Re: Imitating the sound of breaking glass

ah

unread,

Apr 23, 2012, 9:33:52 PM4/23/12

to

On 4/22/2012 8:43 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:17:44 +0100, Otis B Driftwood <philky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in news:op.wcrozowfytk5n5@i7-940:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:45:48 +0100, Otis B Driftwood
>>> <philky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in
>>>> news:op.wb86br1dytk5n5@i7-940:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 14:48:37 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 3/31/2012 8:44 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do they sell free time?
>>>>>
>>>>> And just how would that be posted?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Royal Mail.
>>>
>>> The postman might nick it and cause a rift in the space time
>>> continuum.
>>>
>>
>> That would come up in his review.
>
> But if he jumped in time he could prevent the review.

That's supposing 1-dimensional Euclidean space, whereas the actuality is
n-dimensional, thus it is evident (considering string theory and M-theory
(since they posit that physical space had 10 and 11 dimensions,
respectively)), that--as Kant wrote in 1783--"That everywhere space (which is
not itself the boundary of another space) has three dimensions and that space
in general cannot have more dimensions is based on the proposition that not
more than three lines can intersect at right angles in one point. This
proposition cannot at all be shown from concepts, but rests immediately on
intuition and indeed on pure intuition a priori because it is apodictically
(demonstrably) certain."

As it were, the review happened; and, the prevention of the review happened.

So, it is evident that there is no quandary on the matter.
--
a "http://orteil.dashnet.org/nested.php" h

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

Apr 24, 2012, 7:09:34 PM4/24/12

to

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:33:52 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/22/2012 8:43 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:17:44 +0100, Otis B Driftwood <philky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in news:op.wcrozowfytk5n5@i7-940:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 13:45:48 +0100, Otis B Driftwood
>>>> <philky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:op.wb86br1dytk5n5@i7-940:
>>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Royal Mail.
>>>>
>>>> The postman might nick it and cause a rift in the space time
>>>> continuum.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That would come up in his review.
>>
>> But if he jumped in time he could prevent the review.
>
> That's supposing 1-dimensional Euclidean space, whereas the actuality is
> n-dimensional, thus it is evident (considering string theory and M-theory
> (since they posit that physical space had 10 and 11 dimensions,
> respectively)), that--as Kant wrote in 1783--"That everywhere space (which is
> not itself the boundary of another space) has three dimensions and that space
> in general cannot have more dimensions is based on the proposition that not
> more than three lines can intersect at right angles in one point. This
> proposition cannot at all be shown from concepts, but rests immediately on
> intuition and indeed on pure intuition a priori because it is apodictically
> (demonstrably) certain."
>
> As it were, the review happened; and, the prevention of the review happened.
>
> So, it is evident that there is no quandary on the matter.

You cut and pasted that.

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

"Do you like Kipling?"
"I don't know, I've never kippled."

ah

unread,

Apr 25, 2012, 9:29:47 PM4/25/12

to

Lies!

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

Apr 29, 2012, 7:25:02 PM4/29/12

to

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:29:47 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/24/2012 7:09 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:33:52 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/22/2012 8:43 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:17:44 +0100, Otis B Driftwood <philky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in news:op.wcrozowfytk5n5@i7-940:
>>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> That would come up in his review.
>>>>
>>>> But if he jumped in time he could prevent the review.
>>>
>>> That's supposing 1-dimensional Euclidean space, whereas the actuality is
>>> n-dimensional, thus it is evident (considering string theory and M-theory
>>> (since they posit that physical space had 10 and 11 dimensions,
>>> respectively)), that--as Kant wrote in 1783--"That everywhere space (which is
>>> not itself the boundary of another space) has three dimensions and that space
>>> in general cannot have more dimensions is based on the proposition that not
>>> more than three lines can intersect at right angles in one point. This
>>> proposition cannot at all be shown from concepts, but rests immediately on
>>> intuition and indeed on pure intuition a priori because it is apodictically
>>> (demonstrably) certain."
>>>
>>> As it were, the review happened; and, the prevention of the review happened.
>>>
>>> So, it is evident that there is no quandary on the matter.
>>
>> You cut and pasted that.
>
> Lies!

