On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:08:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Nope. ;-)
>>
> Yup!

You're being awfully stubborn about this. ;-)

>> LOL; she knew I had a new toy to play with, so knew what to expect. 
>> She also benefits, because her access to the net is more reliable, so
>> there's some self-interest in play as well. :-)
>>
> :-D

And everything worked great until I discovered it was running under too 
heavy of a system load to stream to the PS3.  Sorted, but that was 
annoying - means I can't gather the utilisation stats I wanted.

>> Probably later; I've got some movies to watch and Doctor Who should be
>> ready for me to watch in a couple hours.
>>
> Yeah routers for breakfast is over doing it. :-)

LOL

>>> If the men in white coats don't come for you soon I'll phone again.
>>> ;-)
>>
>> LOL; they may be looking for Laura Chappell - it's the sort of thing
>> she'd think was pretty geeky (you probably don't know who I'm talking
>> about, thinking about it - she founded the Protocol Analysis Institute
>> and Wireshark Univeristy; used to work for Novell, where she worked on
>> packet analysis tools.  One of the best presenters I've ever seen, and
>> when it comes to low-level network traffic analysis, she *is* without a
>> doubt the best in the industry).
>>
>>
> Waaa!!!
> 
> La la la la la.

That's what a lot of people say when she gets up to present. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 06/04/10 13:16, andrel wrote:
>> Comming back from a conference and subsequent stay in a monastery in
>> Greece only to find a discussion on firefighters intelligence and UK vs
>> US intelligence.
>> Lets combine these two: any test that shows US persons are on average
>> more intelligent than UK ones is inherently racist.
> 
> 	Well, no. It would be nationalistic.
> 

Wait, there is a difference? The media has been lying to me!


--
Yes, I am aware that this post should have asbestos armor.

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2010 4:17 AM, Sabrina Kilian wrote:

>> 	Well, no. It would be nationalistic.
>>
>
> Wait, there is a difference? The media has been lying to me!
>
>

It's their job ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2010 3:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:08:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Nope. ;-)
>>>
>> Yup!
>
> You're being awfully stubborn about this. ;-)
>

Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P



-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 08:48:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/06/2010 3:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:08:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Nope. ;-)
>>>>
>>> Yup!
>>
>> You're being awfully stubborn about this. ;-)
>>
>>
> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P

That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2010 5:14 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 08:48:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2010 3:45 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Jun 2010 22:08:24 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nope. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Yup!
>>>
>>> You're being awfully stubborn about this. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P
>
> That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)
>

Is it? I don't think so ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:39:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P
>>
>> That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)
>>
>>
> Is it? I don't think so ;-)

But you did say "Yup" did you not? ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2010 7:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:39:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P
>>>
>>> That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Is it? I don't think so ;-)
>
> But you did say "Yup" did you not? ;-)
>

Ja! But that was then.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 19:56:17 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 06/06/2010 7:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:39:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P
>>>>
>>>> That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Is it? I don't think so ;-)
>>
>> But you did say "Yup" did you not? ;-)
>>
>>
> Ja! But that was then.

But I see you being agreeable now, too.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 06/06/2010 8:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 19:56:17 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 06/06/2010 7:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 17:39:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Yup! I can't remember what I'm being stubborn about but yup. :-P
>>>>>
>>>>> That's awfully agreeable of you. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Is it? I don't think so ;-)
>>>
>>> But you did say "Yup" did you not? ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Ja! But that was then.
>
> But I see you being agreeable now, too.  :-)
>


Yes, yes, I am.

^ ^
O_O

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:49:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> Ja! But that was then.
>>
>> But I see you being agreeable now, too.  :-)
>>
> 
> Yes, yes, I am.
> 
> ^ ^
> O_O

What caused the sudden change of heart?

