Article: 137063 of soc.culture.british From: Mathesonceri.memphis.edu (Duncan Stewart Matheson) In article <464718407wnrkglc.demon.co.uk>, davidkglc.demon.co.uk wrote: [An aweful lot about sheds & trellices] Ermmm....we have a greenhouse which is, after all, just a transparent shed. So could I be considered a MADSOD(T Division)???? We also have a conservatory, which is similar to a transparent shed, except it only has 3 walls. And it's attached to the side of the house. Sorry....no trellices anywhere. Duncan. -- Article: 137120 of soc.culture.british From: David John kglc.demon.co.uk> There is obviously an intense and world-wide interest in the subject of sheds and shed-ownership. I suspect, in view of the volume of posts on the subject, that many people have been shed-lovers, in secret, for many years and were waiting only for some brave pioneer [Jeff Drabble] to air the subject before coming out of the closet. [by some, considered to be an indoor shed]. Perhaps it is now time to consider the possibility of starting an Association to provide mutual support to those who have come out and to those who are thinking of doing so. My thoughts have gone no further than thinking of a possible name: "Association of Dilapidated Sheds of Distinction". Members would be allowed to use the post-nominal letters MADSOD. Should a group of trellis lovers be discovered in the near future, a similar organisation could also be considered; perhaps "Order of Trellis Formation Lovers". To avoid confusion between the two bodies, members would be given the appelate "Representative" and, as such, use the post-nominal letters ROTFL. Your ideas will be gratefully received. ============================================== David John Just as I was getting really used to yesterday, along came today ============================================== Article: 137134 of soc.culture.british From: David John kglc.demon.co.uk> In article: ltalk12.ceri.memphis.edu> Mathesonceri.memphis.edu (Duncan Stewart Matheson) writes: > > In article <464718407wnrkglc.demon.co.uk>, davidkglc.demon.co.uk wrote: > > [An aweful lot about sheds & trellices] > Yes indeed, Duncan. I am full of awe for those who are shed afficionados. ============================================== David John Just as I was getting really used to yesterday, along came today ============================================== Article: 137233 of soc.culture.british From: zlsiidafs1.mcc.ac.uk (Dave Budd) In article ltalk12.ceri.memphis.edu> Mathesonceri.memphis.edu (Duncan Stewart Matheson) writes: >Ermmm....we have a greenhouse which is, after all, just a transparent >shed. So could I be considered a MADSOD(T Division)???? We also have a >conservatory, which is similar to a transparent shed, except it only has 3 >walls. And it's attached to the side of the house. Sorry....no trellices >anywhere. IF the greenhouse had that white stuff over all the panes, so it was totoally opaque, AND you NEVER keep plants in it, then it might be 10% of the way to being a shed. Replacing a few broken panes with plywood offcuts, heavy card, or a similar material, would also help. But it's a longshot. Conservatories are right out. -- ...or something Dave Budd +44 161 275 6033 fax 6040 D.Buddmcc.ac.uk http://www.man.ac.uk:80/~zlsiida (getting better!) Article: 137246 of soc.culture.british From: Peter J Lusby audre.audre.com> David John wrote: > > > My thoughts have gone no further than thinking of a possible name: > "Association of Dilapidated Sheds of Distinction". > Members would be allowed to use the post-nominal letters > MADSOD. > > Should a group of trellis lovers be discovered in the near > future, a similar organisation could also be considered; perhaps > "Order of Trellis Formation Lovers". To avoid confusion between the > two bodies, members would be given the appelate "Representative" > and, as such, use the post-nominal letters ROTFL. > I am becoming increasingly tired of this pernicious American habit of giving everything a title that reduces to an acronym. Accordingly, I have founded an organisation to combat this linguistic cancer. Anyone interested in further information should contact: Society for the Prohibition of Acronymic Titles (SPAT) at the e-mail address below. ========================================================= pjlaudre.audre.com | A dust whom England bore, shaped, San Diego, CA, USA | made aware... Rupert Brooke ========================================================== Article: 137265 of soc.culture.british From: David John kglc.demon.co.uk> In article: <31237147.435Eaudre.audre.com> Peter J Lusby audre.audre.com> writes: > I am becoming increasingly tired of this pernicious American habit of > giving everything a title that reduces to an acronym. Accordingly, I > have founded an organisation to combat this linguistic cancer. Anyone > interested in further information