Absolutely Anything Else

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

....

Deal. Done. I will take those odds with 1HUF. If you win, you get 2 or 3 HUF  (and 2x to 3x more bragging rights). If I win, I get only one.

Hang on, don't you want to change the odds?

Why would I want to change the odds suggested by another with a gentleman's bet? Doing so would be ungentlemanly.

fluffy2560 wrote:

You were pretty adamant it was case without merit or frivolous.

When I have full confidence in my opinion that I will win, I don't want to take advantage of others unfairly by exploiting the conditions to my advantage. Doing so would be ungentlemanly if not down right cruel.... Your comment seems to imply I am not a gentleman, but a huckster after a quick, narcissistic and profitable "win" in a zero sum game....      Please do not confuse me with people like the POTUS....

Besides, it is not  like we are talking about real money here anyway. Simply, and mostly, web points. Kind of for fun. So no reason to "up the stakes"... because.... that would be silly.

Or just ignore odds and just bet thus: I say the case will be dismissed and never reach trial or a settlement phase. So if the case reaches trial (even if they loose in trial -- I am giving you a good benefit there, as I suspect even if it went to trial, they would loose, but being allowed to go to trial would mean some judges thought the case had merit, which means you had a point so you could call victory on that point), or if the parties settle, you win. No odds needed. Simple results oriented bet. So.... Still wanna bet and track this case?

Hmmm....well as I agree, there's no money as such to speak, then I would say it's interesting to negotiate the odds.  So it's a negotiation.  I think even gentlemen don't argue but negotiate akin to  women perspiring.  This is not pistols are dawn but could sounds a bit like escalating fighting talk.   Including some quantitative odds, to summarise potential outcomes as I see it:

1) case dismissed as frivolous 30-40%
2) case to answer, goes to trial  50-60%
                                  a) plantiffs win, plaintiffs lose  60%
                                  b) plantiffs lose, defendants win 60%
3) out of court settlement for plantiffs/class action - 70%

I've seen discussion on up to $4K compensation per claim for anyone who has been unwillingly surveilled by Google and similar.   Now, it's real money which makes it more interesting.  Does the bet size influence your view of the odds?

Unfair exploitation when real world money involved. I don't think so, I think it's comeuppance.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Did Daddio also mention caveat emptor?

He did not need to (caveat emptor=buyer beware). That was clearly implied by the real world example he used. Since biblical times, parables and real world examples are often more effective than esoteric theory in getting a point across. 

That is, fresh paint means something... often something the buyer should be beware of, that there is an underlying issue the seller was trying to hide....

Side note: My father has since passed away. "Daddio" is not a very respectful a term for my father in my culture and way of thinking. Just saying. Not said in anger or malice, simply asking to defer this term.  I appreciate your understanding.

fluffy2560 wrote:

I've seen discussion on up to $4K compensation per claim for anyone who has been unwillingly surveilled by Google and similar.   Now, it's real money which makes it more interesting.  Does the bet size influence your view of the odds?

That bet size does not influence me. But I was only thinking of a fun exercise. Web points at a web forum.

But... if you want to get serious.... I am game for for that too. Are you willing to wager up to $4,000 on  your side in a 1:1 bet on the outcome of any court case being won or lost? Winner take all? And if so, happy to ask my attorney to meet yours to draw up the bet terms, and each put up that amount in cash, in an escrow account, or promissory note, backed by physical assets, for this wager. Are you game for that?

fluffy2560 wrote:

a) plantiffs win, plaintiffs lose  60%

You do realize, those odds make no sense, right? Since the combined odds of the same class are 120%....

You are right... you don't do bet making odds well...

fluffy2560 wrote:

3) out of court settlement for plantiffs/class action - 70%

You do realize, you would have to put up $7 for every $3 of mine right? Wanna take that bet still?

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Did Daddio also mention caveat emptor?

He did not need to (caveat emptor=buyer beware). That was clearly implied by the real world example he used. Since biblical times, parables and real world examples are often more effective than esoteric theory in getting a point across. 

That is, fresh paint means something... often something the buyer should be beware of, that there is an underlying issue the seller was trying to hide....

Side note: My father has since passed away. "Daddio" is not a very respectful a term for my father in my culture and way of thinking. Just saying. Not said in anger or malice, simply asking to defer this term.  I appreciate your understanding.