So how come I found it all over the internet in those very words? I know English teachers, I know how to find out if you're cheating.

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

What's the difference between PMS and Mad Cow Disease?
The number of tits.

ah

unread,

May 2, 2012, 7:09:54 PM5/2/12

to

If I were to psot a selection of lyrics from Led Zeppelin's Houses Of The
Holy, teh Internodes would most certainly abound with multiple references to
said lyrics.

But, it is also (and most likely) true that I may very-well have memorised
said lyrics, thus relegating the "cut-n-paste" assertion to specious doomage.

Do not assume anything, Peter, as (the olde addage goes), you might make an
ass out of u and me, though (as the addage serrupticiously asserts), "The
Monkey is on /your/ back!"
--
a "http://www.cat-sidh.net/gallery/albums/batch012/normal_MayberryLSD.jpg" h

ah

unread,

May 2, 2012, 7:11:27 PM5/2/12

to

On 4/29/2012 7:25 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:38:24 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 4/24/2012 3:06 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:38:24 +0100, Otis B Driftwood <philky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in news:op.wc52zltaytk5n5@i7-940:

>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 11:17:44 +0100, Otis B Driftwood
>>>>> <philky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:op.wcrozowfytk5n5@i7-940:
>>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That would come up in his review.
>>>>>
>>>>> But if he jumped in time he could prevent the review.
>>>>>
>>>>

>>>> ITYM space-time.
>>>
>>> The space might stay the same. So it would be just time.
>>
>> In non-relativistic classical mechanics, the use of Euclidean space instead of
>> spacetime is appropriate, as time is treated as universal and constant, being
>> independent of the state of motion of an observer.
>>
>> In relativistic contexts, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions
>> of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends
>> on the object's velocity relative to the observer and also on the strength of
>> gravitational fields, which can slow the passage of time.
>>
>> If we're to accept as valid Teh Einstein's Theory of Relativity as having
>> practical substance, the interrelation of space and time is inseparable.
>>
>> The term spacetime has taken on a generalized meaning beyond treating
>> spacetime events with the normal 3+1 dimensions. It is really the combination
>> of space and time. Other proposed spacetime theories include additional
>> dimensions—normally spatial but there exist some speculative theories that
>> include additional temporal dimensions and even some that include dimensions
>> that are neither temporal nor spatial. How many dimensions are needed to
>> describe the universe is still an open question. Speculative theories such as
>> string theory predict 10 or 26 dimensions (with M-theory predicting 11
>> dimensions: 10 spatial and 1 temporal), but the existence of more than four
>> dimensions would only appear to make a difference at the subatomic level.
>>
>> Therefore, one might posit that Msr. Kyle's proposition is invalid, as it
>> seems that you are speaking strictly in a Euclidean context (albeit however
>> erroneous as that might be considering the above).
>>
>> What really needs to be stated is if you are a tri-dimensionalist, or a n+1
>> dimensionialist.
>>
>> So, what's it to be, Peter?
>
> ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.................

Answer me, Bitch!