should contact: > > Society for the Prohibition of Acronymic Titles (SPAT) > Peter I agree with you wholeheartedly. I have long been of the opinion that, often, the acronym is thought of first and then a title created to fit. However, my suggestion referred to post-nominal letters -- not titles. Regards David John, MAAS,TRICHT, LONDON, FAREHAM Member of the Anti-Acronym Society Trainee Representative of the Institute of Corporate Hospitality & Teetotallers Licentiate Of the New Dawn of Numerology Fellow of the Association of Rancid Eggs, Ham And Mushrooms PS: What the hell has all this to do with sheds? Article: 137266 of soc.culture.british From: John Lynch ldta.demon.co.uk> In article <31237147.435Eaudre.audre.com>, Peter J Lusby audre.audre.com> writes >I am becoming increasingly tired of this pernicious American habit of >giving everything a title that reduces to an acronym. David John is a Welshman -- not just any Welshman; the archetypal gog. Anyone less like an American would be difficult to imagine -- John Lynch Article: 137347 of soc.culture.british From: Peter J Lusby audre.audre.com> John Lynch wrote: > > In article <31237147.435Eaudre.audre.com>, Peter J Lusby > audre.audre.com> writes > >I am becoming increasingly tired of this pernicious American habit of > >giving everything a title that reduces to an acronym. > > David John is a Welshman -- not just any Welshman; the archetypal gog. > Anyone less like an American would be difficult to imagine So sorry. I had not meant to imply that the worthy Taffy might be a bloody colonial. It is the pernicious habit which I impute to American origins, whomever might be displaying it. How deplorable, though, that this disgusting perversion should have found its way even into that last bastion of culture and good taste which Wales represents. ========================================================= pjlaudre.audre.com | A dust whom England bore, shaped, San Diego, CA, USA | made aware... Rupert Brooke ========================================================== Article: 137416 of soc.culture.british From: David John kglc.demon.co.uk> In article: <3123A082.3EBAaudre.audre.com> Peter J Lusby audre.audre.com> writes: > > John Lynch wrote: > > > > In article <31237147.435Eaudre.audre.com>, Peter J Lusby > > audre.audre.com> writes > > >I am becoming increasingly tired of this pernicious American habit of > > >giving everything a title that reduces to an acronym. > > > > David John is a Welshman -- not just any Welshman; the archetypal gog. > > Anyone less like an American would be difficult to imagine > > So sorry. I had not meant to imply that the worthy Taffy might be a > bloody colonial. It is the pernicious habit which I impute to American > origins, whomever might be displaying it. How deplorable, though, that > this disgusting perversion should have found its way even into that last > bastion of culture and good taste which Wales represents. > Thank you, John, for your timely confirmation that I am not a Yank. Thank you, Peter, for your apology. Although, to be fair, I had not inferred that you had accused me of being an American, only that I was overdoing the acronym thingy. TTFN [an abbreviation will have to do - it's much too late at night to think up a suitable acronym]. ============================================== David John Just as I was getting really used to yesterday, along came today ============================================== Article: 137468 of soc.culture.british From: Peter J Lusby audre.audre.com> David John wrote: > > Thank you, Peter, for your apology. Although, to be fair, I had > not inferred that you had accused me of being an American, only > that I was overdoing the acronym thingy. > > TTFN [an abbreviation will have to do - it's much too late at > night to think up a suitable acronym]. > Forsooth, I didn't think _you_ were overdoing the acronym thingy - I love it when someone applies "reductio ad ubsurdum" to some of the neo-colonial inanities. In fact, I dreamed up S.P.A.T. some 30 years ago, but this is the first opportunity I've encountered to publicise it. BTW, who was the awful Radio 1 DJ back in the 60s/70s who always ended his show with "Bee Eff Enn, Byyyye for now"? Jimmy something, but my mind has drawn a merciful veil over the rest of his memory. To remain on topic, I bet he didn't even own a shed! ========================================================= pjlaudre.audre.com | A dust whom England bore, shaped, San Diego, CA, USA | made aware... Rupert Brooke ========================================================== Article: 137469 of soc.culture.british From: Peter J Lusby audre.audre.com> Dave Budd wrote: > > In article ltalk12.ceri.memphis.edu> Mathesonceri.memphis.edu (Duncan Stewart Matheson) writes: > >Ermmm....we have a greenhouse which is, after all, just a transparent > >shed. So could I be considered a