Discussion:
"Passer by" vs. "Bypasser"
(too old to reply)
Dingbat
2019-11-30 04:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html

In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
This dictionary agrees:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser

The meaning implied by the headline is, however, listed here:
https://findwords.info/term/bypasser
s***@gmail.com
2019-11-30 05:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
Post by Dingbat
https://findwords.info/term/bypasser
I would use "passer-by". I would not bypass the hyphen.

/dps
Dingbat
2019-11-30 08:48:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
Post by Dingbat
https://findwords.info/term/bypasser
I would use "passer-by". I would not bypass the hyphen.
Thanks. Perhaps as a recent development, Grammatist* (among others+),
omits the hyphen. It also notes that PASSERSBY is seen and if
it gets common enough, will be listed as an alternate plural.

* https://grammarist.com/spelling/passerbys-or-passersby/

+ https://writingexplained.org/passersby-or-passerbys

Oxford Learner's entry, taken from their Advanced American Dictionary says:
passerby, also passer-by
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/passerby
occam
2019-11-30 09:20:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-30 09:49:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.

Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
--
athel
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-11-30 16:35:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.
Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
Agreed.

This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315

The report on the front page of The Times (of London) includes:

Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge and
removed two knives he had taped to his hands.

A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and Mayor
lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".

That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they didn't
"stand by" - they moved in to take action.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Katy Jennison
2019-11-30 16:57:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.
Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
Agreed.
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge and
removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and Mayor
lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they didn't
"stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
--
Katy Jennison
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-11-30 17:13:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.
Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
Agreed.
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge and
removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and Mayor
lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they didn't
"stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
--
athel
Katy Jennison
2019-11-30 18:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.
Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
Agreed.
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge and
removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and Mayor
lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they didn't
"stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
With great presence of mind and on the spur of the moment, snatched from
the wall of the Fishmongers' Hall. The tackler was a Polish chef.
--
Katy Jennison
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-30 18:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
With great presence of mind and on the spur of the moment, snatched from
the wall of the Fishmongers' Hall. The tackler was a Polish chef.
Imagine what the late terrorist could have accomplished were firearms
readily available in your country.

Similarly for the Hague attacker (not yet identified) a few hours later.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-01 07:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.
Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
Agreed.
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge and
removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and Mayor
lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they didn't
"stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
With great presence of mind and on the spur of the moment, snatched
from the wall of the Fishmongers' Hall. The tackler was a Polish chef.
Curiously, they haven't mentioned either the fire extinguisher or the
narwhal tusk on the new we see on television in France.
--
athel
occam
2019-12-01 10:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.
Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
Agreed.
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge and
removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and Mayor
lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they didn't
"stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
With great presence of mind and on the spur of the moment, snatched
from the wall of the Fishmongers' Hall.  The tackler was a Polish chef.
Curiously, they haven't mentioned either the fire extinguisher or the
narwhal tusk on the new we see on television in France.
Hmm, how do you translate 'narwhal tusk' to French? Maybe that was a
factor in the omission?
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-01 11:05:18 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by occam
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Curiously, they haven't mentioned either the fire extinguisher or the
narwhal tusk on the new we see on television in France.
Hmm, how do you translate 'narwhal tusk' to French?
Best guess: "le tusk du narwhal". And for "fire extinguisher", I'd go
for "extinguisher du feu".
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Translations of international treaty texts a speciality - for a full
list of services and prices, please call: 01 2345 6789.
Ken Blake
2019-12-01 18:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.
Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
Agreed.
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge and
removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and Mayor
lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they didn't
"stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
With great presence of mind and on the spur of the moment, snatched
from the wall of the Fishmongers' Hall. The tackler was a Polish chef.
Curiously, they haven't mentioned either the fire extinguisher or the
narwhal tusk on the new we see on television in France.
Are you the person who replied "not a new" to the editor who asked "are
there any news?"
--
Ken
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-01 19:09:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.
Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
Agreed.
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge and
removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and Mayor
lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they didn't
"stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
With great presence of mind and on the spur of the moment, snatched
from the wall of the Fishmongers' Hall. The tackler was a Polish chef.
Curiously, they haven't mentioned either the fire extinguisher or the
narwhal tusk on the new we see on television in France.
Are you the person who replied "not a new" to the editor who asked "are
there any news?"
Tyop
--
athel
Ken Blake
2019-12-01 19:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.
Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
Agreed.
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge and
removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and Mayor
lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they didn't
"stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
With great presence of mind and on the spur of the moment, snatched
from the wall of the Fishmongers' Hall. The tackler was a Polish chef.
Curiously, they haven't mentioned either the fire extinguisher or the
narwhal tusk on the new we see on television in France.
Are you the person who replied "not a new" to the editor who asked "are
there any news?"
Tyop
Yes, I know. I didn't really think you were that person.
--
Ken
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-12-01 18:34:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:51 +0000, Katy Jennison
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 10:49:37 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by occam
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Yes.
Ranjit was right and the writer in the Evening Standard was wrong.
Agreed.
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge and
removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and Mayor
lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they didn't
"stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
With great presence of mind and on the spur of the moment, snatched from
the wall of the Fishmongers' Hall. The tackler was a Polish chef.
The "incident" started inside the Fishmongers' Hall.

Extracts from The Times on Saturday:

The attacker, wearing a hoax suicide belt, had been a guest at a
Cambridge University conference on prisoner rehabilitation being
held in the City of London. He threatened to blow up the historic
Fishmongers’ Hall, which was hosting the event,...

The conference at Fishmongers’ Hall had been organised by the
Institute of Criminology at Cambridge. A university spokeswoman said
it was “gravely concerned” at reports that staff and students were
caught up in the incident.

Professor Stephen Toope, vice-chancellor of the University of
Cambridge, said he was “devastated” by the news. “I am devastated to
learn that yesterday’s hateful attack on London Bridge may have been
targeted at staff, students and alumni attending an event organised
by the University of Cambridge’s Institute of Criminology. We mourn
the dead and we hope for a speedy recovery for the injured.”

The topic of the conference was Prisoner Rehabilitation. Usman Khan, the
attacker, was only one of the former prisoners present as invited
guests. At least one former prisoner was in the group that chased after
him and held him to the ground.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Tony Cooper
2019-11-30 20:59:02 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.

A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-30 21:08:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
I have no doubt Fishmongers Hall has the necessary certification for the
tusk. It is unlikely that the Polish chef has that certification (unless
he's an haute cuisine chef who specialises in narwhal tusk curry), but I
think in the circumstances they'll probably let him off.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Katy Jennison
2019-11-30 21:26:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
https://www.irishpost.com/news/polish-chef-hailed-hero-chasing-london-bridge-terrorist-5-foot-narwhal-tusk-174489?fbclid=IwAR0lidiuO2X2v4RE64-BfGpzgg3bSPHs4-ROtkkTR3JsRznIneDD42rxViU
--
Katy Jennison
Peter Moylan
2019-12-01 01:16:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
https://www.irishpost.com/news/polish-chef-hailed-hero-chasing-london-bridge-terrorist-5-foot-narwhal-tusk-174489?fbclid=IwAR0lidiuO2X2v4RE64-BfGpzgg3bSPHs4-ROtkkTR3JsRznIneDD42rxViU
Where will you get your Polish chefs from after Brexit?
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-01 10:53:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person.  It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
https://www.irishpost.com/news/polish-chef-hailed-hero-chasing-london-bridge-terrorist-5-foot-narwhal-tusk-174489?fbclid=IwAR0lidiuO2X2v4RE64-BfGpzgg3bSPHs4-ROtkkTR3JsRznIneDD42rxViU
Where will you get your Polish chefs from after Brexit?
The same place every country (except the USA) gets their Polish chefs:
Poland. (The USA gets them from Chicago.)