Oh sorry about Daddio. 

I call my Dad(dio) that as a term of endearment but I don't use it all the time but I call him that directly.  I used to call my mother Mumsy sometimes.  Just a nick name and she's no longer with us.  I would still call them that in playfulness and fun.

My Dad was a bit of a cool cat in his time and possibly even cooler now he's past his mid-90s.   He's always been a bit eccentric. One of things to love about him.

Interestingly we've got an ingrained habit in my family of having nicknames for each other which spills over into other parts of my life.    All our neighbours have nicknames.  Some not so polite.  My Dad(dio) started it all presumably to amuse us kids.    Come to think of it, I actually always assumed other people did it too so I'm kind of surprised it's not necessarily true. 

I'll put some fresh paint on my thinking.

klsallee wrote:

.....But... if you want to get serious.... I am game for for that too. Are you willing to wager up to $4,000 on  your side in a 1:1 bet on the outcome of any court case being won or lost? Winner take all? And if so, happy to ask my attorney to meet yours to draw up the bet terms, and each put up that amount in cash, in an escrow account, or promissory note, backed by physical assets, for this wager. Are you game for that?

Certainly not. 

But I'll argue about it for free.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

a) plantiffs win, plaintiffs lose  60%

You do realize, those odds make no sense, right? Since the combined odds of the same class are 120%....

You are right... you don't do bet making odds well...

fluffy2560 wrote:

3) out of court settlement for plantiffs/class action - 70%

You do realize, you would have to put up $7 for every $3 of mine right? Wanna take that bet still?

Well go on then, even them odds up to make sense!  Odds have to add up to 1 though.  You do the modelling and let me know.

BTW, I've never had any interest in betting on any gambling game or horses or anything like that.  Explains why I'm rubbish at it.  I am better on negotiations.  I do weigh up odds then.  But actually games of chance.  Nope. No idea.

fluffy2560 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

.....But... if you want to get serious.... I am game for for that too. Are you willing to wager up to $4,000 on  your side in a 1:1 bet on the outcome of any court case being won or lost? Winner take all? And if so, happy to ask my attorney to meet yours to draw up the bet terms, and each put up that amount in cash, in an escrow account, or promissory note, backed by physical assets, for this wager. Are you game for that?

Certainly not. 

But I'll argue about it for free.

Deal. Free argument. Back to Web based Internet points. A good net based duel currency.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

.....But... if you want to get serious.... I am game for for that too. Are you willing to wager up to $4,000 on  your side in a 1:1 bet on the outcome of any court case being won or lost? Winner take all? And if so, happy to ask my attorney to meet yours to draw up the bet terms, and each put up that amount in cash, in an escrow account, or promissory note, backed by physical assets, for this wager. Are you game for that?

Certainly not. 

But I'll argue about it for free.

Deal. Free argument. Back to Web based Internet points. A good net based duel currency.

Nice pun there, duel vs dual.  En garde, touche Monsieur!

fluffy2560 wrote:

....
So if you say, British tea with milk is terrible,  I would have to up vote it even though that's plainly silly.   

....

Events have overtaken my posting:

Making "British Tea"

and even worse - a tit for tat posting:

US: US Ambassador makes "coffee"(of sorts)

UK: British Ambassador makes tea

Fun Info for UK expats (who probably already knew this, but I did not).

The first Victoria Cross was awarded 163 years ago today.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA6L74LCsC4

klsallee wrote:

Fun Info for UK expats (who probably already knew this, but I did not).

The first Victoria Cross was awarded 163 years ago today.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA6L74LCsC4

I didn't know about it but we all know the VC.

Only award where senior ranking officers must salute the holder (that's the tradition).

Anyone who earned a VC is to be regarded with mega amounts of awe and respect.

fluffy2560 wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

....
So if you say, British tea with milk is terrible,  I would have to up vote it even though that's plainly silly.   

....

Events have overtaken my posting:

Making "British Tea"

When working in Africa, it was a Zimbabwean of British extraction, who once commented to me (over a cup of tea), that the Chinese invented tea, but the English perfected it.....

Being the consultant, I did not argue the point with my host.

But always wondered.... What about herbal teas? I make a damn fine white mulberry tea for example. But could I learn to make an even better tea if I had £110.00 to spend? Or maybe I make the best one possible already. One of those mysteries of the Universe that may be forever unsolved unless I get a GoFundMe account going.....

