Words which don't do what they say they do

[Lieutenant Scott]

1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall over when nothing is touching it, etc.

2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?

3) [continue here]

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Polynesia -- memory loss in parrots.

[Duggy]

On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall over when nothing is touching it, etc.

Huh? An inanimate object doesn't move.

> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?

Easily

> 3) [continue here]

You didn't give a reason why "Continue here" didn't make sense.

===
= DUG.
===

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:34:12 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>
> Huh? An inanimate object doesn't move.

Tell that to my toe next time it gets stubbed by an object which I did NOT leave in that position!

Or explain why something will jump off a shelf about 4 hours after I placed it there.

>> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?
>
> Easily

You are very illogical. If I am hungry and I eat a bit of food, I am slightly LESS hungry.

>> 3) [continue here]
>
> You didn't give a reason why "Continue here" didn't make sense.

ROTFPMSL!

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Take notice: when this sign is under water, this road is impassable.

[Martin C.]

Pulchritude

[Odysseus]

In article <op.wbusa6bbytk5n5@i7-940>, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:34:12 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

<snip>

> >> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?
> >
> > Easily
>
> You are very illogical. If I am hungry and I eat a bit of food, I am
> slightly LESS hungry.

Appetite and hunger are not quite the same thing, and for most people
neither occurs in a simple inverse proportion to the quantity of food in
the belly.

--
Odysseus

[Duggy]

On Mar 28, 9:46 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:34:12 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall over when nothing is touching it, etc.
> > Huh?  An inanimate object doesn't move.
> Tell that to my toe next time it gets stubbed by an object which I did NOT leave in that position!

Ghosts? That's your answer?

> Or explain why something will jump off a shelf about 4 hours after I placed it there.

If it is jumping of your shelf it isn't inanimate.

> >> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?
> > Easily

> You are very illogical.  If I am hungry and I eat a bit of food, I am slightly LESS
> hungry.

Hungry <> appetite.

===
= DUG.
===

[Lieutenant Scott]

If I am hungry, I also have an appetite. They go together.

If I place a small amount of food in my belly, it partially satisfies this, and I am a bit less hungry and have a bit less appetite.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Why do sailors have tattoos on their backs?
So their shipmates will have something to read.

[Don Phillipson]

"Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3e0d9c6c-c3b2-4996...@o3g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...

On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
> over when nothing is touching it, etc.

Huh? An inanimate object doesn't move.

Alarm clocks seem to do so, and some more things when you think a bit.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:27:18 +0100, Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>
>> In article <op.wbusa6bbytk5n5@i7-940>, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:34:12 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> >> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?
>>> >
>>> > Easily
>>>
>>> You are very illogical. If I am hungry and I eat a bit of food, I am
>>> slightly LESS hungry.
>>
>> Appetite and hunger are not quite the same thing, and for most people
>> neither occurs in a simple inverse proportion to the quantity of food in
>> the belly.
>
> If I am hungry, I also have an appetite. They go together.

Do they? Universally, always, inseparably? I don't think so.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:15:30 +0100, Don Phillipson <e9...@spamblock.ncf.ca> wrote:

> "Duggy" <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3e0d9c6c-c3b2-4996...@o3g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
>> over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>
> Huh? An inanimate object doesn't move.
>
> Alarm clocks seem to do so, and some more things when you think a bit.

They aren't MEANT to move.....

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

"There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky."
- From an old carrier sailor

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:39:14 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:27:18 +0100, Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <op.wbusa6bbytk5n5@i7-940>, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:34:12 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> >> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?
>>>> >
>>>> > Easily
>>>>
>>>> You are very illogical. If I am hungry and I eat a bit of food, I am
>>>> slightly LESS hungry.
>>>
>>> Appetite and hunger are not quite the same thing, and for most people
>>> neither occurs in a simple inverse proportion to the quantity of food in
>>> the belly.
>>
>> If I am hungry, I also have an appetite. They go together.
>
> Do they? Universally, always, inseparably? I don't think so.

I do. Give me an example of when they don't.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:39:14 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:27:18 +0100, Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <op.wbusa6bbytk5n5@i7-940>, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:34:12 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> > On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> >> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Easily
>>>>>
>>>>> You are very illogical. If I am hungry and I eat a bit of food, I am
>>>>> slightly LESS hungry.
>>>>
>>>> Appetite and hunger are not quite the same thing, and for most people
>>>> neither occurs in a simple inverse proportion to the quantity of food in
>>>> the belly.
>>>
>>> If I am hungry, I also have an appetite. They go together.
>>
>> Do they? Universally, always, inseparably? I don't think so.
>
> I do. Give me an example of when they don't.

On the one hand, I'm essentially never hungry when I eat.

On he other hand, if you're hungry enough, you've probably suppressed it
a LOT, and a small bit of food will often break the hunger free.

[Bill McCray]

On 3/28/2012 12:15 PM, Don Phillipson wrote:
> "Duggy"<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3e0d9c6c-c3b2-4996...@o3g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott"<n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
>> over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>
> Huh? An inanimate object doesn't move.

Are you kidding? Almost all inanimate objects are capable of moving;
they just aren't capable of choosing to move or of controlling their
movement. An automobile is inanimate, a baseball (cricket ball) is
inanimate; etc. They move when a force is applied to them and continue
to move until an opposing force is applied to them (Sir Isaac Newton
said so).

Bill in Kentucky

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:49:39 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:39:14 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:27:18 +0100, Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <op.wbusa6bbytk5n5@i7-940>, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>

>>>>>
>>>>> Appetite and hunger are not quite the same thing, and for most people
>>>>> neither occurs in a simple inverse proportion to the quantity of food in
>>>>> the belly.
>>>>
>>>> If I am hungry, I also have an appetite. They go together.
>>>
>>> Do they? Universally, always, inseparably? I don't think so.
>>
>> I do. Give me an example of when they don't.
>
> On the one hand, I'm essentially never hungry when I eat.

You mean just before you eat? Then why do you eat?

> On he other hand, if you're hungry enough, you've probably suppressed it
> a LOT, and a small bit of food will often break the hunger free.

What a strange thing to happen. If I am able to suppress my hunger, it stays suppressed. And a bit of food will help me suppress it. It's like holding your breath, and taking a small gasp of air.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

What should you do if a girl sits on your hand?
Try to get her off.

