| |
Main
Date: 23 Sep 2007 15:24:20
From: Jeff
Subject: Proper Chain Length
|
...about ready to assemble a new bike. ...campy components if that matters.
11-21 rear cogs with a short cage rear derailleur.
I've seen different advice about the best chain length on the web. As near
as I can tell, I want to size when in the small-small combination and make
sure that the chain is short enough so that the bottom pulley does not
contact any other portion of the derailleur. I also want to make sure that I
can change to the large-large combination (even though that shouldn't be
used in practice). ...but I also want to adjust the derailleur's tension
screw so that top pulley comes close but does not touch the largest or
smallest cog. ...but what if the above can be accomplished with a few links
either in or out of the chain? Some say that when sizing a shimano system,
the length is correct when the rear derailler is near verticle when in the
small-large combination (but I'll have campy).
So what should I know here in terms of chain length and tension adjustment?
Jeff
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 10:35:55
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sep 24, 5:49 am, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com > wrote:
> "Nate Knutson" <biken...@riseup.net> wrote in message
>
> news:1190612430.584712.133660@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 23, 7:07 pm, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote:
> > The problem with the method involving checking for clearance in the
> > small/small combo is that the chain will be longer than it needs to be
> > if you're using much less than the maximum capacity of the rear
> > derailer, and shorter than it needs to be if you're exceeding it.
>
> Okay - I won't be exceeding the capacity of the rear derailleur so put that
> one aside.
>
> ...and the article I mentioned claimed that shifting worked best when the
> chain was as long as possible when all else (i.e., clearances) were proper.
>
> Are you speaking about the weight of a few links here when you mention,
> "longer than it needs to be" - in other words, what are you arguing are the
> downsides to a chain that is "longer than it needs to be?"
>
> J
Well, to be honest the "better shifting" argument isn't something I've
heard or thought about. I suppose the idea is that if you do it that
way, the guide pulley will be as close to the cogs as possible more
often? That may make some sense. Longer than necessary will also
result in increased chain slap and, on bikes where it's relevant,
slightly increased risk of derailment.
It may be worth noting that it's not uncommon for an RD's capacity to
be slightly past capacity without anyone noticing. For example, a
shortcage rd with 27t capacity, used with an 11-28 and a 39/53. Use
the small/small method on that, and big problems *could* result.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 02:20:31
From: joseph.santaniello@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sep 23, 11:37 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:38:30 -0500, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote:
>
> >"Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote in message
> >news:46f6bf77$0$26423$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
> >Okay, in checking the web further, I've found a post on this list by Jobst
> >Bryant . . .
>
> [snip]
>
> Dear Jeff,
>
> Good ol' Jobst Bryant!
>
> Mr. Bryant, he runs cattle out near Amarillo and drives prit-near the
> biggest black pick-'em-up truck in those parts, but he purely loves to
> talk bi-sickles with his cousin, Jobst Brandt, whut lives out
> Stanford-way and likes yaller more'n black.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Are you guys native speakers, or are you using one of these invaluable
services:
http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/
Joseph
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 14:53:25
From:
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:20:31 -0700, "joseph.santaniello@gmail.com"
<joseph.santaniello@gmail.com > wrote:
>On Sep 23, 11:37 pm, carlfo...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:38:30 -0500, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote in message
>> >news:46f6bf77$0$26423$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>
>> >Okay, in checking the web further, I've found a post on this list by Jobst
>> >Bryant . . .
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Dear Jeff,
>>
>> Good ol' Jobst Bryant!
>>
>> Mr. Bryant, he runs cattle out near Amarillo and drives prit-near the
>> biggest black pick-'em-up truck in those parts, but he purely loves to
>> talk bi-sickles with his cousin, Jobst Brandt, whut lives out
>> Stanford-way and likes yaller more'n black.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Are you guys native speakers, or are you using one of these invaluable
>services:
>
>http://www.rinkworks.com/dialect/
>
>Joseph
Dear Joseph,
As one of my Colorado professors remarked, "Where I come from, we
'warsh' in the well of English undefiled."
