because of linen's characteristics it is absorbent
also.[1]”
I do wish that an acceptably environmentally-friendly method of producing linen
in volume could be developed, I love the fabric and it’s just currently very
uncommon even here, which historically made immense amounts of it.

I feel the same way about hemp, except that it _is_ an environmentally
desirable plant. Not only has it many more uses than linen, growing it
has a positive effect on decarbonizing the atmosphere. Fast growing,
with over 25000 uses (according to one video) it seems criminal to
ignore it. Note, hemp =/= cannabis.

Sales Slogan:
Make Rope, not Dope!

PS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_beer

which claims to be translated from

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanfbier

but there seems to be more about Europe in the de version.

[occam]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Sat, 5 Oct 2024 13:03:38 +0200

Post by occam
<snip>

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Joy Beeson
A while back I became curious as the whether linen crash is still
around. The *word* is still around, but the fabric isn't.

“Crash is a coarse fabric with a rough, irregular surface, made from thick,
uneven yarns. Crash fabric is coarse linen-based rugged material made from both
dyed and raw yarns. The yarns used are often grey or white in color. Crash
fabrics are indistinct woven. Linen is generally used for the warp, while
blends of linen and jute, cotton, and wool, etc. were used for the filling. The
weave structure may vary from plain, twill to fancy. Crash fabric was very
thick, strong, rough and because of linen's characteristics it is absorbent
also.[1]”
I do wish that an acceptably environmentally-friendly method of producing linen
in volume could be developed, I love the fabric and it’s just currently very
uncommon even here, which historically made immense amounts of it.

I feel the same way about hemp, except that it _is_ an environmentally
desirable plant. Not only has it many more uses than linen, growing it
has a positive effect on decarbonizing the atmosphere. Fast growing,
with over 25000 uses (according to one video) it seems criminal to
ignore it. Note, hemp =/= cannabis.

Make Rope, not Dope!
PS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp_beer

Well, I'm wearing a hemp shirt at present - which proudly advertises
itself as 'Hemp'. (I was told by the salesperson that buying the shirt
in the USA would have been illegal at one time.)

Beer, ropes, shirts. 3 down, 24997 other uses to go. Building bricks
was the surprising one for me. It was described as 'carbon negative'
compared to the concrete breeze blocks used in the building industry.

[Adam Funk]

...

Post by occam

Post by Aidan Kehoe
I do wish that an acceptably environmentally-friendly method of producing linen
in volume could be developed, I love the fabric and it’s just currently very
uncommon even here, which historically made immense amounts of it.

I feel the same way about hemp, except that it _is_ an environmentally
desirable plant. Not only has it many more uses than linen, growing it
has a positive effect on decarbonizing the atmosphere. Fast growing,
with over 25000 uses (according to one video) it seems criminal to
ignore it. Note, hemp =/= cannabis.

Well, different cultivars of the same species --- probably closer
together than the range of Brassica oleracea. Supposedly the US gov't
has traditionally been against hemp because it looks the same as the
recreational cultivars from the air.

[Adam Funk]

Post by Adam Funk
...

Post by occam

Post by Aidan Kehoe
I do wish that an acceptably environmentally-friendly method of producing linen
in volume could be developed, I love the fabric and it’s just currently very
uncommon even here, which historically made immense amounts of it.

I feel the same way about hemp, except that it _is_ an environmentally
desirable plant. Not only has it many more uses than linen, growing it
has a positive effect on decarbonizing the atmosphere. Fast growing,
with over 25000 uses (according to one video) it seems criminal to
ignore it. Note, hemp =/= cannabis.

Well, different cultivars of the same species --- probably closer
together than the range of Brassica oleracea. Supposedly the US gov't
has traditionally been against hemp because it looks the same as the
recreational cultivars from the air.

Sorry, I forgot the obligatory B. oleracea cartoon:

<https://xkcd.com/2827/>

[lar3ryca]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
You would have no trouble buying them on line.

Odds are that it would be "shake-style shingles" rather than shakes.
Shakes substituted skilled hand labor for expensive imports, and would
be both very high in price and inferior in quality today.
A while back I became curious as the whether linen crash is still
around. The *word* is still around, but the fabric isn't.

“Crash is a coarse fabric with a rough, irregular surface, made from thick,
uneven yarns. Crash fabric is coarse linen-based rugged material made from both
dyed and raw yarns. The yarns used are often grey or white in color. Crash
fabrics are indistinct woven. Linen is generally used for the warp, while
blends of linen and jute, cotton, and wool, etc. were used for the filling. The
weave structure may vary from plain, twill to fancy. Crash fabric was very
thick, strong, rough and because of linen's characteristics it is absorbent
also.[1]”
I do wish that an acceptably environmentally-friendly method of producing linen
in volume could be developed, I love the fabric and it’s just currently very
uncommon even here, which historically made immense amounts of it.

