 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> It was probably my eyes that were in B&W then ;)
Or the TV. http://www.revver.com/video/109858/bugs-bunny-whats-opera-doc/
Definitely color.
I saw an interview with the Bugs Bunny authors talking about the music, and
how they were trying to introduce kids to classical music and such.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no
CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:48:29 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> It was probably my eyes that were in B&W then ;)
>
>Or the TV. http://www.revver.com/video/109858/bugs-bunny-whats-opera-doc/
>Definitely color.
>
Hmm, I was being symbolic (or trying to be) :-) implying that I am so old
"colour" had not been invented yet.
>
>I saw an interview with the Bugs Bunny authors talking about the music, and
>how they were trying to introduce kids to classical music and such.
Besides Die Walküre I hear bits from, The Flying Dutchman, Tannhäuser and
Tristan and Isolde. A Wagnarian feast.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:13:42 -0700, Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu>
> wrote:
>
>> This conversation has been going on so long that Thunderbird has
>> actually wrapped the header position back around to zero. I didn't even
>> know that was possible.
>
> Is that a hint?
Not at all! I'm quite amused, even if I didn't have the endurance to
actually keep reading the whole thread :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> Well, they were colour here when I watched them, but it also has been a
> long time since I've seen any of the "classic" cartoons. "What's Opera,
> Doc?" being one of my faves.
I love that one too. I'm also a fond of the "Rabbit of Seville" cartoon
along the same lines:
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/42703/964406
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:56:36 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:13:42 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>>
>>> This conversation has been going on so long that Thunderbird has
>>> actually wrapped the header position back around to zero. I didn't
>>> even know that was possible.
>>
>> Wow, I didn't either. :-)
>>
>> Isn't that one of the reasons this thread started?
>
> I suppose so. Now I mostly wonder by what factor this is the longest
> p.o.t thread ever.
It might be hard to judge that, given the retention policy. It's
probably several times longer than any other thread currently on the
server. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:07:53 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:13:42 -0700, Kevin Wampler
>> <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
>>
>>> This conversation has been going on so long that Thunderbird has
>>> actually wrapped the header position back around to zero. I didn't
>>> even know that was possible.
>>
>> Is that a hint?
>
> Not at all! I'm quite amused, even if I didn't have the endurance to
> actually keep reading the whole thread :)
It seems there are only two of us who had that. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 09:36:56 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 25 Mar 2009 18:04:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>Well, they were colour here when I watched them, but it also has been a
>>long time since I've seen any of the "classic" cartoons. "What's Opera,
>>Doc?" being one of my faves.
>
> It was probably my eyes that were in B&W then ;)
>
> I particularly disliked the Yosemite Sam episodes preferring Daffy Duck.
Same here, for the most part. Bugs, Daffy, and Elmer were the best
combination pretty consistently.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 08:48:29 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Stephen wrote:
>> It was probably my eyes that were in B&W then ;)
>
> Or the TV.
> http://www.revver.com/video/109858/bugs-bunny-whats-opera-doc/
> Definitely color.
>
>
> I saw an interview with the Bugs Bunny authors talking about the music,
> and how they were trying to introduce kids to classical music and such.
The funny thing is that they actually identify the music incorrectly. I
can't remember the details now, if it was in the credits or on the CD
(which I have), but I remember at one point they mis-identified the works
of Wagner they were using.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:04:11 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>I saw an interview with the Bugs Bunny authors talking about the music,
>>and how they were trying to introduce kids to classical music and such.
>
> Besides Die Walküre I hear bits from, The Flying Dutchman, Tannhäuser
> and Tristan and Isolde. A Wagnarian feast.
Very much so.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:16:08 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Well, they were colour here when I watched them, but it also has been a
>> long time since I've seen any of the "classic" cartoons. "What's
>> Opera, Doc?" being one of my faves.
>
> I love that one too. I'm also a fond of the "Rabbit of Seville" cartoon
> along the same lines:
>
> http://video.yahoo.com/watch/42703/964406
That's the other one I was thinking of. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:07:53 -0700, Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:13:42 -0700, Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> This conversation has been going on so long that Thunderbird has
>>> actually wrapped the header position back around to zero. I didn't even
>>> know that was possible.