[Jerry Avins]

On 3/28/2012 12:15 PM, Don Phillipson wrote:

> "Duggy"<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3e0d9c6c-c3b2-4996...@o3g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott"<n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
>> over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>
> Huh? An inanimate object doesn't move.

Before Murphy's Law, there was IPOIO, the innate perversity of inanimate
objects. Inanimate objects move when nobody is looking.

> Alarm clocks seem to do so, and some more things when you think a bit.

Well yes, turntables and cars, for two.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

[Jerry Avins]

On 3/27/2012 11:32 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
> over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>
> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?
>
> 3) [continue here]

Even worse: words which are their own antonyms, such as "cleave".

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.

ￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜￜ

[Patok]

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:49:39 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:

>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:39:14 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:

>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:27:18 +0100, Odysseus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Appetite and hunger are not quite the same thing, and for most people
>>>>>> neither occurs in a simple inverse proportion to the quantity of
>>>>>> food in
>>>>>> the belly.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I am hungry, I also have an appetite. They go together.
>>>>
>>>> Do they? Universally, always, inseparably? I don't think so.
>>>
>>> I do. Give me an example of when they don't.
>>
>> On the one hand, I'm essentially never hungry when I eat.
>
> You mean just before you eat? Then why do you eat?
>
>> On he other hand, if you're hungry enough, you've probably suppressed it
>> a LOT, and a small bit of food will often break the hunger free.
>
> What a strange thing to happen. If I am able to suppress my hunger, it
> stays suppressed. And a bit of food will help me suppress it. It's
> like holding your breath, and taking a small gasp of air.

What a strange thing to say. Are you an animal? Only they eat only when
they're hungry. Humans, OTOH, sometimes eat not because they're hungry, but
because it's mealtime. And the appetizers they have at the beginning of the
meal, open up their appetites, and they eat the rest of the meal with gusto.

"L'appetit vient en mangeant."

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

[Duggy]

On Mar 29, 6:17 am, Bill McCray <billmcc...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 3/28/2012 12:15 PM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>

> > "Duggy"<Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au>  wrote in message

> >news:3e0d9c6c-c3b2-4996...@o3g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott"<n...@spam.com>  wrote:
> >> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
> >> over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>
> > Huh?  An inanimate object doesn't move.
>
> Are you kidding?  Almost all inanimate objects are capable of moving;

Capable of moving isn't moving.

I'm *capable* of making a sensible post, but I'm not a sensible
poster.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Mar 29, 2:15 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...@SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
> "Duggy" <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message

>
> news:3e0d9c6c-c3b2-4996...@o3g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
> > over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>
> Huh?  An inanimate object doesn't move.
>
> Alarm clocks seem to do so, and some more things when you think a bit.

The entire universe moves.

===
= DUG.
===

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:49:39 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:39:14 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:27:18 +0100, Odysseus <odysseu...@yahoo-dot.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <op.wbusa6bbytk5n5@i7-940>, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Appetite and hunger are not quite the same thing, and for most people
>>>>>> neither occurs in a simple inverse proportion to the quantity of food in
>>>>>> the belly.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I am hungry, I also have an appetite. They go together.
>>>>
>>>> Do they? Universally, always, inseparably? I don't think so.
>>>
>>> I do. Give me an example of when they don't.
>>
>> On the one hand, I'm essentially never hungry when I eat.
>
> You mean just before you eat? Then why do you eat?

Because it's time for the next meal. And I like eating. And if I let
it go too long, I eventually start getting light-headed.

>> On he other hand, if you're hungry enough, you've probably suppressed it
>> a LOT, and a small bit of food will often break the hunger free.
>
> What a strange thing to happen. If I am able to suppress my hunger, it stays suppressed. And a bit of food will help me suppress it. It's like holding your breath, and taking a small gasp of air.

Yes, makes the craving worse for most people.

[Duggy]

On Mar 29, 12:18 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> If I am hungry, I also have an appetite.  They go together.

No always. I've been sick, unable to eat, no appetite but hungry.

> If I place a small amount of food in my belly, it partially satisfies this, and I am a bit less hungry and have a bit less appetite.

I've been not hungry but tried some cake and it's whet my appetite for
more cake.

===
= DUG.
===

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:50:01 +0100, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> On 3/28/2012 12:15 PM, Don Phillipson wrote:
>> "Duggy"<Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote in message
>> news:3e0d9c6c-c3b2-4996...@o3g2000pbt.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott"<n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
>>> over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>>
>> Huh? An inanimate object doesn't move.
>
> Before Murphy's Law, there was IPOIO, the innate perversity of inanimate
> objects. Inanimate objects move when nobody is looking.

[titter] I've added that to my sigs list. Now at 999. Next one gets a prize.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Earth is 98% full, please delete anyone you can.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:51:32 +0100, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> On 3/27/2012 11:32 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
>> over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>>
>> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?
>>
>> 3) [continue here]
>
> Even worse: words which are their own antonyms, such as "cleave".

You can cleave something all day and never achieve a thing :-)

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I eat when I need to eat. I see no point is eating at a specific time, unless it's out of convenience with others I'm with. For example if I know I'll be hungry soon as I haven't eaten in a while, while we're passing a pub, why not get it out of the way.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

You can get by on good looks and charm for about fifteen minutes.
After that, you'd better have a big dick or nice tits.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:37:56 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:49:39 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:39:14 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>>

>>

>>

>>>>>
>>>>> Do they? Universally, always, inseparably? I don't think so.
>>>>
>>>> I do. Give me an example of when they don't.
>>>
>>> On the one hand, I'm essentially never hungry when I eat.
>>
>> You mean just before you eat? Then why do you eat?
>
> Because it's time for the next meal. And I like eating. And if I let
> it go too long, I eventually start getting light-headed.

I'd have to ignore hunger for a long time to get light headed.

>>> On he other hand, if you're hungry enough, you've probably suppressed it
>>> a LOT, and a small bit of food will often break the hunger free.
>>
>> What a strange thing to happen. If I am able to suppress my hunger, it stays suppressed. And a bit of food will help me suppress it. It's like holding your breath, and taking a small gasp of air.
>
> Yes, makes the craving worse for most people.

How odd.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

What's the difference between spit and swallow?
Forty pounds of pressure on the back of her head.