After the students stopped snickering at his horrifying mid-West
colonial mis-pronunciation of "wash", he would point out that
Chaucer's spelling leaves no doubt that he pronounced "ass" as "arse"
or "erse", using the same r-flavored schwa that looks and sounds so
silly when we colonials contemplate the mother country's peculiar
inability to speak even vulgar English correctly.
Cheers,
Cal Fogel
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 22:40:30
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sep 23, 7:07 pm, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com > wrote:
> "Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <pe...@vecchios.com> wrote in
> messagenews:1190585343.155765.195220@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Sep 23, 2:24 pm, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote:
> >> I've seen different advice about the best chain length on the web. As
> >> near
> >> as I can tell, I want to size when in the small-small combination and
> >> make
> >> sure that the chain is short enough so that the bottom pulley does not
> >> contact any other portion of the derailleur.
>
> > 5-15mm clearance between the chain and the derailleur body and you
> > are done. That will give youi enough for big-big combos and allow the
> > top pulley to be close to the cogs w/o hitting them.
>
> So I see that there is a definite consensus about chain length. ...kind of
> like on seat heights. ...was riding tonight and someone told me that it
> looked like my seat was about 1/2 inch too high. ...last week someone else
> convinced me that it was 1/2" too low so I raised it by that. ...can
> remember a similar story in a book I read somewhere. ...pro cyclist told
> someone that their seat should be higher, so the rider stopped, fiddled with
> the thing but didn't really change anything, got back on and the same pro
> proclaimed that it now looked perfect.
>
> ...anyway, the chain length based upon the small/small with the details
> you've mentioned above seem to make the most sense to me. ...will give that
> a try and see how it compares to the other methods in terms of resulting
> suggested length.
>
> Jeff
The problem with the method involving checking for clearance in the
small/small combo is that the chain will be longer than it needs to be
if you're using much less than the maximum capacity of the rear
derailer, and shorter than it needs to be if you're exceeding it.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 07:49:10
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
"Nate Knutson" <bikenate@riseup.net > wrote in message
news:1190612430.584712.133660@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 23, 7:07 pm, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote:
> The problem with the method involving checking for clearance in the
> small/small combo is that the chain will be longer than it needs to be
> if you're using much less than the maximum capacity of the rear
> derailer, and shorter than it needs to be if you're exceeding it.
Okay - I won't be exceeding the capacity of the rear derailleur so put that
one aside.
...and the article I mentioned claimed that shifting worked best when the
chain was as long as possible when all else (i.e., clearances) were proper.
Are you speaking about the weight of a few links here when you mention,
"longer than it needs to be" - in other words, what are you arguing are the
downsides to a chain that is "longer than it needs to be?"
J
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 15:00:23
From: still me
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:49:10 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com > wrote:
>Okay - I won't be exceeding the capacity of the rear derailleur so put that
>one aside.
>
>...and the article I mentioned claimed that shifting worked best when the
>chain was as long as possible when all else (i.e., clearances) were proper.
>
>Are you speaking about the weight of a few links here when you mention,
>"longer than it needs to be" - in other words, what are you arguing are the
>downsides to a chain that is "longer than it needs to be?"
Go back to Andrew's post, he said it well - at least on vintage bikes,
which is all I claim expertise in. I always maximize length on the
small, small as far as I can without sag or derailleur pulley
problems. Large - large cog shifts always seem to be smoother with a
little more chain - and sometimes downright slow when the chain is on
the tight side.
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 20:40:17
From: Ozark Bicycle
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sep 23, 8:58 pm, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com > wrote:
> <carlfo...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:2mmdf3hvvqv3pu2iffkomr48ku34ookv92@4ax.com...
>
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:38:30 -0500, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote:
> >> Dear Jeff,
>
> > Good ol' Jobst Bryant!
>
> > Mr. Bryant, he runs cattle out near Amarillo and drives prit-near the
> > biggest black pick-'em-up truck in those parts, but he purely loves to
> > talk bi-sickles with his cousin, Jobst Brandt, whut lives out
> > Stanford-way and likes yaller more'n black.
> > Carl Fogel
>
> I guess us folks out in Texas don't spell all that right good, especially
> when it comes to last names.
>
> J
>
But y'all make up for it by not being smarmy.