;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2010 5:32 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:49:05 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> Ja! But that was then.
>>>
>>> But I see you being agreeable now, too.  :-)
>>>
>>
>> Yes, yes, I am.
>>
>> ^ ^
>> O_O
>
> What caused the sudden change of heart?
>
> ;-)
>

You wore me down :-(

:-D

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:43:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> What caused the sudden change of heart?
>>
>> ;-)
>>
>>
> You wore me down :-(

Oxford Circus. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2010 3:23 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 07:43:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> What caused the sudden change of heart?
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> You wore me down :-(
>
> Oxford Circus. ;-)
>
> Jim

LOL you Bar Steward :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:31:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> You wore me down :-(
>>
>> Oxford Circus. ;-)
>>
>> Jim
> 
> LOL you Bar Steward :-P

Can't blame me for trying - after all, one's gotta warm up before the 
shows start airing again. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2010 7:42 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 18:31:41 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> You wore me down :-(
>>>
>>> Oxford Circus. ;-)
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> LOL you Bar Steward :-P
>
> Can't blame me for trying - after all, one's gotta warm up before the
> shows start airing again. :-)
>

No and true :-D

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:14:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Can't blame me for trying - after all, one's gotta warm up before the
>> shows start airing again. :-)
>>
>>
> No and true :-D

So then it's your move. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2010 8:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:14:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Can't blame me for trying - after all, one's gotta warm up before the
>>> shows start airing again. :-)
>>>
>>>
>> No and true :-D
>
> So then it's your move. ;-)
>

The Omega Point. o_O

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:32:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 07/06/2010 8:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:14:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Can't blame me for trying - after all, one's gotta warm up before the
>>>> shows start airing again. :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> No and true :-D
>>
>> So then it's your move. ;-)
>>
>>
> The Omega Point. o_O

That's an interesting gambit.  I'll take Milliways, then.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2010 9:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:32:53 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 07/06/2010 8:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 20:14:11 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Can't blame me for trying - after all, one's gotta warm up before the
>>>>> shows start airing again. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> No and true :-D
>>>
>>> So then it's your move. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> The Omega Point. o_O
>
> That's an interesting gambit.  I'll take Milliways, then.
>

But that is included in the Omega Point. So miss a turn.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:13:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> The Omega Point. o_O
>>
>> That's an interesting gambit.  I'll take Milliways, then.
>>
> But that is included in the Omega Point. So miss a turn.

Wrong universe.  But either way, it's your turn. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 07/06/2010 9:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:13:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> The Omega Point. o_O
>>>
>>> That's an interesting gambit.  I'll take Milliways, then.
>>>
>> But that is included in the Omega Point. So miss a turn.
>
> Wrong universe.  But either way, it's your turn. ;-)
>

Since I’m approaching the singularity you may have a long wait. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6/7/2010 3:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:


> That's an interesting gambit.  I'll take Milliways, then.
>
> Jim

It occurs to me that everything that happened in the book series could 
have simply been a consequence of the infinite improbability drive.

... And.. Too bad something like that doesn't (or won't) exist...
-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:21:54 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 6/7/2010 3:01 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>> That's an interesting gambit.  I'll take Milliways, then.
>>
>> Jim
> 
> It occurs to me that everything that happened in the book series could
> have simply been a consequence of the infinite improbability drive.

Very probably. ;-)

> ... And.. Too bad something like that doesn't (or won't) exist...

Oh, I don't know about that.  But I guess it remains to be seen. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:19:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 07/06/2010 9:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:13:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> The Omega Point. o_O
>>>>
>>>> That's an interesting gambit.  I'll take Milliways, then.
>>>>
>>> But that is included in the Omega Point. So miss a turn.
>>
>> Wrong universe.  But either way, it's your turn. ;-)
>>
>>
> Since I’m approaching the singularity you may have a long wait. ;-)

Awwww, that's no fun. <humph>

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 6/7/2010 6:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>> ... And.. Too bad something like that doesn't (or won't) exist...
>
> Oh, I don't know about that.  But I guess it remains to be seen. :-)

If such a think will exist, I want to go! I want to order a steak and 
haggle with it over which cut is best. ;)

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 08/06/2010 12:09 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:19:04 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 07/06/2010 9:13 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Jun 2010 21:13:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The Omega Point. o_O
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an interesting gambit.  I'll take Milliways, then.
>>>>>
>>>> But that is included in the Omega Point. So miss a turn.
>>>
>>> Wrong universe.  But either way, it's your turn. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>> Since I’m approaching the singularity you may have a long wait. ;-)
>
> Awwww, that's no fun.<humph>
>

<RedShift> Trrruuuuuueeeee </RedShift>

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:06:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Awwww, that's no fun.<humph>
>>
>>
> <RedShift> Trrruuuuuueeeee </RedShift>

*buzz*  Hesitation!

