"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message 
news:op.t6vagj2ec3xi7v@news.povray.org...
> And lo on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:37:25 -0000, andrel 
> <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:18:20 -0000, "Phil Cook"
>>>> I'd even buy a bowler if it got me closer to a Diana Rigg look-a-like 
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>> Who wouldn't?
>>>
>> Anyone who does not particularly fancy 70 year old ladies?
>
> I thought everyone knew that all Bowler hats were equipped with personal 
> time machines?

Ah.  And there I was, relying on a long striped scarf.

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Thu, 21 Feb 2008 10:36:30 -0000, Brian Elliott  
<NotForSpam@AskIfUWant> did spake, saying:

> "Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote in message  
> news:op.t6vagj2ec3xi7v@news.povray.org...
>> And lo on Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:37:25 -0000, andrel  
>> <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> Stephen wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:18:20 -0000, "Phil Cook"
>>>>> I'd even buy a bowler if it got me closer to a Diana Rigg  
>>>>> look-a-like ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Who wouldn't?
>>>>
>>> Anyone who does not particularly fancy 70 year old ladies?
>>
>> I thought everyone knew that all Bowler hats were equipped with  
>> personal time machines?
>
> Ah.  And there I was, relying on a long striped scarf.

I thought they were all recalled for safety reasons, too many people  
tripping up and squishing the wrong butterfly.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:28:37 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:

>>> Except we're back to why 'you' have the weapon in the first place.
>>
>> Well, *I* don't, because I'd want it to be stored safely.
> 
> Our language really needs to (re)introduce some terms for "you" -
> singular, personal; plural personal; plural imnpersonal i.e. you go and
> help him; you, that group there, go and help him; you as a country
> should help him.

Well, it's your language - fix it. ;-)

>>  I have other
>> ways of dealing with an intruder - fortunately, where we live, that's
>> not much of a danger.  Most of the crime around here is car prowls and
>> vandalism.
> 
> We've had some break-ins locally, a bit of vandalism, some stabbings in
> town; the usual kind of thing.

Stabbings, I don't think we have often here - we meet about monthly with 
our local police liason (part of our community meetings), so we keep 
pretty aware of what crimes are going on in the neighborhood.  There's a 
bit more drug crime a few blocks west of us (the parks seem to attract it 
around here), but around here it's pretty safe.

>>> 'Now look what you've done. You've got all that horrible blood on my
>>> antique' Sorry I just found that a funny thought.
>>
>> That's OK, we'd probably say something like that, because we're that
>> kind of people....
> 
> Now was that "we" plural personal or plural impersonal? :-)

The royal "we".  Oh, wait, no it wasn't.  It's my wife and I. :-)

>> BTDT as well (not for a possible break-in, though) - witnessed a fight
>> out in front of our gym last week, called the cops - (a) they didn't
>> know where the liquor store was that I told them about, so I had to
>> drive around and find a street sign.  There was a cop stationed at the
>> liquor store, but they sent another car out.  Of course, by the time
>> they said they'd send a car out, the fight was long over.
> 
> Similar problems when the police aren't local. Damn I'd thought I'd
> uploaded a picture to Flickr of our local police station's opening
> times; I can't find it now.

LOL!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21 Feb 2008 11:57:48 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:28:37 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>>>> Except we're back to why 'you' have the weapon in the first place.
>>>
>>> Well, *I* don't, because I'd want it to be stored safely.
>> 
>> Our language really needs to (re)introduce some terms for "you" -
>> singular, personal; plural personal; plural imnpersonal i.e. you go and
>> help him; you, that group there, go and help him; you as a country
>> should help him.
>
>Well, it's your language - fix it. ;-)

It wasn't broke till thee and thine changed it.

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:11:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:

>>> Our language really needs to (re)introduce some terms for "you" -
>>> singular, personal; plural personal; plural imnpersonal i.e. you go
>>> and help him; you, that group there, go and help him; you as a country
>>> should help him.
>>
>>Well, it's your language - fix it. ;-)
> 
> It wasn't broke till thee and thine changed it.

Oh, I thought we were talking about English, not American. <scnr>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 13:54:09 -0500, Jim Henderson wrote:

>>>Well, it's your language - fix it. ;-)
>> 
>> It wasn't broke till thee and thine changed it.
> 
> Oh, I thought we were talking about English, not American. <scnr>

Oh, and the smiley should be there as well. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 21 Feb 2008 13:54:09 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>Oh, I thought we were talking about English, not American. <scnr>

It is a living language ye ken :) + > :) [for your missed one]


Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 21 Feb 2008 13:55:41 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:

>
>Oh, and the smiley should be there as well. ;-)

That means that I will have to come over there and ...

Wait that is Warp's job :)

Regards
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:49:59 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 21 Feb 2008 13:55:41 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Oh, and the smiley should be there as well. ;-)
> 
> That means that I will have to come over there and ...
> 
> Wait that is Warp's job :)

LOL!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:48:49 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 21 Feb 2008 13:54:09 -0500, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 
>>Oh, I thought we were talking about English, not American. <scnr>
> 
> It is a living language ye ken :) + > :) [for your missed one]

Ah, if it is, then, why are ye speaking like that? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message