Old news, I know.

But why did you do it Lucy?

On Sep 18, 11:30*am, Champ <n...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:27:21 +0100, stephen.pac...@gonemail.com wrote:
> >Old news, I know.
>
> >But why did you do it Lucy?
>
> <googles>
>
> Are you really posting about a cartoon character?

he was a cartoon character?

I thought he was talking about the (fictional) serialized epistolary
novelist from the FT.

--
d.

On Sep 18, 4:42*pm, Charlie <nos...@all.ta> wrote:
> On 18/09/2010 16:21, darsy wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 11:30 am, Champ<n...@champ.org.uk> *wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 08:27:21 +0100, stephen.pac...@gonemail.com wrote:
> >>> Old news, I know.
>
> >>> But why did you do it Lucy?
>
> >> <googles>
>
> >> Are you really posting about a cartoon character?
>
> > he was a cartoon character?
>
> > I thought he was talking about the (fictional) serialized epistolary
> > novelist from the FT.
>
> I'm 340% sure that your headspace is firmly in the identical
> integethical ballpark scenario with regard to that ongoing surmise.

<g>

--
d.

Charlie <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On 18/09/2010 08:27, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > Old news, I know.
> >
> > But why did you do it Lucy?
>
> I hoping for a miracle resurrection, along the lines that it was the old
> colleague (Graham?), who he took along, who died. A wonderful comic
> creation.

I think, unfortunately, the final reported words indicate it was the man
himself. RIP.

On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 17:59:29 +0100, Charlie <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 18/09/2010 17:27, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> Charlie<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 18/09/2010 08:27, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>>> Old news, I know.
>>>>
>>>> But why did you do it Lucy?
>>>
>>> I hoping for a miracle resurrection, along the lines that it was the old
>>> colleague (Graham?), who he took along, who died. A wonderful comic
>>> creation.
>>
>> I think, unfortunately, the final reported words indicate it was the man
>> himself. RIP.
>
>I agree that "ARRGGHHHHHHHH" appears, on the face of it, fairly
>terminal. Looking back, I see he says that "Graham has bottled out. But
>not yours truly". So, I agree that it's probably RIP. There again,
>remember both John Stonehouse and the couple who were going to set up
>home in Panama. Not to mention Sherlock Holmes, of course.
>
>Martin Lukes is such a compellingly repellent character that it would be
>a shame if we really have heard the last of him. Perhaps Lucy's just
>taking a breather.

This is great. I'm enjoying it so much more than if I had the
slightest clue, or interest, in what the **** they're talking about.