From: pwg@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Goldberg)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: PRO-smoker's peeves
Summary: Not!
Keywords: newbies, champagne, crystal, fonts
Date: 13 Aug 92 11:06:59 GMT
Reply-To: pwg@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Goldberg)
Organization: Laboratory for the Foundations of Computer Science, Edinburgh U

In article <1992Aug12.232017.19361@bert.eecs.uic.edu>
artn@bert.eecs.uic.edu (Ellyn Sandor) writes:
>bberbeni@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bill Berbenich) writes:
      [anti-smoking comments]

>Start a new thread.  I'll read it. Maybe.  This is my first time (I think)
>posting here, and I'd rather not be flamed.  Start a new thread. It's real
>easy.  Call it ANTI-smoker's peeves, not PRO-smoker's peeves.  Got it?
>
>Read the start of my post again.
>
>(not that I mind your peeves, as such, that's not the point.)
>
>	Stephan 

Methinks this is too good to be true. Not long after I arrived in
Peevetown, I peeved about the practice of changing the subject without
changing the subject line, but I never suspected that anyone would be
so naive as to imagine that he could start a thread and then ban
anyone who disagreed with him, from following up. Especially on a
subject as contentious as smoking. Apart from anything else, it would
make for extremely boring articles. Example:

>> >>|>OOoooh, I *haaaaate* when people tell it's antisocial to smoke
>> >>|Me too!
>> >>God yes I just can't understand their attitude
>> >What about the one's who have given up smoking and say you have to
>> Ooh they're just horrible
>Yes I can't stand those sorts
But isn't it *fun* when you light the wrong end of the cigarette and
you get to play around with the burnt end of the filter for minutes on end


This kind of writing may induce some of us who don't like tobacco
smoke to kill the thread, but we can't wait all day for you lot to die
of lung cancer or heart disease, so we may instead just try to hijack
the thread with <gasp> dissenting opinions.


ObPeeve: Champagne. In particular, the snob appeal with which it is
surrounded. Now I believe that in the You Essay, the word "champagne"
is frequently used to refer to any sparkling wine, and that is a usage
that I heartily approve of. Over here however, it must have two
additional characteristics. (1) It must be produced in the Champagne
region of France. (2) It must be horrendously overpriced. The cheapest
is around ten pounds a bottle. The reason why anyone even contemplates
paying this much for it is not because that is its intrinsic value,
but because some marketing guru has managed to convince the public
that it is obligatory for celebrations.

The above peeve reminds me of another, namely the use of the word
"crystal" for high-quality glassware. That usage makes no sense.

Bonus Peeve: Some of you may recall that when I printed out my thesis,
the fonts being used for the real numbers and natural numbers symbols
had recently been changed to some particularly ugly ones which were
too large and ornate, and that the oblique lines in the N weren't even
parallel. Now that my thesis has been printed and bound, whoever is in
charge of TeX over here has reverted to the sensible fonts.

Paul.


Voltaire to Rousseau, on reading Rousseau's "Ode a la Poste'rite'":
"Mon ami, voila une lettre qui ne sera jamais recue a son addresse"