[Patok]

Lieutenant Scott wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:55:18 +0100, Patok wrote:
>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>
>> What a strange thing to say. Are you an animal? Only they eat only
>> when
>> they're hungry. Humans, OTOH, sometimes eat not because they're
>> hungry, but
>> because it's mealtime. And the appetizers they have at the beginning
>> of the
>> meal, open up their appetites, and they eat the rest of the meal with
>> gusto.
>>
>> "L'appetit vient en mangeant."
>
> I eat when I need to eat. I see no point is eating at a specific time,
> unless it's out of convenience with others I'm with. For example if I
> know I'll be hungry soon as I haven't eaten in a while, while we're
> passing a pub, why not get it out of the way.

This is so sad.

[Duggy]

On Mar 29, 10:52 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> I eat when I need to eat.  I see no point is eating at a specific time, unless it's out of convenience with others I'm with.  For example if I know I'll be hungry soon as I haven't eaten in a while, while we're passing a pub, why not get it out of the way.

Wow? Really?

I'm sorry to hear that.

===
= DUG.
===

[Tom P]

On 03/27/2012 05:32 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
> over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>
> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?
>
> 3) [continue here]
>

Conclusion - as in public speaking -
"in conclusion, I would like to ...."

[Lieutenant Scott]

I always thought conclusion was where you start reading.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

We were supposed to have flying cars in the 21st century.
The Internet is cool, but I'd rather have a flying car.

[Bill McCray]

How often do you hear that ("I would like to ...")? How about "I want
to welcome you to ..." or "I want to thank you for ..."? Why is it that
we say we would like to or want to rather than just doing it? Saying
you want to thank someone isn't thanking them, just expressing a desire
to do so. So say "In conclusion, ...", "I welcome you to ...", or "I
thank you for ...".

Bill in Kentucky

[Lieutenant Scott]

Also annoying is "Can I ask you a question?"
I usually say, "Yes, but you've just used up your 1 per day allowance, come back tomorrow."
Most people don't get it.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Bills travel through the mail at twice the speed of cheques.

[Bill McCray]

I like that, but I'm not surprised that most don't understand.

My usual response is "You just did." One that got this response said
"Okay, how about another?" I said "You just did." He said "Darn, how
about two more?" I said "Okay."

Bill in Kentucky

[Jerry Avins]

"Good ladies evening and gentlemen of the audio radiance ..."

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Lieutenant Scott]

At least that shows he's learning, if a little slowly.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A foursome of ladies was standing on a tee when a streaker ran across the fairway in front of them. One lady asks, "Is that Dick Green?"
Another replied, "No, I think it's just the reflection off the grass."

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:37:56 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:49:39 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:39:14 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do they? Universally, always, inseparably? I don't think so.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do. Give me an example of when they don't.
>>>>
>>>> On the one hand, I'm essentially never hungry when I eat.
>>>
>>> You mean just before you eat? Then why do you eat?
>>
>> Because it's time for the next meal. And I like eating. And if I let
>> it go too long, I eventually start getting light-headed.
>
> I'd have to ignore hunger for a long time to get light headed.

Almost always I have to miss two meals, so basically a whole day. But
as I hope you know, people vary a LOT in their blood-sugar regulation.

>>>> On he other hand, if you're hungry enough, you've probably suppressed it
>>>> a LOT, and a small bit of food will often break the hunger free.
>>>
>>> What a strange thing to happen. If I am able to suppress my hunger, it stays suppressed. And a bit of food will help me suppress it. It's like holding your breath, and taking a small gasp of air.
>>
>> Yes, makes the craving worse for most people.
>
> How odd.

Yeah, that's how I feel about getting hungry in time for each meal.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:59:39 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:37:56 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 20:49:39 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>>

>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>>
>>>>> On the one hand, I'm essentially never hungry when I eat.
>>>>
>>>> You mean just before you eat? Then why do you eat?
>>>
>>> Because it's time for the next meal. And I like eating. And if I let
>>> it go too long, I eventually start getting light-headed.
>>
>> I'd have to ignore hunger for a long time to get light headed.
>
> Almost always I have to miss two meals, so basically a whole day. But
> as I hope you know, people vary a LOT in their blood-sugar regulation.
>
>>>>> On he other hand, if you're hungry enough, you've probably suppressed it
>>>>> a LOT, and a small bit of food will often break the hunger free.
>>>>
>>>> What a strange thing to happen. If I am able to suppress my hunger, it stays suppressed. And a bit of food will help me suppress it. It's like holding your breath, and taking a small gasp of air.
>>>
>>> Yes, makes the craving worse for most people.
>>
>> How odd.
>
> Yeah, that's how I feel about getting hungry in time for each meal.

I don't book meals for certain times. If I'm not hungry I'll cook later.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

He was so unlucky . . .
Last week, his inflatable doll ran off with his airbag.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:12:05 +0100, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:55:18 +0100, Patok wrote:
>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>
>>> What a strange thing to say. Are you an animal? Only they eat only
>>> when
>>> they're hungry. Humans, OTOH, sometimes eat not because they're
>>> hungry, but
>>> because it's mealtime. And the appetizers they have at the beginning
>>> of the
>>> meal, open up their appetites, and they eat the rest of the meal with
>>> gusto.
>>>
>>> "L'appetit vient en mangeant."
>>
>> I eat when I need to eat. I see no point is eating at a specific time,
>> unless it's out of convenience with others I'm with. For example if I
>> know I'll be hungry soon as I haven't eaten in a while, while we're
>> passing a pub, why not get it out of the way.
>
> This is so sad.

Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating. Laurel and Hardy had it right, little pills to cure it.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

You can listen to thunder after lightning to tell how close you came to getting hit. If you don't hear it never mind.

[Patok]

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:12:05 +0100, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>
>>> I eat when I need to eat. I see no point is eating at a specific time,
>>> unless it's out of convenience with others I'm with. For example if I
>>> know I'll be hungry soon as I haven't eaten in a while, while we're
>>> passing a pub, why not get it out of the way.
>>
>> This is so sad.
>
> Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating. Laurel and
> Hardy had it right, little pills to cure it.

Yes, exactly. Very sad. Constipated asshole Socrates' dictum come to life.

ObAEU - how does one spell "of Socrates"? Is "Socrates'" correct, or
"Socrates's"? Which one is the plural?

