Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Windows thread in UKLM
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Stephen Cole
Jul 23, 2019, 3:44:18 PM7/23/19
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <gposj1...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:57:06 on Tue, 23
> Jul 2019, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>> On 23/07/2019 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>>>> Ye gods, why has this been allowed to go on for so long? There hasn't
>>>>> been any legal content that I could see for ages.
>>
>>>> Appealing to the gods hasn't worked - I see there's 24 new messages in
>>>> this thread this morning.
>>
>>> There's only been 31 the whole of Monday (and none "this morning" -
>>> Tuesday).
>>
>> It all depends on whether one views '...this morning....' as referring
>> to 'the (publication of the new) messages' or '(This morning) I see...'.
>
> Who would be interested in what you see after an indeterminate period of
> inactivity?
It’s quite something to see even Roland (fucking *Roland*!) absolutely
owning Burt. You can tell the school holidays are starting; Burt’s gone
totally to pot. He’s a bag of nerves. Torquay Halfords had better stock up
on replacement car aerials. It’s going to be a *long* summer.
--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur
> In message <gposj1...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:57:06 on Tue, 23
> Jul 2019, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>> On 23/07/2019 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>>>> Ye gods, why has this been allowed to go on for so long? There hasn't
>>>>> been any legal content that I could see for ages.
>>
>>>> Appealing to the gods hasn't worked - I see there's 24 new messages in
>>>> this thread this morning.
>>
>>> There's only been 31 the whole of Monday (and none "this morning" -
>>> Tuesday).
>>
>> It all depends on whether one views '...this morning....' as referring
>> to 'the (publication of the new) messages' or '(This morning) I see...'.
>
> Who would be interested in what you see after an indeterminate period of
> inactivity?
It’s quite something to see even Roland (fucking *Roland*!) absolutely
owning Burt. You can tell the school holidays are starting; Burt’s gone
totally to pot. He’s a bag of nerves. Torquay Halfords had better stock up
on replacement car aerials. It’s going to be a *long* summer.
--
M0TEY // STC
www.twitter.com/ukradioamateur
Stephen Cole
Jul 24, 2019, 1:53:07 PM7/24/19
to
Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <gpqghq...@mid.individual.net>, at 07:43:55 on Wed, 24
>
> I'm only interested in refuting your fake news.
>
I’m loving watching Roland (fucking **Roland!!!**) absolutely drag Burt
here.
> In message <gpqghq...@mid.individual.net>, at 07:43:55 on Wed, 24
> Jul 2019, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>> On 23/07/2019 19:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <gposj1...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:57:06 on Tue, 23
>>> Jul 2019, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>>>> On 23/07/2019 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>> Ye gods, why has this been allowed to go on for so long? There hasn't
>>>>>>> been any legal content that I could see for ages.
>>
>>>>>> Appealing to the gods hasn't worked - I see there's 24 new messages in
>>>>>> this thread this morning.
>>
>>>>> There's only been 31 the whole of Monday (and none "this morning" -
>>>>> Tuesday).
>>
>>>> It all depends on whether one views '...this morning....' as referring
>>>> to 'the (publication of the new) messages' or '(This morning) I see...'.
>>
>>> Who would be interested in what you see after an indeterminate period of
>>> inactivity?
>>
>> You, it would seem.
>>> In message <gposj1...@mid.individual.net>, at 16:57:06 on Tue, 23
>>> Jul 2019, Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>>>> On 23/07/2019 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>>
>>>>>>> Ye gods, why has this been allowed to go on for so long? There hasn't
>>>>>>> been any legal content that I could see for ages.
>>
>>>>>> Appealing to the gods hasn't worked - I see there's 24 new messages in
>>>>>> this thread this morning.
>>
>>>>> There's only been 31 the whole of Monday (and none "this morning" -
>>>>> Tuesday).
>>
>>>> It all depends on whether one views '...this morning....' as referring
>>>> to 'the (publication of the new) messages' or '(This morning) I see...'.
>>
>>> Who would be interested in what you see after an indeterminate period of
>>> inactivity?
>>
>
> I'm only interested in refuting your fake news.
>
I’m loving watching Roland (fucking **Roland!!!**) absolutely drag Burt
here.
Roger Hayter
Jul 24, 2019, 4:21:26 PM7/24/19
to
of events, but I must say that if I were to remark; "I faced 25 new
posts in this thread this morning.", *I* wouldn't necessarily be
implying that all these posts had been posted this morning. Just for
some perspective, and because I am troubled by any exception to the
rule: "Roland is always wrong".
--
Roger Hayter
Stephen Cole
Jul 24, 2019, 5:39:44 PM7/24/19
to
Stephen Cole
Jul 24, 2019, 5:39:44 PM7/24/19
to
Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>
>> Bernie <bernie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Burt didn't say "I faced 25 new posts in this thread this morning.",
>>> though, did he? You're quoting "" what you could defend, if he had said
>>> it, which he didn't.
>>
>> Pedant
>
> I thought what he said could have been read either way. But I am not
> going to go back and check, just in case I'm wrong.
>
Talk about shit the bed.
> Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>
>> Bernie <bernie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> though, did he? You're quoting "" what you could defend, if he had said
>>> it, which he didn't.
>>
>> Pedant
>
> I thought what he said could have been read either way. But I am not
> going to go back and check, just in case I'm wrong.
>
Talk about shit the bed.
Stephen Cole
Jul 25, 2019, 7:43:18 AM7/25/19
to
Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
Burt’s flailing here. Badly gotten to.
> On 24/07/2019 13:05, Roland Perry wrote:
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>>> On 23/07/2019 19:03, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>>>>> On 23/07/2019 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>
>>>>>>>> Ye gods, why has this been allowed to go on for so long? There hasn't
>>>>>>>> been any legal content that I could see for ages.
>
>>>>>>> Appealing to the gods hasn't worked - I see there's 24 new messages in
>>>>>>> this thread this morning.
>
>>>>>> There's only been 31 the whole of Monday (and none "this morning" -
>>>>>> Tuesday).
>
>>>>> It all depends on whether one views '...this morning....' as referring
>>>>> to 'the (publication of the new) messages' or '(This morning) I see...'.
>
>>>> Who would be interested in what you see after an indeterminate period of
>>>> inactivity?
>
>>> You, it would seem.
>
>> I'm only interested in refuting your fake news.
>
> It's not my problem if you have difficulty in understanding written English.
>>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>>>>> On 23/07/2019 10:30, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> Spike <Aero....@mail.invalid> remarked:
>
>>>>>>>> Ye gods, why has this been allowed to go on for so long? There hasn't
>>>>>>>> been any legal content that I could see for ages.
>
>>>>>>> Appealing to the gods hasn't worked - I see there's 24 new messages in
>>>>>>> this thread this morning.
>
>>>>>> There's only been 31 the whole of Monday (and none "this morning" -
>>>>>> Tuesday).
>
>>>>> It all depends on whether one views '...this morning....' as referring
>>>>> to 'the (publication of the new) messages' or '(This morning) I see...'.
>
>>>> Who would be interested in what you see after an indeterminate period of
>>>> inactivity?
>
>>> You, it would seem.
>
>> I'm only interested in refuting your fake news.
>
>
Burt’s flailing here. Badly gotten to.
0 new messages