HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Subject: Re: American English 
Distribution: world
Organization: Solvfield Ltd.
Reply-To: raph@panache.demon.co.uk
X-Mailer: Simple NEWS 1.90 (ka9q DIS 1.19)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 19:36:00 +0000

What do you call a man who delivers a baby? He is still a mid*wife*.

-- 
Raphael Mankin			Nil taurus excretum
From: wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Back from the UK
Date: 12 Jan 93 14:07:53 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

In article <1993Jan11.020701.9391@news.columbia.edu>, gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
> Just got back from London, among the goodies toted back this trip are some
> more US/UK differences worthy of discussion:
> a) "Scheme"
> On the front of the VAT refund form, the header read:
> 			H.M. Customs and Excise
> 			 Retail Export Scheme
> Generally in the US, a scheme is something at its best a little underhanded,
> and at its worst a criminal offense.  A "retail export scheme" would be a 
> smuggling operation.

On the other hand, some would think that giving you back the tax you've paid is
a fairly underhand thing for HM Custome & Excise to do.

> b) "Toilet"
> 
> Britons tend to use this word as a substitute for what Americans would call
> the "bathroom" or the "restroom" or (I hear, in some parts of the country)
> the "washroom."  

You could, of course, say that Americans are squeamish and use the word
`bathroom' or `restroom' euphemistically for what we call the `toilet' or, more
frequently, the `loo'.
 
> c) "Store" vs "Shop"
> 
> 
> However, I did hear the following on Good Morning Britain:
> 
> 	"The IRA placed incendiary devices into four stores in
> 	 central London.  The shops affected were..."

`Store' in this context was probably an abbreviation for `department store':
the word is principally used as a place for storage, so when applied to shops
it seems to indicate a large one.

> d) The word "quite"
> 
> I acquired a catalog of musical instrument kits (lutes, harpsichords, etc) and
                or a catalogue
> it had a legend to show the level of difficulty of the kits.  The list read:
> 
>         * = Easy
>        ** = Quite easy
>       *** = Average
>      **** = Quite Challenging
>     ***** = Challenging
> 
> To my eyes this looked strange, as I would say that something "quite
> challenging" is more challenging than something "challenging," and 
> something "quite easy" is easier than something "easy."

But as you know, `quite' means `fairly', as in `quite unique'. *THUD* as
assorted a.u.e readers send sledgehammers whirling in the direction of Oxford.

> Opinions, anyone?
> 
Well observed!
-- 

Stephen Wilcox             |   For Sale: Posts in British Government. Suit
wilcox@vax.oxford.ac.uk    |   outgoing American. Highest bids accepted.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: I'll have myself a shower
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:26:29 GMT

"I think I'll go have myself a shower".

This sounded perfectly natural to me until my wife questioned it.
She thinks that this use of "myself" is peculiarly Australian.

Who else would use "myself" in this situation?
-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan)
Subject: Re: Is it proper to use CONTRACTIONS in letters,resumes,etc.?
Organization: University of Newcastle, AUSTRALIA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 02:12:33 GMT

In article <1iobbuINN1jd@matt.ksu.ksu.edu>, bubai@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (P. Chatterjee) writes:
> I had a question about whether it is proper to use contractions (that is
> I've, I'm, etc.) in official correspondence, personal statements, resumes
> and other statements.

To some extent it's a question of personal taste.

I wouldn't use contractions in a resume, or indeed in any document which
was designed to impress people.  I do use them in some official letters.

-- 
Peter Moylan                      eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Person
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:02:11 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1993Jan7.151439.19910@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <hayesstw.161.726389345@risc1.unisa.ac.za> hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:
>>"thpic" [...] is an acronym for "the human person in community", 
>>which is what I normally understand, and mean, by "man".
>
>Yeah.  "A man walks down the street."  You don't think gender?  Most of
>us do, and Paul Simon certainly expected us to.  