Border control doesn't mean *closing* the borders; it just means we're
allowed to be picky. In future, applications from narwhal-tusk-wielding
Polish chefs seeking to migrate to the UK will no doubt be given
considerably higher priority.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Sam Plusnet
2019-12-01 18:29:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Peter Moylan
Where will you get your Polish chefs from after Brexit?
Poland. (The USA gets them from Chicago.)
Border control doesn't mean *closing* the borders; it just means we're
allowed to be picky. In future, applications from narwhal-tusk-wielding
Polish chefs seeking to migrate to the UK will no doubt be given
considerably higher priority.
Would they have to bring their own tusk? Or would they just have to
demonstrate some level of tuck-wielding competence?
--
Sam Plusnet
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-01 18:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Peter Moylan
Where will you get your Polish chefs from after Brexit?
Poland. (The USA gets them from Chicago.)
Border control doesn't mean *closing* the borders; it just means we're
allowed to be picky. In future, applications from
narwhal-tusk-wielding Polish chefs seeking to migrate to the UK will
no doubt be given considerably higher priority.
Would they have to bring their own tusk?  Or would they just have to
demonstrate some level of tuck-wielding competence?
They certainly shouldn't have to bring one; it seems we have narwhal
tusks lying around all over London.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-12-01 19:12:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Peter Moylan
Where will you get your Polish chefs from after Brexit?
Poland. (The USA gets them from Chicago.)
Border control doesn't mean *closing* the borders; it just means we're
allowed to be picky. In future, applications from narwhal-tusk-wielding
Polish chefs seeking to migrate to the UK will no doubt be given
considerably higher priority.
Would they have to bring their own tusk? Or would they just have to
demonstrate some level of tuck-wielding competence?
By total coincidence the recent President of the European Council (of
the EU) was Donald Tusk who is Polish.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Sam Plusnet
2019-12-01 23:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Peter Moylan
Where will you get your Polish chefs from after Brexit?
Poland. (The USA gets them from Chicago.)
Border control doesn't mean *closing* the borders; it just means we're
allowed to be picky. In future, applications from narwhal-tusk-wielding
Polish chefs seeking to migrate to the UK will no doubt be given
considerably higher priority.
Would they have to bring their own tusk? Or would they just have to
demonstrate some level of tuck-wielding competence?
By total coincidence the recent President of the European Council (of
the EU) was Donald Tusk who is Polish.
Coincidence?
Surely not.
These are deep waters Watson.
--
Sam Plusnet
Peter T. Daniels
2019-11-30 21:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
Tony Cooper
2019-12-01 21:41:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
Wrong again.

The Narwhal Tusk is a famous punt gun made by Ffawkes & Son, Ltd. of
Oswaldtwistle, Lancs. Fawkes & Son, Ltd (estab: 1851) holds three
Royal Warrants of appointment as purveyor of bespoke sporting shotguns
to the British and other European royal families.

The Narwhal Tusk was the first gimbal-mounted shotgun. This feature
allowed the user to rotate the gun instead of rotating the punt to
bring aim on the flock. The gimbal-mount was affixed to the punt atop
a inch-thick coiled spring to allow flex when the gun was fired.

As you no doubt know, the person firing the punt gun does so from a
prone position in the punt to avoid being thrown backwards by the
recoil when firing the 2-gauge shell. Sir Geoffrey Ledger-de Main,
the then Managing Director of Ffawkes & Son when the gun was
developed, named the gun "the Narwhal Tusk" because the barrel, in the
ready position, pointed upwards above the firer resembling the
protruding canine tooth of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros).

In 1912, Joseph Grimm-Tailor brought down 107 duck with one shot from
a Narwhal Tusk in the North Kent marshes thus establishing himself as
a legend in the waterfowling community. Unfortunately, because of the
shock to his ears caused by the blast, he was unable to hear the
congratulatory comments of his peers, and never did regain his
hearing.

The Narwhal Tusk was available in different lengths, and the 5-ft
model was the shortest barrel. It was sold to waterfowlers who didn't
want to carry around the heavier models that went up to 12-ft in
length.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part. However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Katy Jennison
2019-12-01 22:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
Wrong again.
The Narwhal Tusk is a famous punt gun made by Ffawkes & Son, Ltd. of
Oswaldtwistle, Lancs. Fawkes & Son, Ltd (estab: 1851) holds three
Royal Warrants of appointment as purveyor of bespoke sporting shotguns
to the British and other European royal families.
The Narwhal Tusk was the first gimbal-mounted shotgun. This feature
allowed the user to rotate the gun instead of rotating the punt to
bring aim on the flock. The gimbal-mount was affixed to the punt atop
a inch-thick coiled spring to allow flex when the gun was fired.
As you no doubt know, the person firing the punt gun does so from a
prone position in the punt to avoid being thrown backwards by the
recoil when firing the 2-gauge shell. Sir Geoffrey Ledger-de Main,
the then Managing Director of Ffawkes & Son when the gun was
developed, named the gun "the Narwhal Tusk" because the barrel, in the
ready position, pointed upwards above the firer resembling the
protruding canine tooth of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros).
In 1912, Joseph Grimm-Tailor brought down 107 duck with one shot from
a Narwhal Tusk in the North Kent marshes thus establishing himself as
a legend in the waterfowling community. Unfortunately, because of the
shock to his ears caused by the blast, he was unable to hear the
congratulatory comments of his peers, and never did regain his
hearing.
The Narwhal Tusk was available in different lengths, and the 5-ft
model was the shortest barrel. It was sold to waterfowlers who didn't
want to carry around the heavier models that went up to 12-ft in
length.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part. However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
<applause>
--
Katy Jennison
Sam Plusnet
2019-12-01 23:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person.  It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
Wrong again.
The Narwhal Tusk is a famous punt gun made by Ffawkes & Son, Ltd. of
Oswaldtwistle, Lancs.  Fawkes & Son, Ltd (estab: 1851) holds three
Royal Warrants of appointment as purveyor of bespoke sporting shotguns
to the British and other European royal families.
The Narwhal Tusk was the first gimbal-mounted shotgun.  This feature
allowed the user to rotate the gun instead of rotating the punt to
bring aim on the flock.  The gimbal-mount was affixed to the punt atop
a inch-thick coiled spring to allow flex when the gun was fired.
As you no doubt know, the person firing the punt gun does so from a
prone position in the punt to avoid being thrown backwards by the
recoil when firing the 2-gauge shell.  Sir Geoffrey Ledger-de Main,
the then Managing Director of Ffawkes & Son when the gun was
developed, named the gun "the Narwhal Tusk" because the barrel, in the
ready position, pointed upwards above the firer resembling the
protruding canine tooth of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros).
In 1912, Joseph Grimm-Tailor brought down 107 duck with one shot from
a Narwhal Tusk in the North Kent marshes thus establishing himself as
a legend in the waterfowling community.  Unfortunately, because of the
shock to his ears caused by the blast, he was unable to hear the
congratulatory comments of his peers, and never did regain his
hearing.
The Narwhal Tusk was available in different lengths, and the 5-ft
model was the shortest barrel.  It was sold to waterfowlers who didn't
want to carry around the heavier models that went up to 12-ft in
length.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part.  However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
<applause>
<Standing ovation>

