origins?
Stuart Buckland
What are the origins behind the name Andrews & Arnold? Who are they?
Stu
Hiram Hackenbacker
> Often wondered this myself...
>
> What are the origins behind the name Andrews & Arnold? Who are they?
Owners childrens names if I remember correctly.
Stuart Buckland
Ahhhh... There's no way I would have guessed that :)
Stu
Rev Adrian Kennard
Names from the family... Not the kids though!
--
_ Rev. Adrian Kennard, Andrews & Arnold Ltd / AAISP
(_) _| _ . _ _ Broadband, fixed IPs, no min term http://adsl.ms/
( )(_|( |(_|| ) Asterisk VoIP based PABXs, SNOM190 http://aa.gg/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Bond two ADSL lines? http://www.FireBrick.info/
Andrew Hearn
Not named after me, (as atleast one caller per week asks!!)
Andrew, AAISP.
nog
> Stuart Buckland wrote:
>> Hiram Hackenbacker wrote:
>>
>>> Stuart Buckland wrote:
>>>
>>>> Often wondered this myself...
>>>>
>>>> What are the origins behind the name Andrews & Arnold? Who are they?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Owners childrens names if I remember correctly.
>>>
>>
>> Ahhhh... There's no way I would have guessed that :)
>
> Names from the family... Not the kids though!
While we're conducting the inquisition, what's the story behind the "Rev."?
Is it as trivial as the Universal Life Church, or are you more serious?
Gordon Hudson
"Rev Adrian Kennard" <`@o.gg> wrote in message
news:4240214e$0$38046$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>
> However, having done it for a bit of fun, it does make you think!!!
So you are using the title and gaining benefit from that in the way people
perceive you but you have perhaps not earned or been called to that
position?
That is a very interesting position to take as there are those of us in this
industry who are ordained ministers of recognised religions who choose not
to use our title because we are not actively working in the ministry and we
feel we would be trading on our reputation....
T i m m
> So you are using the title and gaining benefit from that in the way people
> perceive you but you have perhaps not earned or been called to that
> position?
I choose to keep my title (not Mr) to myself. ymmmv
/Tim
Rev Adrian Kennard
However, having done it for a bit of fun, it does make you think!!!
--
Rev Adrian Kennard
Andrews & Arnold Ltd
Broadband internet, fixed IPs, VoIP equipment, FireBricks and more.
http://aa.gg/
Nick Barnes
Gordon Hudson
> That is a very interesting position to take as there are those of us in
> this industry who are ordained ministers of recognised religions who
> choose not to use our title because we are not actively working in the
> ministry and we feel we would be trading on our reputation....
Which, of course, assumes that people would have a higher opinion of you if
you did use your title.
Nick.
Hiram Hackenbacker
I seem to remember that Basil Fawlty had a higher opinion of "Lord"
Melbury - look what happened there - and he was only doing what many
seem to do.
Rev Adrian Kennard
>...
> So you are using the title and gaining benefit from that in the way people
> perceive you but you have perhaps not earned or been called to that
> position?
>
> That is a very interesting position to take as there are those of us in this
> industry who are ordained ministers of recognised religions who choose not
> to use our title because we are not actively working in the ministry and we
> feel we would be trading on our reputation....
Not intended to cause offence. It is interesting that there should be a
division in religions ("recognised" and "not"). I mean, who is to say
what is a real religion or not? As I understand it the title is quite
valid and ULC is recognised (in the US) as a valid church. I do not
claim to be a practising holy man. A title from ULC does say something
about the Americans! It says something about what you can do over the
internet. It says something about organised religion as a whole. If you
have misunderstood the impications (or rather lack of them) that such a
title conveys, then my apologies. People often misunderstand the title
Dr as assume a medical doctor.
Tim Howard
> >
> > That is a very interesting position to take as there are those of us in
this
>
> Not intended to cause offence. It is interesting that there should be a
> division in religions ("recognised" and "not"). I mean, who is to say
> what is a real religion or not?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you
are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galations 3:28)
Therefore I don't think it is perverting the text to say there is also
neither Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, etc...
(I have chosen to be a non-religious non-denominational Christian, and
concentrate on the bible.)