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

May 2, 2012, 7:36:38 PM5/2/12

to

On Thu, 03 May 2012 00:09:54 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/29/2012 7:25 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:29:47 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/24/2012 7:09 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:33:52 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/22/2012 8:43 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> That's supposing 1-dimensional Euclidean space, whereas the actuality is
>>>>> n-dimensional, thus it is evident (considering string theory and M-theory
>>>>> (since they posit that physical space had 10 and 11 dimensions,
>>>>> respectively)), that--as Kant wrote in 1783--"That everywhere space (which is
>>>>> not itself the boundary of another space) has three dimensions and that space
>>>>> in general cannot have more dimensions is based on the proposition that not
>>>>> more than three lines can intersect at right angles in one point. This
>>>>> proposition cannot at all be shown from concepts, but rests immediately on
>>>>> intuition and indeed on pure intuition a priori because it is apodictically
>>>>> (demonstrably) certain."
>>>>>
>>>>> As it were, the review happened; and, the prevention of the review happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, it is evident that there is no quandary on the matter.
>>>>
>>>> You cut and pasted that.
>>>
>>> Lies!
>>
>> So how come I found it all over the internet in those very words? I know English teachers, I know how to find out if you're cheating.
>
> If I were to psot a selection of lyrics from Led Zeppelin's Houses Of The
> Holy, teh Internodes would most certainly abound with multiple references to
> said lyrics.
>
> But, it is also (and most likely) true that I may very-well have memorised
> said lyrics, thus relegating the "cut-n-paste" assertion to specious doomage.
>
> Do not assume anything, Peter, as (the olde addage goes), you might make an
> ass out of u and me, though (as the addage serrupticiously asserts), "The
> Monkey is on /your/ back!"

Lyrics should be stated in one way only, thus will always be findable. However an explanation of physics can be worded a trillion different ways.

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

There are more men than women in mental hospitals - which just goes to show who's driving who crazy.

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

May 2, 2012, 7:39:34 PM5/2/12

to

On Thu, 03 May 2012 00:11:27 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 4/29/2012 7:25 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:38:24 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/24/2012 3:06 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:38:24 +0100, Otis B Driftwood <philky...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Lieutenant Scott" <n...@spam.com> wrote in news:op.wc52zltaytk5n5@i7-940:
>>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

Shan't.

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

5 Brits were injured last year in accidents involving out of control Scalextric cars.

ah

unread,

May 4, 2012, 10:21:59 PM5/4/12

to

So, you don't like _my_ words, so you shout 'nanny-nanny'?
--
a "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_RZSi4d1Qc" h

ah

unread,

May 4, 2012, 10:22:17 PM5/4/12

to

Duit!

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

May 5, 2012, 6:36:14 PM5/5/12

to

On Sat, 05 May 2012 03:21:59 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/2/2012 7:36 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 00:09:54 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/29/2012 7:25 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:29:47 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/24/2012 7:09 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Lies!
>>>>
>>>> So how come I found it all over the internet in those very words? I know English teachers, I know how to find out if you're cheating.
>>>
>>> If I were to psot a selection of lyrics from Led Zeppelin's Houses Of The
>>> Holy, teh Internodes would most certainly abound with multiple references to
>>> said lyrics.
>>>
>>> But, it is also (and most likely) true that I may very-well have memorised
>>> said lyrics, thus relegating the "cut-n-paste" assertion to specious doomage.
>>>
>>> Do not assume anything, Peter, as (the olde addage goes), you might make an
>>> ass out of u and me, though (as the addage serrupticiously asserts), "The
>>> Monkey is on /your/ back!"
>>
>> Lyrics should be stated in one way only, thus will always be findable. However an explanation of physics can be worded a trillion different ways.
>
> So, you don't like _my_ words, so you shout 'nanny-nanny'?

No, I found your words used elsewhere.

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

It is preferential to refrain from the utilization of sesquipedalian verbiage in the circumstance that your intellectualization can be expressed using comparatively simplistic lexicological entities.

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

May 5, 2012, 6:36:29 PM5/5/12

to

On Sat, 05 May 2012 03:22:17 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/2/2012 7:39 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 00:11:27 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/29/2012 7:25 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:38:24 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/24/2012 3:06 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

When I get a round tuit.