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

....
So if you say, British tea with milk is terrible,  I would have to up vote it even though that's plainly silly.   

....

Events have overtaken my posting:

Making "British Tea"

When working in Africa, it was a Zimbabwean of British extraction, who once commented to me (over a cup of tea), that the Chinese invented tea, but the English perfected it.....

Being the consultant, I did not argue the point with my host.

But always wondered.... What about herbal teas? I make a damn fine white mulberry tea for example. But could I learn to make an even better tea if I had £110.00 to spend? Or maybe I make the best one possible already. One of those mysteries of the Universe that may be forever unsolved unless I get a GoFundMe account going.....

Why would you argue with your host?  He' or she was probably right.

I was watching a TV show and that episode was about tea blending.  What surprised me (but shouldn't really)  is that a particular UK brand - say PG Tips - may have different types of tea in it in order to maintain the standard taste.  It's testament to the remarkable skills of the blenders just how consistent the taste is.  It's impossible for amateurs to tell if it's different from a batch to batch.

Mulberry tea - sorry that's not proper tea by British standards even if it might be tasty.  That's some kind of fruity steeped concoction/infusion.  It always amuses me to hear people say "black teas".  The only tea worthy of the name are the black ones.   It's like wine - being offered Coca Cola or Sprite flavoured wine or worse root beer or bubblegum flavour.  No-one should ever think of such a thing.  What an awful thought.

And as for that abomination work of the devil iced "tea", it should be banned for cultural appropriation (with more than a whiff of irony).

fluffy2560 wrote:

Why would you argue with your host?  He' or she was probably right.

Are you commenting about this specific issue, or about any host being right in general? I ask before I reply as I am not sure which you mean....

fluffy2560 wrote:

Mulberry tea - sorry that's not proper tea by British standards even if it might be tasty.

And Mulberry wine is not wine by EU law.

Phffft. As if I care. Mulberry wine can be legally called wine in the USA and is quite good wine. I have even made it in Hungary, but under "EU Law" I can not call it wine here .... Pretentious. Over regulated. Limits diversity. Reactionary. Thus silly, if not outright stupid.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Mulberry tea - sorry that's not proper tea by British standards even if it might be tasty.

And Mulberry wine is not wine by EU law.

Phffft. As if I care. Mulberry wine can be legally called wine in the USA and is quite good wine. I have even made it in Hungary, but under "EU Law" I can not call it wine here .... Pretentious. Over regulated. Limits diversity. Reactionary. Thus silly, if not outright stupid.

Could call it something else like Mulberry Vinotage or Distilled Mulberry Creme some such made up name.  Bit like beer being called Malt Beverage.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Why would you argue with your host?  He' or she was probably right.

Are you commenting about this specific issue, or about any host being right in general? I ask before I reply as I am not sure which you mean....

Well I wasn't thinking in general but now you brought it up.....nah, never mind....just that bit.....you said you wouldn't argue the tea point with your host.  Did you consider them to be wrong in some way  with their anecdote? 

You could have raised some minor themed controversy like do you put the milk in first, then the tea or the milk second after the tea?   Or attitude to lemons in tea.  Or is a teabag really proper tea or should it always be loose tea in properly heated pot or use of china cups.   All details likely to raise an opinion but not be thought of as grounds for pistols at dawn. 

It's all about banter.  The British love their banter and I expect that works out in Zim as well.  Banter is especially appreciated about such important matters including rugby and cricket  (especially in Southern Africa) and warm beer.   

One thing one could not do is ask if the Queen sticks her finger out the side while sipping her tea from china cups.   That would not be so seemly to the British but those in Zim, dunno.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Did you consider them to be wrong in some way  with their anecdote?

I find most anecdotes to be wrong. Only trust objective facts.

fluffy2560 wrote:

You could have raised some minor themed controversy like do you put the milk in first, then the tea or the milk second after the tea?

I would consider that rude. To argue with my host in their home, when invited for a pleasant meal and polite society is not something I would do. And I never debate over the board trivial topics in any context (seriously ... put the milk in whenever you want in your tea, and get over it if someone wants to do it differently for their tea. Respect. We need more interpersonal respect. Starting with the freedom of teaness....).