How is producing linen not environmentally friendly?
Around these parts, flax straw is usually burned.

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Aidan Kehoe
I do wish that an acceptably environmentally-friendly method of producing linen
in volume could be developed, I love the fabric and it’s just currently very
uncommon even here, which historically made immense amounts of it.

How is producing linen not environmentally friendly?

My understanding is that the traditional retting process (loosening the fibres
from the stalk of the flax using bacteria) creates large amounts of organic
wastewater which should be treated, a relatively expensive process; chemical
retting is possible but has a still worse environmental impact.

Post by lar3ryca
Around these parts, flax straw is usually burned.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Aidan Kehoe
I do wish that an acceptably environmentally-friendly method of
producing linen in volume could be developed, I love the fabric and
it's just currently very uncommon even here, which historically made
immense amounts of it.

How is producing linen not environmentally friendly?

My understanding is that the traditional retting process (loosening the
fibres from the stalk of the flax using bacteria) creates large amounts of
organic wastewater which should be treated, a relatively expensive
process; chemical retting is possible but has a still worse environmental
impact.

'To ret', probably from Middle Dutch 'roten',
from Old Norse and other Old Germanic languages.
Related to 'rotten, English 'to rot'.
It was done in a 'roterij', with a characteristic smell/stench.
The river 'Leie' (Lys) in Belgium was famous/notorious for it.
I don't think there are any left.

Not related to 'rotary' 'rotating' and all similar words
derived from Latin 'rota', 'rotarius' = wheel.

Jan

[lar3ryca]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Aidan Kehoe
I do wish that an acceptably environmentally-friendly method of producing linen
in volume could be developed, I love the fabric and it’s just currently very
uncommon even here, which historically made immense amounts of it.

How is producing linen not environmentally friendly?

My understanding is that the traditional retting process (loosening the fibres
from the stalk of the flax using bacteria) creates large amounts of organic
wastewater which should be treated, a relatively expensive process; chemical
retting is possible but has a still worse environmental impact.

Thanks. Makes me wonder though, retting vs. burning, which is worse?

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by lar3ryca
Around these parts, flax straw is usually burned.

[Joy Beeson]

Post by Aidan Kehoe
My understanding is that the traditional retting process (loosening the fibres
from the stalk of the flax using bacteria) creates large amounts of organic
wastewater which should be treated, a relatively expensive process; chemical
retting is possible but has a still worse environmental impact.

Or the wastewater could be used to irrigate a cornfield.

It's the fertilizer in it that makes it undesirable in a lake or
river.

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Aidan Kehoe
My understanding is that the traditional retting process (loosening the
fibres from the stalk of the flax using bacteria) creates large amounts of
organic wastewater which should be treated, a relatively expensive
process; chemical retting is possible but has a still worse environmental
impact.

Or the wastewater could be used to irrigate a cornfield.

Is that done where you are? In theory it could be done here, there’s plenty of
agricultural land, but in practice, as I said, flax is no longer grown and
linen is no longer made.

Post by Joy Beeson
It's the fertilizer in it that makes it undesirable in a lake or
river.

[Joy Beeson]

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Is that done where you are?

I don't think flax has ever been grown in this area.

Rumor has it that mint was once such a common crop that the bank had a
refrigerated vault for the harvest, and a wide variety of volunteer
mint supports that rumor.

Corn and beans is it in the present day.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Is that done where you are?

I don't think flax has ever been grown in this area.
Rumor has it that mint was once such a common crop that the bank had a
refrigerated vault for the harvest, and a wide variety of volunteer
mint supports that rumor.

They wanted to keep it in mint condition.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Is that done where you are?

I don't think flax has ever been grown in this area.
Rumor has it that mint was once such a common crop that the bank had a
refrigerated vault for the harvest, and a wide variety of volunteer
mint supports that rumor.
Corn and beans is it in the present day.

Where "soy" goes without saying?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Joy Beeson]

Post by jerryfriedman
Where "soy" goes without saying?

Yep.

[Ted Heise]

On Tue, 08 Oct 2024 23:52:59 -0400,

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Is that done where you are?

I don't think flax has ever been grown in this area.
Rumor has it that mint was once such a common crop that the
bank had a refrigerated vault for the harvest, and a wide
variety of volunteer mint supports that rumor.
Corn and beans is it in the present day.

Same here a bit west of you, but every now and then we some milo
or sorghum while riding out in the county. Even a rare field of
tomatos or peppers.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Ted Heise
On Tue, 08 Oct 2024 23:52:59 -0400,

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Is that done where you are?

I don't think flax has ever been grown in this area.
Rumor has it that mint was once such a common crop that the
bank had a refrigerated vault for the harvest, and a wide
variety of volunteer mint supports that rumor.
Corn and beans is it in the present day.

