On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:58:22 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 03/06/2010 6:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Do we really want to see you in a swimsuit, Stephen?;-)
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>> >  I promise it won’t be a bikini.
>> Now I'm just getting ready for lunch...I don't*think*  I needed that
>> image in my head.;-)
>>
>>
> I’ll have you know that in my youth I was considered a beauty and was
> asked out by several guys. (This is a long story and I don’t think I
> have the time for it just now.)

Ah, the ravages of age. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 19:27:30 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>> But of course. ;)  One might debate, however, that you're actively
>> engaged in a debate now - namely, the debate about whether or not
>> you're actively engaged in a debate or not. ;-)  (I couldn't resist.
>> <G>)
> 
> Oh you did NOT just invoke the Liar Paradox...! >:-[

I did it just for you. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh you did NOT just invoke the Liar Paradox...! >:-[
> 
> I did it just for you. ;-)

I think it would be better if invoking the Paradox had some kind of 
worldly consequence. Like Jumanji. But with a better storyline...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 20:03:18 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Oh you did NOT just invoke the Liar Paradox...! >:-[
>> 
>> I did it just for you. ;-)
> 
> I think it would be better if invoking the Paradox had some kind of
> worldly consequence. Like Jumanji. But with a better storyline...

LOL

Post a reply to this message

On 03/06/2010 7:58 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 18:58:22 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 03/06/2010 6:21 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>>> Do we really want to see you in a swimsuit, Stephen?;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>   I promise it won’t be a bikini.
>>> Now I'm just getting ready for lunch...I don't*think*  I needed that
>>> image in my head.;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I’ll have you know that in my youth I was considered a beauty and was
>> asked out by several guys. (This is a long story and I don’t think I
>> have the time for it just now.)
>
> Ah, the ravages of age. ;-)
>

I resemble that remark ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:11:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> I’ll have you know that in my youth I was considered a beauty and was
>>> asked out by several guys. (This is a long story and I don’t think I
>>> have the time for it just now.)
>>
>> Ah, the ravages of age. ;-)
>>
>>
> I resemble that remark ;-)

As do I, though not as much IIRC. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 04/06/2010 2:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 23:11:18 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> I’ll have you know that in my youth I was considered a beauty and was
>>>> asked out by several guys. (This is a long story and I don’t think I
>>>> have the time for it just now.)
>>>
>>> Ah, the ravages of age. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I resemble that remark ;-)
>
> As do I, though not as much IIRC. ;-)
>

LOL

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> Welcome back!
>
> -Nekar Xenos-

Thanks!

Post a reply to this message

> But of course. ;)  One might debate, however, that you're actively
> engaged in a debate now - namely, the debate about whether or not you're
> actively engaged in a debate or not. ;-)  (I couldn't resist.<G>)

See what I did there? Didn't reply for a day to ensure that I'm not 
engaged in the debate. I let you guys figure out the details. ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 12:20:10 +0200, Tim Nikias wrote:

>> But of course. ;)  One might debate, however, that you're actively
>> engaged in a debate now - namely, the debate about whether or not
>> you're actively engaged in a debate or not. ;-)  (I couldn't
>> resist.<G>)
> 
> See what I did there? Didn't reply for a day to ensure that I'm not
> engaged in the debate. I let you guys figure out the details. ;-)

Hmmmm, clever. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message