On 8/14/2016 10:55 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Aug 2016 09:16:40 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> So given that while I was in Huff, the game stopped, I'm going to go -
>>> in memory of this trip, my move is Union Station.  It may be in Denver,
>>> but under rule 627(b)(iv), it's allowed if you've been on a train in
>>> the previous 4 days that has broken down.  The rule states that you
>>> may, at your option, pick any station on the line that you were on when
>>> the train broke down.  Since Union Station is the terminus, that fits
>>> the criteria. :D
>>
>> Well, that's a turn up for the books. I can see that you were studying
>> in your free time.
>
> HA!  Free time would've been the time I should've been sleeping.  Oh, but
> I didn't sleep much, so I guess that was what I was doing.
>
> Er, I mean "well spotted, Stephen!" ;)
>

Oh! yes. I have my beady eyes on both of you. I smell the stink of 
collusion.

>> I'm heading out to the London Library to have a look at their copy of
>> the rules. I might even drop of at the mini-Povcon John has organised.
>> There we will endeavour to keep a straight face as we drink to your
>> trip.
>
> I'm going to bet that that endeavour will fail. :)
>

Indeed not.
I brought the subject up and John's eyes filmed over. His outline 
wavered and thinned. Then he shuddered and was back. It would only have 
ended up as my nightmare journey was worse than your nightmare journey. 
So we took it as said.

>> So, hastening back to the designated locality. Leicester Square.
>
> Good choice, but haven't we already been there?
>

Yes, so?

>> BTW other than that. Did the trip go well? ;)
>
> It did, actually.  :)

Good.

> Next Sunday, I have another trip I'm taking (3
> days in Toronto for LinuxCon - not work-related).  I hope that one goes
> smoother.
>

I actively dislike travelling now. Especially if it involves airports. :(

Enjoy your LinuxCon :)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 26.07.2016 um 21:38 schrieb Doctor John:
> A couple of weeks ago, Stephen mentioned that he was fairly certain that
> I held the record for being the OP of the longest thread on this
> newsgroup. I begged to differ but the thought stuck in my mind and I was
> finally forced to check the stats.

So... how's your record-breaking attempt doing?

Post a reply to this message

On 8/15/2016 11:50 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 26.07.2016 um 21:38 schrieb Doctor John:
>> A couple of weeks ago, Stephen mentioned that he was fairly certain that
>> I held the record for being the OP of the longest thread on this
>> newsgroup. I begged to differ but the thought stuck in my mind and I was
>> finally forced to check the stats.
>
> So... how's your record-breaking attempt doing?
>

All the better for you asking, thank you.

It looks like we are pacing ourselves.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.08.2016 um 14:52 schrieb Stephen:
> On 8/15/2016 11:50 AM, clipka wrote:
>> Am 26.07.2016 um 21:38 schrieb Doctor John:
>>> A couple of weeks ago, Stephen mentioned that he was fairly certain that
>>> I held the record for being the OP of the longest thread on this
>>> newsgroup. I begged to differ but the thought stuck in my mind and I was
>>> finally forced to check the stats.
>>
>> So... how's your record-breaking attempt doing?
>>
> 
> All the better for you asking, thank you.

I thought you'd appreciate it ;)

Post a reply to this message

On 8/15/2016 2:16 PM, clipka wrote:
> Am 15.08.2016 um 14:52 schrieb Stephen:
>> On 8/15/2016 11:50 AM, clipka wrote:
>>> Am 26.07.2016 um 21:38 schrieb Doctor John:
>>>> A couple of weeks ago, Stephen mentioned that he was fairly certain that
>>>> I held the record for being the OP of the longest thread on this
>>>> newsgroup. I begged to differ but the thought stuck in my mind and I was
>>>> finally forced to check the stats.
>>>
>>> So... how's your record-breaking attempt doing?
>>>
>>
>> All the better for you asking, thank you.
>
> I thought you'd appreciate it ;)
>

I do and I am sure that I can speak for the others. Because this game is 
played not only here but all over the world.

Thank you from the heart of my
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:42:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>> Er, I mean "well spotted, Stephen!" ;)
>>
>>
> Oh! yes. I have my beady eyes on both of you. I smell the stink of
> collusion.