I will happily argue with anyone on any serious topic in an appropriate venue designed for debate. So the next day, at work if the issue came up again, I can debate the issue. But not in the original context.

But at my hosts home, invited for diner as I was, no, I would not do that. Different mind set. Different concept of  cultures. Different concept for civility. Trust we can agree to disagree.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The British love their banter

He was not British. He was Zimbabwean. Born in Africa. As I said only of UK ethnicity regarding history. Much like I am an American of mostly Germanic and French extraction. But my culture attitudes are American, not German or French. 

fluffy2560 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Mulberry tea - sorry that's not proper tea by British standards even if it might be tasty.

And Mulberry wine is not wine by EU law.

Phffft. As if I care. Mulberry wine can be legally called wine in the USA and is quite good wine. I have even made it in Hungary, but under "EU Law" I can not call it wine here .... Pretentious. Over regulated. Limits diversity. Reactionary. Thus silly, if not outright stupid.

Could call it something else like Mulberry Vinotage or Distilled Mulberry Creme some such made up name.  Bit like beer being called Malt Beverage.

Calling it something else misses the point. It is wine by fact of how it is made. But can not be called wine in the EU mostly due to economic interests and lobbyists who fear competition. Thus it is about politics, not reality. So calling it something else is again simply subjugating one self to the old PTB (powers that be). Annoying.

And it is not distilled. Distillation is not used in wine making. So any name using distilled is already not correct and out.

klsallee wrote:

..... But can not be called wine in the EU mostly due to economic interests and lobbyists who fear competition. Thus it is about politics, not reality. So calling it something else is again simply subjugating one self to the old PTB (powers that be). Annoying.

And it is not distilled. Distillation is not used in wine making. So any name using distilled is already not correct and out.

Yes, I know those things.

I was just thinking of all those types of alcoholic beverages and it came to my mind expansion into a mulberry palinka or mulberry champagne methodoise regardless of actual production as wine or whatever.   

I can see the logic of protecting cultural heritage - those protected "brands"/PDOs are all over the place - Prosciutto ham and West Country Farmhouse Cheddar cheese come to mind.  Or Greek Style yoghurt or Mozarella.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Did you consider them to be wrong in some way  with their anecdote?

I find most anecdotes to be wrong. Only trust objective facts.

fluffy2560 wrote:

You could have raised some minor themed controversy like do you put the milk in first, then the tea or the milk second after the tea?

I would consider that rude. To argue with my host in their home, when invited for a pleasant meal and polite society is not something I would do. And I never debate over the board trivial topics in any context (seriously ... put the milk in whenever you want in your tea, and get over it if someone wants to do it differently for their tea. Respect. We need more interpersonal respect. Starting with the freedom of teaness....).

I will happily argue with anyone on any serious topic in an appropriate venue designed for debate. So the next day, at work if the issue came up again, I can debate the issue. But not in the original context.

But at my hosts home, invited for diner as I was, no, I would not do that. Different mind set. Different concept of  cultures. Different concept for civility. Trust we can agree to disagree.

fluffy2560 wrote:

The British love their banter

He was not British. He was Zimbabwean. Born in Africa. As I said only of UK ethnicity regarding history. Much like I am an American of mostly Germanic and French extraction. But my culture attitudes are American, not German or French. 

Don't want to go on about it and I wasn't there but I don't think it would be rude. It's not politics or religion.  Self-deprecation and inquiring or innocent tone would be key here.  I'd even go so far as suggesting feigning  a higher level of ignorance (not difficult for me) in order to engage in small talk or even banter. 

For example, a coffee drinking nation person might say, "we're a nation of coffee drinkers but maybe you can clear up something I've always wondered - milk first or tea first?".   

It's got the ingredients ....self-deprecation, feigning ignorance, invitation to respond and for the host to engage, playfulness and also contains.... tea.   

Then that's a perfect avenue to open a non-controversial opportunity for the host to expand their anecdote and opine on their cultural norms or their knowledge of the economics of tea production or whatever.   In that sense, it's just part of establishing a common understanding and common ground, even bonding with the other party.    Wider relevant conversation could ensue.

Over here in Europe, a key thing is football (not that NFL "game") but the original beautiful game. It's a great leveller knowing something about that.  I was in an office once on a project hereabouts and the World Cup was on and as it happened there were a couple of blokes from South America.  I ended up  studying it in an ad-hoc way to enable me to engage in office football banter. It was obvious I was a complete amateur faced with those guys as gods of football knowledge.  But we could talk properly about the chances who could win.  I learnt stuff.   