Same here a bit west of you, but every now and then we some milo
or sorghum while riding out in the county. Even a rare field of
tomatos or peppers.

Milo? I had to look that one up.
I gather you did not mean "we see some sorghum or sorghum".

[Ted Heise]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:14:19 -0600,

Post by Ted Heise
On Tue, 08 Oct 2024 23:52:59 -0400,

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Is that done where you are?

I don't think flax has ever been grown in this area.
Rumor has it that mint was once such a common crop that the
bank had a refrigerated vault for the harvest, and a wide
variety of volunteer mint supports that rumor.
Corn and beans is it in the present day.

Same here a bit west of you, but every now and then we some
milo or sorghum while riding out in the county. Even a rare
field of tomatos or peppers.

Milo? I had to look that one up. I gather you did not mean "we
see some sorghum or sorghum".

Well, good question. I had thought they were somewhat different
plants, based in part on input from my wife (who grew up on a farm
in Nebraska). But a quick web search doesn't give much credence
to that notion.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Ted Heise
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:14:19 -0600,

Post by Ted Heise
On Tue, 08 Oct 2024 23:52:59 -0400,

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by Aidan Kehoe
Is that done where you are?

I don't think flax has ever been grown in this area.
Rumor has it that mint was once such a common crop that the
bank had a refrigerated vault for the harvest, and a wide
variety of volunteer mint supports that rumor.
Corn and beans is it in the present day.

Same here a bit west of you, but every now and then we some
milo or sorghum while riding out in the county. Even a rare
field of tomatos or peppers.

Milo? I had to look that one up. I gather you did not mean "we
see some sorghum or sorghum".

Well, good question. I had thought they were somewhat different
plants, based in part on input from my wife (who grew up on a farm
in Nebraska). But a quick web search doesn't give much credence
to that notion.

Your wife may well be right. Miriam-Webster says, of milo:
"a small usually early and drought-resistant grain sorghum with compact
bearded heads of large yellow or whitish seeds".

Another reference from Oklahoma Ag says:
"Grain Sorghum. Sorghum is a coarse, upright growing grass that is used
for both grain and forage production. Grain sorghum is shorter and has
been bred for higher grain yields. Grain sorghum is also called "milo"
and is a major feed grain for cattle.

It's unusual in Canada, or at least in Saskatchewan:
Food in Canada magazine says:
"You can be forgiven if you’re not familiar with sorghum. It’s an
ancient grain, but before 1991 we couldn’t grow it in Canada. Om Dangi,
president, CEO and senior breeder at Ottawa-based Agricultural
Environment Renewal Canada, says the varieties out there had to be
adapted to our climate, which his organization has worked on for the
last 25 years. Today, thanks to Dangi’s work, we can grow a handful of
varieties in Canada, but it hasn’t taken our agriculture industry by
storm — yet."

[Steve Hayes]

Post by lar3ryca
"a small usually early and drought-resistant grain sorghum with compact
bearded heads of large yellow or whitish seeds".
"Grain Sorghum. Sorghum is a coarse, upright growing grass that is used
for both grain and forage production. Grain sorghum is shorter and has
been bred for higher grain yields. Grain sorghum is also called "milo"
and is a major feed grain for cattle.
"You can be forgiven if you’re not familiar with sorghum. It’s an
ancient grain, but before 1991 we couldn’t grow it in Canada. Om Dangi,
president, CEO and senior breeder at Ottawa-based Agricultural
Environment Renewal Canada, says the varieties out there had to be
adapted to our climate, which his organization has worked on for the
last 25 years. Today, thanks to Dangi’s work, we can grow a handful of
varieties in Canada, but it hasn’t taken our agriculture industry by
storm — yet."

What is the difference between sorghum and millet?

We have a kind of grain/corn called in Zulu amabele, and by white
people mabela, though it was formerly called "kaffir corn".

It is used to make beer or porridge, and in its beer form it is
sometimes labelled "sorghum", but in its porridge form it is usually
labelled "mabela".

It is supposed to be more nutritious than maize.

[Adam Funk]

...

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by lar3ryca
"You can be forgiven if you’re not familiar with sorghum. It’s an
ancient grain, but before 1991 we couldn’t grow it in Canada. Om Dangi,
president, CEO and senior breeder at Ottawa-based Agricultural
Environment Renewal Canada, says the varieties out there had to be
adapted to our climate, which his organization has worked on for the
last 25 years. Today, thanks to Dangi’s work, we can grow a handful of
varieties in Canada, but it hasn’t taken our agriculture industry by
storm — yet."