>>
>> Is that a hint?
>
>Not at all! I'm quite amused, even if I didn't have the endurance to
>actually keep reading the whole thread :)
I'll let you into a secret but don't tell Jim. Neither have I.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:37:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:07:53 -0700, Kevin Wampler
> <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
>
>>Stephen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:13:42 -0700, Kevin Wampler
>>> <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This conversation has been going on so long that Thunderbird has
>>>> actually wrapped the header position back around to zero. I didn't
>>>> even know that was possible.
>>>
>>> Is that a hint?
>>
>>Not at all! I'm quite amused, even if I didn't have the endurance to
>>actually keep reading the whole thread :)
>
> I'll let you into a secret but don't tell Jim. Neither have I.
LOL, that explains a lot. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26 Mar 2009 13:17:48 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> I particularly disliked the Yosemite Sam episodes preferring Daffy Duck.
>
>Same here, for the most part. Bugs, Daffy, and Elmer were the best
>combination pretty consistently.
Yip!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:16:08 -0700, Kevin Wampler <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu>
wrote:
>Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>> Well, they were colour here when I watched them, but it also has been a
>> long time since I've seen any of the "classic" cartoons. "What's Opera,
>> Doc?" being one of my faves.
>
>I love that one too. I'm also a fond of the "Rabbit of Seville" cartoon
>along the same lines:
>
>http://video.yahoo.com/watch/42703/964406
Thanks
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26 Mar 2009 13:38:24 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:37:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:07:53 -0700, Kevin Wampler
>> <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:13:42 -0700, Kevin Wampler
>>>> <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This conversation has been going on so long that Thunderbird has
>>>>> actually wrapped the header position back around to zero. I didn't
>>>>> even know that was possible.
>>>>
>>>> Is that a hint?
>>>
>>>Not at all! I'm quite amused, even if I didn't have the endurance to
>>>actually keep reading the whole thread :)
>>
>> I'll let you into a secret but don't tell Jim. Neither have I.
>
>LOL, that explains a lot. ;-)
>
You were listening?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:48:20 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2009 13:17:48 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>> I particularly disliked the Yosemite Sam episodes preferring Daffy
>>> Duck.
>>
>>Same here, for the most part. Bugs, Daffy, and Elmer were the best
>>combination pretty consistently.
>
> Yip!
Though I also was fond of Wile E. Coyote & the roadrunner, too.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:51:07 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2009 13:38:24 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 17:37:50 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 10:07:53 -0700, Kevin Wampler
>>> <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stephen wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:13:42 -0700, Kevin Wampler
>>>>> <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This conversation has been going on so long that Thunderbird has
>>>>>> actually wrapped the header position back around to zero. I didn't
>>>>>> even know that was possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that a hint?
>>>>
>>>>Not at all! I'm quite amused, even if I didn't have the endurance to
>>>>actually keep reading the whole thread :)
>>>
>>> I'll let you into a secret but don't tell Jim. Neither have I.
>>
>>LOL, that explains a lot. ;-)
>>
>>
> You were listening?
Of course. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Though I also was fond of Wile E. Coyote & the roadrunner, too.
Indeed. It's good to have some highbrow humor about exploding roller-skates.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:34:09 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Though I also was fond of Wile E. Coyote & the roadrunner, too.
>
> Indeed. It's good to have some highbrow humor about exploding
> roller-skates.
You betcha! ;-)
And my favourite, of course - which I can't remember what it was called
now - is when the character runs out of ground and keeps running until
such time as they realise that there's nothing under them.
It's going to bother me that I can't remember the term now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> And my favourite, of course - which I can't remember what it was called
> now - is when the character runs out of ground and keeps running until
> such time as they realise that there's nothing under them.
>
> It's going to bother me that I can't remember the term now.
I'm pretty sure I never knew the term, but now it's going to bug me too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 12:48:19 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> And my favourite, of course - which I can't remember what it was called
>> now - is when the character runs out of ground and keeps running until
>> such time as they realise that there's nothing under them.