British origin is obviously not always relevant but tea drinking might be (hopefully). I was with a bunch of NZers a while back and they were all watching rugby.  Of which I know nothing much. Worse was that the hosts were all baseball fans (or was we call it, "rounders") who had no idea.  Nightmare of cultural overlaps.  Tea drinking never discussed unfortunately.

Tea?
My sister did up a English Tea thing for us after she moved home  from a decade in the UK.
Got me hooked for a few years on tea with milk.Typhoo tea.
Then for some reason I just gave it up,not even sure why.
She once went to ,"The Queens Tea" at the palace when she was working for a news station, the Queen made a showing but she didn't actually meet her or take a bow.

Speaking of taking a bow, one should really be careful of people who love to get all theatrical.
Was trying to board the train yesterday from Balaton ( The water was great!) Not crowded or too loud yesterday,loved it.
So train arrives, I should of taken social distancing more seriosuly.
Some bottle blonde in her 50's or so tried to open the door of the car but couldn't figure it out. A guy came up and pushed the button for her, presto the doors opened. He being a gent ( just kidding!) got in first... OK first odd thing to me, then she made a move to get up the stairs but for some oddball dumb reason she decided to be a jokester and jumped backwards and took a bow, showing off to the guy or something.
So I was behind her and moving forward to board when she made her awkard jump back and landed right on top of my foot, not even the toe but the top.
I didn't recalled screaming the F word to her but my husband told me I did, guess it is second nature for me now days and I do not even notice when I say it?
She said sorry, like that helps after the fact.
Lucky me, no broken foot but dang if that didn't hurt all the way back to the city and while I walked from the station home.
What a klutz, never expected someone her age and size to jump backwards, good thing I wasn't a small child or elderly person.( Getting there but not just yet!)
I should remember to social distance for my own safety, not from a virus but from air heads.

This is how Škoda cars were made in 1927

https://youtu.be/OJGuU3rlSDQ

I had to laugh at this point when three guys lifted up the frame, and moved out of the way the little wood hourse that was holding it up, then put down down the car frame, pushed it off, and then two guys walked in with a new car frame.... Things sure have changed....

https://youtu.be/OJGuU3rlSDQ?t=502

Advancement of Škoda production by 1964:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viYbhfqlGOs

Where all three Škoda cars, owned by party members most likely, are shown zipping around the otherwise empty streets.

But wait, it gets better. Knowing how hard it was to get apartments during communism, your Škoda doubled as an apartment!

https://youtu.be/viYbhfqlGOs?t=284

Installing a Ford Model T engine in 1920:

https://youtu.be/IXkxl8dSXb4?t=106

Installing a Škoda engine in 1927 (seven year later ... get out the popcorn, it will take a while to watch).

https://youtu.be/OJGuU3rlSDQ?t=508

Just some historical fun. 

starting your Mercedes-Benz in 1886:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E88I8lm6vNc

klsallee wrote:

Advancement of Škoda production by 1964:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viYbhfqlGOs

Where all three Škoda cars, owned by party members most likely, are shown zipping around the otherwise empty streets.

But wait, it gets better. Knowing how hard it was to get apartments during communism, your Škoda doubled as an apartment!

https://youtu.be/viYbhfqlGOs?t=284

Groovy Beatles soundtrack.

Mrs Fluffy's cousin had one of these 1000 Skodas.   Mrs Fluffy borrowed it to pick me up from the airport.   It was so underpowered, it couldn't get up the hills in Buda with myself, Mrs Fluffy and a couple of suitcases in it.   All that zipping about in the video must have been preceded by several minutes of winding up to speed.   Mrs Fluffy's grandfather had a Lada. I think he waited 10 years for it to be delivered. 

Skoda was considered top engineering back then.  They had an excellent track record in developing winning rally cars.  Compare that to the Trabant.  There's myth that engines had a handle on top so you could carry it to your kitchen (!!!) table for repairs.   The body work is however, completely toxic Duroplast.