What is the difference between sorghum and millet?
We have a kind of grain/corn called in Zulu amabele, and by white
people mabela, though it was formerly called "kaffir corn".
It is used to make beer or porridge, and in its beer form it is
sometimes labelled "sorghum", but in its porridge form it is usually
labelled "mabela".
It is supposed to be more nutritious than maize.

There are also varieties of Sorghum bicolor grown for the sugary
stalks. My grandfather used to grow it on his farm (in Virginia)
occasionally, press it (using a homemade press made of steel drums
with gears & a welded frame), & concentrate it to make sorghum
molasses, for use in the kitchen & to enrich cattle feed.

[jerryfriedman]

On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 23:50:59 +0000, Steve Hayes wrote:
..

Post by Steve Hayes
What is the difference between sorghum and millet?

..

According to Wikipedia, "millet" covers several
cereals in different subfamilies of the grass family.
They all have small seeds and grow well in warm,
semi-arid climates. Sorghum is sometimes called
great millet and placed in that category, but is
more often considered separately.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Steve Hayes]

Post by jerryfriedman
..

Post by Steve Hayes
What is the difference between sorghum and millet?

..
According to Wikipedia, "millet" covers several
cereals in different subfamilies of the grass family.
They all have small seeds and grow well in warm,
semi-arid climates. Sorghum is sometimes called
great millet and placed in that category, but is
more often considered separately.

I've only become aware of "sorghum" in the last 20 years or so.

In my youth there were three varieties of porridge: mealiemeal,
mabelameal and oatmeal.

Mabelameal on its own is rather bland, so the most common brand was
called "Maltabella", which has some additives to make the taste more
interesting.

[Ted Heise]

On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 22:05:10 -0600,

Post by Ted Heise
On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 19:14:19 -0600,

Post by Ted Heise
On Tue, 08 Oct 2024 23:52:59 -0400,

Post by Joy Beeson
Corn and beans is it in the present day.

Same here a bit west of you, but every now and then we some
milo or sorghum while riding out in the county. Even a rare
field of tomatos or peppers.

Milo? I had to look that one up. I gather you did not mean
"we see some sorghum or sorghum".

Well, good question. I had thought they were somewhat
different plants, based in part on input from my wife (who
grew up on a farm in Nebraska). But a quick web search
doesn't give much credence to that notion.

Your wife may well be right. Miriam-Webster says, of milo: "a
small usually early and drought-resistant grain sorghum with
compact bearded heads of large yellow or whitish seeds".
Another reference from Oklahoma Ag says: "Grain Sorghum.
Sorghum is a coarse, upright growing grass that is used for
both grain and forage production. Grain sorghum is shorter and
has been bred for higher grain yields. Grain sorghum is also
called "milo" and is a major feed grain for cattle.

So it sounds like milo may be same as (or more similar to) grain
sorghum than to Bb sorghum.

I do remember chewing on milo as a kid on my grandpa's farm. It
had kind of a sweet, nutty taste, if I recall rightly.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Joy Beeson

Post by jerryfriedman
You would have no trouble buying them on line.

Odds are that it would be "shake-style shingles" rather than shakes.
Shakes substituted skilled hand labor for expensive imports, and would
be both very high in price and inferior in quality today.

..

Hand-split shakes are around.

https://directcedarsupplies.com/products/hand-split-shakes/western-red-cedar-hand-split-and-resawn-shakes/

https://www.libertycedar.com/pd/24-wrc-1-heavy-h-s-cca/131

Call for a quote (never a good sign). As for the quality,
I've never encountered shakes of any period, so I know
nothing.

--
Jerry Friedman

[occam]

Post by jerryfriedman
As for the quality,
I've never encountered shakes of any period, so I know
nothing.

What, not even in mid-winter? (I've encountered some of my best shakes
in winter.)

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Snidely

Post by occam
"More things than you can shake a stick at" is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

It seems to be like trying to point [your finger] at all the items in a
large warehouse [other scales available]. Why shaking a stick? Well,
a stick is a pointer, and trying to point at each of all those items in
quick succession is going to look shaky.

I would see "shaking a stick at" as a threatening gesture. amd if
there are more of whatever it is that you are shaking a stick at you
might need a more convincing threat than a stick. A nuke, perhaps?

[jerryfriedman]

Post by occam
"More things than you can shake a stick at" is an common BrE
expression. I have often heard it, and have frequently been baffled by it.
"If you say that 'there are more things than you could or can shake a
stick at', you are emphasizing in a humorous way that there are a lot of
them.
Both the humour and the logic escape me. What am I shaking a stick at a
large number of things?

..

You may not find it funny (I don't), but it's not serious.
In a lot of uses it may be humorous exaggeration.

Some history and speculation but no definitive answer
at the a.u.e. FAQ:

https://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxmoreth.html

That and more on stackexchange:

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/92393/origin-of-more-x-than-you-can-shake-a-stick-at

--
Jerry Friedman