So what should one say, Mr Lustig?  "A person walks down the street"?
"A human being walks down the street"?  You still don't think sex (I
take it that's what "gender" was meant to mean)?  I mean, if I'm made
to visualise a (yet unspecified) human being (even if the word "man"
hasn't been used), I'll certainly have to attribute to him a sex, age,
skin colour, approximate appearance and much else.  I can't visualise
him otherwise.  But, of course, since all those assignments will be
arbitrary, I'll be prepared to cancel any of them.

That being said, "man" in "A man walks down the street" may have to
mean a male (adult) human.  But it also may not.  With no context, it
is difficult to say which one.  Sorry, I'm not too well acquainted
with P Simon.

-- 
 `D'ye mind tellin me whit the two o ye are gaun oan aboot?' (The Glasgow
Ivan A Derzhanski  (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk; iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)    Gospel)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller)
Subject: Re: A letter to Mandar
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:31:55 GMT

In article <1ia8u0INNnr6@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> Sundar_Prasad@mtsg.ubc.ca writes:
>In article <103658@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L.
>Crawford) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec24.054110.27386@news.columbia.edu>
>gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>
>>
>>Not _all_ of us feel this way.  I've always enjoyed his postings, and I
>>enjoy them all the more now that I know he's probably another alias of
>>Mahalingam (magnificent name, that!).  
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Do you know what it translates to (from Sanskrit or Tamil or Hindi or a few
>other Indian languages)?
>
>Maha:  Big, huge, almighty...
>
>Lingam: Penis, Dick, Weiner...
>
>In fact Shiva (one of the Hindu Trinity and the god of destruction) is
>represented in Indian temples by a 'Shiva-Lingam', which is made out of
>black granite, is much bigger than the real thing, and is 'erected'
>vertically.
>


Of course she did, lingamhead.  Why else would she consider that
it was magnificent?  

You need to learn a few things about women, Sundar.
From: Sundar_Prasad@mtsg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: A letter to Mandar
Date: 4 Jan 1993 21:07:12 GMT
Organization: Civil Engineering, Univ of BC
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.civil.ubc.ca

In article <103658@netnews.upenn.edu> crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L.
Crawford) writes:
>In article <1992Dec24.054110.27386@news.columbia.edu>
gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>
>
>Not _all_ of us feel this way.  I've always enjoyed his postings, and I
>enjoy them all the more now that I know he's probably another alias of
>Mahalingam (magnificent name, that!).  
 ^^^^^^^^^^

Do you know what it translates to (from Sanskrit or Tamil or Hindi or a few
other Indian languages)?

Maha:  Big, huge, almighty...

Lingam: Penis, Dick, Weiner...

In fact Shiva (one of the Hindu Trinity and the god of destruction) is
represented in Indian temples by a 'Shiva-Lingam', which is made out of
black granite, is much bigger than the real thing, and is 'erected'
vertically.

Sundar Prasad
Ocean Engineering
Univ of B.C.
Vancouver, Canada.
From: charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: ``Functionality''
Date: 9 Jan 93 19:21:02 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota

In article <CANNAM.93Jan7131200@quattro.sc.ZIB-Berlin.de>
Cannam@sc.ZIB-Berlin.de (Chris Cannam) writes:

>Can anybody tell me why I find the jargon word `functionality'
>so irritating?  To my ear (as a native British English speaker)
>it sounds not only ugly but downright wrong.

Perhaps because its only use is silly pseudo-scientific abstraction.

No postmodern person would ever dream of committing the ultimate sin
of actually explaining what something does and whether it does it well
or poorly.  No, the thing must said to "function" and to have a greater
or lesser degree of "functionality".

Before Roger jumps on this one saying that "functionality" performs
an important service, let me circumvent the flame war by agreeing.
If a marketroid said (or even *knew*) what something actually did
instead of hyping "a major breakthrough in functionality", one might
suspect that he got his MBA from Boondock State instead of Harvard.
No doubt the word has its uses as a shibboleth.

>Why?  And can anyone think of a more graceful alternative,
>without losing the full extent of meaning behind the word?

Any exact equivalent would be just as silly.  The only graceful alternative
is to avoid the abstraction and say something intelligible.

