From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 2026-01-06, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, 06 Jan 2026 18:57:03 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

That's been obscure even in the US for many a year, frankly - but
the legacy pronunciation of # survives to this day.

I suspect that this is because "pound" is (at least somewhat)
easier and faster to pronounce than the others. As we all know,
convenience trumps just about everything else - remember the
"baud" vs "bps" confusion.

Seems plausible - may also have to do with phone-tree systems and how intelligible "hash" is or isn't over a muffled line, vs. a word that
begins and ends with hard consonants.

I hadn't thought of that angle. Indeed, aeronautical radio
phraseology has evolved to deal with just that sort of problem.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 06/01/2026 18:57, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

remember the
"baud" vs "bps" confusion.

IIRC the are not , strictly, the same thing...
--
It is the folly of too many to mistake the echo of a London coffee-house
for the voice of the kingdom.

Jonathan Swift


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 06:33:45 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

Seems plausible - may also have to do with phone-tree systems and
how intelligible "hash" is or isn't over a muffled line, vs. a word
that begins and ends with hard consonants.

I hadn't thought of that angle. Indeed, aeronautical radio
phraseology has evolved to deal with just that sort of problem.

Many's the time I've had to resort to the NATO phonetic alphabet when
trying to get a customer to type something in over the phone.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

John Ames wrote this post by blinking in Morse code:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 06:33:45 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

Seems plausible - may also have to do with phone-tree systems and
how intelligible "hash" is or isn't over a muffled line, vs. a word
that begins and ends with hard consonants.

I hadn't thought of that angle. Indeed, aeronautical radio
phraseology has evolved to deal with just that sort of problem.

Many's the time I've had to resort to the NATO phonetic alphabet when
trying to get a customer to type something in over the phone.

Like "It all went tango uniform"? A real "charlie foxtrot"?
--
Rincewind had generally been considered by his tutors to be a natural wizard
in the same way that fish are natural mountaineers. He probably would have been thrown out of Unseen University anyway--he couldn't remember spells and smoking made him feel ill.
-- Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 09:48:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 06/01/2026 18:57, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

remember the
"baud" vs "bps" confusion.

IIRC the are not , strictly, the same thing...

They usually were back in the 1200 baud days. Then things got
complicated.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 2026-01-07, John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:

Many's the time I've had to resort to the NATO phonetic alphabet when
trying to get a customer to type something in over the phone.

I use it habitually, if I'm speaking English. But with a slight
modification: "S for sugar". I found that no matter how much I
emphasized siERRa, they nonetheless put Z for zero.

Niklas
--
[It] contains "vegetable stabilizer" which sounds ominous. How unstable are vegetables?
-- Jeff Zahn
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 2026-01-07, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 09:48:29 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 06/01/2026 18:57, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

remember the "baud" vs "bps" confusion.

IIRC the are not , strictly, the same thing...

My point exactly.

They usually were back in the 1200 baud days. Then things got
complicated.

Not even then. When I got my first 1200-bps modem, my .sig
block said, "600 baud and proud of it!" When I moved up to
a 2400-bps modem, that statement still applied.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

On 2026-01-07 18:23, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

John Ames wrote this post by blinking in Morse code:

On Wed, 07 Jan 2026 06:33:45 GMT
Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

Seems plausible - may also have to do with phone-tree systems and
how intelligible "hash" is or isn't over a muffled line, vs. a word
that begins and ends with hard consonants.

I hadn't thought of that angle. Indeed, aeronautical radio
phraseology has evolved to deal with just that sort of problem.

Many's the time I've had to resort to the NATO phonetic alphabet when
trying to get a customer to type something in over the phone.

Like "It all went tango uniform"? A real "charlie foxtrot"?

I tried to use that over the years several times here, but nobody
understands it, unless they are HAMs or aviators. I have to use a local variant based in the name of the provinces of Spain.
--
Cheers, Carlos.
ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2