[Tronscend]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> skrev i melding
news:op.wbusa6bbytk5n5@i7-940...
> On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:34:12 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

>
>> On Mar 28, 1:32 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> 1) Inanimate - an inanimate object always manages to trip you up, fall
>>> over when nothing is touching it, etc.
>>

>> Huh? An inanimate object doesn't move.
>

> Tell that to my toe next time it gets stubbed by an object which I did NOT
> leave in that position!
>
> Or explain why something will jump off a shelf about 4 hours after I
> placed it there.

>
>>> 2) Appetiser - how can eating food possibly give you MORE appetite?
>>

>> Easily
>
> You are very illogical. If I am hungry and I eat a bit of food, I am
> slightly LESS hungry.


Experiencing hunger is correlated with the acidity in the stomach.
A slightly acidic drink - an aperitif, an "opener" - will, while adding to
the stomach content, yet increase the acidity, making hunger more acute. The
same goes for any appetizer with the same acidulating effect; iow, not all
apetizers will do it - half a cup of butter won't - but some will (like most
things which come in a vinaigrette dressing).

T

[Lieutenant Scott]

You must go to cleverer restaurants than me, I'm normally given an appetizer which is food (non acidic presumably). This absorbs some acid in the stomach and makes me less hungry.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Capitalism: Man exploiting man.
Socialism: The reverse.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 03:01:12 +0100, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:12:05 +0100, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> I eat when I need to eat. I see no point is eating at a specific time,
>>>> unless it's out of convenience with others I'm with. For example if I
>>>> know I'll be hungry soon as I haven't eaten in a while, while we're
>>>> passing a pub, why not get it out of the way.
>>>
>>> This is so sad.
>>
>> Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating. Laurel and
>> Hardy had it right, little pills to cure it.
>
> Yes, exactly. Very sad. Constipated asshole Socrates' dictum come to life.

There are far more fun things to do in life than eat.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe. - Albert Einstein

[Bill McCray]

On 3/30/2012 10:01 PM, Patok wrote:
> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:12:05 +0100, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>> I eat when I need to eat. I see no point is eating at a specific time,
>>>> unless it's out of convenience with others I'm with. For example if I
>>>> know I'll be hungry soon as I haven't eaten in a while, while we're
>>>> passing a pub, why not get it out of the way.
>>>
>>> This is so sad.
>>
>> Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating. Laurel
>> and Hardy had it right, little pills to cure it.
>
> Yes, exactly. Very sad. Constipated asshole Socrates' dictum come to life.
>
> ObAEU - how does one spell "of Socrates"? Is "Socrates'" correct, or
> "Socrates's"? Which one is the plural?

The possessive of a PLURAL ending in "s": add an apostrophe
Other possessives, including singular ending in "s": add an apostrophe
and an "s".

"Socrates" is, I think, singular, so "Socrates's".

The possessive of several of them would be "Socrateses'".

Bill in Kentucky (Go Cats!)

[Odysseus]

In article <jl721o$284$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Bill McCray <billm...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On 3/30/2012 10:01 PM, Patok wrote:

<snip>

> > [...] Very sad. Constipated asshole Socrates' dictum come to life.

> >
> > ObAEU - how does one spell "of Socrates"? Is "Socrates'" correct, or
> > "Socrates's"? Which one is the plural?
>
> The possessive of a PLURAL ending in "s": add an apostrophe
> Other possessives, including singular ending in "s": add an apostrophe
> and an "s".
>
> "Socrates" is, I think, singular, so "Socrates's".

Agreed in general, but there is a widely followed convention that
polysyllabic classical & biblical names ending in S can be made
possessive by adding only the apostrophe: e.g. "in Jesus' name",
"Aristophanes' _Lysistrata_". You could do worse than ask yourself
whether you would say aloud "Socrateezez dictum" or "Socrateez dictum"
and spell it accordingly; I don't think either form will incur
opprobrium.

> The possessive of several of them would be "Socrateses'".

Yes, just as in "the Joneses' house".

--
Odysseus

[Jerry Avins]

On 3/31/2012 9:48 PM, Odysseus wrote:
> In article<jl721o$284$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> Bill McCray<billm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> On 3/30/2012 10:01 PM, Patok wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> [...] Very sad. Constipated asshole Socrates' dictum come to life.
>>>
>>> ObAEU - how does one spell "of Socrates"? Is "Socrates'" correct, or
>>> "Socrates's"? Which one is the plural?
>>
>> The possessive of a PLURAL ending in "s": add an apostrophe
>> Other possessives, including singular ending in "s": add an apostrophe
>> and an "s".
>>
>> "Socrates" is, I think, singular, so "Socrates's".
>
> Agreed in general, but there is a widely followed convention that

> polysyllabic classical& biblical names ending in S can be made

> possessive by adding only the apostrophe: e.g. "in Jesus' name",
> "Aristophanes' _Lysistrata_". You could do worse than ask yourself
> whether you would say aloud "Socrateezez dictum" or "Socrateez dictum"
> and spell it accordingly; I don't think either form will incur
> opprobrium.
>
>> The possessive of several of them would be "Socrateses'".
>
> Yes, just as in "the Joneses' house".

Given my last name, I feel that I have some say in the matter. As far as
I'm concerned, it "Avins's house".

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:

> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:12:05 +0100, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 22:55:18 +0100, Patok wrote:
>>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What a strange thing to say. Are you an animal? Only they eat only
>>>> when
>>>> they're hungry. Humans, OTOH, sometimes eat not because they're
>>>> hungry, but
>>>> because it's mealtime. And the appetizers they have at the beginning
>>>> of the
>>>> meal, open up their appetites, and they eat the rest of the meal with
>>>> gusto.
>>>>
>>>> "L'appetit vient en mangeant."
>>>
>>> I eat when I need to eat. I see no point is eating at a specific time,
>>> unless it's out of convenience with others I'm with. For example if I
>>> know I'll be hungry soon as I haven't eaten in a while, while we're
>>> passing a pub, why not get it out of the way.
>>
>> This is so sad.
>
> Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating.

Sure, if you live a life where you're free to take the time to do that
(and in a location where you can do that) each time it comes up, and
where it's not important to coordinate your eating schedule with others
(kids mostly can't cook for themselves, for example, you have to present
food when they need it).

Very very few people life such a life. Most people can't wander away
from work at random times for example.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I don't understand you. Your "you have to present food when they need it" contradicts having to eat meals at specific times.