(No eggs were harmed in the making of...)
--
Sam Plusnet
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-01 23:26:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person.  It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
Wrong again.
The Narwhal Tusk is a famous punt gun made by Ffawkes & Son, Ltd. of
Oswaldtwistle, Lancs.  Fawkes & Son, Ltd (estab: 1851) holds three
Royal Warrants of appointment as purveyor of bespoke sporting shotguns
to the British and other European royal families.
The Narwhal Tusk was the first gimbal-mounted shotgun.  This feature
allowed the user to rotate the gun instead of rotating the punt to
bring aim on the flock.  The gimbal-mount was affixed to the punt atop
a inch-thick coiled spring to allow flex when the gun was fired.
As you no doubt know, the person firing the punt gun does so from a
prone position in the punt to avoid being thrown backwards by the
recoil when firing the 2-gauge shell.  Sir Geoffrey Ledger-de Main,
the then Managing Director of Ffawkes & Son when the gun was
developed, named the gun "the Narwhal Tusk" because the barrel, in the
ready position, pointed upwards above the firer resembling the
protruding canine tooth of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros).
In 1912, Joseph Grimm-Tailor brought down 107 duck with one shot from
a Narwhal Tusk in the North Kent marshes thus establishing himself as
a legend in the waterfowling community.  Unfortunately, because of the
shock to his ears caused by the blast, he was unable to hear the
congratulatory comments of his peers, and never did regain his
hearing.
The Narwhal Tusk was available in different lengths, and the 5-ft
model was the shortest barrel.  It was sold to waterfowlers who didn't
want to carry around the heavier models that went up to 12-ft in
length.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part.  However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
<applause>
Seconded.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Ken Blake
2019-12-01 23:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person.  It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
Wrong again.
The Narwhal Tusk is a famous punt gun made by Ffawkes & Son, Ltd. of
Oswaldtwistle, Lancs.  Fawkes & Son, Ltd (estab: 1851) holds three
Royal Warrants of appointment as purveyor of bespoke sporting shotguns
to the British and other European royal families.
The Narwhal Tusk was the first gimbal-mounted shotgun.  This feature
allowed the user to rotate the gun instead of rotating the punt to
bring aim on the flock.  The gimbal-mount was affixed to the punt atop
a inch-thick coiled spring to allow flex when the gun was fired.
As you no doubt know, the person firing the punt gun does so from a
prone position in the punt to avoid being thrown backwards by the
recoil when firing the 2-gauge shell.  Sir Geoffrey Ledger-de Main,
the then Managing Director of Ffawkes & Son when the gun was
developed, named the gun "the Narwhal Tusk" because the barrel, in the
ready position, pointed upwards above the firer resembling the
protruding canine tooth of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros).
In 1912, Joseph Grimm-Tailor brought down 107 duck with one shot from
a Narwhal Tusk in the North Kent marshes thus establishing himself as
a legend in the waterfowling community.  Unfortunately, because of the
shock to his ears caused by the blast, he was unable to hear the
congratulatory comments of his peers, and never did regain his
hearing.
The Narwhal Tusk was available in different lengths, and the 5-ft
model was the shortest barrel.  It was sold to waterfowlers who didn't
want to carry around the heavier models that went up to 12-ft in
length.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part.  However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
<applause>
Seconded.
From me, too.
--
Ken
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-12-02 18:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person.  It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
Wrong again.
The Narwhal Tusk is a famous punt gun made by Ffawkes & Son, Ltd. of
Oswaldtwistle, Lancs.  Fawkes & Son, Ltd (estab: 1851) holds three
Royal Warrants of appointment as purveyor of bespoke sporting shotguns
to the British and other European royal families.
The Narwhal Tusk was the first gimbal-mounted shotgun.  This feature
allowed the user to rotate the gun instead of rotating the punt to
bring aim on the flock.  The gimbal-mount was affixed to the punt atop
a inch-thick coiled spring to allow flex when the gun was fired.
As you no doubt know, the person firing the punt gun does so from a
prone position in the punt to avoid being thrown backwards by the
recoil when firing the 2-gauge shell.  Sir Geoffrey Ledger-de Main,
the then Managing Director of Ffawkes & Son when the gun was
developed, named the gun "the Narwhal Tusk" because the barrel, in the
ready position, pointed upwards above the firer resembling the
protruding canine tooth of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros).
In 1912, Joseph Grimm-Tailor brought down 107 duck with one shot from
a Narwhal Tusk in the North Kent marshes thus establishing himself as
a legend in the waterfowling community.  Unfortunately, because of the
shock to his ears caused by the blast, he was unable to hear the
congratulatory comments of his peers, and never did regain his
hearing.
The Narwhal Tusk was available in different lengths, and the 5-ft
model was the shortest barrel.  It was sold to waterfowlers who didn't
want to carry around the heavier models that went up to 12-ft in
length.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part.  However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
<applause>
Seconded.
Thirded. In fact: Bravo!

/Anders, Denmark.
Mack A. Damia
2019-12-01 22:57:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 16:41:53 -0500, Tony Cooper
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
Wrong again.
The Narwhal Tusk is a famous punt gun made by Ffawkes & Son, Ltd. of
Oswaldtwistle, Lancs. Fawkes & Son, Ltd (estab: 1851) holds three
Royal Warrants of appointment as purveyor of bespoke sporting shotguns
to the British and other European royal families.
Pronounced "OZZLE-TWISTLE". Less than two miles from where I was born
and one of the birthplaces of the Industrial Revolution where James
Hargreaves invented the Spinning Jenny.
Post by Tony Cooper
The Narwhal Tusk was the first gimbal-mounted shotgun. This feature
allowed the user to rotate the gun instead of rotating the punt to
bring aim on the flock. The gimbal-mount was affixed to the punt atop
a inch-thick coiled spring to allow flex when the gun was fired.
As you no doubt know, the person firing the punt gun does so from a
prone position in the punt to avoid being thrown backwards by the
recoil when firing the 2-gauge shell. Sir Geoffrey Ledger-de Main,
the then Managing Director of Ffawkes & Son when the gun was
developed, named the gun "the Narwhal Tusk" because the barrel, in the
ready position, pointed upwards above the firer resembling the
protruding canine tooth of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros).
In 1912, Joseph Grimm-Tailor brought down 107 duck with one shot from
a Narwhal Tusk in the North Kent marshes thus establishing himself as
a legend in the waterfowling community. Unfortunately, because of the
shock to his ears caused by the blast, he was unable to hear the
congratulatory comments of his peers, and never did regain his
hearing.
The Narwhal Tusk was available in different lengths, and the 5-ft
model was the shortest barrel. It was sold to waterfowlers who didn't
want to carry around the heavier models that went up to 12-ft in
length.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part. However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-02 09:05:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
The Narwhal Tusk is a famous punt gun made by Ffawkes & Son, Ltd. of
Oswaldtwistle, Lancs. Fawkes & Son, Ltd (estab: 1851) holds three
Royal Warrants of appointment as purveyor of bespoke sporting shotguns
to the British and other European royal families. ...
.
[ … ]
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part. However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The Illuminati and George Soros have been
trying to keep the information secret, but it's true enough.
--
athel
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-02 14:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part. However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
Anyone who claims that a narwhal tusk "requires an open carry permit"
is a moron.
Tony Cooper
2019-12-02 15:12:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 06:32:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part. However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
Anyone who claims that a narwhal tusk "requires an open carry permit"
is a moron.
Did you have your sense of humor removed surgically, or was it the
result of a birth defect?