BTW, talking of old things, we've inherited a Salgotarjan 231 wood burner.  I plan to use it in my shed.  Ours has a number of cracks in it.  What I don't know is if it's cast steel or cast iron.  Welding cast iron is a new thing - I can do it but definitely a new skill to learn and easy to get wrong.  Restoring this wood oven will be a slow burn restoration project.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Tea?
My sister did up a English Tea thing for us after she moved home  from a decade in the UK.
Got me hooked for a few years on tea with milk.Typhoo tea.
Then for some reason I just gave it up,not even sure why.
She once went to ,"The Queens Tea" at the palace when she was working for a news station, the Queen made a showing but she didn't actually meet her or take a bow.

Speaking of taking a bow, one should really be careful of people who love to get all theatrical.
Was trying to board the train yesterday from Balaton ( The water was great!) .....

What a klutz, never expected someone her age and size to jump backwards, good thing I wasn't a small child or elderly person.( Getting there but not just yet!)
I should remember to social distance for my own safety, not from a virus but from air heads.

Ah, well tea with the Queen.  Liz to her friends - we all know her personally of course.   

Your sis wouldn't bow to her but would normally curtsy.  But I suppose moving with the times of equality and things less differentiated generally so I guess a cursty is now optional. Bows probably the default all around.  I suppose it would depend on if you were wearing a skirt.  Then that leads to wondering about the wearing kilts.  Soldiers are easy - they have to salute.  But just wearing a civilian kilt probably means bowing.  Not being Scottish I don't know the  protocol.

To know which tea Liz drinks we'd have to look who has the "Royal Warrant" for that.   If a business has a Royal Warrant, then they can put appropriate crest on their products.  Like branding really.   Royal Warrants are serious endorsements - all info here.

Balaton must be really good these past days.  We're going in about a week to stay about a week.   I keep looking online at the water temperatures and I guess it must be in the mid to late 20s.  Heavy footed leaping people are not expected.   I dunno what it is but why do people always start to demand work related stuff suddenly when they know it's Balaton/holiday time.

fluffy2560 wrote:

BTW, talking of old things, we've inherited a Salgotarjan 231 wood burner.  I plan to use it in my shed.

Lovely stove.

But looks like a coal burner, or at best a multi-fuel burner (Is that a door at the top? If so, may be a place to insert long logs, indicating it may be a multi-fuel stove).

The air inlet only below the firebox door is typical for coal stoves as coal required air from below. Also that looks like a grate shaker handle to the right below the firebox door, also grate shakers are needed for coal burners (some wood burners also use grate shakers, but mostly the steal ones, not as commong on cast iron ones). Quite frankly, I would not trust anyone calling any old stove here a "wood burner" And I did consider buying an old cast iron stove myself at one time here, and I never found a old stove here that was a proper old cast iron wood burning stove; because the seller was probably not being honest, or simply do not know themselves about stoves.

The good news is that even if just designed as a coal burner, you can burn wood in coal stoves. But it will often not burn as efficiently as a proper wood stove (i.e. either too fast and hot, or too slow and it will smolder). And lacking a second or third air source in the firebox, will burn more "dirty" with wood than a modern wood stove. But for a shed stove, fast and hot is fine as you will not sleep in the shed, and you probably want the space to get warm fast, and stay warm in a less than ideally insulated structure.

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

BTW, talking of old things, we've inherited a Salgotarjan 231 wood burner.  I plan to use it in my shed.

Lovely stove.

But looks like a coal burner, or at best a multi-fuel burner (Is that a door at the top? If so, may be a place to insert long logs, indicating it may be a multi-fuel stove).

The air inlet only below the firebox door is typical for coal stoves as coal required air from below. Also that looks like a grate shaker handle to the right below the firebox door, also grate shakers are needed for coal burners (some wood burners also use grate shakers, but mostly the steal ones, not as commong on cast iron ones). Quite frankly, I would not trust anyone calling any old stove here a "wood burner" And I did consider buying an old cast iron stove myself at one time here, and I never found a old stove here that was a proper old cast iron wood burning stove; because the seller was probably not being honest, or simply do not know themselves about stoves.

The good news is that even if just designed as a coal burner, you can burn wood in coal stoves. But it will often not burn as efficiently as a proper wood stove (i.e. either too fast and hot, or too slow and it will smolder). And lacking a second or third air source in the firebox, will burn more "dirty" with wood than a modern wood stove. But for a shed stove, fast and hot is fine as you will not sleep in the shed, and you probably want the space to get warm fast, and stay warm in a less than ideally insulated structure.