When I was a kid I got meals at specific times. Inbetween I raided the fridge, or my mum's purse and got choccy bars form the shop.

> Very very few people life such a life. Most people can't wander away
> from work at random times for example.

I've always taken a pack lunch to work and nibbled while I work. Employers don't complain that I take no lunch break.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Why does a one-story brothel make more money than a two-story brothel?
Because there's no fucking overhead.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

No it doesn't. When they need it is when they need it; I don't say
anything about when that occurs.

> When I was a kid I got meals at specific times. Inbetween I raided the fridge, or my mum's purse and got choccy bars form the shop.
>
>> Very very few people life such a life. Most people can't wander away
>> from work at random times for example.
>
> I've always taken a pack lunch to work and nibbled while I work. Employers don't complain that I take no lunch break.

Works fine, if that constitutes food to you, if you can pack enough, and
so forth, sure.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:25:06 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:48:58 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:12:05 +0100, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>>>>
>>>>> This is so sad.
>>>>
>>>> Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating.
>>>
>>> Sure, if you live a life where you're free to take the time to do that
>>> (and in a location where you can do that) each time it comes up, and
>>> where it's not important to coordinate your eating schedule with others
>>> (kids mostly can't cook for themselves, for example, you have to present
>>> food when they need it).
>>
>> I don't understand you. Your "you have to present food when they need it" contradicts having to eat meals at specific times.
>
> No it doesn't. When they need it is when they need it; I don't say
> anything about when that occurs.

We were discussing why you thought I was unusual for just eating when I felt like it.

>> When I was a kid I got meals at specific times. Inbetween I raided the fridge, or my mum's purse and got choccy bars form the shop.
>>
>>> Very very few people life such a life. Most people can't wander away
>>> from work at random times for example.
>>
>> I've always taken a pack lunch to work and nibbled while I work. Employers don't complain that I take no lunch break.
>
> Works fine, if that constitutes food to you, if you can pack enough, and
> so forth, sure.

What do you mean "if that constitutes food for you"? You don't even know what's in the pack lunch.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

What's the difference between a church and a cinema?
In a church they say "Pray in the name of Jesus!"
In a cinema they say "Shut up for christ's sake!"

[David Dyer-Bennet]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:

> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:25:06 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:48:58 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:12:05 +0100, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is so sad.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating.
>>>>
>>>> Sure, if you live a life where you're free to take the time to do that
>>>> (and in a location where you can do that) each time it comes up, and
>>>> where it's not important to coordinate your eating schedule with others
>>>> (kids mostly can't cook for themselves, for example, you have to present
>>>> food when they need it).
>>>
>>> I don't understand you. Your "you have to present food when they need it" contradicts having to eat meals at specific times.
>>
>> No it doesn't. When they need it is when they need it; I don't say
>> anything about when that occurs.
>
> We were discussing why you thought I was unusual for just eating when I felt like it.

Yes, and explaining that some people were responsible for feeding people
beyond themselves.

[Jerry Avins]

On 3/28/2012 5:54 PM, Duggy wrote:

...
> I've been not hungry but tried some cake and it's whet my appetite for
> more cake.

Wet is the past tense of wet. Is whet the past tense of whet? I would
have written "whetted".

[Bill McCray]

On 4/3/2012 2:34 PM, Jerry Avins wrote:
> On 3/28/2012 5:54 PM, Duggy wrote:
>
> ...
>> I've been not hungry but tried some cake and it's whet my appetite for
>> more cake.
>
> Wet is the past tense of wet. Is whet the past tense of whet? I would
> have written "whetted".

Past tense isn't the question here. You're looking for the present
perfect. At Merriam-Webster.com and Dictionary.com it looks like both
the past and perfect form is "whetted". However, "whet" sounds all
right to me, so I have probably heard that as past and perfect often
enough to get accustomed to it.

Bill in Kentucky (Home of the NCAA Champions)

[Daniel James]

In article <6r9er.36177$_C5....@newsfe09.iad>, Jerry Avins wrote:
> Given my last name, I feel that I have some say in the matter. As
> far as I'm concerned, it "Avins's house".

ITYM "it's" ... but if you get even that wrong why should we trust your
authority?

"The Avins's house" is the house of one being called "Avins" ... if the
house belongs to more than one such being then according to conventional
spelling and punctuation they are the "Avinses" and it is "the Avinses'
house".

Or, alternatively, you could view it as "the Avins house" (in which
"Avins" is not a posessive), which would be a house named for its
association with one or more entities called Avins.

Cheers,
Daniel.
(writing from Daniel James's house)

[musika]

ITYM "possessive" but if you get... (grin)

--
Ray
UK

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 23:36:31 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>
>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 22:25:06 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 02 Apr 2012 18:48:58 +0100, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> writes:
>>>>>

>>

>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, if you live a life where you're free to take the time to do that
>>>>> (and in a location where you can do that) each time it comes up, and
>>>>> where it's not important to coordinate your eating schedule with others
>>>>> (kids mostly can't cook for themselves, for example, you have to present
>>>>> food when they need it).
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand you. Your "you have to present food when they need it" contradicts having to eat meals at specific times.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't. When they need it is when they need it; I don't say
>>> anything about when that occurs.
>>
>> We were discussing why you thought I was unusual for just eating when I felt like it.
>
> Yes, and explaining that some people were responsible for feeding people
> beyond themselves.

And how does this change that you can eat when you need to?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

"Okay, okay, I take it back! UnFuck you!"

[Daniel James]

In article <jlhthj$sg0$1...@dont-email.me>, Musika wrote:
> ITYM "possessive" but if you get... (grin)

Skitt's Law ... and maybe I need a new keyboard!

(or a new spoil chucker ...?)

Cheers,
Daniel.

[Tronscend]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> skrev i melding

news:op.wb1cfgdiytk5n5@i7-940...

Restaurants...? Pshaw ...!

Home cooking. Plus a little chemistry and physiology.

[Lieutenant Scott]

If cooking your meal involves a chemistry set, remind me not to be invited round.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Paper clips are the larval stage of coat hangers.

[Duggy]

On Apr 8, 4:48 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:42:33 +0100, Tronscend <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> > "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> skrev i melding
> >news:op.wb1cfgdiytk5n5@i7-940...

