On 8/16/2016 12:41 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:42:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Er, I mean "well spotted, Stephen!" ;)
>>>
>>>
>> Oh! yes. I have my beady eyes on both of you. I smell the stink of
>> collusion.
>
> Us?  Nah, we wouldn't do that. :)
>

Oh! Yes! you would. ;)


>>>
>>>
>> Indeed not.
>> I brought the subject up and John's eyes filmed over. His outline
>> wavered and thinned. Then he shuddered and was back. It would only have
>> ended up as my nightmare journey was worse than your nightmare journey.
>> So we took it as said.
>
> LOL, that's about how I imagined it would go.
>
>

I know, as soon as I start thinking of some of my horrors. Some part of 
my brain interrupts the train of thought. Squirrels! :)


>>
>>>> So, hastening back to the designated locality. Leicester Square.
>>>
>>> Good choice, but haven't we already been there?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, so?
>
> Under rule 321 in the *standard* rules, loops that don't involve Heathrow
> Terminal 5 are generally discouraged unless you've been in nip.
>
> Oh, wait, you were at the pub.  Nevermind.

Right! And there was more than one nip involved. :)

>
> So it's John's go then.
>

Whenever!
I'm starting to think about invoking Lord Kelvin's 1871, variation. And 
put him in Huff automatically whenever the second differential of 
replies, falls below 0·92.




>>
>> Enjoy your LinuxCon :)
>
> I shall.  Oddly enough, one of the other people in the advisory board
> isn't making the trip - he lives about 20 miles away from me, and he's
> actively avoiding travel, so he opted out.
>

I sympathise.

> So we're going to have a drink when I return. :)
>

Rule #2 :)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message