Us?  Nah, we wouldn't do that. :)

>>> I'm heading out to the London Library to have a look at their copy of
>>> the rules. I might even drop of at the mini-Povcon John has organised.
>>> There we will endeavour to keep a straight face as we drink to your
>>> trip.
>>
>> I'm going to bet that that endeavour will fail. :)
>>
>>
> Indeed not.
> I brought the subject up and John's eyes filmed over. His outline
> wavered and thinned. Then he shuddered and was back. It would only have
> ended up as my nightmare journey was worse than your nightmare journey.
> So we took it as said.

LOL, that's about how I imagined it would go.


> 
>>> So, hastening back to the designated locality. Leicester Square.
>>
>> Good choice, but haven't we already been there?
>>
>>
> Yes, so?

Under rule 321 in the *standard* rules, loops that don't involve Heathrow 
Terminal 5 are generally discouraged unless you've been in nip.

Oh, wait, you were at the pub.  Nevermind.

So it's John's go then.

>> Next Sunday, I have another trip I'm taking (3 days in Toronto for
>> LinuxCon - not work-related).  I hope that one goes smoother.
>>
>>
> I actively dislike travelling now. Especially if it involves airports.
> :(
> 
> Enjoy your LinuxCon :)

I shall.  Oddly enough, one of the other people in the advisory board 
isn't making the trip - he lives about 20 miles away from me, and he's 
actively avoiding travel, so he opted out.

So we're going to have a drink when I return. :)

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 8/16/2016 12:41 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:42:46 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>> Er, I mean "well spotted, Stephen!" ;)
>>>
>>>
>> Oh! yes. I have my beady eyes on both of you. I smell the stink of
>> collusion.
>
> Us?  Nah, we wouldn't do that. :)
>

Oh! Yes! you would. ;)


>>>
>>>
>> Indeed not.
>> I brought the subject up and John's eyes filmed over. His outline
>> wavered and thinned. Then he shuddered and was back. It would only have
>> ended up as my nightmare journey was worse than your nightmare journey.
>> So we took it as said.
>
> LOL, that's about how I imagined it would go.
>
>

I know, as soon as I start thinking of some of my horrors. Some part of 
my brain interrupts the train of thought. Squirrels! :)


>>
>>>> So, hastening back to the designated locality. Leicester Square.
>>>
>>> Good choice, but haven't we already been there?
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, so?
>
> Under rule 321 in the *standard* rules, loops that don't involve Heathrow
> Terminal 5 are generally discouraged unless you've been in nip.
>
> Oh, wait, you were at the pub.  Nevermind.

Right! And there was more than one nip involved. :)

>
> So it's John's go then.
>

Whenever!
I'm starting to think about invoking Lord Kelvin's 1871, variation. And 
put him in Huff automatically whenever the second differential of 
replies, falls below 0·92.




>>
>> Enjoy your LinuxCon :)
>
> I shall.  Oddly enough, one of the other people in the advisory board
> isn't making the trip - he lives about 20 miles away from me, and he's
> actively avoiding travel, so he opted out.
>

I sympathise.

> So we're going to have a drink when I return. :)
>

Rule #2 :)


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:01:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:

>>> Oh! yes. I have my beady eyes on both of you. I smell the stink of
>>> collusion.
>>
>> Us?  Nah, we wouldn't do that. :)
>>
>>
> Oh! Yes! you would. ;)

Damn, I thought you might fall for that.  Not a huge chance, but a slight 
one.

>> LOL, that's about how I imagined it would go.
>>
> I know, as soon as I start thinking of some of my horrors. Some part of
> my brain interrupts the train of thought. Squirrels! :)

Where?  I don't see any squirrels!

>>>>> So, hastening back to the designated locality. Leicester Square.
>>>>
>>>> Good choice, but haven't we already been there?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, so?
>>
>> Under rule 321 in the *standard* rules, loops that don't involve
>> Heathrow Terminal 5 are generally discouraged unless you've been in
>> nip.
>>
>> Oh, wait, you were at the pub.  Nevermind.
> 
> Right! And there was more than one nip involved. :)

Indeed, I suspected that was the case as well.  The path wasn't strictly 
diagonal, but it was roughly in that direction - that was the giveaway.