> >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:21:28 +0100, Tronscend <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> >> You must go to cleverer restaurants than me, I'm normally given an
> >> appetizer which is food (non acidic presumably).  This absorbs some acid
> >> in the stomach and makes me less hungry.
>
> > Restaurants...? Pshaw ...!
>
> > Home cooking. Plus a little chemistry and physiology.
>
> If cooking your meal involves a chemistry set, remind me not to be invited round.

I don't think you can be reminded "not to be invited".

Perhaps you mean "remind me not to accept an invitation"

Plus I have a cocktail set made to look like a chemistry set.

"It's all been cleaned; it's all been washed; it's clean."

===
= DUG.
===

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:30:04 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Apr 8, 4:48 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:42:33 +0100, Tronscend <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>>
>> > "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> skrev i melding
>> >news:op.wb1cfgdiytk5n5@i7-940...
>> >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:21:28 +0100, Tronscend <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>>
>> >> You must go to cleverer restaurants than me, I'm normally given an
>> >> appetizer which is food (non acidic presumably). This absorbs some acid
>> >> in the stomach and makes me less hungry.
>>
>> > Restaurants...? Pshaw ...!
>>
>> > Home cooking. Plus a little chemistry and physiology.
>>
>> If cooking your meal involves a chemistry set, remind me not to be invited round.
>
> I don't think you can be reminded "not to be invited".
>
> Perhaps you mean "remind me not to accept an invitation"

Shit, I forgot what group this was. I was asking for that.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Mr Churchill is reputed to have once said
"It will be long, it will be hard, and there'll be no withdrawal"

[Duggy]

On Apr 3, 5:04 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> Employers don't complain that I take no lunch break.

Mine does.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 4, 4:34 am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:
> On 3/28/2012 5:54 PM, Duggy wrote:
>
>    ...
>
> > I've been not hungry but tried some cake and it's whet my appetite for
> > more cake.
>
> Wet is the past tense of wet. Is whet the past tense of whet? I would
> have written "whetted".

Good for you.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Mar 30, 11:10 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating.

That's how farm animals think.

Reply when you start thinking like a human.

===
= DUG.
===

[Lieutenant Scott]

Reply when you have something more fun in your life than eating.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The average person over 50 will have spent 5 years waiting in lines.

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 00:36:32 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Apr 3, 5:04 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> Employers don't complain that I take no lunch break.
>
> Mine does.

They don't like you doing more work without them paying you?

Would they complain if you sat on a chair and did nothing during working hours?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

[Duggy]

On Apr 8, 9:56 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 00:36:32 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Apr 3, 5:04 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> Employers don't complain that I take no lunch break.
> > Mine does.
> They don't like you doing more work without them paying you?

Correct. It throws out my "Adherence" KPA and I am informed to take
all my breaks.

> Would they complain if you sat on a chair and did nothing during working hours?

Yes. All breaks must be taken off the floor.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 8, 9:55 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 00:36:21 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Mar 30, 11:10 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating.
>
> > That's how farm animals think.
>
> > Reply when you start thinking like a human.
>
> Reply when you have something more fun in your life than eating.

I have many more things. Food is just one of them. I'm sorry you
don't have pleasure in your life.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 8, 7:57 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 20:30:04 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 4:48 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:42:33 +0100, Tronscend <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> >> > "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> skrev i melding
> >> >news:op.wb1cfgdiytk5n5@i7-940...
> >> >> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:21:28 +0100, Tronscend <tronf...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
> >> >> You must go to cleverer restaurants than me, I'm normally given an
> >> >> appetizer which is food (non acidic presumably).  This absorbs some acid
> >> >> in the stomach and makes me less hungry.
>
> >> > Restaurants...? Pshaw ...!
>
> >> > Home cooking. Plus a little chemistry and physiology.
>
> >> If cooking your meal involves a chemistry set, remind me not to be invited round.
>
> > I don't think you can be reminded "not to be invited".
>
> > Perhaps you mean "remind me not to accept an invitation"
>
> Shit, I forgot what group this was.  I was asking for that.

Yeah, ya gotta be careful hereabouts.

===
= DUG.
===

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:48:44 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Apr 8, 9:56 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 00:36:32 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> > On Apr 3, 5:04 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> >> Employers don't complain that I take no lunch break.
>> > Mine does.
>> They don't like you doing more work without them paying you?
>
> Correct. It throws out my "Adherence" KPA and I am informed to take
> all my breaks.

Oh for goodness sake.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Er that's my point, my fun things are more enjoyable than eating.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Debugger: a tool to remove evidence of rear entry.

[Duggy]

On Apr 8, 8:02 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:49:38 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 9:55 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 00:36:21 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> > On Mar 30, 11:10 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating.
>
> >> > That's how farm animals think.
>
> >> > Reply when you start thinking like a human.
>
> >> Reply when you have something more fun in your life than eating.
>
> > I have many more things.  Food is just one of them.  I'm sorry you
> > don't have pleasure in your life.
>
> Er that's my point, my fun things are more enjoyable than eating.

I like a variety of enjoyable things. Eating is one of them.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:48:44 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 9:56 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 00:36:32 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> > On Apr 3, 5:04 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> >> Employers don't complain that I take no lunch break.
> >> > Mine does.
> >> They don't like you doing more work without them paying you?
>
> > Correct.  It throws out my "Adherence" KPA and I am informed to take
> > all my breaks.
>
> Oh for goodness sake.

It's the way my job works. I have to be at my desk the times it says
on my roster (within 91% accuracy). Your job may be different, but
mine are logged and I evaluated on them.

===
= DUG.
===

[Lieutenant Scott]

I can understand you having to be at your desk at certain times, what I find absurd is you getting into trouble for working when you should be breaking.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Her hair glistened in the rain like nose hair after a sneeze.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Eating is enjoyable, but only because it removes a craving. Scratching an itch is also enjoyable.

The really enjoyable things are hobbies, sports, and other such activities. Or watching telly if yer lazy.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Loose or missing nuts. Spank the monkey (Y/N)?

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 19:02:33 +0100, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com>

wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 12:39:03 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>
>> On Apr 8, 8:01 pm, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:48:44 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>> > On Apr 8, 9:56 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 00:36:32 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>>> >> > On Apr 3, 5:04 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> Employers don't complain that I take no lunch break.
>>> >> > Mine does.
>>> >> They don't like you doing more work without them paying you?
>>>
>>> > Correct. It throws out my "Adherence" KPA and I am informed to take
>>> > all my breaks.
>>>
>>> Oh for goodness sake.
>>
>> It's the way my job works. I have to be at my desk the times it says
>> on my roster (within 91% accuracy). Your job may be different, but
>> mine are logged and I evaluated on them.
>
>I can understand you having to be at your desk at certain times, what I find absurd is you getting into trouble for working when you should be breaking.