>>
>> It's going to bother me that I can't remember the term now.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure I never knew the term, but now it's going to bug me too.
LOL
I want to say it's something like "suspension of" something (not
disbelief).
I also want to say that Tex Avery coined the term in question.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> I want to say it's something like "suspension of" something (not
> disbelief).
http://orangecow.org/toon-physics.html
That's fun, but not coining terms.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:47:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I want to say it's something like "suspension of" something (not
>> disbelief).
>
> http://orangecow.org/toon-physics.html
>
> That's fun, but not coining terms.
Yeah, that's a great site. I'm now wondering if I saw the term in a toon-
based RPG now. Or maybe it wasn't Tex Avery, but Chuck Jones who coined
the term I'm thinking of.
Agh! This is going to drive me NUTS!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:34:20 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:47:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> I want to say it's something like "suspension of" something (not
>>> disbelief).
>>
>> http://orangecow.org/toon-physics.html
>>
>> That's fun, but not coining terms.
>
> Yeah, that's a great site. I'm now wondering if I saw the term in a
> toon- based RPG now. Or maybe it wasn't Tex Avery, but Chuck Jones who
> coined the term I'm thinking of.
>
> Agh! This is going to drive me NUTS!
>
> Jim
Aha! Found it: The "plausible impossible" is what I'm thinking of, and
apparently Walt Disney coined the term.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:34:20 -0400, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:47:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> I want to say it's something like "suspension of" something (not
>>>> disbelief).
>>> http://orangecow.org/toon-physics.html
>>>
>>> That's fun, but not coining terms.
>> Yeah, that's a great site. I'm now wondering if I saw the term in a
>> toon- based RPG now. Or maybe it wasn't Tex Avery, but Chuck Jones who
>> coined the term I'm thinking of.
>>
>> Agh! This is going to drive me NUTS!
>>
>> Jim
>
> Aha! Found it: The "plausible impossible" is what I'm thinking of, and
> apparently Walt Disney coined the term.
Yay! Now I can sleep in peace. Once it's night time of course.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:06:17 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> Aha! Found it: The "plausible impossible" is what I'm thinking of,
>> and apparently Walt Disney coined the term.
>
> Yay! Now I can sleep in peace. Once it's night time of course.
You and me alike. Oh, wait, it *is* night time. ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 26 Mar 2009 13:52:26 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>Though I also was fond of Wile E. Coyote & the roadrunner, too.
I liked those two too.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:44:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2009 13:52:26 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>Though I also was fond of Wile E. Coyote & the roadrunner, too.
>
> I liked those two too.
There's something to be said for the fact that they generally never spoke
and still managed to be entertaining. Speech is overrated. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> There's something to be said for the fact that they generally never spoke
> and still managed to be entertaining. Speech is overrated. :-)
True, but it would have been a lot harder to start this thread using a
Wile E. Coyote & Roadrunner reference.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:15:14 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> There's something to be said for the fact that they generally never
>> spoke and still managed to be entertaining. Speech is overrated. :-)
>
> True, but it would have been a lot harder to start this thread using a
> Wile E. Coyote & Roadrunner reference.
Definitely. Would've needed to be something like:
--------------------
| |
| YIKES! |
| |
--------------------
||
||
||
||
:-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
>> True, but it would have been a lot harder to start this thread using a
>> Wile E. Coyote & Roadrunner reference.
>
> Definitely. Would've needed to be something like:
>
> --------------------
> | |
> | YIKES! |
> | |
> --------------------
> ||
> ||
> ||
> ||
>
This completely cracked me up. My attempts at creating an ascii-art
Wile E. Coyote in response were unfortunately similarly hilarious.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:32:25 -0700, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> True, but it would have been a lot harder to start this thread using a
>>> Wile E. Coyote & Roadrunner reference.
>>
>> Definitely. Would've needed to be something like:
>>
>> --------------------
>> | |
>> | YIKES! |
>> | |
>> --------------------
>> ||
>> ||
>> ||
>> ||
>>
>>
> This completely cracked me up. My attempts at creating an ascii-art
> Wile E. Coyote in response were unfortunately similarly hilarious.
