On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:03:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> 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. ;)

Oh yes I did! ;)

>> Where?  I don't see any squirrels!
>>
> <Lip smacking noise>  They must have gone.  </burp>

Well, I hope it wasn't tartare.

>>> 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.

For values of "diagonal" equal to "wandering in a generally diagonal 
direction"?

>>>> 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?

Yep!

>>>> 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.

Oh, no, that's not a rule, but it should be.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message