-- 
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: scotty@netcom.com (J Scott Peter)
Subject: Re: a MST, or an MST?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 04:20:21 GMT

In article <C04qL4.8Dy@mtholyoke.edu> orourke@mtholyoke.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
>Which is correct, "a MST," or "an MST"?  MST = Minimum Spanning Tree.
>So if one imagines expanding the acronynm, it should be "a MST."
>But the acronymn is used so frequently that readers will say
>"em ess tee" in their heads, in which case "an MST" sounds better.


The article should be chosen based on the usual way the acronym is
pronounced.  Therefore, it should be "an MST".  This is fascinating,
because some acronyms have alternate pronunciations.  Those that are
pronounceable character sequences are often pronounced as words, not
letters.  "NASA" is pronounced "nassa", but "HST" is pronounced "H S T".
What's great about the indefinite article is that it so often indicates
which pronunciation of an acronym the author is thinking of: word or initial.
This is because the names of so many English letters start with vowels.
I'm often surprised when coming across an acronym in print, and realising
that the author pronounces it differently than I do.

-- 
J Scott Peter XXXIII  // "Instantiating new solutions in the emerging arena
scotty@netcom.com    // of transcending the de-facto horizons of industry-
Las Anjealous       // standard open paradigms."
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Something NEW, ferGawdzake!
Date: 4 Jan 93 17:13:58 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Dec20.061608.20205@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>,
slb22@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Seth "the Lesser") says:

>I *know* that.  My question was, why do *copy editors* routinely insist
>that a
>double hyphen is not the correct symbol for an em dash when it's what the
>typesetters prefer?

Must depend on the typesetter.  When I copy-edited for a local city
magazine, we were requested to use 1/M or 1/N for dashes, and = for
hyphens.  I guess they felt it clarified things.  



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Person
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:32:57 GMT

In article <hayesstw.161.726389345@risc1.unisa.ac.za> hayesstw@risc1.unisa.ac.za (Steve Hayes) writes:
:the thought police of neo-fascist feminismn, then I suggest that we use  
:"thpic" to replace it. It is an acronym for "the human person in community", 
:which is what I normally understand, and mean, by "man".

No, I'm sorry, that's deeply offensive to Latin-American people with lisps.

G
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Roger the permissivist
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:21:54 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.050506.19604@csi.uottawa.ca> misrael@csi.uottawa.ca (Mark Israel) writes:
>In article <1993Jan11.235159.6508@Princeton.EDU>, roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:

>> Calling me a "permissivist" with all its aura of Dr. Spock is 
>> nonsense, as I espouse no such attitude.

>   You're not a permissivist?  What are you not in favour of permitting?

I neither permit nor favor permitting.  Permitting is for those in
charge, and there's nobody in charge of the language.  Linguists have 
long been called "permissivists" by the pop grammarians and golden-
agers and barbarians-at-the-gate crowd.  It's a stupid term.

>   Was Dr. Spock a permissivist?  Or did he condemn them?

Again, neither.  His approach to child-rearing is not based on
such a dichotomy.

Roger



Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Subject: Re: Comments in source code
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 22:44:39 GMT

Quoting sngoetze@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (Sebastian Goetze) in article <1ii2qpEINNn2e@uni-erlangen.de>:
>
>I agree. When I'm writing programs, "we" is usually me and the machine...

There's also the way people identify with their code.  Supposing two
people are working on different parts of the program:

"OK, I'll pass you the permutation array, you invert it, apply it to the
values and pass me back the new values when they're ready..."
  __                                _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk \\ //
/\__/ "I'm the boy without a soul."  \X/
From: Sundar_Prasad@mtsg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: A letter to Sue
Date: 8 Jan 1993 19:12:27 GMT
Organization: Civil Engineering, Univ of BC
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: tsunami.civil.ubc.ca

>>>In article <1992Dec24.054110.27386@news.columbia.edu>
>>gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener) writes:
>>>
>>>Not _all_ of us feel this way.  I've always enjoyed his postings, and I
>>>enjoy them all the more now that I know he's probably another alias of
>>>Mahalingam (magnificent name, that!). 
>> ^^^^^^^^^^
>>
... and then I wrote...

