Ping Sofa Spud
Ian F.
Ian
--
The Laughing Gnome
Hilarious.
[Wipes eyes.]
You couldn't make it up.
Are you having a sleepover or is this a permanent thing?
aquachimp
wrote:
You use google groups right,
I ask because there's now a killfile option. I use it for spammers;
seems rather good, so I'm just wondering if anyone else here has given
it a go. http://www.penney.org/google-groups-killfile-342-released.html
which I read quite some time ago via
http://groups.google.com/group/is-something-broken/browse_thread/thre...
But back to telly. I guess no one here sees Castle. I mentioned it
some days ago but no reaction. Anyhow, there was something about the
programme which I mentioned which might interest you.
There's this couple ya see and they call the cops because their
adopted child has been abducted. But, it turns out they were home at
the time and the child is little more than a toddler, so how, wonder
the police, could she have been taken under the watchful eye of the
parents.
Turns out Mom is the main breadwinner and has to do a lot of hours,
work-wise, to make things work; So, hubby, who is incidentally
registered as the main child's "carer", being the thoughtful type
takes the kid out of the bedroom that morning so mom can get some shut-
eye. He then plonks her in front of the telly and goes into the next
room to "paint", which he seems unable to do without using to his I-
pod. Yet, not surprisingly from the shite he was producing, he doesn't
sell much. He's no more an "artist", than someone who cobbles a few
words together on paper or screen is a "writer";
Honestly, the parallels between him and you really stuck out.
Such was the volume, that as per usual, he had no idea what the child
was doing or needed and later in the story it's revealed that mom has
had to get out of bed frequently to attend to baby's crying. So, no
bother for someone to creep in and snatch the baby.
Turns out, that mom had asked Mr Freeloader to take on a little part
time job so she could maybe do less hours and start having a bit of
that life she's worked so dam hard for. But guess what....
Anyhow, the kidnapper eventually make contact and demand $750,000,
which, by and by is revealed to be the families exact net worth; dad
is really keen to pay to get baby back and he demands no police
involvement.
For a second there, he's looking a tad suspicious.
The cops note the exactness of the tally between worth and demand and
rightly conclude it's someone the family knows.
Mom's sister. And Mom was in on it too; See, she had wanted to ditch
Mr Freeloader, but would have lost custody of the kid, which her
monies had enabled the adoption, because hubby could point out that
she was hardly ever home to look after baby. As for hubby's
negligence, only something like the abduction would have proved that
with the right level of dramatics that a court would swallow;
So, the plan had been, get sis to nick kid. Get the family's net-worth
into the hands of the person who dam well worked for it (she didn't
see why he should get halve, I mean, for what?). Get rid of that
waste of space; hubby. Then later 'rescue' kid. have kid and get
custody.
As I say, just thought it might interest you for, er, obvious reasons.
The Laughing Gnome
wrote:
> On Nov 23, 10:54 pm, The Laughing Gnome <hauntedri...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 9:51 pm, "Ian F." <wowfabgro...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Welcome to UMTM 2.0!
>
> > > Ian
> > > --
>
> > Hilarious.
>
> > [Wipes eyes.]
>
> > You couldn't make it up.
>
> > Are you having a sleepover or is this a permanent thing?
>
> You use google groups right,
> I ask because there's now a killfile option. I use it for spammers;
> seems rather good, so I'm just wondering if anyone else here has given
> which I read quite some time ago viahttp://groups.google.com/group/is-something-broken/browse_thread/thre...
The only point of interest centres upon your curious obsession with
projection.
As I've told you before, you actually know very little about me and my
private life, and it suits me fine that your speculations are very
wide of the mark [though what relevance my private life has upon
issues appertaining to the discussion of UK TV media issues is one
known only to you and your own conscience].
The hypocrisy of an anonymous third party pestering me with bizarre
speculations about my private life while arguing that I am the one
prying into the lives of others is to transparent as to hardly require
comment. Tell us who you are, what you do for a living, and what
'evidence' you have to prove your wildly inaccurate hypothesis and at
least we can then debate the issue as adults. Until then, I suggest
you crawl back underneath your stone and nurse your wounded pride
until such time as you learn a little humility.