Is your condition referred to as "transstickuptheass"?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-02 15:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 06:32:25 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part. However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
Anyone who claims that a narwhal tusk "requires an open carry permit"
is a moron.
Did you have your sense of humor removed surgically, or was it the
result of a birth defect?
Is your condition referred to as "transstickuptheass"?
We'll be eagerly awaiting your Holocaust jokes and your 9/11 jokes and
your Trayvon Martin / Michael Brown / Eric Garner jokes.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-12-03 09:31:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
Post by Peter T. Daniels
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
Wrong again.
The Narwhal Tusk is a famous punt gun made by Ffawkes & Son, Ltd. of
[]
Post by Tony Cooper
.
The above, of course, is sheer nonsense and a total fabrication on my
part. However, anyone who posts to tell me that a narwhal tusk is not
a gun deserves an equally silly response.
Careful; this will be cited in Wikipedia before you know it!
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Adam Funk
2019-12-03 09:35:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
Wrong again.
The Narwhal Tusk is a famous punt gun made by Ffawkes & Son, Ltd. of
Oswaldtwistle, Lancs. Fawkes & Son, Ltd (estab: 1851) holds three
Royal Warrants of appointment as purveyor of bespoke sporting shotguns
to the British and other European royal families.
The Narwhal Tusk was the first gimbal-mounted shotgun. This feature
allowed the user to rotate the gun instead of rotating the punt to
bring aim on the flock. The gimbal-mount was affixed to the punt atop
a inch-thick coiled spring to allow flex when the gun was fired.
As you no doubt know, the person firing the punt gun does so from a
prone position in the punt to avoid being thrown backwards by the
recoil when firing the 2-gauge shell. Sir Geoffrey Ledger-de Main,
the then Managing Director of Ffawkes & Son when the gun was
developed, named the gun "the Narwhal Tusk" because the barrel, in the
ready position, pointed upwards above the firer resembling the
protruding canine tooth of the narwhal (Monodon monoceros).
In 1912, Joseph Grimm-Tailor brought down 107 duck with one shot from
a Narwhal Tusk in the North Kent marshes thus establishing himself as
a legend in the waterfowling community. Unfortunately, because of the
shock to his ears caused by the blast, he was unable to hear the
congratulatory comments of his peers, and never did regain his
hearing.
The Narwhal Tusk was available in different lengths, and the 5-ft
model was the shortest barrel. It was sold to waterfowlers who didn't
want to carry around the heavier models that went up to 12-ft in
length.
Ha! I did learn some factual information about punt guns at the
maritime museum in St Michaels (MD) a few years ago. When they were
banned, a lot of people in the waterfowl business made their own out
of cast iron drainpipes & such. People who used them could be
identified by "powder burns & other disfigurements".
--
$2.95!
PLATE O' SHRIMP
Luncheon Special
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-12-02 11:27:53 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
In the UK a narwhal tusk might be classified as an "offensive weapon".
Carrying one in public could be a criminal offence. However that can be
be overruled by the concept of "reasonable excuse".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon

Reasonable excuse/defences

Lawful authority/reasonable excuse

Despite the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place being
a criminal offence, suspected offenders are given the ability to
raise a defence on the civil burden of proof i.e. on the balance of
probabilities. This defence is that the offender, on the balance of
probabilities, had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having
the weapon in public.

Weapon of opportunity/instantaneous arming

An offensive weapon obtained, possessed or used immediately
preceding an imminent attack or during attack in a public place may
well be considered reasonable excuse. This could be either an item
made as an offensive weapon, adapted or an every day item that was
not intended originally to be carried as an offensive weapon (e.g.
golf clubs, walking stick), but during an imminent attack they
rightfully became a "weapon of opportunity".
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-02 14:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 13:31:10 -0800 (PST), "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
In the UK a narwhal tusk might be classified as an "offensive weapon".
Carrying one in public could be a criminal offence. However that can be
be overruled by the concept of "reasonable excuse".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon
Reasonable excuse/defences
Lawful authority/reasonable excuse
Despite the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place being
a criminal offence, suspected offenders are given the ability to
raise a defence on the civil burden of proof i.e. on the balance of
probabilities. This defence is that the offender, on the balance of
probabilities, had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having
the weapon in public.
Weapon of opportunity/instantaneous arming
An offensive weapon obtained, possessed or used immediately
preceding an imminent attack or during attack in a public place may
well be considered reasonable excuse. This could be either an item
made as an offensive weapon, adapted or an every day item that was
not intended originally to be carried as an offensive weapon (e.g.
golf clubs, walking stick), but during an imminent attack they
rightfully became a "weapon of opportunity".
Quite so. Not in the slightest comparable with an "open carry permit,"
which is a barbaric feature of "red states" throughout the country,
based on a perversion of the Second Amendment, both its literal wording
and its intent.
Jerry Friedman
2019-12-02 15:17:38 UTC
Permalink
On 12/2/19 4:27 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote:
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In the UK a narwhal tusk might be classified as an "offensive weapon".
Carrying one in public could be a criminal offence. However that can be
be overruled by the concept of "reasonable excuse".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon
Reasonable excuse/defences
Lawful authority/reasonable excuse
Despite the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place being
a criminal offence, suspected offenders are given the ability to
raise a defence on the civil burden of proof i.e. on the balance of
probabilities. This defence is that the offender, on the balance of
probabilities, had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having
the weapon in public.
Weapon of opportunity/instantaneous arming
An offensive weapon obtained, possessed or used immediately
preceding an imminent attack or during attack in a public place may
well be considered reasonable excuse. This could be either an item
made as an offensive weapon, adapted or an every day item that was
not intended originally to be carried as an offensive weapon (e.g.
golf clubs, walking stick), but during an imminent attack they
rightfully became a "weapon of opportunity".
I wonder what "adapted" means there. Maybe an editing error.

