On 8/16/2016 8:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:01:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> 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. ;)
>
> Damn, I thought you might fall for that.  Not a huge chance, but a slight
> one.
>

Oh! No you didn't. ;)


>>> 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! :)
>
> Where?  I don't see any squirrels!
>

<Lip smacking noise>  They must have gone.  </burp>



>>
>> Right! And there was more than one nip involved. :)
>
> Indeed, I suspected that was the case as well.  The path wasn't strictly
> diagonal, but it was roughly in that direction - that was the giveaway.
>

After a couple of John's "Gentleman's measures". Everything's on the 
diagonal.


>>> 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.
>
> That depends a lot on the third differential, I'd think.
>

Indeed it does. Ho hum.

John's turn then?


>>>
>> I sympathise.
>
> After my trip last week, I do as well. :)
>

LOL

>>> So we're going to have a drink when I return. :)
>>>
>>>
>> Rule #2 :)
>
> Always wear gloves at a crime scene?
>

No, that is the 17th amendment to Rule #1. Don't get caught.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message