In the US, this is a common requirement. Hourly employees are
required to be paid for all hours worked and paid at overtime rates if
the hours exceed 40 hours per week. An employee who does not log out
or clock out when breaking could claim the overtime pay rate for this
extra time. Some companies have a rule against paying overtime.

If these are the conditions of the job, and the employee agrees to
these conditions when hired, the employee must follow the rules.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Lieutenant Scott]

I worked in a place with a clock card once. If you didn't clock out for lunch, you just got to leave early or take extra holidays. They would not pay overtime unless they had spare cash and you asked very very nicely.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Watching his date from the corner of his eye while he poured her a drink, the young bachelor said, "Say when."
She replied, "Right after that drink."

[Duggy]

On Apr 9, 4:02 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> I can understand you having to be at your desk at certain times, what I find absurd is you getting into trouble for working when you should be breaking.

Well, I do. Take it up with management if you feel you must.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 9, 6:34 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> I worked in a place with a clock card once.  If you didn't clock out for lunch, you just got to leave early or take extra holidays.  They would not pay overtime unless they had spare cash and you asked very very nicely.

I worked at a place that they put a clock in. They took it out a week
later because they had to start paying us for what we actually worked,
not the hours on our roster.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 9, 4:03 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> Eating is enjoyable, but only because it removes a craving.

Not so for myself and judging by this thread a lot of other people.
So for many people an appetiser does exactly what it says.

> Or watching telly if yer lazy.

Which you can do while eating.

===
= DUG.
===

[Lieutenant Scott]

I have no desire to improve your job.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

I came real close to seeing Elvis, then my shovel broke.

[Lieutenant Scott]

Those things get abused. People clock each other in and out.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

"There are more planes in the ocean than submarines in the sky."
- From an old carrier sailor

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:40:36 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:

> On Apr 9, 4:03 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>> Eating is enjoyable, but only because it removes a craving.
>
> Not so for myself and judging by this thread a lot of other people.

Might be because I'm rubbish at cooking.

> So for many people an appetiser does exactly what it says.
>
>> Or watching telly if yer lazy.
>
> Which you can do while eating.

Pikey! :-P

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

[Patok]

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 03:01:12 +0100, Patok wrote:
>> Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:12:05 +0100, Patok wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is so sad.
>>>
>>> Hunger is a thing which appears, and you solve it by eating. Laurel and
>>> Hardy had it right, little pills to cure it.
>>
>> Yes, exactly. Very sad. Constipated asshole Socrates' dictum come
>> to life.
>
> There are far more fun things to do in life than eat.

Very few things are "far more fun". I can think of only one - sex; drug users
can maybe think of one more thing. Eating is in the second most pleasurable
group, which includes (as you mention elsewhere) hobbies, reading, listening to
music, sport, etc, but eating is first among equals in that group. It *is* a
hobby, in a sense. Oh, and eating /includes/ drinking.
So yes, humans (as opposed to animals) live to eat, drink and be merry.

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.
*
Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn.

[Patok]

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:38:12 +0100, Duggy <Paul....@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 6:34 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I worked in a place with a clock card once. If you didn't clock out
>>> for lunch, you just got to leave early or take extra holidays. They
>>> would not pay overtime unless they had spare cash and you asked very
>>> very nicely.
>>
>> I worked at a place that they put a clock in. They took it out a week
>> later because they had to start paying us for what we actually worked,
>> not the hours on our roster.
>
> Those things get abused. People clock each other in and out.

What kinds of jobs are you two talking about? I've never ever worked at a
place with clocks or time management. Even when I was in production (for a very
short time), what counted was the number of produced units, not the time. It has
to be some kind of blue-collar job, unionized at that, right?

[Bill McCray]

On 4/8/2012 7:15 PM, Patok wrote:
>
> What kinds of jobs are you two talking about? I've never ever worked at
> a place with clocks or time management. Even when I was in production
> (for a very short time), what counted was the number of produced units,
> not the time. It has to be some kind of blue-collar job, unionized at
> that, right?

It may be a case of when you worked. When I graduated from college in
1962 and went to work, we had time clocks and time cards, and this was
definitely not a unionized job. It was a few years later that the time
clocks disappeared.

Most of the time, I clocked out very shortly after quitting time and
left. Another employee was always standing in front of the time clock
waiting for it to click to quitting time. He would then pick up his
card, clock out, walk down the middle of the hallway, get in his car,
and drive about 15 mph through the company's roadways to the city
street. I was usually behind him frustrated at his slow speed. If he
wasn't in a hurry, why was he standing in front of the clock waiting for
it to click over? If he was in a hurry, why did he drive so slowly?

One day I had somewhere I had to be shortly after work. I worked out a
scheme to get away a bit more quickly. I went down to the time clock
earlier in the afternoon and moved the employee's time card to a
different location. When the clock turned to quitting time, he reached
for his card and began searching for it. I grabbed my card, punched
out, and got away more quickly that day.

Thereafter, he always had his card in his hand as he stood in front of
the clock.

Bill in Kentucky

[Tronscend]

"Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> skrev i melding

news:op.wcervk0tytk5n5@i7-940...

> On Sat, 07 Apr 2012 00:42:33 +0100, Tronscend <tron...@frizurf.no> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> skrev i melding
>> news:op.wb1cfgdiytk5n5@i7-940...

>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:21:28 +0100, Tronscend <tron...@frizurf.no>

>>> wrote:
>>
>>> You must go to cleverer restaurants than me, I'm normally given an
>>> appetizer which is food (non acidic presumably). This absorbs some acid
>>> in the stomach and makes me less hungry.
>>
>>
>> Restaurants...? Pshaw ...!
>>
>> Home cooking. Plus a little chemistry and physiology.
>
> If cooking your meal involves a chemistry set, remind me not to be invited
> round.

Picky today ... or wilfully uncharitable... but let it be your privilege,
since it's a language group.
Pardon my being elliptical:
Cookery benefits from the cook having som knowledge
of, amongst other tings, chemistry, as well as physiology, primarily of the
human body, but of course also that of other animals, plants etc. frequently
served as meals.