It seems fortunate that, as I read the above, judges wouldn't have to
determine whether a narwhal tusk was intended originally to be carried
as an offensive weapon.
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-02 15:26:53 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In the UK a narwhal tusk might be classified as an "offensive weapon".
Carrying one in public could be a criminal offence. However that can be
be overruled by the concept of "reasonable excuse".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon
     Reasonable excuse/defences
     Lawful authority/reasonable excuse
     Despite the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place being
     a criminal offence, suspected offenders are given the ability to
     raise a defence on the civil burden of proof i.e. on the balance of
     probabilities. This defence is that the offender, on the balance of
     probabilities, had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having
     the weapon in public.
     Weapon of opportunity/instantaneous arming
     An offensive weapon obtained, possessed or used immediately
     preceding an imminent attack or during attack in a public place may
     well be considered reasonable excuse. This could be either an item
     made as an offensive weapon, adapted or an every day item that was
     not intended originally to be carried as an offensive weapon (e.g.
     golf clubs, walking stick), but during an imminent attack they
     rightfully became a "weapon of opportunity".
I wonder what "adapted" means there.  Maybe an editing error.
It seems fortunate that, as I read the above, judges wouldn't have to
determine whether a narwhal tusk was intended originally to be carried
as an offensive weapon.
It wasn't, believe it or not. The narwhal comes in for a lot of stick
for that stick, but in my view the criticism is misplaced:

Yet a sensitive heart the narwhal owns;
If you doubt it, here's the proof;
That thing on his nose is for taking stones
Out of a horse's hoof.
He seldom if ever meets a horse -
It is this that makes him sad;
When he does, then it hasn't a stone in its hoof,
But he would if he did and it had!
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
[I feel sure MF would not have disapproved of the one-word edit.]
Jerry Friedman
2019-12-02 17:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In the UK a narwhal tusk might be classified as an "offensive weapon".
Carrying one in public could be a criminal offence. However that can be
be overruled by the concept of "reasonable excuse".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon
     Reasonable excuse/defences
     Lawful authority/reasonable excuse
     Despite the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place being
     a criminal offence, suspected offenders are given the ability to
     raise a defence on the civil burden of proof i.e. on the balance of
     probabilities. This defence is that the offender, on the balance of
     probabilities, had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having
     the weapon in public.
     Weapon of opportunity/instantaneous arming
     An offensive weapon obtained, possessed or used immediately
     preceding an imminent attack or during attack in a public place may
     well be considered reasonable excuse. This could be either an item
     made as an offensive weapon, adapted or an every day item that was
     not intended originally to be carried as an offensive weapon (e.g.
     golf clubs, walking stick), but during an imminent attack they
     rightfully became a "weapon of opportunity".
...
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
It seems fortunate that, as I read the above, judges wouldn't have to
determine whether a narwhal tusk was intended originally to be carried
as an offensive weapon.
It wasn't, believe it or not. The narwhal comes in for a lot of stick
Yet a sensitive heart the narwhal owns;
If you doubt it, here's the proof;
That thing on his nose is for taking stones
Out of a horse's hoof.
He seldom if ever meets a horse -
It is this that makes him sad;
When he does, then it hasn't a stone in its hoof,
But he would if he did and it had!
Well, I swan! Thank you for clearing that up.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-12-02 22:57:41 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:17:38 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In the UK a narwhal tusk might be classified as an "offensive weapon".
Carrying one in public could be a criminal offence. However that can be
be overruled by the concept of "reasonable excuse".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon
Reasonable excuse/defences
Lawful authority/reasonable excuse
Despite the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place being
a criminal offence, suspected offenders are given the ability to
raise a defence on the civil burden of proof i.e. on the balance of
probabilities. This defence is that the offender, on the balance of
probabilities, had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having
the weapon in public.
Weapon of opportunity/instantaneous arming
An offensive weapon obtained, possessed or used immediately
preceding an imminent attack or during attack in a public place may
well be considered reasonable excuse. This could be either an item
made as an offensive weapon, adapted or an every day item that was
not intended originally to be carried as an offensive weapon (e.g.
golf clubs, walking stick), but during an imminent attack they
rightfully became a "weapon of opportunity".
I wonder what "adapted" means there. Maybe an editing error.
It seems fortunate that, as I read the above, judges wouldn't have to
determine whether a narwhal tusk was intended originally to be carried
as an offensive weapon.
There is another legal aspect to the use of the narwhal tusk. It wasn't
the property of the person who used it as a weapon.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2019-12-02 23:01:21 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:17:38 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In the UK a narwhal tusk might be classified as an "offensive weapon".
Carrying one in public could be a criminal offence. However that can be
be overruled by the concept of "reasonable excuse".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon
Reasonable excuse/defences
Lawful authority/reasonable excuse
Despite the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place being
a criminal offence, suspected offenders are given the ability to
raise a defence on the civil burden of proof i.e. on the balance of
probabilities. This defence is that the offender, on the balance of
probabilities, had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having
the weapon in public.
Weapon of opportunity/instantaneous arming
An offensive weapon obtained, possessed or used immediately
preceding an imminent attack or during attack in a public place may
well be considered reasonable excuse. This could be either an item
made as an offensive weapon, adapted or an every day item that was
not intended originally to be carried as an offensive weapon (e.g.
golf clubs, walking stick), but during an imminent attack they
rightfully became a "weapon of opportunity".
I wonder what "adapted" means there. Maybe an editing error.
I think it means an item that was not originally designed and made as an
offensive weapon but has been modified to be one.
Post by Jerry Friedman
It seems fortunate that, as I read the above, judges wouldn't have to
determine whether a narwhal tusk was intended originally to be carried
as an offensive weapon.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
charles
2019-12-03 10:02:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:17:38 -0700, Jerry Friedman
On 12/2/19 4:27 AM, Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote: ...
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In the UK a narwhal tusk might be classified as an "offensive weapon".
Carrying one in public could be a criminal offence. However that can
be be overruled by the concept of "reasonable excuse".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon
Reasonable excuse/defences
Lawful authority/reasonable excuse
Despite the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place
being a criminal offence, suspected offenders are given the
ability to raise a defence on the civil burden of proof i.e. on
the balance of probabilities. This defence is that the offender,
on the balance of probabilities, had lawful authority or
reasonable excuse for having the weapon in public.
Weapon of opportunity/instantaneous arming
An offensive weapon obtained, possessed or used immediately
preceding an imminent attack or during attack in a public place
may well be considered reasonable excuse. This could be either an
item made as an offensive weapon, adapted or an every day item
that was not intended originally to be carried as an offensive
weapon (e.g. golf clubs, walking stick), but during an imminent
attack they rightfully became a "weapon of opportunity".
I wonder what "adapted" means there. Maybe an editing error.
I think it means an item that was not originally designed and made as an
offensive weapon but has been modified to be one.
It seems fortunate that, as I read the above, judges wouldn't have to
determine whether a narwhal tusk was intended originally to be carried
as an offensive weapon.
surely the narwhal devejoped it as an offensive weapon, just like the
unicorn's horn
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-03 15:44:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 08:17:38 -0700, Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Weapon of opportunity/instantaneous arming
An offensive weapon obtained, possessed or used immediately
preceding an imminent attack or during attack in a public place may
well be considered reasonable excuse. This could be either an item
made as an offensive weapon, adapted or an every day item that was
not intended originally to be carried as an offensive weapon (e.g.
golf clubs, walking stick), but during an imminent attack they
rightfully became a "weapon of opportunity".
I wonder what "adapted" means there. Maybe an editing error.
I think it means an item that was not originally designed and made as an
offensive weapon but has been modified to be one.
Post by Jerry Friedman
It seems fortunate that, as I read the above, judges wouldn't have to
determine whether a narwhal tusk was intended originally to be carried
as an offensive weapon.
Anticipating the defense of the "bump stock," which most of us first
learned of after the Las Vegas shooting. It makes a more ordinary sort
of firearm into one that shoots at a rate far higher than can be achieved
manually, but the underlying firearm doesn't violate such restrictions
as may still exist. "Bump stocks" have now been outlawed in many places,
but there hasn't been time for court challenges yet.
Madhu
2019-12-02 16:37:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
In the UK a narwhal tusk might be classified as an "offensive weapon".
Carrying one in public could be a criminal offence. However that can
be be overruled by the concept of "reasonable excuse".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_weapon
Reasonable excuse/defences
Lawful authority/reasonable excuse
Despite the carrying of an offensive weapon in a public place being
a criminal offence, suspected offenders are given the ability to
raise a defence on the civil burden of proof i.e. on the balance of
probabilities. This defence is that the offender, on the balance of
probabilities, had lawful authority or reasonable excuse for having
the weapon in public.
Weapon of opportunity/instantaneous arming
An offensive weapon obtained, possessed or used immediately
preceding an imminent attack or during attack in a public place may
well be considered reasonable excuse. This could be either an item
made as an offensive weapon, adapted or an every day item that was
not intended originally to be carried as an offensive weapon (e.g.
golf clubs, walking stick), but during an imminent attack they
rightfully became a "weapon of opportunity".
Under the Indian Penal Code I think they are classified as "Deadly
weapons", and they often include sickles and pointed sticks - you get an
to hear about an arrest or two in the news every few days, at least in
this state.
Jerry Friedman
2019-12-02 15:19:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person. It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
This incident serves as a warning that all countries need stricter
controls on ivoryarms.
--
Jerry Friedman
Peter T. Daniels
2019-12-02 15:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
This incident serves as a warning that all countries need stricter
controls on ivoryarms.
Beware of scrimshaw!