Tim
T i m m
> People often misunderstand the title Dr as assume a medical doctor.
indeed most doctorates are not doctors (medics), and doctors (medics)
are not doctorates
and even real doctorates may not honorary not earned
David Taylor
> That is a very interesting position to take as there are those of us in this
> industry who are ordained ministers of recognised religions who choose not
> to use our title because we are not actively working in the ministry and we
> feel we would be trading on our reputation....
So what makes a "recognised religion" better than one which is not
recognised (by whom, anyway?)
--
David Taylor
Julie Brandon
> recognised (by whom, anyway?)
By me, of course! (Just a small fee, to get complete recognition.)
:)
--
Julie Brandon http://www.computergeeks.co.uk/
_______________________________________________________________________________
nog
> People often misunderstand the title Dr as assume a medical doctor.
By that definition, many doctors are not, in fact, doctors at all. A fair
few are M.B. rather than M.D.
nog
Damn, I just posted the very same point, except I'm about 14 hours later
than you. :-(
Gordon Hudson
> Gordon Hudson wrote:
>>...
>> So you are using the title and gaining benefit from that in the way
>> people perceive you but you have perhaps not earned or been called to
>> that position?
>>
>> That is a very interesting position to take as there are those of us in
>> this industry who are ordained ministers of recognised religions who
>> choose not to use our title because we are not actively working in the
>> ministry and we feel we would be trading on our reputation....
>
> Not intended to cause offence. It is interesting that there should be a
> division in religions ("recognised" and "not"). I mean, who is to say what
> is a real religion or not? As I understand it the title is quite valid and
> ULC is recognised (in the US) as a valid church. I do not claim to be a
> practising holy man. A title from ULC does say something about the
> Americans! It says something about what you can do over the internet.
It says something about your honesty and that reflects badly on your
business.
In the UK people assume that someone using the title Rev is:
1. Called to the ministry as a vocation.
2. Recognised by a relgious body and supervised by them.
3. Someone who has studied theology to a high level in order to preach or
teach others.
Society has a respect for people who are ministers of religion because of
the lengthy training involved and the close supervision of ministers by the
different denominations,
To use such a title without any training (or calling) is a confidence trick,
in its true sense, because you are persuading people to have confidence in
you as an honest person by using the title to show you have the rekigious
convictions that such a title conveys to most people in Britain.
>It says something about what you can do over the internet.
Yes, and coming from someone who trades on line, it does not exactly instill
me with confidence about your identity, motives or purposes.
Geoff Lane
> In the UK people assume that someone using the title Rev is:
> 1. Called to the ministry as a vocation.
> 2. Recognised by a relgious body and supervised by them.
> 3. Someone who has studied theology to a high level in order to preach or
> teach others.
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language gives
"Deserving reverence" as the first of a number of meanings.
--
Geoff Lane
I'm not a Windows user, consequently I'm not
afraid of receiving email from total strangers.
Jim Crowther
>Yes, and coming from someone who trades on line, it does not exactly instill
>me with confidence about your identity, motives or purposes.
Whereas to me it suggests someone who will think 'out of the box', and
with a sense of humour to boot!
--
Jim Crowther "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
Always learning.
Bob Eager
<gor...@usenet2.hostroute.co.uk> wrote:
> To use such a title without any training (or calling) is a confidence trick,
> in its true sense, because you are persuading people to have confidence in
> you as an honest person by using the title to show you have the rekigious
> convictions that such a title conveys to most people in Britain.
>
> >It says something about what you can do over the internet.
>
> Yes, and coming from someone who trades on line, it does not exactly instill
> me with confidence about your identity, motives or purposes.
Sorry, Gordon, but IMHO the above all says much more about you.
Closed shop, anyone?
--
Bob Eager
John Reid
<176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk> that Bob Eager sayeth :
Yes, and one that has a singular pomposity about it IMHO.
I think the diminution of the churches in the UK is less to do with
people acquiring joke titles and much more about people failing to be
persuaded by belief systems. Don't take this the wrong way, I have great
respect for the concepts of religions, but I have often been dissuaded
by the adherents.
--
John
Mail sent to the reply address will be binned automatically.
Use my name with the domain (@+the rest)
David Taylor
> "Rev Adrian Kennard" <`@o.gg> wrote in message
> news:42411ea7$0$38040$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>>I do not claim to be a
>> practising holy man. A title from ULC does say something about the
>> Americans! It says something about what you can do over the internet.
