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

On 8/17/2016 4:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

>>>> 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! ;)
>

Oh! No you didn't. :)


>>> Where?  I don't see any squirrels!
>>>
>> <Lip smacking noise>  They must have gone.  </burp>
>
> Well, I hope it wasn't tartare.
>

They are vermin here, at least the grey ones are.
Doing the world a favour, actually.

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

Yes, that's the diagonal I was talking about.

>> Indeed it does. Ho hum.
>>
>> John's turn then?
>
> Yep!
>

He's coming. He did say that he would be here.

He said by the tree. (They look at the tree.) Do you see any others?

>>>>> 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.
>

Boggle! But everyone knowns that's Rule number one. OO


-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 17:56:19 +0100, Stephen wrote:

> On 8/17/2016 4:59 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 
>>>>> 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! ;)
>>
>>
> Oh! No you didn't. :)

Oh yes I did! :)

>> Well, I hope it wasn't tartare.
>>
>>
> They are vermin here, at least the grey ones are.
> Doing the world a favour, actually.

Yes, but hopefully your favour had better flavour. :)

>> For values of "diagonal" equal to "wandering in a generally diagonal
>> direction"?
>>
>>
> Yes, that's the diagonal I was talking about.

That is what I expected. :D

>>> Indeed it does. Ho hum.
>>>
>>> John's turn then?
>>
>> Yep!
>>
>>
> He's coming. He did say that he would be here.
> 
> He said by the tree. (They look at the tree.) Do you see any others?

Well, there's the one that has the squirrels in it.

>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>
> Boggle! But everyone knowns that's Rule number one. OO

No, Rule #1 is "never let suspects stay together".  Or alternatively, 
never screw over your partner. :)

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