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 23:31:25
From:
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:24:20 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com > wrote:
>
>...about ready to assemble a new bike. ...campy components if that matters.
>11-21 rear cogs with a short cage rear derailleur.
>
>I've seen different advice about the best chain length on the web. As near
>as I can tell, I want to size when in the small-small combination and make
>sure that the chain is short enough so that the bottom pulley does not
>contact any other portion of the derailleur. I also want to make sure that I
>can change to the large-large combination (even though that shouldn't be
>used in practice). ...but I also want to adjust the derailleur's tension
>screw so that top pulley comes close but does not touch the largest or
>smallest cog. ...but what if the above can be accomplished with a few links
>either in or out of the chain? Some say that when sizing a shimano system,
>the length is correct when the rear derailler is near verticle when in the
>small-large combination (but I'll have campy).
>
>So what should I know here in terms of chain length and tension adjustment?
>
>Jeff
Shimano says one inch longer than tight over large/large
combination.(well, they say 2 links, but 1/2" pitch, that's 1 inch)
Works for me. A bit sloppy amall/small with a 72 inch chain.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 01:57:47
From: landotter
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sep 23, 7:36 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> > "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote:
> >> ...about ready to assemble a new bike. ...campy components if that matters.
> >> 11-21 rear cogs with a short cage rear derailleur.
> >> I've seen different advice about the best chain length on the web. As near
> >> as I can tell, I want to size when in the small-small combination and make
> >> sure that the chain is short enough so that the bottom pulley does not
> >> contact any other portion of the derailleur. I also want to make sure that I
> >> can change to the large-large combination (even though that shouldn't be
> >> used in practice). ...but I also want to adjust the derailleur's tension
> >> screw so that top pulley comes close but does not touch the largest or
> >> smallest cog. ...but what if the above can be accomplished with a few links
> >> either in or out of the chain? Some say that when sizing a shimano system,
> >> the length is correct when the rear derailler is near verticle when in the
> >> small-large combination (but I'll have campy).
> >> So what should I know here in terms of chain length and tension adjustment?
> smokeystrodt...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I use Sheldon Brown's method, which is to run the chain around the
> > large chain ring/ largest cog without going through the derailleur,
> > then pulling the ends together and allowing one extra full link (an
> > inner and an outer) to hang down, then cut the rest of off. I've used
> > this on both my road and mountain bike with good results every time.
> > It will still allow use of the large chain ring/ large cog (I know,
> > shouldn't do that, but once in a while I'm almost to the top of a hill
> > and don't want to shift the chain ring). I never use the small/small
> > connection, but it will work if you do it this way.
>
> That is excellent advice.
>
> On older single pivot spring derailleurs such as Campagnolo's models
> 1960 to 1985, with their early crude cage designs, and a close ratio
> (freewheel low gear at 21 or 23 for example) you'll get better shift
> response by running as much chain as possible. I set those up in the
> small front/ smallest rear with ample chain while avoiding sag.
That's what I did when I swapped out the Altus on my new city scoot
for a Deore mech, as I'd already threaded everything through and
buttoned it up. I could probably remove three or four links--but
there's no sag with small small and it shifts great, so why bother?
Seems modern drivetrains aren't terribly fussy, at least long cage
systems, a couple links too long, and it's no bother. I took my first
longer twenty mile tootle in street clothes on this guy this evening
and was amused at how crisply the $45 combo of shifters and rear mech
worked. Low end Shimano is a wonder, if inelegant.
However, would optimizing the chain length by those four links or so
give me even more crispy shifting action? FWIW, the B-screw is set
with beer guided precision!
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 15:09:03
From: Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sep 23, 2:24 pm, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com > wrote:
> ...about ready to assemble a new bike. ...campy components if that matters.
> 11-21 rear cogs with a short cage rear derailleur.
>
> I've seen different advice about the best chain length on the web. As near
> as I can tell, I want to size when in the small-small combination and make
> sure that the chain is short enough so that the bottom pulley does not
> contact any other portion of the derailleur.
5-15mm clearance between the chain and the derailleur body and you
are done. That will give youi enough for big-big combos and allow the
top pulley to be close to the cogs w/o hitting them.
