 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nospam com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:40:38 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 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?
Salvador Dali.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:25:27 +0100, 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.
Erm?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:51:45 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> 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 ;-)
Bzzzt!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:19:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> As an aside.
>
> http://literalbarrage.org/blog/archives/2005/01/19/your-scottish-slang-
word-o-the-day-wabbit/
Interesting. So I guess that means it's time to hibernate?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30 Mar 2009 19:06:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:25:27 +0100, 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.
>
>Erm?
Oh! Bugrit. Mouchie!
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 30 Mar 2009 19:08:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:19:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> As an aside.
>>
>> http://literalbarrage.org/blog/archives/2005/01/19/your-scottish-slang-
>word-o-the-day-wabbit/
>
>Interesting. So I guess that means it's time to hibernate?
>
Or fly north for the summer.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:09:31 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2009 19:08:27 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:19:56 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> As an aside.
>>>
>>> http://literalbarrage.org/blog/archives/2005/01/19/your-scottish-
slang-
>>word-o-the-day-wabbit/
>>
>>Interesting. So I guess that means it's time to hibernate?
>>
>>
> Or fly north for the summer.
I'd go for that, too. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:08:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 30 Mar 2009 19:06:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:25:27 +0100, 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.
>>
>>Erm?
>
> Oh! Bugrit. Mouchie!
Achoo!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:08:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 30 Mar 2009 19:06:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:25:27 +0100, 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.
>>> Erm?
>> Oh! Bugrit. Mouchie!
>
> Achoo!
Snort!
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 31 Mar 2009 14:43:10 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:08:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 30 Mar 2009 19:06:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:25:27 +0100, 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.
>>>
>>>Erm?
>>
>> Oh! Bugrit. Mouchie!
>
>Achoo!
Gesundheit.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:42:28 -0500, Mike Raiford <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Snort!
No worries :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:42:28 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:08:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Mar 2009 19:06:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:25:27 +0100, 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.
>>>> Erm?
>>> Oh! Bugrit. Mouchie!
>>
>> Achoo!
>
> Snort!
Pffft
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:50:48 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 31 Mar 2009 14:43:10 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 11:08:38 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> On 30 Mar 2009 19:06:21 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 20:25:27 +0100, 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.
>>>>
>>>>Erm?
>>>
>>> Oh! Bugrit. Mouchie!
>>
>>Achoo!
>
> Gesundheit.
Mumble
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> Mumble
Can I interject something?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:53:41 -0400, Charles C wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Mumble
>
> Can I interject something?
Uh huh. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tom Austin wrote:
> Tom Austin wrote:
>> I'm hunting wabbits
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5szayh
http://www.ilovewavs.com/comedy/PrankPhone/
check the Arnold Schwarzenegger Impersonator pranks some make me LOL :-D
all except one are peaces of sound tracks of movies of Arnold
Schwarzenegger.
Have a laugh.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
This isn't quite at all cartoon physics but I'm sure there's got to be a name
for the forces involved:
http://www.neatorama.com/2009/03/12/ski-jump-toilet/
Charles
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 02 Apr 2009 17:00:36 -0400, Charles C wrote:
> This isn't quite at all cartoon physics but I'm sure there's got to be a
> name for the forces involved:
> http://www.neatorama.com/2009/03/12/ski-jump-toilet/
>
> Charles
LOL, I'd have to admit, that the first reaction I had was that your
question was "there's gotta be a name for this", to which the answer is
"incredibly silly". "Cold" also comes to mind, as does "potentially very
messy". But then I reread and saw that that wasn't the question you were
suggesting. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