And yet you failed to share them with us? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27 Mar 2009 10:59:35 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:44:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 26 Mar 2009 13:52:26 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>Though I also was fond of Wile E. Coyote & the roadrunner, too.
>>
>> I liked those two too.
>
>There's something to be said for the fact that they generally never spoke
>and still managed to be entertaining.
True and clever ASCII art below.
>Speech is overrated. :-)
>
Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:16:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 27 Mar 2009 10:59:35 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 07:44:18 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 26 Mar 2009 13:52:26 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Though I also was fond of Wile E. Coyote & the roadrunner, too.
>>>
>>> I liked those two too.
>>
>>There's something to be said for the fact that they generally never
>>spoke and still managed to be entertaining.
>
> True and clever ASCII art below.
Good one....I like it.
>>Speech is overrated. :-)
>>
>>
> Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
Huh? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2009 01:43:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>>Speech is overrated. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
>
>Huh? ;-)
Uh! :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:08:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2009 01:43:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Speech is overrated. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
>>
>>Huh? ;-)
>
> Uh! :)
Ah. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 29 Mar 2009 14:52:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 12:08:35 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 29 Mar 2009 01:43:14 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Speech is overrated. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
>>>
>>>Huh? ;-)
>>
>> Uh! :)
>
>Ah. ;-)
>
Hmm ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:38:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>>> Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
>>>>
>>>>Huh? ;-)
>>>
>>> Uh! :)
>>
>>Ah. ;-)
>>
>>
> Hmm ;)
MMM? ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30 Mar 2009 11:17:35 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:38:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>>>> Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Huh? ;-)
>>>>
>>>> Uh! :)
>>>
>>>Ah. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Hmm ;)
>
>MMM? ;-)
>
Aaaah!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2009 11:17:35 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:38:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
>>>>>> Huh? ;-)
>>>>> Uh! :)
>>>> Ah. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hmm ;)
>> MMM? ;-)
>>
>
> Aaaah!
Get a room, you two!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
There's no CD like OCD, there's no CD I knoooow!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:51:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2009 11:17:35 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:38:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Huh? ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh! :)
>>>>
>>>>Ah. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hmm ;)
>>
>>MMM? ;-)
>>
>>
> Aaaah!
Oh?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:20:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Get a room, you two!
Score one monitor!
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:20:19 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>
>Get a room, you two!
Pass that by me again in English.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30 Mar 2009 13:42:26 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:51:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 30 Mar 2009 11:17:35 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:38:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Huh? ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Uh! :)
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hmm ;)
>>>
>>>MMM? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Aaaah!
>
>Oh?
Hmm.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30-3-2009 19:42, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:20:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>
>> Get a room, you two!
>
> Score one monitor!
What has that lizard got to do with this?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2009 13:42:26 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:51:26 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Mar 2009 11:17:35 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:38:01 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mumble, mumble, mumble :)
>>>>>>>> Huh? ;-)
>>>>>>> Uh! :)
>>>>>> Ah. ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm ;)
>>>> MMM? ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Aaaah!
>> Oh?
>
> Hmm.
pfffff....
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:09:03 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>pfffff....
Wheesht! :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 09:50:16 +0000, Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>On 24 Mar 2009 16:31:54 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 17:16:26 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 24 Mar 2009 13:03:48 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Well, then, it must be hassenfefer. ;-)
>>>
>>> That's a Woosh!
>>
>>Wabbit season. :-)
>>
>
>If you say so
>
>
>>Probably would've helped if I'd spelt it correctly:
>
>LOL
>>
>>http://www.fabulousfoods.com/recipes/article/134/27929
>>
As an aside.
http://literalbarrage.org/blog/archives/2005/01/19/your-scottish-slang-word-o-the-day-wabbit/
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:09:03 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> pfffff....
>
> Wheesht! :)
Graaaaaak
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:38:17 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:09:03 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> pfffff....
>>
>> Wheesht! :)
>
>Graaaaaak
Grok ;-)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