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:48:06 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 6/7/2010 6:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>>> ... And.. Too bad something like that doesn't (or won't) exist...
>>
>> Oh, I don't know about that.  But I guess it remains to be seen. :-)
> 
> If such a think will exist, I want to go! I want to order a steak and
> haggle with it over which cut is best. ;)

That sounds like a good idea to me.  Mmmmm, steak. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/06/2010 5:11 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:06:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Awwww, that's no fun.<humph>
>>>
>>>
>> <RedShift>  Trrruuuuuueeeee</RedShift>
>
> *buzz*  Hesitation!
>

LOL

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6/8/2010 11:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>
> That sounds like a good idea to me.  Mmmmm, steak. :-)
>

Especially steak that talks back ;) and offers its various cuts to you.

That was a great book series. Same about the movie. I've not heard the 
radio shows or seen TV shows. I need to sample those some time.

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 6/9/2010 8:16 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:

> Same about the movie

ach.. how one letter can totally blow the meaning of what you say ...

SHAME about the movie. I was not impressed with it.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:16:07 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 6/8/2010 11:11 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>> That sounds like a good idea to me.  Mmmmm, steak. :-)
>>
>>
> Especially steak that talks back ;) and offers its various cuts to you.

:-D

> That was a great book series. Same about the movie. I've not heard the
> radio shows or seen TV shows. I need to sample those some time.

The radio show is the original and what I prefer of all of them.  :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:24:26 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 6/9/2010 8:16 AM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> 
>> Same about the movie
> 
> ach.. how one letter can totally blow the meaning of what you say ...
> 
> SHAME about the movie. I was not impressed with it.

Neither was I, though I did like Stephen Fry as the book.  Martin Freeman 
was OK as Arthur, and Bill Nighy was OK as Slarti, but I thought the rest 
of the cast, overall, just didn't work.  Mos Def can act better than he 
did there, seemed like he was just reciting lines.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:26:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 09/06/2010 5:11 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:06:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> Awwww, that's no fun.<humph>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> <RedShift>  Trrruuuuuueeeee</RedShift>
>>
>> *buzz*  Hesitation!
>>
>>
> LOL

*buzz*  More Hesitation! ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

seems like I missed a lot of fun here... :)

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:16:07 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
> > That was a great book series. Same about the movie. I've not heard the
> > radio shows or seen TV shows. I need to sample those some time.
>
> The radio show is the original and what I prefer of all of them.  :-)

The radio show has impecable acting and is way too much fun.  But I still find
that much more of Adams ingenious parody, irony and many layers of interlocking
themes to be best served in the books... :)

many were let down by the last one for its abrupt and harsh ending, but it's one
of the best written...

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/2010 4:17 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:26:39 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 09/06/2010 5:11 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2010 21:06:00 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Awwww, that's no fun.<humph>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> <RedShift>   Trrruuuuuueeeee</RedShift>
>>>
>>> *buzz*  Hesitation!
>>>
>>>
>> LOL
>
> *buzz*  More Hesitation! ;-)
>

That version of *ME* has passed the event horizon. You will need to go 
to the Eschaton.

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6/9/2010 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>
> The radio show is the original and what I prefer of all of them.  :-)
>
> Jim

do you know if it is attainable on CD or as MP3's?

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/2010 3:12 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
> On 6/9/2010 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>>
>> The radio show is the original and what I prefer of all of them. :-)
>>
>> Jim
>
> do you know if it is attainable on CD or as MP3's?
>

If you look under enough rocks you will be able to find it. Oo ar! Me 
matee. ;-)

Or you could go to the BBC shop. http://tinyurl.com/35uc2rl


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 6/10/2010 9:42 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 10/06/2010 3:12 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> On 6/9/2010 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The radio show is the original and what I prefer of all of them. :-)
>>>
>>> Jim
>>
>> do you know if it is attainable on CD or as MP3's?
>>
>
> If you look under enough rocks you will be able to find it. Oo ar! Me
> matee. ;-)
>
> Or you could go to the BBC shop. http://tinyurl.com/35uc2rl
>

I suppose I could have googled it ;) but I was too busy being 
conversational to be bothered.


-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:36:09 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> *buzz*  More Hesitation! ;-)
>>
> That version of *ME* has passed the event horizon. You will need to go
> to the Eschaton.

