"Australia and New Zealand"
Nov 16th 2004, 12:18 pm
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:49:17 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Until Lord of the Rings, the average person in EU or America would not
>> have a single image of New Zealand. Not one. ZERO.
>As a european I beg to differ.
>The all blacks in full cry and a Maori Haka both spring
>to mind.
A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
they had to replace it.
Dave
=====
NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Until Lord of the Rings, the average person in EU or America would not
>> have a single image of New Zealand. Not one. ZERO.
>As a european I beg to differ.
>The all blacks in full cry and a Maori Haka both spring
>to mind.
A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
they had to replace it.
Dave
=====
NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/
Nov 17th 2004, 7:33 am
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Proctor
says...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:49:17 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Until Lord of the Rings, the average person in EU or America would not
> >> have a single image of New Zealand. Not one. ZERO.
> >>
> >
> >As a european I beg to differ.
> >
> >The all blacks in full cry and a Maori Haka both spring
> >to mind.
>
> A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
> they had to replace it.
It was once New Amsterdam.
Why they changed it, I can't say. People just liked it better that way.
says...
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 19:49:17 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Until Lord of the Rings, the average person in EU or America would not
> >> have a single image of New Zealand. Not one. ZERO.
> >>
> >
> >As a european I beg to differ.
> >
> >The all blacks in full cry and a Maori Haka both spring
> >to mind.
>
> A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
> they had to replace it.
It was once New Amsterdam.
Why they changed it, I can't say. People just liked it better that way.
Nov 17th 2004, 9:50 am
#18
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
In article <[email protected]>, Dave Proctor
<[email protected]> writes
>A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
>they had to replace it.
A Septic might well have been Well. A Sceptic on the other hand might
have had second thoughts about it.
--
JohnM: Country & Western Song Titles #4
--------------------------------
BARRENCE & SAVAGES WHITFIELD: "Mama Get The Hammer
(There's a Fly On Papa's Head)
<[email protected]> writes
>A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
>they had to replace it.
A Septic might well have been Well. A Sceptic on the other hand might
have had second thoughts about it.
--
JohnM: Country & Western Song Titles #4
--------------------------------
BARRENCE & SAVAGES WHITFIELD: "Mama Get The Hammer
(There's a Fly On Papa's Head)
Nov 17th 2004, 2:41 pm
#19
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
In article <[email protected]>, John M wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Proctor writes
>>A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
>>they had to replace it.
>A Septic might well have been Well. A Sceptic on the other hand might
>have had second thoughts about it.
A septic might have been tanked.
Geoff
--
Actually, I do have spots.
>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Proctor writes
>>A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
>>they had to replace it.
>A Septic might well have been Well. A Sceptic on the other hand might
>have had second thoughts about it.
A septic might have been tanked.
Geoff
--
Actually, I do have spots.
Nov 18th 2004, 12:51 am
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:41:35 GMT, [email protected] (Geoff Rait) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, John M wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Proctor writes
>>>A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
>>>they had to replace it.
>>A Septic might well have been Well. A Sceptic on the other hand might
>>have had second thoughts about it.
>A septic might have been tanked.
Not on what they laughingly call "beer" - is it true that Budweiser is
kept with the soft drinks?
Dave
=====
NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/
>In article <[email protected]>, John M wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Proctor writes
>>>A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
>>>they had to replace it.
>>A Septic might well have been Well. A Sceptic on the other hand might
>>have had second thoughts about it.
>A septic might have been tanked.
Not on what they laughingly call "beer" - is it true that Budweiser is
kept with the soft drinks?
Dave
=====
NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.
http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/
Nov 18th 2004, 1:00 am
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
Dave Proctor <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:41:35 GMT, [email protected] (Geoff Rait) wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, John M wrote:
> >>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Proctor writes
> >
> >>>A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
> >>>they had to replace it.
> >>
> >>A Septic might well have been Well. A Sceptic on the other hand might
> >>have had second thoughts about it.
> >
> >A septic might have been tanked.
>
> Not on what they laughingly call "beer" - is it true that Budweiser is
> kept with the soft drinks?
No way! Exactly which part of "drinks" didn't you understand?
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:41:35 GMT, [email protected] (Geoff Rait) wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>, John M wrote:
> >>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Proctor writes
> >
> >>>A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
> >>>they had to replace it.
