On Mar 16, 9:49*am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT), darsy <dar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 15, 7:21*pm, Fr Jack <s...@m.com> wrote:
> >> I'll get my man to test it...
> >and he say "arrrrhhhh!!!!"
>
> Are you drunk this morning?

well,

a) I posted that at 9:40 yesterday &
b) I haven't really had much of a drink at all in in over 3 weeks now.

--
d.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Champ says...
>
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:34:12 -0700 (PDT), darsy <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 16, 9:49*am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT), darsy <dar...@gmail.com>
>
> >> >and he say "arrrrhhhh!!!!"
> >>
> >> Are you drunk this morning?
>
> >a) I posted that at 9:40 yesterday &
> >b) I haven't really had much of a drink at all in in over 3 weeks now.
>
> It obviously doesn't agree with you. There's a surreal quality to
> your posts in the last 24 hours.

DDD

(1)Dumbed down Darsy

On Mar 16, 11:00*am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:34:12 -0700 (PDT), darsy <dar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mar 16, 9:49*am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT), darsy <dar...@gmail.com>
> >> >and he say "arrrrhhhh!!!!"
>
> >> Are you drunk this morning?
> >a) I posted that at 9:40 yesterday &
> >b) I haven't really had much of a drink at all in in over 3 weeks now.
>
> It obviously doesn't agree with you. *There's a surreal quality to
> your posts in the last 24 hours.

you're forgetting the golden rule that stuff I post on here if for /
my/ amusement, not yours or anyone else's.

FWIW the post you're denigrating still amuses me, but if I took the
time to explain why, it'd be neither amusing or a good use of anyone's
awake-time.

--
d.

darsy wrote:

> FWIW the post you're denigrating still amuses me, but if I took the
> time to explain why, it'd be neither amusing or a good use of anyone's
> awake-time.

Well I got it, although I thought you were just channeling ogden.

--
Chris

On Mar 16, 12:21*pm, "CT" <m...@christrollen.co.uk> wrote:
> darsy wrote:
> > FWIW the post you're denigrating still amuses me, but if I took the
> > time to explain why, it'd be neither amusing or a good use of anyone's
> > awake-time.
>
> Well I got it, although I thought you were just channeling ogden.

well, yeah, he's definitely a (bad) influence on this one.

--
d.

darsy wrote:
> On Mar 16, 11:00 am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:34:12 -0700 (PDT), darsy <dar...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 16, 9:49 am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT), darsy <dar...@gmail.com>
>>>>> and he say "arrrrhhhh!!!!"
>>
>>>> Are you drunk this morning?
>>> a) I posted that at 9:40 yesterday &
>>> b) I haven't really had much of a drink at all in in over 3 weeks
>>> now.
>>
>> It obviously doesn't agree with you. There's a surreal quality to
>> your posts in the last 24 hours.
>
> you're forgetting the golden rule that stuff I post on here if for /
> my/ amusement, not yours or anyone else's.
>
> FWIW the post you're denigrating still amuses me, but if I took the
> time to explain why, it'd be neither amusing or a good use of anyone's
> awake-time.

Clearly you *will* be at odds with Champ then.

--
Hog

On Mar 16, 12:39*pm, "'Hog" <sm911S...@CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> darsy wrote:

> > you're forgetting the golden rule that stuff I post on here if for /
> > my/ amusement, not yours or anyone else's.

> Clearly you *will* be at odds with Champ then.

I'm generally happy with my lot, despite the rubbish info the quacks
have been feeding me over the past few months, but at least Champ's
got his happy satisfactory and non-confrontational relationship
situation to fall back on.

--
d.

darsy wrote:
> On Mar 16, 12:39 pm, "'Hog" <sm911S...@CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> darsy wrote:
>
>>> you're forgetting the golden rule that stuff I post on here if for /
>>> my/ amusement, not yours or anyone else's.
>
>> Clearly you *will* be at odds with Champ then.
>
> I'm generally happy with my lot, despite the rubbish info the quacks
> have been feeding me over the past few months, but at least Champ's
> got his happy satisfactory and non-confrontational relationship
> situation to fall back on.

I didn't think we were quite so settled^h^h^h^h^oh you mean F, yes I'm with
you now.

Mindewe he does have to cope with the Veggie thing.

--
Hog

On Mar 16, 1:15*pm, "'Hog" <sm911S...@CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> darsy wrote:
> > On Mar 16, 12:39 pm, "'Hog" <sm911S...@CHIPShotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> >> darsy wrote:
>
> >>> you're forgetting the golden rule that stuff I post on here if for /
> >>> my/ amusement, not yours or anyone else's.
>
> >> Clearly you *will* be at odds with Champ then.
>
> > I'm generally happy with my lot, despite the rubbish info the quacks
> > have been feeding me over the past few months, but at least Champ's
> > got his happy satisfactory and non-confrontational relationship
> > situation to fall back on.
>
> I didn't think we were quite so settled^h^h^h^h^oh you mean F, yes I'm with
> you now.

heh.

> Mindewe he does have to cope with the Veggie thing.

really? I thought he'd given up being a **** and shagging OPP years
ago.

--
d.

"Champ" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 05:14:58 -0700 (PDT), darsy <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>> >> >and he say "arrrrhhhh!!!!"
>>>
>>> >> Are you drunk this morning?
>>> >a) I posted that at 9:40 yesterday &
>>> >b) I haven't really had much of a drink at all in in over 3 weeks now.
>>>
>>> It obviously doesn't agree with you. There's a surreal quality to
>>> your posts in the last 24 hours.
>>
>>you're forgetting the golden rule that stuff I post on here if for /
>>my/ amusement, not yours or anyone else's.
>
> Yes, yes, I know that, and take the same pov. It's just that,
> generally, what you post amuses me.
>
>>FWIW the post you're denigrating still amuses me, but if I took the
>>time to explain why, it'd be neither amusing or a good use of anyone's
>>awake-time.
>
> Oh, I got it (although, as pointed out elsewhere, it was more Ogden
> than you) - it just seemed a bit surreal, for some reason. But it
> wasn't just about this post, it was more a general feeling from your
> recent output. And anyway, I'm not actually complaining. You can
> post strings of 1s and 0s if you like.

No he ****ing can't. This is a respectable, text-only newsgroup.