>> So it's John's go then.
>>
>>
> Whenever!
> I'm starting to think about invoking Lord Kelvin's 1871, variation. And
> put him in Huff automatically whenever the second differential of
> replies, falls below 0·92.

That depends a lot on the third differential, I'd think.

>>> Enjoy your LinuxCon :)
>>
>> I shall.  Oddly enough, one of the other people in the advisory board
>> isn't making the trip - he lives about 20 miles away from me, and he's
>> actively avoiding travel, so he opted out.
>>
>>
> I sympathise.

After my trip last week, I do as well. :)

>> So we're going to have a drink when I return. :)
>>
>>
> Rule #2 :)

Always wear gloves at a crime scene?

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 8/16/2016 8:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:01:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>
>>>> Oh! yes. I have my beady eyes on both of you. I smell the stink of
>>>> collusion.
>>>
>>> Us?  Nah, we wouldn't do that. :)
>>>
>>>
>> Oh! Yes! you would. ;)
>
> Damn, I thought you might fall for that.  Not a huge chance, but a slight
> one.
>

Oh! No you didn't. ;)


>>> LOL, that's about how I imagined it would go.
>>>
>> I know, as soon as I start thinking of some of my horrors. Some part of
>> my brain interrupts the train of thought. Squirrels! :)
>
> Where?  I don't see any squirrels!
>

<Lip smacking noise>  They must have gone.  </burp>



>>
>> Right! And there was more than one nip involved. :)
>
> Indeed, I suspected that was the case as well.  The path wasn't strictly
> diagonal, but it was roughly in that direction - that was the giveaway.
>

After a couple of John's "Gentleman's measures". Everything's on the 
diagonal.


>>> So it's John's go then.
>>>
>>>
>> Whenever!
>> I'm starting to think about invoking Lord Kelvin's 1871, variation. And
>> put him in Huff automatically whenever the second differential of
>> replies, falls below 0·92.
>
> That depends a lot on the third differential, I'd think.
>

Indeed it does. Ho hum.

John's turn then?


>>>
>> I sympathise.
>
> After my trip last week, I do as well. :)
>

LOL

>>> So we're going to have a drink when I return. :)
>>>
>>>
>> Rule #2 :)
>
> Always wear gloves at a crime scene?
>

No, that is the 17th amendment to Rule #1. Don't get caught.


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 21:03:55 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 8/16/2016 8:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Aug 2016 07:01:14 +0100, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>>>> Oh! yes. I have my beady eyes on both of you. I smell the stink of
>>>>> collusion.
>>>>
>>>> Us?  Nah, we wouldn't do that. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Oh! Yes! you would. ;)
>>
>> Damn, I thought you might fall for that.  Not a huge chance, but a
>> slight one.
>>
>>
> Oh! No you didn't. ;)

Oh yes I did! ;)

>> Where?  I don't see any squirrels!
>>
> <Lip smacking noise>  They must have gone.  </burp>

Well, I hope it wasn't tartare.

>>> Right! And there was more than one nip involved. :)
>>
>> Indeed, I suspected that was the case as well.  The path wasn't
>> strictly diagonal, but it was roughly in that direction - that was the
>> giveaway.
>>
>>
> After a couple of John's "Gentleman's measures". Everything's on the
> diagonal.

For values of "diagonal" equal to "wandering in a generally diagonal 
direction"?

>>>> So it's John's go then.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Whenever!
>>> I'm starting to think about invoking Lord Kelvin's 1871, variation.
>>> And put him in Huff automatically whenever the second differential of
>>> replies, falls below 0·92.
>>
>> That depends a lot on the third differential, I'd think.
>>
>>
> Indeed it does. Ho hum.
> 
> John's turn then?

Yep!

>>>> So we're going to have a drink when I return. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Rule #2 :)
>>
>> Always wear gloves at a crime scene?
>>
>>
> No, that is the 17th amendment to Rule #1. Don't get caught.

Oh, no, that's not a rule, but it should be.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message