>>>> Oh dear!
>>> Indeed!
>> Agreed
> Agreeing with me on my first day back?
I expect I was as surprised as you.
> My, how things have changed whilst I've been away.
You occassionally got something right before.
>>>> The answer to your questions is I don't know
>>> At least you're honest Grim. ;o)
>> Always
> Not strictly true.
Is too! I trust you're not trying to besmirch my character.
>>>> (I know nothing).
>>> Now that's not true now is it?
>> I refer you to my previous comment
> Likewise.
ditto.
>>>> Now if gandalf was still alive...
>>> Be careful what you wish for.
>> I thought you enjoyed life. I was actually concerned that you might
>> be found floating upside down in a VAT of Guiness somewhere in
>> Ireland. How was it? 'Sgood to have you back.
> Technically, I'm not "back". The compromise is that I'm in the UK for a
> week and in Ireland for a week. Decide for yourself if that gives the
> best
> or worst of both worlds.
I should decide for you? What happens at the end of the fortnight?
>>>> On the other hand, Since LMS posted a query,
>>>> she may be back shortly.
>>> I'm not doing anything at the moment. Shall I stand guard until she
>>> returns?
>> How can you be not doing anything at the moment? Has something
>> changed?
> I'm going to contradict myself here (see - some things never change!).
> I've
> been playfully (I hope!) pulling your leg about you saying that you
know
> "nothing" when clearly you must know "something" and, no matter how
> trivial
> you consider that "something" to be, it amounts to more than "nothing".
I see. No I don't. Nearly had it there for a moment.
> However, when I said "I'm not doing anything at the moment", that must
be
> taken as a relative statement. For, far from doing "nothing", I must
have
> been, at the very least, typing the message you were reading whilst
> stating
> I was doing nothing. So, just by stating I was doing "nothing", I was
in
> fact doing "something".
Another contradiction? Is it any wonder I get confused?
> You see? No? Keep reading it. Either it'll make sense eventually, or
by
> the time you've replied my head will have cleared somewhat and I'll be
> able
> to post a more cogent reply.
Which is?
>>>> I'll try emailing a couple of 'old' members and
>>>> alert them to a living presence on the ng and
>>>> we'll see where we go from there?
> I've had a look in my "InBox" for this NG, and along with the many
> thousands
> of ads for cheap viagra, various ***** enlargement products, a multitude
> of
> mortgage offers (in USD!) and a host of updates pur****ting to be from
> Microsoft, there are indeed a couple of messages from you.
Bloody hell, Gandalf. What do want with so much viagra etc.?
> Sorry I've not replied to them. I wasn't checking the mailbox as
> diligently as I ought to have done. (c.f. "I wasn't checking it at
all").
c.f. being code for 'code for'? Is that hyper-idiomatic?
>>> Calling all "old" members (and the "not so old" ones too).
>> I'm doubtful we'll hear much, if anything, from the 'not so old' ones
>> as they all went of to university with their multiple A***s.
> <SFX: Tuts>
> Ah, the young 'uns. May their cotton socks be blessed as they do their
> level best to convert their student grants into alcohol and music
systems,
> whilst begging, stealing and/or borrowing the course material necessary
> for
> their relevant studies.
I suspect they had the latter down a treat. I suspect they had the former
down a treat also.
>> I hear from Sarah (Jelly Baby) once in a blue moon (she's studying
>> biology at Dundee uni).
> <SFX: Ooooh!>
Indeed. She wants to go into forensics next.
>>>> If they're game,
>>> If only Janey were still here. The comedic value of that
>>> statement...
>> You know something I don't (apart from nothing)?
> "Anything" is more than "nothing". So, assuming I know anything, I know
> more than you and therefore know "something" you don't.
Nothing changes. But you knew that, didn't you?
>> If only ...
> ...and we're now gone full circle and we're back to where I came in,
with
> an
> "Indeed!".
Agreed
>>>> you'll find them the nicest bunch of people you
>>>> could possibly hope for.
>>> I second that.
>> Me too.
> Me three?
I'd stick to the Guiness. That's not true. I don't touch the stuff. I was
suggesting that perhaps you should (touch the stuff, stick to it ... I
can't
cope any more).
> Oh 'tis so good to be back.
And it seems to have gone a bit quiet again.
grim
|