>
> It says something about your honesty and that reflects badly on your
> business.
>
> In the UK people assume
Perhaps these people should learn not to assume such things. Otherwise,
they'll join the growing collection of people who I can't decide whether to
sympathise with, or laugh at. Amongst them are the people who reply to
those ridculous "You've won a million pounds, just send us some small sum
as an administration fee..." scams, for example.
If everyone (totally legally) referred to themselves as "Rev <whoever>",
hopefully people would realise that titles do not deserve respect.
People do, if they earn it.
> that someone using the title Rev is:
>
> 1. Called to the ministry as a vocation.
They: Want to be called Rev. something;
(well, if not equivalent, it's at least equally vauge and meaningless)
> 2. Recognised by a relgious body and supervised by them.
Are recognised by the ULC;
> 3. Someone who has studied theology to a high level in order to preach or
> teach others.
Perhaps. Perhaps they also think that someone who is called "Dr." has
studied medicine.
> Society has a respect for people who are ministers of religion because of
I think where you say "society" you mean "I" (you). Obviously not
only you, but not the entire society either.
> the lengthy training involved and the close supervision of ministers by the
> different denominations,
Given the number of abuse cases popping up, I'm not sure I trust their
supervision.
> To use such a title without any training (or calling) is a confidence trick,
> in its true sense, because you are persuading people to have confidence in
> you as an honest person by using the title to show you have the rekigious
> convictions that such a title conveys to most people in Britain.
It's ironic, then, that I find the entire idea of organised religion to be,
in its own way, a confidence trick. Certainly, I have plenty of respect for
people who sacrifice their own life (or some small part of it) to do good
for others. However, anyone who uses their "religious respect" to promote
their views on issues (e.g. homosexuality) is trying to con people.
This is all getting a bit off-topic, and rather depends on whether you
believe the Bible to be the word of God, a good guide to life, or an
ancient joke gone too far.
>>It says something about what you can do over the internet.
>
> Yes, and coming from someone who trades on line, it does not exactly instill
> me with confidence about your identity, motives or purposes.
However, in the end, I have to agree you're probably right.
The majority of people in the UK _do_ probably associate "Rev" with
someone "good". Indeed an online-dictionary I found gave one
definition of "reverend" as "a title given to clergymen". So using it
when there's no need to use it does not instill me with confidence
about someones motives. But truthfully, I doubt I would ever trust
_anyone_ based soley on their title.
But, if after investigating, it turns out their motives are to point out
how easy it is to (technically correctly) call yourself "Rev", then I have
no problem with that. Especially since this is USENET that we're
discussing. I could call myself "President George W. Bush" with no
difficulty. People would probably be less inclined to beleive I'm the US
President than a Reverend, but isn't that their problem?
YMMV.
--
David Taylor
Jim Crowther
>Don't take this the wrong way, I have great respect for the concepts of
>religions, but I have often been dissuaded by the adherents.
Quite.
I joined the choir at school merely to make the (very boring) services
seem to go quicker. Probably because of that, despite being an atheist,
I have a great respect and enjoyment of religious music.
I find it offensive that on Easter Sunday (apart from the smaller shops
that escape the legislation) I can buy almost anything except food in
this country (UK to make it clear).
With no disrespect meant to those who hold religious beliefs:
Please butt out of our lives. I have no problem with those who adhere
to a faith, but I do have a problem when they dictate to me.
I have a more minor peeve that they think they even should!
--
Jim Crowther "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
Always learning, but a Grumpy Old Git nevertheless.
Gordon Hudson
"Dave J" <req...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:urei41d7eok2vpa3o...@4ax.com...
> In MsgID<42482736$0$38039$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk> within
> uk.net.providers.aaisp, 'Gordon Hudson' wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>>> Not intended to cause offence. It is interesting that there should be a
>>> division in religions ("recognised" and "not"). I mean, who is to say
>>> what
>>> is a real religion or not? As I understand it the title is quite valid
>>> and
>>> ULC is recognised (in the US) as a valid church. I do not claim to be a
>>> practising holy man. A title from ULC does say something about the
>>> Americans! It says something about what you can do over the internet.