The one in the picture/link is a similar model. 

We removed ours from an old house of Mrs Fluffy's relative.   Ours is really not in perfect condition with a cracks down the front and on the top.    It's missing the external tray at the bottom, lower door key and the top surround.  I think there's possibly a shaker mechanism but it's jammed.    The fuel would go in the top as there's no other way for it to go in.  It would take perhaps a lump of wood 40-50cm long and about 10cm in diameter.   

The lower door looks like a place to stir up the embers and the very lowest door has the ash tray and air inlet vent.  Air can be controlled.   It looks like it's been constructed from 4 cast panels with metal rods at each corner held by nuts to an end plate.  One of the rods probably needs replacing but that would be easy to do.  Steel bar, use a die to create a screw rod, stick on a decent quality nut.

If I undo the nuts, probably the panels can be removed, then I can get the panels on a bench and welded.   It won't be pretty perhaps and not "restored" but it should be safe and recycled.   I'll also have to replace the inside firebricks.  They do not look in good condition at all and probably was the reason the outside metal case cracked by exposing the metal directly to heat and therefore over stressed it.

Mrs Fluffy says she can remember it being used 40+ years ago and indeed they did use it with coal but I don't see why it couldn't use wood.   With decent firebricks it should get up to good working temperature.

This stove is destined to be used in the shed (maybe 35m2) when I'm doing work there in the winter.  It'll get hot and cold fast.  No-one would sleep in the shed so no worries on that front.  The shed is brick built  but has no insulation and it's all a bit adhoc.  I intend to renovate it  but it's something to do eventually rather than in a hurry.  It needs a complete new roof, ceiling and storage area, rewiring, insulation, doors, windows, painting etc.  There's also a root cellar which I don't know what to do with (about 4ft deep, full of sand and a small door).  We told the kids the gnomes lived there but surprisingly they didn't believe us - tut, tut, teenagers......  The previous owner did have the shed organised as a kind of summer house, wood and material store but it's been repurposed as a working space by me.  I knocked down the awkwardly located internal chimney and removed the internal walls. 

Anyway I digress, the stove will go in there with an external chimney.  The diameter of the exhaust vent is much smaller than the one I have in the house.    So bit of a project for the list - maybe aim for it to be finished around October.  I've always got a list of jobs as long as my arm.

A full week stay at Balaton sounds nice.
We rented a small 2 bd apt. there a few years back for only 3 nights with a HU/US couple who live in Hungary.
It was fun sitting outside having drinks in the evening and talking about old times. Actually they are rather closed mouthed normally but a few drinks and they really opened up, I almost had to put my hands on my ears to not hear because I knew in the morning they would regret what they were saying, guess they aren't exactly super happy with each other at all times... Who is though?
It was nice to just put your swimsuit on and walk to the water without driving to the lake.
I really am not a huge fan of sleeping in a hotel bed.
In Vegas I had a large queen sized bed to slepp on but I slept better on a cheap air mattress from Walmart. I declined staying at the Bellagio in Vegas overnight with my niece and her girl because I hate sleeping anywhere but my own bed.
Sounds fun though, have a nice family vacation.
That being said about sleeping in strange places, I have been wanting to stay for a few nights at a spa we went to years ago in S. Hungary.
We had planned on going to SE Asia for 4 to 6 months this fall but with the world in chaos right now, don't think those plans will happen.
Too bad, missed that boat.
My foot still is a bit sore after 2 days, I'll live though.
My niece broke her foot before one of her Vegas trips. She was running to the front door to met her then boyfriend and broke her foot on a cabinet when she slid across the room.
Not with that guy anymore, good really. I wasn't happy to hear of his life situation and wanted so badly to tell my niece to dump him.
He had a teenaged son and wife. His wife was ill and had her own life but refused to divorce him because of his money.
He was both the fire and the police chief in a small N Ca. town, was making bookoo bucks, something like $300.000  a year.
It was sad for me to think she was wasting her time with him.
She is a widow but even so she shouldn't sell herself short like that.
Back hopefully next week to the lakes again. Just have to be sure to wear hard shoes and watch out for pushy blondes who are over dramatic.

"Your sis wouldn't bow to her but would normally curtsy."