I also want to make sure that I
> can change to the large-large combination (even though that shouldn't be
> used in practice). ...but I also want to adjust the derailleur's tension
> screw so that top pulley comes close but does not touch the largest or
> smallest cog. ...but what if the above can be accomplished with a few links
> either in or out of the chain? Some say that when sizing a shimano system,
> the length is correct when the rear derailler is near verticle when in the
> small-large combination (but I'll have campy).
>
> So what should I know here in terms of chain length and tension adjustment?
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 21:07:04
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
"Qui si parla Campagnolo-www.vecchios.com" <peter@vecchios.com > wrote in
message news:1190585343.155765.195220@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 23, 2:24 pm, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote:
>> I've seen different advice about the best chain length on the web. As
>> near
>> as I can tell, I want to size when in the small-small combination and
>> make
>> sure that the chain is short enough so that the bottom pulley does not
>> contact any other portion of the derailleur.
>
> 5-15mm clearance between the chain and the derailleur body and you
> are done. That will give youi enough for big-big combos and allow the
> top pulley to be close to the cogs w/o hitting them.
So I see that there is a definite consensus about chain length. ...kind of
like on seat heights. ...was riding tonight and someone told me that it
looked like my seat was about 1/2 inch too high. ...last week someone else
convinced me that it was 1/2" too low so I raised it by that. ...can
remember a similar story in a book I read somewhere. ...pro cyclist told
someone that their seat should be higher, so the rider stopped, fiddled with
the thing but didn't really change anything, got back on and the same pro
proclaimed that it now looked perfect.
...anyway, the chain length based upon the small/small with the details
you've mentioned above seem to make the most sense to me. ...will give that
a try and see how it compares to the other methods in terms of resulting
suggested length.
Jeff
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 15:06:55
From:
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sep 23, 3:24 pm, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com > wrote:
> ...about ready to assemble a new bike. ...campy components if that matters.
> 11-21 rear cogs with a short cage rear derailleur.
>
> I've seen different advice about the best chain length on the web. As near
> as I can tell, I want to size when in the small-small combination and make
> sure that the chain is short enough so that the bottom pulley does not
> contact any other portion of the derailleur. I also want to make sure that I
> can change to the large-large combination (even though that shouldn't be
> used in practice). ...but I also want to adjust the derailleur's tension
> screw so that top pulley comes close but does not touch the largest or
> smallest cog. ...but what if the above can be accomplished with a few links
> either in or out of the chain? Some say that when sizing a shimano system,
> the length is correct when the rear derailler is near verticle when in the
> small-large combination (but I'll have campy).
>
> So what should I know here in terms of chain length and tension adjustment?
>
> Jeff
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com
I use Sheldon Brown's method, which is to run the chain around the
large chain ring/ largest cog without going through the derailleur,
then pulling the ends together and allowing one extra full link (an
inner and an outer) to hang down, then cut the rest of off. I've used
this on both my road and mountain bike with good results every time.
It will still allow use of the large chain ring/ large cog (I know,
shouldn't do that, but once in a while I'm almost to the top of a hill
and don't want to shift the chain ring). I never use the small/small
connection, but it will work if you do it this way.
Smokey
|
| | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 19:36:45
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
> "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com> wrote:
>> ...about ready to assemble a new bike. ...campy components if that matters.
>> 11-21 rear cogs with a short cage rear derailleur.
>> I've seen different advice about the best chain length on the web. As near
>> as I can tell, I want to size when in the small-small combination and make
>> sure that the chain is short enough so that the bottom pulley does not
>> contact any other portion of the derailleur. I also want to make sure that I
>> can change to the large-large combination (even though that shouldn't be
>> used in practice). ...but I also want to adjust the derailleur's tension
>> screw so that top pulley comes close but does not touch the largest or
>> smallest cog. ...but what if the above can be accomplished with a few links
>> either in or out of the chain? Some say that when sizing a shimano system,
>> the length is correct when the rear derailler is near verticle when in the
>> small-large combination (but I'll have campy).
>> So what should I know here in terms of chain length and tension adjustment?
smokeystrodtman@gmail.com wrote:
> I use Sheldon Brown's method, which is to run the chain around the
> large chain ring/ largest cog without going through the derailleur,
> then pulling the ends together and allowing one extra full link (an
> inner and an outer) to hang down, then cut the rest of off. I've used
> this on both my road and mountain bike with good results every time.