>>
>>It says something about your honesty and that reflects badly on your
>>business.
>
>
>>
>>In the UK people assume that someone using the title Rev is:
>>
>>1. Called to the ministry as a vocation.
>>2. Recognised by a relgious body and supervised by them.
>>3. Someone who has studied theology to a high level in order to preach or
>>teach others.
>>
>>Society has a respect for people who are ministers of religion because of
>>the lengthy training involved and the close supervision of ministers by
>>the
>>different denominations,
>
> religious brainwashing, but intelligent people mostly do not.
>
> How could you respect someone who devotes their whole life to the
> spreading of a fantasy so disconnected from reality that it should be
> diagnosable as psychosis?
>
> The distributor of a fantasy, that in one or other of its flavours has
> caused more killing and destruction than any other social influence on
> Earth, is not worthy of much respect.
>
>>To use such a title without any training (or calling) is a confidence
>>trick,
>>in its true sense, because you are persuading people to have confidence in
>>you as an honest person by using the title to show you have the rekigious
>>convictions that such a title conveys to most people in Britain.
>
> I then checked up, and altered tack to slighting him for lending the title
> credence by carrying it when he is obviously (mostly) sane.
>
>>>It says something about what you can do over the internet.
>>
>>Yes, and coming from someone who trades on line, it does not exactly
>>instill
>>me with confidence about your identity, motives or purposes.
>
Well I now trust him slightly less than I did before.
Like it or not, the title of Rev does carry some weight and there will be
people
who have done business with him due to some of the weight that this carries.
All of you are no doubt athiests or couldnotcarelessists,
but there is a sizeable part of the population that will take the title to
mean something more than it is
and Adrian is full aware of that.
It is dishonest and it reflects badly on his business.
I am glad that this issue has been raised because it does provide some
record of the issue
for those who want to know in the future.
Bob Eager
<gor...@usenet2.hostroute.co.uk> wrote:
> Like it or not, the title of Rev does carry some weight
With a few people - and you obviously consider that, but then you would.
> but there is a sizeable part of the population that will take the title to
> mean something more than it is
For 'size = somesmallnumber'
--
Bob Eager
Alex Bloor
> Well I now trust him slightly less than I did before.
Why? You knew he used the title. Did you really assume he was a vicar of
the Church of England, but running an ISP? I can't believe that.
> Like it or not, the title of Rev does carry some weight and there will be
> people
> who have done business with him due to some of the weight that this carries.
I doubt it. I expect most treat it as a 'bit of a joke'. I certainly do.
> All of you are no doubt athiests or couldnotcarelessists,
> but there is a sizeable part of the population that will take the title to
> mean something more than it is
> and Adrian is full aware of that.
I think it's a sweeping statement to suggest that every user of AAISP is
an atheist, or a "couldnotcarelessist". I would suggest that AAISP's
(fairly large) customer base probably reflects the population as a whole
reasobably representatively.
I doubt AAISP asks subscribers their religion when they sign up though,
or whether they find the use of Rev. before Adrian's name offensive.
> It is dishonest and it reflects badly on his business.
You are calling into question the validity of the Universal Life Church
then? Fair enough - it's your choice whether or not to consider it a
valid title. Just treat it as 'a bit of a joke' then, like the rest of us.
> I am glad that this issue has been raised because it does provide some
> record of the issue
> for those who want to know in the future.
I am certain that it has been raised before. Adrian has responded before
by simply saying "visit www.ulc.org". What hasn't happened before is
this amount of discussion.
Eccentric, possibly. Dishonst, I don't think so.
Alex.
Ian Smith
> Gordon,
>
> > Well I now trust him slightly less than I did before.
>
> Why? You knew he used the title. Did you really assume he was a vicar of
> the Church of England, but running an ISP? I can't believe that.
I knew a 'proper' uk-trained theological college for n years, minister
of a number of UK churches for some other number of years reverend
that worked as a florist. I expect even stranger things have
happened.
Various denominations have non-stipendary clergy who support
themselves working at another job but are uk-accredited trained
reverends.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Simon Farnsworth
> Like it or not, the title of Rev does carry some weight and there will be
> people
> who have done business with him due to some of the weight that this
> carries.