> >>
> >>A Septic might well have been Well. A Sceptic on the other hand might
> >>have had second thoughts about it.
> >
> >A septic might have been tanked.
>
> Not on what they laughingly call "beer" - is it true that Budweiser is
> kept with the soft drinks?
No way! Exactly which part of "drinks" didn't you understand?
Nov 18th 2004, 7:59 am
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
My favourite story,, American tourist goes into Young & Jackson, cultural
icon and all not just to see Chloe, and asks the barman to "Gimme something
just like American beer" so the barman pours him a glass of water and
charges $10.
But I like Louie the budweiser lizard
--
"Dave Proctor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:41:35 GMT, [email protected] (Geoff Rait) wrote:
|
| >In article <[email protected]>, John M wrote:
| >>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Proctor
writes
| >
| >>>A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
| >>>they had to replace it.
| >>
| >>A Septic might well have been Well. A Sceptic on the other hand might
| >>have had second thoughts about it.
| >
| >A septic might have been tanked.
|
| Not on what they laughingly call "beer" - is it true that Budweiser is
| kept with the soft drinks?
|
| Dave
|
| =====
|
| NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.
|
| http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/
icon and all not just to see Chloe, and asks the barman to "Gimme something
just like American beer" so the barman pours him a glass of water and
charges $10.
But I like Louie the budweiser lizard
--
"Dave Proctor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
| On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 03:41:35 GMT, [email protected] (Geoff Rait) wrote:
|
| >In article <[email protected]>, John M wrote:
| >>In article <[email protected]>, Dave Proctor
writes
| >
| >>>A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
| >>>they had to replace it.
| >>
| >>A Septic might well have been Well. A Sceptic on the other hand might
| >>have had second thoughts about it.
| >
| >A septic might have been tanked.
|
| Not on what they laughingly call "beer" - is it true that Budweiser is
| kept with the soft drinks?
|
| Dave
|
| =====
|
| NSW Rural Fire Service - become a volunteer today.
|
| http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/
Nov 18th 2004, 9:43 am
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
"AlmostBob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:i38nd.166939$df2.7893@edtnps89...
> My favourite story,, American tourist goes into Young & Jackson, cultural
> icon and all not just to see Chloe, and asks the barman to "Gimme
> something
> just like American beer" so the barman pours him a glass of water and
> charges $10.
> But I like Louie the budweiser lizard
As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
Keith
news:i38nd.166939$df2.7893@edtnps89...
> My favourite story,, American tourist goes into Young & Jackson, cultural
> icon and all not just to see Chloe, and asks the barman to "Gimme
> something
> just like American beer" so the barman pours him a glass of water and
> charges $10.
> But I like Louie the budweiser lizard
As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
Keith
Nov 18th 2004, 10:00 am
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
In article <[email protected]>, Keith Willshaw
says...
> As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
> the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
> low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
Low in taste, not in alcohol. A very disappointing drink.
says...
> As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
> the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
> low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
Low in taste, not in alcohol. A very disappointing drink.
Nov 18th 2004, 3:32 pm
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 07:33:03 +1100, Peter <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> >> Until Lord of the Rings, the average person in EU or America would not
>> >> have a single image of New Zealand. Not one. ZERO.
>> >>
>> >
>> >As a european I beg to differ.
>> >
>> >The all blacks in full cry and a Maori Haka both spring
>> >to mind.
>>
>> A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
>> they had to replace it.
>It was once New Amsterdam.
>Why they changed it, I can't say. People just liked it better that way.
Maybe all the dikes left?
--
Craig
wrote:
>> >> Until Lord of the Rings, the average person in EU or America would not
>> >> have a single image of New Zealand. Not one. ZERO.
>> >>
>> >
>> >As a european I beg to differ.
>> >
>> >The all blacks in full cry and a Maori Haka both spring
>> >to mind.
>>
>> A Septic would probably ask what happened to the Old Zealand and why
>> they had to replace it.
>It was once New Amsterdam.
>Why they changed it, I can't say. People just liked it better that way.
Maybe all the dikes left?
--
Craig
Nov 18th 2004, 3:40 pm
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:45 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
>the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
>low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
It's 5% alcohol, not 5% proof.
