On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
> 
> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention. 
Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to 
know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
> 
> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P

why not?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:21:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

>On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> 
>>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
>>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
>>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
>>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
>> 
>> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
>yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention. 
>Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to 
>know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
>> 

If you follow properly then you would know :)

>> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
>
>why not?

I do the same or so my wife tells me.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> On 2-8-2009 8:23, John VanSickle wrote:
>> I do, however, see a boatload of Monday-morning quarterbacking.
> 
> What on earth is that? Could you explain for us geographically 
> challenged people?

Claiming, with hindsight, that you know what he should have done better 
than he did at the time.

American Football games are often played on Sunday night.  The tendency 
is for fans to talk Monday morning about what mistakes the quarterback 
made during the game, claiming that they know better (having watched the 
whole game).  The fact that the fans are not under the same pressure as 
the Quarterback, and have access to different information (views from TV 
cameras, rather than being on the field) doesn't seem to matter to these 
people.  They just think that the QBs are idiots, and they are better.

The implication here is that, whatever mistakes Bush may have made 
during office, those complaining about him aren't likely to have done 
any better were they in his situation.

(I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and 
lots of people could have done better.  Not Gore, but I'd probably even 
vote for Hillary over Bush if there were another election.)

-- 
Chambers

Post a reply to this message

On 08/02/09 11:48, Chambers wrote:
> (I have to disagree, though, as I think he was a deluded warmonger, and

	He may have been a warmongerer, and a lot more stuff unfit to print, 
but I seriously doubt he was delusional.

-- 
Kotter: "Have you ever considered becoming a vet?"
Epstein: "Uh...Uh no. My brother Sanchez was in the army. Didn't like it 
a bit."

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> other general broadcast companies are either too tightly bound to one 
> political party or too busy avoiding law suits and/or loss of audience 
> to have an political opinion.

Also, they depend on getting press releases and access to the president, and 
they find themselves snubbed if they annoy the government too much. If 
you're doing comedy instead of news, it's OK to make fun of the government 
two or three days after the event has been reported in all the "serious" media.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

John VanSickle wrote:
>  The anti-Bush people said the same about Bush and his policies, as well.

I think one difference is that something like 70%-80% of the people approve 
of (some of) Obama's policies, while 70%-80% disapproved of Bush's policies. 
The Obama policies that most people disapprove of are the ones where he's 
doing the same thing as Bush.

But let's not get into a political argument here. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>>   I hate to be a grammar nazi
>   Btw, does that count as Godwin's law in action?


Reminds me of one of the meetings I was in.
"Hire Carlyn. She's very good at this sort of management."
"Yes, she's a real requirements Nazi. ... Er, that's a good thing."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:16:01 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

> They do
> honestly believe that Obama's policies will do far more harm than good.

Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim 
that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite the 
cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the system 
itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the average 
life span being something like 37th in the world.

I wonder how we rank in the cost of malpractice insurance for 
doctors....certainly that's a huge part of the insane costs of health 
care here in the US.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 2-8-2009 18:25, Stephen wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 17:21:56 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
>> On 2-8-2009 16:54, Stephen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:12:37 +0200, andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My wife has the strange habit of verbatim quoting entire conversations 
>>>> (i.e. without using 'and then he said' or similar to indicate she is 
>>>> still quoting) between her and somebody else. After ten minutes I get 
>>>> confused if 'you' refers to me or to that other person.
>>> Oh! Is that a bad thing then?
>> yes, because she gets angry, because I haven't been paying attention. 
>> Actually I have been listening for 10 bloody minutes and how am I to 
>> know when the quote stops if she does not tell me.
> 
> If you follow properly then you would know :)
> 
>>> You would not like to hear her talking to me :P
>> why not?
> 
> I do the same or so my wife tells me.
Take this advice of another victim of this strange behaviour: stop it. 
;) Learn to use phrases like 'he asked me if I would...' in stead of 
'will you...' and 'I asked her if...' in stead of 'will you...'. It will 
make the life of the listener so much easier. Also restrict yourself to 
the main points and don't act like a tape recorder, that will help the 
listener also to understand what you find the most important, and it 
saves time.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Arguably, many of these same people are the ones who proudly proclaim 
> that America has the "best health care system in the world", despite the 
> cost of health care here being the *highest* in the world, the system 
> itself being ranked something like 50th in the world, and the average 
> life span being something like 37th in the world.

Why, the cost being highest in the world is what *makes* it the best in 
the world!  More expensive is always better, *especially* if you get a 
lower-quality product!  It shows that you are affluent and have money to 
waste!  And *everything* in America is better than everywhere else, not 
because it's *good*, but because everywhere else is so much worse, yes! 
  Now all we need to do is get rid of those pesky liberals, who have 
their heads in their sand about reality and want to take all our 
hard-earned money and give it to deadbeat minorities who just want to 
suckle on the public teat, and prevent us from our God-given 
constitutional right to bear arms as a metaphor for freedom, despite the 
fact that we haven't had a ground-force invasion of American soil in a 
very long time, certainly not within living memory.  Well, there's those 
illegal immigrants, any immigrants should be illegal to keep the 
American culture pure, and that's sure an invasion and we should be 
allowed to shoot anybody who's different.  Rawr.  (and that's not even 
touching the abomination that is the Federal Reserve, mockery that is 
the UN, travesty of abortion under any circumstances, and whatever other 
sacred cows far-right conservatives have that I can't think of off the 
top of my head)

*cough*

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message