>>Do you know what it translates to (from Sanskrit or Tamil or a few
>>other Indian languages)?
>>
>>Maha:  Big, huge, almighty...
>>
>>Lingam: Penis, Dick, Weiner...
>>
>>In fact Shiva (one of the Hindu Trinity and the god of destruction) is
>>represented in Indian temples by a 'Shiva-Lingam', which is made out of
>>black granite, is much bigger than the real thing, and is 'erected'
>>vertically.
>>
... and then sue@netcom.com (Sue Miller) wrote... 

>Of course she did, lingamhead.  Why else would she consider that
>it was magnificent?  
>
>You need to learn a few things about women, Sundar.
>
... and now I write... (this is fun)

Alright (said with the appropriate roll of the tongue to indicate immense
satisfaction). Its ages since a woman has called me lingamhead.

Actually I goofed a bit on my earlier post. I should have mentioned that my
analysis of 'Mahalingam' was for the benefit of netters who may have missed
the connection between Mahalingam and magnificent (and if everyone who read
that article knew it already, I'm bloody glad that Indian languages are
getting around).

And as far as my needing to learn a few things about women is concerned,
I'm still looking for a good teacher (could you possibly?..like..if you
know what I mean..like....:-)

Sundar (but you can call me Sundy)
From: dks@MIT.EDU (dks)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Spotted: "nonstopping"
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:29:00 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA13452; Mon, 4 Jan 93 00:02:39 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA14740; Mon, 4 Jan 93 00:02:37 -0800
X-Received: from TMS-E19-PORT-3.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA03316; Mon, 4 Jan 93 03:02:28 EST
X-To: alt.usage.english.usenet
X-Command: Send_AEvt(doAutoForward)



    The English language, at least in London, is developing as a result of
    the spate of bomb alerts affecting the capital. Notices are being put up
    at London Transport stations to say that "trains are nonstopping" at a
    particular station. 


Cheers,
Dhanesh

  Erin Go Bragh!
From: briand@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Brian D Diehm)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Concertise
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:45:27 GMT
Reply-To: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

>>re: concertize. . .


> (Roger Lustig)
>Um, what's graceless, dissonant, nasty, brutish, or whatever about it?
>Sounds like a lot of other perfectly good words to me...

People whose ears detect only penny-whistle functionality should not try to
concertize. In other words, if you've got a tin ear, don't try to tune the
orchestra.

Similarly, if you can't hear the objection, maybe you should just sit back
and listen and try to learn. To many of us, concertize is all of the things
cited. The very fact that you can't understand it puts you right out of the
discussion.

Unfortunately, your voice, being the voice of the uncultured masses, will no
doubt win out in the long run. Might makes right, eh? Omni vincit plebii. . .
(And no, I don't know Latin, I'm just horsing around there.)

I can hardly wait until we *all* speak jive! Sheeee-it, Mama!

--
Brian Diehm
Tektronix, Inc.                (503) 627-3437         briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM
P.O. Box 500, M/S 19-286
Beaverton, OR   97077
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: hfreeman@netcom.com (Harris S. Freeman)
Subject: Re: English N. Sg. w/Pl. Agreement
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:02:55 GMT

jww@evolving.com (John W. Woolley) writes:

>djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A. Johns) writes:
>: The only time I've ever heard the plural after "United States" is when
>: the demonstrative "these" precedes it, and that usage is a bit
>

>"United States" as a plural noun was current in England well into this
>century -- I found a journalistic example from 1935 the other day --
>and was standard in America in the 18th century and common certainly
>till the middle of the 19th.  In the Constitution (1783) we have
>"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war
>against them ..."  And the 13th Amendment (1865) "within the United
>States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Have you seen G. Wills recent book on the Getyesburg Address or the shorter
version published last summer in the Atlantic?  He makes the point that the
Civil War was in large measure ABOUT the question of wheteher the United
States is a single or plural term, and that after Gettysburg it became
singular.

