The history of Seattle, WA is also closely linked to the "water closet" - the good ol' days.
"The town’s proximity to sea level caused a new problem, literally, to rise up. In 1851, the same year the Denny party arrived, a fancy new device was introduced at the White House. It was called a “water closet,” and, boy, did these things take off in popularity. Even in the tiny frontier town of Seattle, indoor toilets became the rage. With sawdust in the streets, buildings on stilts and toilets turning into geysers on a daily basis, Seattle was badly in need of remodeling. By 1882, the city health commissioner, in his annual report, highlighted the fact that our sewers were operating at full blast, but it wasn’t a one-way river. Twice a day when the tides came in, the sewers flowed with it—backwards. Toilets became fountains!" ________________________________ From: "s3raph...@yahoo.com" <s3raph...@yahoo.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 3:26 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Piss pots (was "On Being An Eagle") When I visited New Orleans the Confederate museum (worth a visit) had for sale reproduction Benjamin Butler Chamber Pots. http://tinyurl.com/ooewklh Benjamin Franklin Butler was the first Civil War Union general to occupy New Orleans after the city surrendered in 1862. The ladies of the city disrespected him by placing an image of “Beast” Butler at the bottom of their chamber pots. When one pot was emptied from a French Quarter balcony onto the head of a Union admiral, General Butler passed the infamous “General Order No. 28” which proclaimed that any woman who disrespected a Union soldier would be arrested “as a woman of the street plying her trade.” --- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <emilymae.reyn@...> wrote: This is pretty funny. Through completely random association, the word "lorries" reminded me of "loo." Here's some info on the origin of the "loo" - hmmmmm http://kottke.org/05/02/loo-etymology ________________________________ From: "s3raphita@..." <s3raphita@...> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 22, 2013 12:25 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] RE: RE: RE: On Being An Eagle Re We do it to punish you Brits, for calling trucks, "lorries".: yes, but the bonus of this kind of duplication is that we (at least we Brits) now happily use both words to describe diesel-fuelled giant road machines and so the language has been enriched. With maths/math it has to be one or the other really. And can you please stop using the expression "rest room". That is just so prissy. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > >* I wish Americans said "maths" for mathematics, as we do, and not "math" > > >We do it to punish you Brits, for calling trucks, "lorries". > > > >--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: >> >> >>Nicely put waspaligap. >> >> >>Re If Cantor's discovery does not come from the evidence of his (our) senses, >>and if it doesn't simply represent the manipulation of self-evident axioms. >>what on earth's going on? >> >> >> >>To me there's nothing self-evident about assuming the existence of an >>actually completed infinite set and there's nothing self-evident about >>assuming that one can actually complete an infinite task (as Cantor's >>diagonal argument takes as given). But what would I know? And my brain >>couldn't cope with a discussion about transfinite maths*. Of course, Cantor's >>brain couldn't cope either and he went completely bonkers. >> >> >>(* I wish Americans said "maths" for mathematics, as we do, and not "math" !) >> >> >> >> >> >> >>--- In fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> > Jason wrote: >>>> You state that Kelvin's statement is inherently self-invalidating? >>> >>> >>>Well, yes. He makes a claim (an epistemological claim). Let's call that >>>claim "K". According to K, "when you cannot express it (i.e. some claim) in >>>precise mathematical terms, your knowledge of it, is of a meagre and >>>unsatisfactory kind". >>> >>> >>>But as is obvious, K is not expressed in mathematical terms. From which it >>>follows that according to K, K "is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind" >>>(whatever that means - but it seems unlikely to allow for K being true). >>> >>> >>>> If mathematics is the language of the universe, even that can't explain >>>> the Qualia aspect of the universe. Judy posted a youtube link on this a >>>> while back. >>> >>> >>> >>>I'd agree with you there. >>> >>>> Which means Maths is a process and not the end in itself? >>> >>> >>>I'm not sure what you mean. Does anyone think that Maths is an end in >>>itself? However what does interest me very much is the mystery of >>>mathematics. We live in an age of science. For many it is a substitute for >>>religion. It's true that some sciences are more equal than others. So the >>>iffy ones such as economics, climate science, and psychology bask in >>>reflected glory from physics and chemistry. Yet the foundation of it all >>>seems to be mathematics. But do we even know what mathematics is? What are >>>mathematical "discoveries"? What are we discovering? Where does the >>>necessity of mathematical truth come from? >>> >>> >>>> Could you rephrase Godel in a little more easier way? >>> >>> >>> >>>I doubt it! Godel's proof, like quantum indeterminacy, seems to point to >>>something most peculiar, but no one can quite agree about what that is (or >>>means). But perhaps we can just return to the logical positivists that were >>>referred to earlier in the thread... >>> >>> >>>I'd suggest that many folks who idealise science have in their mind some >>>loose form of logical positivism (either explicit or implicit). Like this: >>> >>> >>>Q: What makes science work? >>>A: The experimental method >>> >>> >>>Q: But why does the experimental method work? >>>A: Because we test our theories against experience >>> >>> >>>Q: What do you mean by experience? >>>A: The evidence of our senses >>> >>> >>>Q: What is sense data? >>>A: The images in our brain >>> >>> >>>Q: What other types of knowledge are there? >>>A: That's all there is >>> >>> >>>Q: So what about Logic and Mathematics? They're not sense data! >>>A: They just describe the relations between the concepts and symbols we use >>>to refer to sense data >>> >>> >>>The trouble with this idea is that the work of Russell and Frege in the >>>twentieth century seemed to show that mathematics could not be reduced to >>>logic (simple, self-evident tautologies). Furthermore, maths seems to result >>>in bizarre, counter-intuitive "discoveries" (such as Cantor's proof that >>>some infinities are larger than others). So the point of Godel is that he >>>appears to add more spice to this pot with his incompleteness theorem. >>> >>> >>>If Cantor's discovery does not come from the evidence of his (our) senses, >>>and if it doesn't simply represent the manipulation of self-evident axioms. >>>what on earth's going on? >>> >>> >>>Mysterianism rules!