Having seen photos of Plowman, Houlden, Robinson, Hopeless et al I am
more than ever convinced that I've been wasting my time on flabby,
ugly social misfits who don't actually have a real life outside of the
internet. They are precisely the sort of people everybody avoids in
the workplace, radiating a curious aura of geekery, loneliness and
ugly personal hygiene. You, aquachimp, you speak and talk and walk
just like them.
The rake claims the moral low ground; the pious, the high moral; and
you, dear aquachimp, spewer of anonymous bile, claim usenet, the only
place where a fool can be king for a day.
aquachimp
I guess that must mean something to you.
>
> As I've told you before, you actually know very little about me
I'm not a zoologist, but I know an elephant when I see one.
But let's go with that knowing very little about you. You mean after
all you've told us? Well, that can only mean one thing..... if as a
result, in reality I still really only know a little about you, then
most of what you've been saying were lies. That would suggest you're a
liar. Which begs the question, how much more would anyone really need
to know about you?
>and my
> private life, and it suits me fine that your speculations are very
> wide of the mark [though what relevance my private life has upon
> issues appertaining to the discussion of UK TV media issues is one
> known only to you and your own conscience].
Er, you use this medium to go on and on and on about matters far
removed from stuff on telly.
>
> The hypocrisy
Hypocrite, ta, just the word I was looking for.
>of an anonymous third party pestering
"Pestering", gee, and I woz only trying to tip you off.
>me with bizarre
> speculations about my private life
Bizarre? Says the carer who seems, in practise, not inclined to be so
caring.
> while arguing that I am the one
> prying into the lives of others is to transparent as to hardly require
> comment.
Er, where exactly in that summary of that episode Castle did I say
anything even hinting in that direction?
>Tell us who you are, what you do for a living,
And what difference would that make exactly in the sense that you
claim to be open about your own details, yet clearly, I'm still
supposed to know only very little about you?
You've just demonstrated that there is absolutely no advantage to such
openness, but what you've kept hidden are the disadvantages when
dealing with, say, a nutter who fantasises about his own importance,
is a deluded liar and has no job to loose.
Come to think of it, what does "know" really mean? I mean, those
around you who are in regular face to face contact with you might well
be forgiven for thinking they "know" you, but obviously... they
don't.
>and what
> 'evidence' you have to prove your wildly inaccurate hypothesis and at
> least we can then debate the issue as adults.
Inaccurate? Listen up fool, we've all seen examples of your "writer's"
talents.
We've all read your claims to be a carer when evidentially you weren't
attending to the responsibilities.
> Until then, I suggest
> you crawl back underneath your stone and nurse your wounded pride
> until such time as you learn a little humility.
>
> Having seen photos of Plowman, Houlden, Robinson, Hopeless et al
Hold on a sec, what was it you said a bit further up..." ... I am the
one prying into the lives of others.
And you mentioned "transparent" also. Indeed.
>I am
> more than ever convinced that I've been wasting my time on flabby,
> ugly social misfits who don't actually have a real life outside of the
> internet.
No lives outside the internet? They got jobs you know. Of course you
knew, but , well, "job" blind-spot for you?
>They are precisely the sort of people everybody avoids in
> the workplace, radiating a curious aura of geekery, loneliness and
> ugly personal hygiene.
Ah, now I'm picking up on the "curious obsession with projection".
that was playing on your mind earlier.
>You, aquachimp, you speak and talk and walk
> just like them.
Na, I bet I've got a different accent. Very different.
>
> The rake claims the moral low ground; the pious, the high moral; and
> you, dear aquachimp, spewer of anonymous bile, claim usenet, the only
> place where a fool can be king for a day.
You flatter yourself. Anyone could whip your ass here; that wouldn't
make them king of anything; but a traffic cone warning about a
potential hazard on the other hand...