--
Craig
<[email protected]> wrote:
>As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
>the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
>low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
It's 5% alcohol, not 5% proof.
--
Craig
Nov 18th 2004, 6:56 pm
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
"Craig Welch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:45 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
>>the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
>>low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
> It's 5% alcohol, not 5% proof.
True - which makes it around 9% proof
Keith
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:45 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
>>the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
>>low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
> It's 5% alcohol, not 5% proof.
True - which makes it around 9% proof
Keith
Nov 18th 2004, 9:02 pm
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
In article <[email protected]>, Keith Willshaw
says...
>
> "Craig Welch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:45 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
> >>the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
> >>low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
> >
> > It's 5% alcohol, not 5% proof.
> >
>
> True - which makes it around 9% proof
Proof?
Pete, who very much prefers Steinlager
says...
>
> "Craig Welch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:45 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
> >>the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
> >>low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
> >
> > It's 5% alcohol, not 5% proof.
> >
>
> True - which makes it around 9% proof
Proof?
Pete, who very much prefers Steinlager
Nov 19th 2004, 7:12 am
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
"Peter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] T...
> In article <[email protected]>, Keith Willshaw
> says...
>> "Craig Welch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:45 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
>> >>the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
>> >>low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
>> >
>> > It's 5% alcohol, not 5% proof.
>> >
>> True - which makes it around 9% proof
> Proof?
The old British method of measuring alcohol content
The London Proof spirit was defined as "a mixture of alcohol
and water which shall weigh exactly 12/13 part of an
equal quantity of distilled water at 51° F."
The US had a similar measure but it defined Proof Spirit
as being 50% alcohol and 50% water
Keith
news:[email protected] T...
> In article <[email protected]>, Keith Willshaw
> says...
>> "Craig Welch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:45 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
>> >>the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
>> >>low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
>> >
>> > It's 5% alcohol, not 5% proof.
>> >
>> True - which makes it around 9% proof
> Proof?
The old British method of measuring alcohol content
The London Proof spirit was defined as "a mixture of alcohol
and water which shall weigh exactly 12/13 part of an
equal quantity of distilled water at 51° F."
The US had a similar measure but it defined Proof Spirit
as being 50% alcohol and 50% water
Keith
Nov 19th 2004, 11:02 am
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: "Australia and New Zealand"
The older method was try to light it, if it burned, it was proof of the
alcohol content, but no way to establish at that time the exact content
--
"Keith Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Peter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected] T...
| > In article <[email protected]>, Keith Willshaw
| > says...
| >>
| >> "Craig Welch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| >> news:[email protected]...
| >> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:45 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
| >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
| >> >
| >> >>As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
| >> >>the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
| >> >>low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
| >> >
| >> > It's 5% alcohol, not 5% proof.
| >> >
| >>
| >> True - which makes it around 9% proof
| >
| > Proof?
|
| The old British method of measuring alcohol content
|
| The London Proof spirit was defined as "a mixture of alcohol
| and water which shall weigh exactly 12/13 part of an
| equal quantity of distilled water at 51° F."
|
| The US had a similar measure but it defined Proof Spirit
| as being 50% alcohol and 50% water
|
| Keith
|
|
alcohol content, but no way to establish at that time the exact content
--
"Keith Willshaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
|
| "Peter" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| news:[email protected] T...
| > In article <[email protected]>, Keith Willshaw
| > says...
| >>
| >> "Craig Welch" <[email protected]> wrote in message
| >> news:[email protected]...
| >> > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:43:45 -0000, "Keith Willshaw"
| >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
| >> >
| >> >>As poor as it is in quality the Budweiser sold in
| >> >>the UK is around 5% proof, assuming its a
| >> >>low alcohol drink would be a mistake.
| >> >
| >> > It's 5% alcohol, not 5% proof.
| >> >
| >>
| >> True - which makes it around 9% proof
| >
| > Proof?
|
| The old British method of measuring alcohol content
|
| The London Proof spirit was defined as "a mixture of alcohol
| and water which shall weigh exactly 12/13 part of an
| equal quantity of distilled water at 51° F."
|
| The US had a similar measure but it defined Proof Spirit
| as being 50% alcohol and 50% water
|
| Keith
|
|