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

ah

unread,

May 6, 2012, 6:50:37 PM5/6/12

to

On 5/5/2012 6:36 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 05 May 2012 03:21:59 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/2/2012 7:36 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 May 2012 00:09:54 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/29/2012 7:25 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 02:29:47 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/24/2012 7:09 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lies!
>>>>>
>>>>> So how come I found it all over the internet in those very words? I know English teachers, I know how to find out if you're cheating.
>>>>
>>>> If I were to psot a selection of lyrics from Led Zeppelin's Houses Of The
>>>> Holy, teh Internodes would most certainly abound with multiple references to
>>>> said lyrics.
>>>>
>>>> But, it is also (and most likely) true that I may very-well have memorised
>>>> said lyrics, thus relegating the "cut-n-paste" assertion to specious doomage.
>>>>
>>>> Do not assume anything, Peter, as (the olde addage goes), you might make an
>>>> ass out of u and me, though (as the addage serrupticiously asserts), "The
>>>> Monkey is on /your/ back!"
>>>
>>> Lyrics should be stated in one way only, thus will always be findable. However an explanation of physics can be worded a trillion different ways.
>>
>> So, you don't like _my_ words, so you shout 'nanny-nanny'?
>
> No, I found your words used elsewhere.

If it were the articles, I claim prior art!

unread,

May 15, 2012, 9:36:02 PM5/15/12

to

On 5/15/2012 4:02 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 02:43:45 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/12/2012 5:01 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 02:28:28 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2012 4:33 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 May 2012 01:34:52 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/8/2012 10:25 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have only one Baccalaureate.
>>>>>
>>>>> So do I, but I don't call it that.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a personal problem.
>>>
>>> Depending on which way you look at it, it can be considered a distinct advantage.
>>
>> So can auto-fellatio, but I'm not going to trumpet that in a public forum.
>
> You just did.

No, that would be you.

*hiss*

John Wiser

unread,

May 16, 2012, 7:12:08 AM5/16/12

to

"ah" <splif...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fb304be$0$17209$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...

You will never again be able
to look each other in the eye.

JDW

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

May 16, 2012, 8:02:50 AM5/16/12

to

On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:36:02 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/15/2012 4:02 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 02:43:45 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/12/2012 5:01 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 02:28:28 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/10/2012 4:33 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Sounds like a personal problem.
>>>>
>>>> Depending on which way you look at it, it can be considered a distinct advantage.
>>>
>>> So can auto-fellatio, but I'm not going to trumpet that in a public forum.
>>
>> You just did.
>
> No, that would be you.
>
> *hiss*

I can read between the lines.

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

A study in Scotland showed that the kind of male face a woman finds attractive can differ depending where a woman is in her menstrual cycle.
For instance, if she is ovulating they are attracted to men with rugged, masculine features.
If she is menstruating she is more prone to be attracted to a man with scissors shoved in his temple.

ah

unread,

May 18, 2012, 7:12:21 PM5/18/12

to

On 5/16/2012 8:02 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:36:02 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/15/2012 4:02 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 02:43:45 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/12/2012 5:01 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2012 02:28:28 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/10/2012 4:33 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds like a personal problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depending on which way you look at it, it can be considered a distinct advantage.
>>>>
>>>> So can auto-fellatio, but I'm not going to trumpet that in a public forum.
>>>
>>> You just did.
>>
>> No, that would be you.
>>
>> *hiss*
>
> I can read between the lines.

I bet you can.

ah

unread,

May 18, 2012, 7:13:00 PM5/18/12

to

Voyeur poetry is proscribed in demon.local

Please read the FAQ'n charter.

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

May 19, 2012, 1:27:59 PM5/19/12

to

On Sat, 19 May 2012 00:12:21 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/16/2012 8:02 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:36:02 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/15/2012 4:02 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 02:43:45 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/12/2012 5:01 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> So can auto-fellatio, but I'm not going to trumpet that in a public forum.
>>>>
>>>> You just did.
>>>
>>> No, that would be you.
>>>
>>> *hiss*
>>
>> I can read between the lines.
>
> I bet you can.

Bet not accepted.

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

In the event that all else has failed, and it seems tempting to actually read the instructions, don't panic: Get a bigger hammer!

ah

unread,

May 20, 2012, 10:10:52 PM5/20/12

to

On 5/19/2012 1:27 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2012 00:12:21 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/16/2012 8:02 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:36:02 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/15/2012 4:02 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 15 May 2012 02:43:45 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/12/2012 5:01 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So can auto-fellatio, but I'm not going to trumpet that in a public forum.
>>>>>
>>>>> You just did.
>>>>
>>>> No, that would be you.
>>>>
>>>> *hiss*
>>>
>>> I can read between the lines.
>>
>> I bet you can.
>
> Bet not accepted.