> It will still allow use of the large chain ring/ large cog (I know,
> shouldn't do that, but once in a while I'm almost to the top of a hill
> and don't want to shift the chain ring). I never use the small/small
> connection, but it will work if you do it this way.
That is excellent advice.
On older single pivot spring derailleurs such as Campagnolo's models
1960 to 1985, with their early crude cage designs, and a close ratio
(freewheel low gear at 21 or 23 for example) you'll get better shift
response by running as much chain as possible. I set those up in the
small front/ smallest rear with ample chain while avoiding sag.
For OP's modern equipment, Smoky wrote it well: "big-big plus 2 rivets".
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 13:42:08
From: Nate Knutson
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sep 23, 1:24 pm, "Jeff" <n...@nothingX.com > wrote:
> ...about ready to assemble a new bike. ...campy components if that matters.
> 11-21 rear cogs with a short cage rear derailleur.
>
> I've seen different advice about the best chain length on the web. As near
> as I can tell, I want to size when in the small-small combination and make
> sure that the chain is short enough so that the bottom pulley does not
> contact any other portion of the derailleur. I also want to make sure that I
> can change to the large-large combination (even though that shouldn't be
> used in practice). ...but I also want to adjust the derailleur's tension
> screw so that top pulley comes close but does not touch the largest or
> smallest cog. ...but what if the above can be accomplished with a few links
> either in or out of the chain? Some say that when sizing a shimano system,
> the length is correct when the rear derailler is near verticle when in the
> small-large combination (but I'll have campy).
>
> So what should I know here in terms of chain length and tension adjustment?
>
> Jeff
>
Proper chain length is when the chain is long enough to allow the
large/large combo without anything getting damaged, and no longer. A
good generic way of figuring it is the "Largest Cog and Largest
Chainring Method" here: http://parktool.com/repair/readhowto.asp?id=26
.
It doesn't make sense under any circumstances to size the chain the
small/small combo. If there's any kind of rub or excessive slack in
the small/small combo, it's because the chain is either too long and/
or the capacity of the RD is being exceeded.
There's no difference in determining chain length between different
component groups/mfgs.
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 15:38:30
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
"Jeff" <none@nothingX.com > wrote in message
news:46f6bf77$0$26423$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
Okay, in checking the web further, I've found a post on this list by Jobst
Bryant that recommends placing the chain in the second to smallest cog and
the smallest ring (the smallest sizes that should be used) and then allowing
the chain to remain the longest length possible that will prevent any slack.
...but why not do this on the small/small combination? I realize that one
should not use this combination, but one could go there accidentially, and
if so I would assume that you would then want to prevent chain slack and
keep the top pulley off of the small cog.
Yes-No?
Jeff
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 15:37:20
From:
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:38:30 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com > wrote:
>
>"Jeff" <none@nothingX.com> wrote in message
>news:46f6bf77$0$26423$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
>Okay, in checking the web further, I've found a post on this list by Jobst
>Bryant . . .
[snip]
Dear Jeff,
Good ol' Jobst Bryant!
Mr. Bryant, he runs cattle out near Amarillo and drives prit-near the
biggest black pick-'em-up truck in those parts, but he purely loves to
talk bi-sickles with his cousin, Jobst Brandt, whut lives out
Stanford-way and likes yaller more'n black.
Cheers,
Carl Fogel
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 20:58:37
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:2mmdf3hvvqv3pu2iffkomr48ku34ookv92@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:38:30 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com> wrote:
>> Dear Jeff,
>
> Good ol' Jobst Bryant!
>
> Mr. Bryant, he runs cattle out near Amarillo and drives prit-near the
> biggest black pick-'em-up truck in those parts, but he purely loves to
> talk bi-sickles with his cousin, Jobst Brandt, whut lives out
> Stanford-way and likes yaller more'n black.
> Carl Fogel
I guess us folks out in Texas don't spell all that right good, especially
when it comes to last names.