Assuming sis is an American, she shouldn't be bowing or curtsying or otherwise showing subservience to British royalty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl … story.html

zif wrote:

"Your sis wouldn't bow to her but would normally curtsy."

Assuming sis is an American, she shouldn't be bowing or curtsying or otherwise showing subservience to British royalty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyl … story.html

Since Marilyn is American, there's a good chance sis is American too. 

But I wouldn't call it subservient but being polite and respectful and protocol when meeting a head of state who happens to be the Queen of England.  If DT turned up here then by protocol I suppose I'd have to call him Mr President instead of "moronic nitwit".  But I do agree I wouldn't bow to him but he's not a King and certainly nowhere near as classy as Liz.

I once remained seated during the US national anthem when I was visiting some historic site there. I got rather a chilly look from the assembled local (US) crowd.  Eventually I stood up to show some willingness to be polite.  Then again I felt I had an excuse as I was holding a baby at the time. On the other hand I wasn't required to show any form of allegiance to a foreign nation.

It is a sign of subservience because the queen would never bow or curtsy in return, as she would if it's just a custom of politeness, like shaking hands.

Recall when "Barack Obama criticised for 'treasonous' bow to Japanese emperor."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn … peror.html

As for the National Anthemn, I think non-Americans should stand as a matter of respect, like taking off a hat in church, but not put their hands over their hearts. Arguably the law is different, though.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301

zif wrote:

It is a sign of subservience because the queen would never bow or curtsy in return, as she would if it's just a custom of politeness, like shaking hands.

Recall when "Barack Obama criticised for 'treasonous' bow to Japanese emperor."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn … peror.html

As for the National Anthem, I think non-Americans should stand as a matter of respect, like taking off a hat in church, but not put their hands over their hearts. Arguably the law is different, though.

I don't recall Obama-rama bowing.

But surely it's the same theme of gesture as the US National Anthem apparently requires.  Why wouldn't you bow your head (this is more genderless normality than the curtsy anyway)? 

Would you call the Teflon Don "Sir"? Maybe one would because it's addressing the office of El Presidente and not the individual.  Same for Liz.

There's no law about civility in the UK and presumably sticking your fingers up to Donny is protected under free speech.  On the other hand insulting a civil servant in say, Germany, could get you a fine.   Might even be worth it.

Mrs Fluffy got into trouble once insulting the Party Representative in her office.  He asked her if she was calling him a pr**k personally or as holder of the office.  It was a serious issue for her.  She was also told to join the party if she "wanted to get on".   I think soon after the wall came down.  And being in the Party meant nothing theoretically.  If only she'd been in the KGB equivalent - she'd be a multi-millionaire by now.  Or PM for life.

Anyway, we like Liz and we think she deserves respect in her office as monarch.  She's been Queen forever and she certainly survived many politicians careers and plenty of (alleged) misdeeds by her relatives. Respect.

As to whether Obama "bowed," the photo in that Independent link speaks for itself.

(By the way, creating "cute" and dismissive names for others makes this sound like a grammar school play yard. Much better if we all act adult.)

zif wrote:

As to whether Obama "bowed," the photo in that Independent link speaks for itself.

(By the way, creating "cute" and dismissive names for others makes this sound like a grammar school play yard. Much better if we all act adult.)

Cannot see the link as it's under review.  The Telegraph one is unreachable.

I'd call my use of names as semi-satire.  There is a point to using those epithets and it's not random.  I'm sometimes being purposefully disrespectful and other times very respectful.  Obama-rama is because he was a popular culture and intelligent and two term President.  Telfon Don because he's "like a mafia kingpin" what with his family's involvement (laughable "consiglieres" Ivanka and Jared), able to dodge stuff sticking to him and  tries to deflect everything because it's someone else's fault or fake news or whatever.   I used El Presidente because DT behaviour has turned the foreigners view of the USA from respect to looking like a banana republic in a cheap movie. 

Respect always to the Queen who is sometimes referred to as Liz as some foreigners think we all know her personally and of  course we feel like we do.

Sorry, I confused the Independent and the Telegraph. Here's a different link which may work.

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/11 … 072351.jpg

(The link which is "under review" is simply to the US law saying everyone "should" stand when the anthem is played.)

And I mentioned the name calling because it seemed odd in context given the topic is bowing because it's polite and civil.