It sounds like you're on the Escher Loop.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:12:17 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:

> On 6/9/2010 10:16 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
> 
>> The radio show is the original and what I prefer of all of them.  :-)
>>
>> Jim
> 
> do you know if it is attainable on CD or as MP3's?

It is on CD - I have all 5 series that way (the first two are the 
originals; the final 3 were done after Adams died).  You can also find 
MP3s from recordings from the radio on the 'net, I'm told (I didn't need 
to seek those out since I have the CDs).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 02:42:05 -0400, nemesis wrote:

> seems like I missed a lot of fun here... :)
> 
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Jun 2010 08:16:07 -0500, Mike Raiford wrote:
>> > That was a great book series. Same about the movie. I've not heard
>> > the radio shows or seen TV shows. I need to sample those some time.
>>
>> The radio show is the original and what I prefer of all of them.  :-)
> 
> The radio show has impecable acting and is way too much fun.  But I
> still find that much more of Adams ingenious parody, irony and many
> layers of interlocking themes to be best served in the books... :)

There's a certain degree of truth to that, because a lot of the subtext 
is not in the dialogue, but rather in the narration.  Some of it comes 
through in the radio series (because of the use of the book as the 
narrator), but some does get missed.

> many were let down by the last one for its abrupt and harsh ending, but
> it's one of the best written...

Yes, though in the 5th radio series, they did work around it - and from 
what I've read both of the production and from The Salmon of Doubt, Adams 
did intend to write another book that explained the characters' 
reappearance.  I think Maggs said that at least part of the idea he used 
to bring them back was Adams' own.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/2010 9:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:36:09 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> *buzz*  More Hesitation! ;-)
>>>
>> That version of *ME* has passed the event horizon. You will need to go
>> to the Eschaton.
>
> It sounds like you're on the Escher Loop.
>

Phew! Saved by the good doctor. After a dull trip lasting several 
subjective lifetimes, all I can say is “Mornington Crescent”

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 10/06/2010 6:15 PM, Mike Raiford wrote:
>>> do you know if it is attainable on CD or as MP3's?
>>>
>>
>> If you look under enough rocks you will be able to find it. Oo ar! Me
>> matee. ;-)
>>
>> Or you could go to the BBC shop. http://tinyurl.com/35uc2rl
>>
>
> I suppose I could have googled it ;) but I was too busy being
> conversational to be bothered.

And I thought that conversation had died. :-)

Well done that man. :-D

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:37:34 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 10/06/2010 9:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:36:09 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>> *buzz*  More Hesitation! ;-)
>>>>
>>> That version of *ME* has passed the event horizon. You will need to go
>>> to the Eschaton.
>>
>> It sounds like you're on the Escher Loop.
>>
>>
> Phew! Saved by the good doctor. After a dull trip lasting several
> subjective lifetimes, all I can say is “Mornington Crescent”

Aw!

And I had my next move worked out, even. :-/

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 11/06/2010 5:31 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:37:34 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>> On 10/06/2010 9:19 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 09:36:09 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>>
>>>>> *buzz*  More Hesitation! ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> That version of *ME* has passed the event horizon. You will need to go
>>>> to the Eschaton.
>>>
>>> It sounds like you're on the Escher Loop.
>>>
>>>
>> Phew! Saved by the good doctor. After a dull trip lasting several
>> subjective lifetimes, all I can say is “Mornington Crescent”
>
> Aw!
>
> And I had my next move worked out, even. :-/
>

Ah! Well. It just goes to show…

But after falling into a black hole and travelling halfway round the 
known universe then two and a half times round the multiverse, being 
turned inside out and back to front. Only to find I’m back where I 
started. You grudge me taking the shortest route?


-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephanie ;-)

Post a reply to this message

Haven't you two hijacked this thread enough already?

*hides before the wabbit season becomes Nicolas season*

Post a reply to this message

On 11/06/2010 11:20 PM, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Haven't you two hijacked this thread enough already?
>
> *hides before the wabbit season becomes Nicolas season*
>
Who started it?

Jim has every right to hijack his own thread if he wants and at least

Well actually I don't know what comes after "at least" But if I did I'd 
say it. So there :-P

Tol you, didn't I. ;-)

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 19:20:51 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:

> Haven't you two hijacked this thread enough already?

You may note that I *started* this thread.  ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message