I often wonder whether it's illegal to sell a classic piano in the US.
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-12-03 09:33:58 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 02 Dec 2019 15:22:01 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
This incident serves as a warning that all countries need stricter
controls on ivoryarms.
Beware of scrimshaw!
I often wonder whether it's illegal to sell a classic piano in the US.
Open or concealed?
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-03 09:56:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person.  It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
This incident serves as a warning that all countries need stricter
controls on ivoryarms.
"In June 2015, more than a ton of confiscated ivory was crushed in New
York's Times Square by the Wildlife Conservation Society to send a
message that the illegal trade will not be tolerated. The ivory,
confiscated in New York and Philadelphia, was sent up a conveyor belt
into a rock crusher." - Wikipedia

Not the first time they've tried this kind of thing. (Kenya did
something similar in 1989, for example.) Unfortunately, by making ivory
scarcer, such gestures tend to put the price up... which makes ivory
more attractive to poachers.

I can't help wondering whether the best way to discourage ivory poachers
might not be to hire Polish chefs to protect the elephants.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-03 10:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Tony Cooper
On Sat, 30 Nov 2019 18:13:19 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
They were walking around with a fire extingusher and a narwhal tusk,
were they? As one does, I suppose: I never go down town without my
narwhal tusk; too dangerous without it.
In most places in the US it is necessary to have a permit to carry a
gun on your person.  It can be a "open carry" permit - which means the
weapon is visible - or a "closed carry" permit - if the weapon can not
be visible to others.
A 5-ft narwhal tusk would require an open carry permit.
No, narwhal tusks are not guns (or other firearms).
This incident serves as a warning that all countries need stricter
controls on ivoryarms.
"In June 2015, more than a ton of confiscated ivory was crushed in New
York's Times Square by the Wildlife Conservation Society to send a
message that the illegal trade will not be tolerated. The ivory,
confiscated in New York and Philadelphia, was sent up a conveyor belt
into a rock crusher." - Wikipedia
Not the first time they've tried this kind of thing. (Kenya did
something similar in 1989, for example.) Unfortunately, by making ivory
scarcer, such gestures tend to put the price up... which makes ivory
more attractive to poachers.
Isn't it obvious that that will happen? Not obvious, perhaps, to politicians.
Post by Richard Heathfield
I can't help wondering whether the best way to discourage ivory
poachers might not be to hire Polish chefs to protect the elephants.
--
athel
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-03 10:40:16 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Heathfield
"In June 2015, more than a ton of confiscated ivory was crushed in New
York's Times Square by the Wildlife Conservation Society to send a
message that the illegal trade will not be tolerated. The ivory,
confiscated in New York and Philadelphia, was sent up a conveyor belt
into a rock crusher." - Wikipedia
Not the first time they've tried this kind of thing. (Kenya did
something similar in 1989, for example.) Unfortunately, by making
ivory scarcer, such gestures tend to put the price up... which makes
ivory more attractive to poachers.
Isn't it obvious that that will happen?
Yes, except...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Not obvious, perhaps, to
politicians.
Indeed.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Madhu
2019-12-04 17:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Heathfield
Not the first time they've tried this kind of thing. (Kenya did
something similar in 1989, for example.) Unfortunately, by making
ivory scarcer, such gestures tend to put the price up... which makes
ivory more attractive to poachers.
Isn't it obvious that that will happen?
Yes, except...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Not obvious, perhaps, to politicians.
Indeed.
I'd imagine they knew all along and are acting in the interests of the
poachers
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-04 17:21:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madhu
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Richard Heathfield
Not the first time they've tried this kind of thing. (Kenya did
something similar in 1989, for example.) Unfortunately, by making
ivory scarcer, such gestures tend to put the price up... which makes
ivory more attractive to poachers.
Isn't it obvious that that will happen?
Yes, except...
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Not obvious, perhaps, to politicians.
Indeed.
I'd imagine they knew all along and are acting in the interests of the
poachers
Hanlon's Razor applies.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter Moylan
2019-12-01 01:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge
and removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and
Mayor lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they
didn't "stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
In a similar incident in Sydney in August, the killer was captured by
people using chairs and a milk crate. Those too were described in the
news as bystanders.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
b***@shaw.ca
2019-12-01 01:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge
and removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and
Mayor lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they
didn't "stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
Clever of him, carrying a narwhal tusk around just in case.
Post by Peter Moylan
In a similar incident in Sydney in August, the killer was captured by
people using chairs and a milk crate. Those too were described in the
news as bystanders.
I think that can work. They are bystanders until the action starts,
but they become participants/combatants when they jump into the fray.
Or brouhaha, if you prefer.

bill
Lewis
2019-12-01 07:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Katy Jennison
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
This BBC report uses "Passers-by".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-50608315
Witnesses tackled the knifeman to the pavement on London Bridge
and removed two knives he had taped to his hands.
A report in one of our local newspapers has the headline "PM and
Mayor lead tributes to the bravery of bystanders".
That is comprehensible but, being pedantic, faulty because they
didn't "stand by" - they moved in to take action.
One of the 'bystanders' who tackled him armed himself with a fire
extinguisher, and another with a 5ft narwhal tusk.
In a similar incident in Sydney in August, the killer was captured by
people using chairs and a milk crate. Those too were described in the
news as bystanders.
What is the objection, exactly. They were bystanders.

They were present at the attack but did not participate in it (either as
assailants or victims).

The fact that they took action to subdue the attacker doesn't change
the fact they were bystanders to the attack.
--
Oh look, good intentions!
Sam Plusnet
2019-11-30 18:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
--
Sam Plusnet
charles
2019-11-30 19:14:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-12-01 11:57:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")

/Anders, Denmark.
Jerry Friedman
2019-12-02 17:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-02 17:27:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
Or left, if he's facing south.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Peter Young
2019-12-02 18:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.