>
What weight? As a Catholic, I can assure you that I have encountered CofE
priests who were not trustworthy (one ran off with the Guide leader); I'm
sure you have similar tales of Catholic priests.
> All of you are no doubt athiests or couldnotcarelessists,
> but there is a sizeable part of the population that will take the title to
> mean something more than it is
> and Adrian is full aware of that.
>
Anyone who doesn't do a basic check on something so easily verified is
risking serious trouble anyway. I don't see anywhere where Adrian claims to
be anything other than either "Reverend Kennard" or "a ULC minister", and
certainly nothing to suggest that he's Catholic (which would affect my
trust in him)
> It is dishonest and it reflects badly on his business.
> I am glad that this issue has been raised because it does provide some
> record of the issue
> for those who want to know in the future.
I'd ignore the title if he were Mormon, CofE, Presbyterian, or any other
non-Catholic faith, so it doesn't bother me one iota. There is no attempt
made to claim CofE or other religious approval beyond the ULC, so I don't
see where the dishonesty comes in.
I *would* be upset if I'd gone looking into it, found he claimed to be
Catholic, and then discovered it was ULC, but beyond that, I really
couldn't care less.
--
Simon Farnsworth
Gordon Hudson
"Ian Smith" <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnd4j6h...@acheron.smithnet...
Indeed.
I suspect people might assume he was pentacostal or an auxiliary minister of
some kind.
Gordon Hudson
"Simon Farnsworth" <use...@farnz.org.uk> wrote in message
news:i4joh2-...@rimmer.farnz.org.uk...
All of you seem to be lookin gat the religious aspects, not the honesty in
business
issue which is interesting.
I might as well call myself Gordon Hudson MP
Bob Eager
<gor...@usenet2.hostroute.co.uk> wrote:
> All of you seem to be lookin gat the religious aspects, not the honesty in
> business issue which is interesting.
Perhaps that's because you went on and on about how terrible it was to
use the title if (IN YOUR OPINION) someone didn't deserve it, and went
into detail about training, and in general were very pompous!
--
Bob Eager
Alex Bloor
Yep, and you'd get no objection from most here if you did. Or Lord
Gordon Hudson for that matter.
What is your opinion of "bought titles". If I purchase an appropriately
located bit of land, and a certificate, then call myself "Lord", would
you consider that genuine?
Alex.
Bob Goddard
[...]
> All of you seem to be lookin gat the religious aspects, not the
> honesty in business
> issue which is interesting.
>
> I might as well call myself Gordon Hudson MP
I look at the legalities of it. Ad has the right to prefix his name
with Rev, you do not have the right to postfix your name with MP.
B
Iain Paton
> All of you seem to be lookin gat the religious aspects, not the honesty in
> business issue which is interesting.
And you seem to consistently miss the point. Trust, respect and a
reputation for honesty are things that need to be _earned_. Some letters
before or after your name are just letters nothing else, whatever you
think or assume they may do for you.
You can't earn these things globally, by studying theology or by doing
anything else. It's how you interact with people on an individual basis
that will earn you their respect or disrespect.
> I might as well call myself Gordon Hudson MP
IMHO that would be a step in the wrong direction :)
Iain
Albert Ross
<gor...@usenet2.hostroute.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Society has a respect for people who are ministers of religion because of
>the lengthy training involved and the close supervision of ministers by the
>different denominations,
Like in Boston Massachusetts?
Hmmm now there's a defence for Jacko, I was training for the clergy. .
.
Albert Ross
wrote:
>I think the diminution of the churches in the UK is less to do with
>people acquiring joke titles and much more about people failing to be
>persuaded by belief systems. Don't take this the wrong way, I have great
>respect for the concepts of religions, but I have often been dissuaded
>by the adherents.
Oh yes, I often wonder what Jesus (or Mohammed may he rest in peace)
would do if they came back and saw what was being done in their name.
(Mind, if they did come back they'd end up in Guantanamo Bay)
I think the Buddha is about the only one who'd have no complaints
about his followers.
Simon Farnsworth
>
> "Simon Farnsworth" <use...@farnz.org.uk> wrote in message
> news:i4joh2-...@rimmer.farnz.org.uk...
>> I'd ignore the title if he were Mormon, CofE, Presbyterian, or any other
>> non-Catholic faith, so it doesn't bother me one iota. There is no attempt
>> made to claim CofE or other religious approval beyond the ULC, so I don't
>> see where the dishonesty comes in.