J
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 20:35:47
From:
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:58:37 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com > wrote:
>
><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:2mmdf3hvvqv3pu2iffkomr48ku34ookv92@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:38:30 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com> wrote:
>>> Dear Jeff,
>>
>> Good ol' Jobst Bryant!
>>
>> Mr. Bryant, he runs cattle out near Amarillo and drives prit-near the
>> biggest black pick-'em-up truck in those parts, but he purely loves to
>> talk bi-sickles with his cousin, Jobst Brandt, whut lives out
>> Stanford-way and likes yaller more'n black.
>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>I guess us folks out in Texas don't spell all that right good, especially
>when it comes to last names.
>
>J
Dear Jeff,
'Taint just Texas!
Them folks out in Deptford cain't spell last names none too good,
neither.
I was in a sweat to find out all about that Chris Marlowe fellow, but
by and by they let it out that he'd been dead a considerable long
time; so then I didn't care no more about him, because I don't take no
stock in dead people, 'specially if they got fourteen ways to spell
their own name:
Malyn
Marlen
Marley
Marlin
Marlo
Marloe
Marlow
Marlowe
Marly
Marlye
Marlyn
Merlin
Merling
Morley
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/names.htm
That Shexpere fellow, he's even worse:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/name1.html
Cheers,
Karl Fogle
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 22:31:20
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
<carlfogel@comcast.net > wrote in message
news:7e7ef31g8va5ae776eh1r2oipci4r9f285@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:58:37 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com> wrote:
>
>><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:2mmdf3hvvqv3pu2iffkomr48ku34ookv92@4ax.com...
> Dear Jeff,
>
> 'Taint just Texas!
>
> Them folks out in Deptford cain't spell last names none too good,
> neither.
I once had a very new and young psychology professor in graduate school who
corrected me when I wrote, "the effect of x on y was small." She insisted
that it should be "affect" - all good psychologists, of course, are
particularly interested in affect. I suggested, of course, that my original
spelling was correct. She checked further and wrote back, "your right."
...true story. ...but she was from California, not Texas.
J
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 00:35:10
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
In article
<46f7238d$0$26501$88260bb3@free.teranews.com >,
"Jeff" <none@nothingX.com > wrote:
> <carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:7e7ef31g8va5ae776eh1r2oipci4r9f285@4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:58:37 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com> wrote:
> >
> >><carlfogel@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >>news:2mmdf3hvvqv3pu2iffkomr48ku34ookv92@4ax.com...
> > Dear Jeff,
> >
> > 'Taint just Texas!
> >
> > Them folks out in Deptford cain't spell last names none too good,
> > neither.
>
> I once had a very new and young psychology professor in graduate school who
> corrected me when I wrote, "the effect of x on y was small." She insisted
> that it should be "affect" - all good psychologists, of course, are
> particularly interested in affect. I suggested, of course, that my original
> spelling was correct. She checked further and wrote back, "your right."
> ...true story. ...but she was from California, not Texas.
In seventh grade a teacher attempted to correct
"The ship foundered" in a paper of mine.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 22:01:57
From: still me
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:35:10 -0700, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net >
wrote:
>She checked further and wrote back, "your right."
>> ...true story. ...but she was from California, not Texas.
I hope she wrote "you're right"... unless she meant something else
entirely.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 20:54:07
From: Jeff
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:i91jf3t08fgkbtiql18obhr1apqdsh3o4g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:35:10 -0700, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>>She checked further and wrote back, "your right."
>>> ...true story. ...but she was from California, not Texas.
>
> I hope she wrote "you're right"... unless she meant something else
> entirely.
No she wrote "your right" - ...unfortunately.
J
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2007 04:14:02
From: still me
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:54:07 -0500, "Jeff" <none@nothingX.com > wrote:
>No she wrote "your right" - ...unfortunately.
>
>J
Well, I guess she's correct either way :-)
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 17:11:40
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: Proper Chain Length
|
In article
<i91jf3t08fgkbtiql18obhr1apqdsh3o4g@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:35:10 -0700, Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >She checked further and wrote back, "your right."
> >> ...true story. ...but she was from California, not Texas.
>
> I hope she wrote "you're right"... unless she meant something else
> entirely.
You make an incorrect attribution here.
--
Michael Press
|
|