Peter.
--
Peter Young, (BrE, RP), Consultant Anaesthetist, 1975-2004.
(US equivalent: Certified Anesthesiologist) (AUE Hg)
Cheltenham and Gloucester, UK. Now happily retired.
http://pnyoung.orpheusweb.co.uk
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-02 18:20:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
Lefty-ho.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Anders D. Nygaard
2019-12-03 17:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.

/Anders, Denmark
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2019-12-03 18:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.
You've really got to the bottom of it.
--
athel
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-03 18:53:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a
traffic
morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.
You've really got to the bottom of it.
Base fellow.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-12-03 19:55:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a
traffic
morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.
You've really got to the bottom of it.
Base fellow.
Ah, are you one of those 10 types.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Madhu
2019-12-04 17:21:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.
You've really got to the bottom of it.
Base fellow.
Ah, are you one of those 10 types.
"Computers don't get me"
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-04 17:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madhu
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.
You've really got to the bottom of it.
Base fellow.
Ah, are you one of those 10 types.
"Computers don't get me"
They will, they will. Just give them time.



This is for real. Boston Dynamics is a real company, and Spot is a real
robot, and it's already available for leasing. Spot's quite young, and
hasn't grown its weapons yet, so it still looks quite cute.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Quinn C
2019-12-04 19:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Madhu
Post by Kerr-Mudd,John
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.
You've really got to the bottom of it.
Base fellow.
Ah, are you one of those 10 types.
"Computers don't get me"
"... cause I'm non-binary". Unnoticed by almost everyone, it's been in
the header of each of my posts for quite some time now.
--
... in the German people, ... [Hitler] found a natural instrument
which he was able to shape to his own sinister ends.
-- William Shirer
David Kleinecke
2019-12-04 22:47:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quinn C
Post by Madhu
"Computers don't get me"
"... cause I'm non-binary". Unnoticed by almost everyone, it's been in
the header of each of my posts for quite some time now.
People read headers?
Lewis
2019-12-05 06:49:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Madhu
"Computers don't get me"
"... cause I'm non-binary". Unnoticed by almost everyone, it's been in
the header of each of my posts for quite some time now.
People read headers?
Nope.
--
I've never seen religious faith move mountains, but I've seen what it
does to skyscrapers.
b***@shaw.ca
2019-12-05 06:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Madhu
"Computers don't get me"
"... cause I'm non-binary". Unnoticed by almost everyone, it's been in
the header of each of my posts for quite some time now.
People read headers?
Nope.
I looked at headers when I had a news reader that displayed them.
I get much less information with what I'm using now.

bill
Snidely
2019-12-06 10:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Madhu
"Computers don't get me"
"... cause I'm non-binary". Unnoticed by almost everyone, it's been in
the header of each of my posts for quite some time now.
People read headers?
Nope.
I looked at headers when I had a news reader that displayed them.
I get much less information with what I'm using now.
You can use "show original" to see them.

And when I'm using this news reader, I can choose all, none (almost),
or my selected set of headers. At some point, I decided to have it
show the NewsReader header. But this is a not an OS-agnostic news
reader.

/dps "Is 'forensic' a curated word?"
--
But happiness cannot be pursued; it must ensue. One must have a reason
to 'be happy.'"
Viktor Frankl
Ken Blake
2019-12-06 15:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@shaw.ca
Post by David Kleinecke
Post by Quinn C
Post by Madhu
"Computers don't get me"
"... cause I'm non-binary". Unnoticed by almost everyone, it's been in
the header of each of my posts for quite some time now.
People read headers?
Nope.
I looked at headers when I had a news reader that displayed them.
I get much less information with what I'm using now.
I switched from Agent to Thunderbird several weeks ago. I like some
things about Thunderbird better than Agent, but one of the things I
don't like about it is that although it's possible to display the
headers, it's hard (at least for me) to remember how. I wish there was a
toolbar icon labeled "Headers."
--
Ken
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-06 15:53:44 UTC
Permalink
On 06/12/2019 15:13, Ken Blake wrote:

<snip>
I switched from Agent to Thunderbird  several weeks ago. I like some
things about Thunderbird better than Agent, but one of the things I
don't like about it is that although it's possible to display the
headers, it's hard (at least for me) to remember how. I wish there was a
toolbar icon labeled "Headers."
Ctrl-U shows the entire message in its raw form, including the headers
at the top, and (at least in the Linux version) the window allows text
to be copied to the clipboard, should you need to do that.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Ken Blake
2019-12-06 18:26:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
I switched from Agent to Thunderbird  several weeks ago. I like some
things about Thunderbird better than Agent, but one of the things I
don't like about it is that although it's possible to display the
headers, it's hard (at least for me) to remember how. I wish there was a
toolbar icon labeled "Headers."
Ctrl-U shows the entire message in its raw form, including the headers
at the top, and (at least in the Linux version) the window allows text
to be copied to the clipboard, should you need to do that.
Yes, thanks. That's what I knew, but keep forgetting. The problem is I
don't very often want to do that, so it's easy to forget. If it were an
icon, I could see it, and seeing it would refresh my memory.

I'll make a note of it and put it on my desktop (the physical desktop,
not the monitor).
--
Ken
Richard Heathfield
2019-12-06 18:51:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
I switched from Agent to Thunderbird  several weeks ago. I like some
things about Thunderbird better than Agent, but one of the things I
don't like about it is that although it's possible to display the
headers, it's hard (at least for me) to remember how. I wish there
was a toolbar icon labeled "Headers."
Ctrl-U shows the entire message in its raw form, including the headers
at the top, and (at least in the Linux version) the window allows text
to be copied to the clipboard, should you need to do that.
Yes, thanks. That's what I knew, but keep forgetting. The problem is I
don't very often want to do that, so it's easy to forget. If it were an
icon, I could see it, and seeing it would refresh my memory.
I'll make a note of it and put it on my desktop (the physical desktop,
not the monitor).
Also I've just discovered that, in my version of Thunderbird, there's a
couple of menu entries to show more headers in the usual window:

View/Headers/All
View/Headers/Normal

I don't think "All" means all, in this context - but it's certainly more
than you get with "Normal".
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Ken Blake
2019-12-06 19:49:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
I switched from Agent to Thunderbird  several weeks ago. I like some
things about Thunderbird better than Agent, but one of the things I
don't like about it is that although it's possible to display the
headers, it's hard (at least for me) to remember how. I wish there
was a toolbar icon labeled "Headers."
Ctrl-U shows the entire message in its raw form, including the headers
at the top, and (at least in the Linux version) the window allows text
to be copied to the clipboard, should you need to do that.
Yes, thanks. That's what I knew, but keep forgetting. The problem is I
don't very often want to do that, so it's easy to forget. If it were an
icon, I could see it, and seeing it would refresh my memory.
I'll make a note of it and put it on my desktop (the physical desktop,
not the monitor).
Also I've just discovered that, in my version of Thunderbird, there's a
View/Headers/All
View/Headers/Normal
Yes. I've seen that.
Post by Richard Heathfield
I don't think "All" means all, in this context - but it's certainly more
than you get with "Normal".
Yes, but very few of the ones I might want to see.
--
Ken
musika
2019-12-06 21:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Heathfield
Ctrl-U shows the entire message in its raw form, including the headers
at the top, and (at least in the Linux version) the window allows text
to be copied to the clipboard, should you need to do that.
Yes, thanks. That's what I knew, but keep forgetting. The problem is
I don't very often want to do that, so it's easy to forget. If it
were an icon, I could see it, and seeing it would refresh my memory.
I'll make a note of it and put it on my desktop (the physical
desktop, not the monitor).
I just use <View> <Message Source> but no doubt you are aware of that one.
--
Ray
UK
Ken Blake
2019-12-07 00:35:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by musika
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Heathfield
Ctrl-U shows the entire message in its raw form, including the headers
at the top, and (at least in the Linux version) the window allows text
to be copied to the clipboard, should you need to do that.
Yes, thanks. That's what I knew, but keep forgetting. The problem is
I don't very often want to do that, so it's easy to forget. If it
were an icon, I could see it, and seeing it would refresh my memory.
I'll make a note of it and put it on my desktop (the physical
desktop, not the monitor).
I just use <View> <Message Source> but no doubt you are aware of that one.
Yes, I'm aware of it, but it's easy to forget--at least for me.