OTOH, it would not be out of place to regard
a kitchen as a chemistry work station.
There are a lot of chemistry processes going on.

T

[Duggy]

On Apr 9, 7:44 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:36:27 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 4:02 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> I can understand you having to be at your desk at certain times, what I find absurd is you getting into trouble for working when you should be breaking.
>
> > Well, I do.  Take it up with management if you feel you must.
>
> I have no desire to improve your job.

I don't think it would improve my job.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 9, 7:45 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:38:12 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 6:34 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> I worked in a place with a clock card once.  If you didn't clock out for lunch, you just got to leave early or take extra holidays.  They would not pay overtime unless they had spare cash and you asked very very nicely.
>
> > I worked at a place that they put a clock in.  They took it out a week
> > later because they had to start paying us for what we actually worked,
> > not the hours on our roster.
>
> Those things get abused.  People clock each other in and out.

True, but in this case it was "turn of 15min before roster time".

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 9, 7:46 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:40:36 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 4:03 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> Eating is enjoyable, but only because it removes a craving.
>
> > Not so for myself and judging by this thread a lot of other people.
>
> Might be because I'm rubbish at cooking.

I'm good at cooking, but usually can't be bothered. Eating I enjoy -
cooking not so much.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 9, 9:15 am, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>    What kinds of jobs are you two talking about? I've never ever worked at a
> place with clocks or time management. Even when I was in production (for a very
> short time), what counted was the number of produced units, not the time. It has
> to be some kind of blue-collar job, unionized at that, right?

Call centre.
Shop assistant.

===
= DUG.
===

[Patok]

Oh, OK, makes sense. They can indeed be worked strictly by the clock. But
aren't such jobs outsourced to robots nowadays? (Curiously, I don't think JMS
had a single robot in B5.)

[Peter Duncanson (BrE)]

On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 23:06:23 -0400, Patok <crazy.d...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Duggy wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 9:15 am, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> What kinds of jobs are you two talking about? I've never ever worked at a
>>> place with clocks or time management. Even when I was in production (for a very
>>> short time), what counted was the number of produced units, not the time. It has
>>> to be some kind of blue-collar job, unionized at that, right?
>>
>> Call centre.
>> Shop assistant.
>
> Oh, OK, makes sense. They can indeed be worked strictly by the clock. But
>aren't such jobs outsourced to robots nowadays? (Curiously, I don't think JMS
>had a single robot in B5.)

How about airline pilots or, indeed, all crew members of a passenger
plane and the ground staff who prepare the plane? And bus drivers, etc?

How about the host of a live radio show? He or she has to be there to
perform during the scheduled times. The same goes for everyone involved
in the making and transmission of the show.

Even things that are not live such as the making of movies and TV shows
require all the necessary people to be present when needed.

When a job requires people to work together and/or there is a service to
be provided according to a schedule it is necessary for people to work
according to the schedule.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

[Jerry Avins]

On 4/4/2012 10:45 AM, Daniel James wrote:
> In article<6r9er.36177$_C5....@newsfe09.iad>, Jerry Avins wrote:
>> Given my last name, I feel that I have some say in the matter. As
>> far as I'm concerned, it "Avins's house".
>
> ITYM "it's" ... but if you get even that wrong why should we trust your
> authority?
>
> "The Avins's house" is the house of one being called "Avins" ...

...

Right. While I don't exactly live alone, the house belongs to me alone
and I was the only Avins living here at the time I wrote..

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

[Jerry Avins]

Suppose that you were required to "voluntarily" work through a break.
How could that be prevented? If the employer were accused o, how could
he defend himself? By insisting that you leave the floor.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I hate doing nothing for an hour.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

| , \
.-"""-. | | ;
/ `.___ |
| O .=-"`| ; |
/ .' |
_.'--._ ( | ; | \
.-" ; ``\ | ; |
.' ; | |
/ .' ; | | | :
/_/ __.' , ; |
.' / / | ; |
.' _..--' _/ |_..- ;
/_.--''` __.-'`\\__ .==="" \ .
/ .--'` \\__.'--))) `; |
/ .' .-'--))) . |
/ .' .' ` _.'
/_.' .` __..--""````""===="" | ;
// / /` | ; .

[Lieutenant Scott]

What?

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the creator of human intelligence.

[Lieutenant Scott]

I cannot complete cooking a meal without eating half the ingredients.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

My wife was hinting about what she wanted for our upcoming anniversary. She said, 'I want something shiny that goes from 0 to 150 in about 3 seconds.'
So I bought her a set of scales.
And then the fight started...

[Lieutenant Scott]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:39:08 +0100, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote:

> On 4/8/2012 5:36 PM, Duggy wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 4:02 am, "Lieutenant Scott"<n...@spam.com> wrote:
>>> I can understand you having to be at your desk at certain times, what I find absurd is you getting into trouble for working when you should be breaking.
>>
>> Well, I do. Take it up with management if you feel you must.
>
> Suppose that you were required to "voluntarily" work through a break.
> How could that be prevented? If the employer were accused o, how could
> he defend himself? By insisting that you leave the floor.

Not sure what you mean.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

The two young teens were making out in the family room. The
girl's Mother calls from the top of the stairs, "Honey is that boy
there yet?"

She replies breathlessly, "No Ma. Not yet. But he's getting there."

[Lieutenant Scott]

Can't you just be knowledgeable of other people's recipes? You only need all the above to invent new recipes.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

Legalise drugs bow and stop the crime
http://www.legalisedrugs.co.uk/

[Duggy]

On Apr 10, 1:06 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (Curiously, I don't think JMS
> had a single robot in B5.)

Correct. They were all married.

Outside the station were many.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On Apr 11, 5:39 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 03:04:32 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 7:44 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 08 Apr 2012 22:36:27 +0100, Duggy <Paul.Dug...@jcu.edu.au> wrote:
> >> > On Apr 9, 4:02 am, "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
> >> >> I can understand you having to be at your desk at certain times, what I find absurd is you getting into trouble for working when you should be breaking.
>
> >> > Well, I do.  Take it up with management if you feel you must.
>
> >> I have no desire to improve your job.
>
> > I don't think it would improve my job.
>
> I hate doing nothing for an hour.

Half hour.

===
= DUG.
===