>>
>> I *would* be upset if I'd gone looking into it, found he claimed to be
>> Catholic, and then discovered it was ULC, but beyond that, I really
>> couldn't care less.
>
> All of you seem to be lookin gat the religious aspects, not the honesty in
> business
> issue which is interesting.
>
What honesty in business issue? As my quote from my own post shows, I
expressly allow for that; he claims to be Reverend Adrian Kennard of the
ULC, not Reverend Adrian Kennard of the CofE, or Reverend Adrian Kennard of
the Roman Catholic church.
Please, explain *why* it is dishonest of him to use his legally acquired
title of Reverend Adrian Kennard, but not dishonest for a Church of England
clergyman to use his legally acquired title of Reverend.
--
Simon Farnsworth
nog
> I *would* be upset if I'd gone looking into it, found he claimed to be
> Catholic, and then discovered it was ULC, but beyond that, I really
> couldn't care less.
IOW, for you, all the rest are imposters so, as they aren't Catholic,
there's no distinction? ;-)
As the person who set off this particular round of discussion by putting
the question to Adrian, I suppose I should state that his answer hasn't
altered my opinion of him in the slightest. I asked the question out of
idle curiosity - in part because I've held a ULC "degree" since 1999, but
also because, in the course of my working life, I've met several <more
conventionally> ordained ministers who have also occupied secular roles.
Jim Crowther
>Religious brainwashing, should qualify as child abuse.
Quite.
--
Jim Crowther "It's MY computer" (tm SMG)
Always learning.
John Reid
that Jim Crowther sayeth :
>I joined the choir at school merely to make the (very boring) services
>seem to go quicker. Probably because of that, despite being an
>atheist, I have a great respect and enjoyment of religious music.
Snap. I sang for twenty or more years in the choirs of several churches
and attended more than many of the members. I love music of all kinds
and having a father who was a church organist was a great chance to
sing. Sadly, attending so often meant I decided I would not join, and
now never will. Too many hypocrites and too much pomposity.
I dislike anyone who tells anyone what to think. Teaching people to
think for themselves is fine, telling them what is quite wrong.
I am pleased to say the religious community is just about as varied as
the online one, and I have met many ministers of religion that I can say
I admire. Sadly, also a number I despise.
John Reid
that Albert Ross sayeth :
Mostly they would be appalled. No great religious thinkers would condone
what zealots and madmen do in their name. I am sure that no God (if one
(or any) exist) condones either. Sadly, the arrogant amongst us believe
that their way is the only way.
I don't see that a title makes a big difference to a person and their
reputation. It is how they act.
Tony Firshman
(ref: <K+WymwRd...@nospam.demon.co.uk>)
>It is written in message <rhlzwhaH...@nospam.at.my.choice.of.UID>
>that Jim Crowther sayeth :
>>I joined the choir at school merely to make the (very boring) services
>>seem to go quicker. Probably because of that, despite being an
>>atheist, I have a great respect and enjoyment of religious music.
>
>Snap. I sang for twenty or more years in the choirs of several churches
>and attended more than many of the members. I love music of all kinds
>and having a father who was a church organist was a great chance to
>sing. Sadly, attending so often meant I decided I would not join, and
>now never will. Too many hypocrites and too much pomposity.
snap snap. I have sung in church choirs for over 50 years now without a
gap. I still haven't a clue whether I believe in it all but it is a
great way to make friends anywhere, and to sing good music.
There are far worse people around than C of E people.
.. and not once in those 40 years has anyone ever tried to force -any-
opinions on me. What one believes in is very much up to oneself.
I run the church website (stpetersberkhamsted.org.uk) and we once looked
up the next hymn during a sermon on the website pewleaflet using a
fellow basses new mobile (8-)#
Life in the choir stalls is very irreligious.
Tony
--
QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
to...@firshman.co.uk http://firshman.co.uk
Voice: +44(0)1442-828254 Fax: +44(0)1442-828255 Skype: tonyfirshman
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG
Albert Ross
wrote:
>I don't see that a title makes a big difference to a person and their
>reputation. It is how they act.
Yes, I used to make that mistake. <G>