- Harris S. Freeman	e-mail:	hfreeman@netcom.com
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Harris S. Freeman	e-mail:	hfreeman@netcom.com
			phone:  415 365 4749 
			other:	415 298 0785
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Dictionaries (& nostalgia)
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 03:10:25 GMT

In article <1993Jan5.101855.1@cc.newcastle.edu.au> ccjal@cc.newcastle.edu.au (John A Lambert) writes:
:For example, I was brought up to pronounce `falcon' as 'fawk'n', but find that
:most people nowadays, round here pronounce it more-or-less as it is spelt (or
:spelled).

[If we've played this game again in the last year while I was seduced away by
words-l, skip it...]

OK, so time to start a list of words with historically interesting
pronunciations that are slowly being lost...  I'll kick it off with
waistcoat, or /weskit/...

G
PS Spelled/spelt - is it regional?  I'm scots & have always said 'spelt',
but I've actually met Englishmen with the effrontery to suggest that there
was no such word!  Pah, I say!  Pah!
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Concertise
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:58:36 GMT

In article <8208@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM writes:
>>>re: concertize. . .
>> (Roger Lustig)
>>Um, what's graceless, dissonant, nasty, brutish, or whatever about it?
>>Sounds like a lot of other perfectly good words to me...

>People whose ears detect only penny-whistle functionality should not try to
>concertize. In other words, if you've got a tin ear, don't try to tune the
>orchestra.

Such *lovely* clothes the emperor is wearing.

So tell me: have you worked down a page or two of the dictionary and 
picked out the nice-sounding and ugly-sounding words?  Does anyone 
agree with your choices?  Will you eschew the ugly ones, or the ones your 
friends find ugly?

>Similarly, if you can't hear the objection, maybe you should just sit back
>and listen and try to learn. To many of us, concertize is all of the things
>cited. The very fact that you can't understand it puts you right out of the
>discussion.

WHAT discussion?  All I hear is noses being turned up.  Nobody's given a
reason for the supposed ugliness, and that includes Fowler and his friend
with the lavatories.

>Unfortunately, your voice, being the voice of the uncultured masses, will no

Fuck you, too!

>doubt win out in the long run. Might makes right, eh? Omni vincit plebii. . .

Well, given that every other word in the language has gotten there by that
very route, I wouldn't put my money on the self-proclaimed aristocracy
at this late date, especially when the aristocrats so reliably make
fools of themselves when trying to explain themselves (which is a
rare enough event).  All the snootiness about English in the last 300
years has had practically no effect, and it *has* on the other hand
given us Byron, Dickens, Hardy, Wilde, Yeats, and the like.

>(And no, I don't know Latin, I'm just horsing around there.)

And I know just which end...

>I can hardly wait until we *all* speak jive! Sheeee-it, Mama!

By the standards of language snobs of the past, you *do* speak jive.

Roger

Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
From: m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com (Barone)
Subject: Re: What does bis mean?
Organization: Raytheon Submarine Signal Division
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:05:45 GMT

In article <1il37q$a0m@agate.berkeley.edu> ted@physics3 (Emory F. Bunn) writes:
> In article <1993Jan8.214256.16082@pixel.kodak.com> john@liebnitz.ssd.kodak.com
(John Hall) writes:
> >What does "bis" mean, as in "V.32 bis"?  From context it appears to mean
> >something like "Mk II".
> 
> It's the French word for "twice."  The only time I recall seeing it
> used in an English-language publication is when a work containing
> numbered sections  has been revised to include a new section:  If
> you've inserted a section in between section 2.2 and section 2.3, and
> you want to keep the section numbers consistent with the previous
> edition, you can call the inserted section "2.2 bis."

	Many European aircraft in WWII had "bis" appended to their
designation when the role of the aircraft had been modified.  For
example, the Italian Savoia Marchetti SM-81 was a tactical bomber.
In its torpedo bomber role, its designation was SM-81 bis.
-- 
Joe Barone
m1b@rayssd.ssd.ray.com
Oh yeah, well I can't take anything you say seriuosly with that stupid accent.
You sound like you should be ``plotting big trouble for moose and squirrel.''