I prefer Ctrl-U, since when reading newsgroups, my hands are mostly om
the keyboard.
--
Ken
Peter Moylan
2019-12-07 00:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Ken Blake
I switched from Agent to Thunderbird several weeks ago. I like
some things about Thunderbird better than Agent, but one of the
things I don't like about it is that although it's possible to
display the headers, it's hard (at least for me) to remember
how. I wish there was a toolbar icon labeled "Headers."
Ctrl-U shows the entire message in its raw form, including the
headers at the top, and (at least in the Linux version) the
window allows text to be copied to the clipboard, should you need
to do that.
Yes, thanks. That's what I knew, but keep forgetting. The problem
is I don't very often want to do that, so it's easy to forget. If
it were an icon, I could see it, and seeing it would refresh my
memory.
I'll make a note of it and put it on my desktop (the physical
desktop, not the monitor).
Also I've just discovered that, in my version of Thunderbird, there's
View/Headers/All View/Headers/Normal
I don't think "All" means all, in this context - but it's certainly
more than you get with "Normal".
I have a small plus sign next to your name and e-mail address (which is
the only header information I display, normally). A mouse click on that
gives me more header lines, and also reveals an icon I can click on to
choose among "None", "Normal", "All", and "Extended Normal view"; and
also a "Customise" option.

I suspect, though, that I have those options only because I've installed
a Thunderbird add-on called Mnenhy, which lets me choose which headers
to display.
--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Kerr-Mudd,John
2019-12-07 10:05:26 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Dec 2019 00:38:13 GMT, Peter Moylan
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Ken Blake
Post by Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Ken Blake
I switched from Agent to Thunderbird several weeks ago. I like
some things about Thunderbird better than Agent, but one of the
things I don't like about it is that although it's possible to
display the headers, it's hard (at least for me) to remember
how. I wish there was a toolbar icon labeled "Headers."
Ctrl-U shows the entire message in its raw form, including the
headers at the top, and (at least in the Linux version) the
window allows text to be copied to the clipboard, should you need
to do that.
Yes, thanks. That's what I knew, but keep forgetting. The problem
is I don't very often want to do that, so it's easy to forget. If
it were an icon, I could see it, and seeing it would refresh my
memory.
I'll make a note of it and put it on my desktop (the physical
desktop, not the monitor).
Also I've just discovered that, in my version of Thunderbird, there's
View/Headers/All View/Headers/Normal
I don't think "All" means all, in this context - but it's certainly
more than you get with "Normal".
I have a small plus sign next to your name and e-mail address (which is
the only header information I display, normally). A mouse click on that
gives me more header lines, and also reveals an icon I can click on to
choose among "None", "Normal", "All", and "Extended Normal view"; and
also a "Customise" option.
I suspect, though, that I have those options only because I've
installed
Post by Peter Moylan
a Thunderbird add-on called Mnenhy, which lets me choose which headers
to display.
Gosh, I recall this addon ("app" for our younger viewers) was vital for
shedde decoding. Furrfu.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug.
Tony Cooper
2019-12-03 19:54:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 19:39:12 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.
You've really got to the bottom of it.
Oh, don't fanny about. Say what you mean.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Sam Plusnet
2019-12-03 21:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tony Cooper
On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 19:39:12 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area e.g. city
centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser" every time I take the M25
around London rather than drive through that hell-hole of a traffic
morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a hell-hole of a
traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.
You've really got to the bottom of it.
Oh, don't fanny about. Say what you mean.
Good of you to be so upfront with us on this topic.

Pondiality strikes again.
--
Sam Plusnet
CDB
2019-12-04 14:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by charles
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by occam
A "bypass" is a road that circumvents a congested area
e.g. city centre. I am therefore strictly "a bypasser"
every time I take the M25 around London rather than
drive through that hell-hole of a traffic morass.
Did you mean to imply that the M25 is not itself a
hell-hole of a traffic morass?
not in compared with Central London.
Oy? (I'd omit the "in" or use "comparison")
You're right.
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.
Don't screw around, then.
--
Golden youth who screw around
With belly-buttons come to ground.
John Dunlop
2019-12-06 18:53:16 UTC
Permalink
...
Post by Anders D. Nygaard
Post by Peter Young
Post by Richard Heathfield
Or left, if he's facing south.
It's time we left that behind.
I much prefer to carry my behind around with me.
That's a fundamental mistake.
--
John
Dingbat
2019-11-30 12:53:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@gmail.com
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
"Jumper" for circuits.
(and "blue wire" for prototype board changes)
Post by Dingbat
https://findwords.info/term/bypasser
I would use "passer-by". I would not bypass the hyphen.
Thanks. Perhaps as a recent development, Grammatist* (among others+),
omits the hyphen. It also notes that PASSERBYS is seen and if
it gets common enough, will be listed as an alternate plural
to PASSERSBY.

* https://grammarist.com/spelling/passerbys-or-passersby/

+ https://writingexplained.org/passersby-or-passerbys

Oxford Learner's entry, taken from their Advanced American Dictionary says:
passerby, also passer-by
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/american_english/passerby
Jerry Friedman
2019-11-30 16:34:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
https://findwords.info/term/bypasser
"Passer-by" for me.

I assume the terror suspect, not the tackler, was said to have been
wielding two knives.
--
Jerry Friedman
Richard Heathfield
2019-11-30 16:59:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Dingbat
Evening Standard Headline
London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how he helped tackle terror
  suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
  seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction.
  https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
  https://findwords.info/term/bypasser
"Passer-by" for me.
I assume the terror suspect, not the tackler, was said to have been
wielding two knives.
Yes. One of the tacklers had a fire extinguisher, and another had a
bloody great five-foot narwhal tusk.

"You call that a knife?"
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
CDB
2019-11-30 18:43:04 UTC
Permalink
Evening Standard Headline London Bridge attack: Bypasser tells how
he helped tackle terror suspect to ground while he was 'wielding two
knives'
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/london-bridge-attack-bypasser-tackle-knife-a4300976.html
In my English, it's "PASSERBY", not "BYPASSER"; the latter would
seem to involve a route/ conduit to avoid an obstruction. This
dictionary agrees: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bypasser
https://findwords.info/term/bypasser
I take it to be a variant of "bystander". Presumably the witness was
walking by, not standing around, at the time of the attacks.

Or maybe the writer just couldn't think of the right word.
Loading...