MADSOD(T Division)???? We also have a > >conservatory, which is similar to a transparent shed, except it only has 3 > >walls. And it's attached to the side of the house. Sorry....no trellices > >anywhere. > > IF the greenhouse had that white stuff over all the panes, so it was > totoally opaque, AND you NEVER keep plants in it, then it might be 10% of > the way to being a shed. Replacing a few broken panes with plywood offcuts, > heavy card, or a similar material, would also help. But it's a longshot. > > Conservatories are right out. > I'd have to concur with Mr Budd on this, although Mr Drabble, as our resident authority on the subject might have a more definitive answer. It seems to me that the two primary requisites for sheddiness are opaqueness and separation from the dwelling. These are "sine qua non", since the sole true function of the shed is to give one a place to escape from the prying eyes of family, friends and neighbors. Happy shedding! ========================================================= pjlaudre.audre.com | A dust whom England bore, shaped, San Diego, CA, USA | made aware... Rupert Brooke ========================================================== Article: 137495 of soc.culture.british From: spalbion.engr.sgi.com (Simon Patience) In article <3124C109.936audre.audre.com>, Peter J Lusby audre.audre.com> writes: |> David John wrote: |> > TTFN [an abbreviation will have to do - it's much too late at |> > night to think up a suitable acronym]. |> [snip] |> BTW, who was the awful Radio 1 DJ back in the 60s/70s who always ended |> his show with "Bee Eff Enn, Byyyye for now"? Jimmy something, but my |> mind has drawn a merciful veil over the rest of his memory. To remain |> on topic, I bet he didn't even own a shed! Radio 1 -> Radio 2 BFN -> TTFN (ta-ta for now) Jimmy something -> Jimmy Young But you are probably right about the shed. Simon. -- Simon Patience Phone: (415) 933-4644 Silicon Graphics, Inc FAX: (415) 962-8404 2011 N. Shoreline Boulevard Email: spsgi.com Mountain View, CA 94043 Article: 138211 of soc.culture.british From: jefdrabcentral.co.nz (Jeff Drabble) Peter J Lusby audre.audre.com> wrote: >Dave Budd wrote: >> >> In article ltalk12.ceri.memphis.edu> Mathesonceri.memphis.edu (Duncan Stewart Matheson) writes: I've not received this article yet, but why is it so wide ? (J.D) >> >Ermmm....we have a greenhouse which is, after all, just a transparent >> >shed. So could I be considered a MADSOD(T Division)???? We also have a >> >conservatory, which is similar to a transparent shed, except it only has 3 >> >walls. And it's attached to the side of the house. Sorry....no trellices >> >anywhere. >> IF the greenhouse had that white stuff over all the panes, so it was >> totoally opaque, AND you NEVER keep plants in it, then it might be 10% of >> the way to being a shed. Replacing a few broken panes with plywood offcuts, >> heavy card, or a similar material, would also help. But it's a longshot. >> Conservatories are right out. >I'd have to concur with Mr Budd on this, although Mr Drabble, as our >resident authority on the subject might have a more definitive answer. >It seems to me that the two primary requisites for sheddiness are >opaqueness and separation from the dwelling. These are "sine qua non", >since the sole true function of the shed is to give one a place to >escape from the prying eyes of family, friends and neighbors. A couple of salient points arise here. Well heeled shedsters will have noted the continuing attempts by interlopers to break into the world of shedding with the use of shed substitutes. Shedsters are by no means an elitist group - it is perhaps even possible for a Mensan to become a shedster - but a certain standard is required or the flood-gates will open and there will be an inundation of biblical proportions, with greenhouses, cellars, carports, and outdoor dunnies all claiming a place, quite wrongly, in shed-dom. An oft missed point is that actual shed ownership is not a prerequisite to shediness. As the faqette points out, shediness is part of one's very being, so that it is possible for one to sheddy, but shedless. In practice however, this is rarely the case as the urge to shed ownership is so powerful that a true shedster's life can take no other path than that which leads quickly and inexorably to shed possession. Mr Lusby has been overly generous in declaring me the resident authority in matters sheddy. It is however, not generally known that I am the proud holder of a B.Sh, and plan to move on to greater academic heights with my thesis; " Sheds and their influence on oil futures. An exploration into the effects of oil company moguls spending rather too much time in their sheds." Jeff Drabble Article: 138632 of soc.culture.british From: Ed Fowler gbccmail.lehman.com> jefdrabcentral.co.nz (Jeff Drabble) wrote: snip > >Mr Lusby has been overly generous in declaring me the resident >authority in matters sheddy. It is however, not generally known that >I am the proud holder of a B.Sh, and plan to move on to greater >academic heights with my thesis; " Sheds and their influence on oil >futures. An exploration into the effects of oil company moguls >spending rather too much time in their sheds." > >Jeff Drabble Another worthy document, can I have a glimpse of the finished article? Ed ------------------------------------------------------------ |Ed Fowler, Information Systems & Resources Co-ordinator | | Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Ltd | ------------------------------------------------------------ | * VOTE FOR UK.REC.SHEDS * VOTE FOR UK.REC.SHEDS * | ------------------------------------------------------------ |All views expressed are strictly my own and do not reflect| | the past, present or future views of my employers. | ------------------------------------------------------------ Article: 140309 of soc.culture.british From: jefdrabcentral.co.nz (Jeff Drabble) Ed Fowler gbccmail.lehman.com> wrote: >>academic heights with my thesis; " Sheds and their influence on oil >>futures. An exploration into the effects of oil company moguls >>spending rather too much time in their sheds." >Another worthy document, can I have a glimpse of the finished article? ..........and as he sat, surrounded by the shakers and movers of the cartel, he was noticed to be glancing furtively at a photograph in his wallet. They pressed him to be allowed to see this picture of his most beloved and began nodding to each other knowingly when they saw that it depicted his ................... This is but a glimpse; it is, as yet, unfinished. Thank you for your interest. Jeff Drabble Article: 140310 of soc.culture.british From: jefdrabcentral.co.nz (Jeff Drabble) Peter J Lusby audre.audre.com> wrote: >> Conservatories are right out. >I'd have to concur with Mr Budd on this, although Mr Drabble, as our >resident authority on the subject might have a more definitive answer. >It seems to me that the two primary requisites for sheddiness are >opaqueness and separation from the dwelling. These are "sine qua non", >since the sole true function of the shed is to give one a place to >escape from the prying eyes of family, friends and neighbors. With the shift to ever more densely packed city development, the modern shedster feels compelled to revise the ground-rules on occasion in an effort to ensure that those who are born to shedding, but are denied an expression of their shediness due to their urban circumstance, are afforded the opportunity to get in touch with their sheddy side. Avid shedsters will have spotted my suggestion of an indoor shed to counter this problem and I've mentioned it again here so as to allow discussion on this sticky point of required seperation from other buildings. I believe modern shedding is an organic thing, growing and changing, even metamorphosing to cater to the needs of its adherents. Interestingly you have introduced Latin into our discussion of sheds. This would seem an appropriate time to remind shedsters of the correct language for shed reference. Shedus horribilis is of course, your common or garden shed. Shedus grandii refers to that shed which has moved to true "hand in glove" status with its owner, the shed having become practically indistinguishable as a seperate entity. The half scale indoor shed that I have proposed would be known as Shedus minusculae domesticus. The advantage of this knowlege becomes rapidly apparent when one realises that trellii, conservatories and the like are domiciled in the "pergolum" genus, thus making it abundantly clear that they are not, and never can be, sheds. Jeff Drabble Article: 141589 of soc.culture.british From: Ed Fowler gbccmail.lehman.com> jefdrabcentral.co.nz (Jeff Drabble) wrote: snip > >..........and as he sat, surrounded by the shakers and movers of the >cartel, he was noticed to be glancing furtively at a photograph in his >wallet. They pressed him to be allowed to see this picture of his >most beloved and began nodding to each other knowingly when they saw >that it depicted his ................... > >This is but a glimpse; it is, as yet, unfinished. Thank you for your >interest. > >Jeff Drabble > This sounds like a job for Mouldy and Scullery, the shed files. Ed ------------------------------------------------------------ |Ed Fowler, Information Systems & Resources Co-ordinator | | Lehman Brothers International (Europe) Ltd | ------------------------------------------------------------ | * VOTE FOR UK.REC.SHEDS * VOTE FOR UK.REC.SHEDS * | ------------------------------------------------------------ |All views expressed are strictly my own and do not reflect| | the past, present or future views of my employers. | ------------------------------------------------------------