So, you admit to doubtful veracity?
--
a "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtSgWZbL_kE" h

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

May 21, 2012, 7:39:12 PM5/21/12

to

On Mon, 21 May 2012 03:10:52 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/19/2012 1:27 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 00:12:21 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/16/2012 8:02 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:36:02 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/15/2012 4:02 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> No, that would be you.
>>>>>
>>>>> *hiss*
>>>>
>>>> I can read between the lines.
>>>
>>> I bet you can.
>>
>> Bet not accepted.
>
> So, you admit to doubtful veracity?

No. I said I can read between the lines, and you bet that I CAN. Why would I bet AGAINST what I just claimed?

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

"Smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics." - Fletcher Knebel

ah

unread,

May 23, 2012, 8:05:05 PM5/23/12

to

On 5/21/2012 7:39 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2012 03:10:52 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2012 1:27 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 00:12:21 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:02 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:36:02 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/15/2012 4:02 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that would be you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *hiss*
>>>>>
>>>>> I can read between the lines.
>>>>
>>>> I bet you can.
>>>
>>> Bet not accepted.
>>
>> So, you admit to doubtful veracity?
>
> No. I said I can read between the lines, and you bet that I CAN. Why would I bet AGAINST what I just claimed?

Mayhaps you lied?

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

May 24, 2012, 7:15:16 PM5/24/12

to

On Thu, 24 May 2012 01:05:05 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/21/2012 7:39 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 03:10:52 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/19/2012 1:27 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 00:12:21 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:02 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> I bet you can.
>>>>
>>>> Bet not accepted.
>>>
>>> So, you admit to doubtful veracity?
>>
>> No. I said I can read between the lines, and you bet that I CAN. Why would I bet AGAINST what I just claimed?
>
> Mayhaps you lied?

To myself?

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

_..._
\_.._ `'-.,--,
'-._'-. `\a\\
'. `_.' (|
`7 ||
/ .' |
/_.-' ,J
/ \
|| / ;
_.. || | | /`\.-.
.' _ `\ `\ \ | \_/__/
/ /e)-,\ '. \ /.-` .'\
/ | ,_ | /\ `;_.-'_.-'`\_/
/ '-(-.)/ \_;(((_.-;
.'--. \ ` .(((_,;`'. \
/ `\ | _.--'`__.' `\ '-;\
/` | /.-' .--' '._.'\\
.' ; /__.-'` | \ |
.'`-'_ /_.'))) \_\,_/
/ -'_.'---;`'-)))
(__.'/ /` .'`
(_.'/ /` /`
_|.' /`
.-` __.'|
.-'|| |
\_`/
`

ah

unread,

May 26, 2012, 10:12:56 PM5/26/12

to

On 5/24/2012 7:15 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2012 01:05:05 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/21/2012 7:39 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 03:10:52 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/19/2012 1:27 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2012 00:12:21 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/16/2012 8:02 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I bet you can.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bet not accepted.
>>>>
>>>> So, you admit to doubtful veracity?
>>>
>>> No. I said I can read between the lines, and you bet that I CAN. Why would I bet AGAINST what I just claimed?
>>
>> Mayhaps you lied?
>
> To myself?

The most common route, I must admit.

Lieutenant Scott

unread,

May 27, 2012, 5:04:24 AM5/27/12

to

On Sun, 27 May 2012 03:12:56 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/24/2012 7:15 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 01:05:05 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/21/2012 7:39 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 03:10:52 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/19/2012 1:27 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>

>>
>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>
>>

>>>>>

>>>>> So, you admit to doubtful veracity?
>>>>
>>>> No. I said I can read between the lines, and you bet that I CAN. Why would I bet AGAINST what I just claimed?
>>>
>>> Mayhaps you lied?
>>
>> To myself?
>
> The most common route, I must admit.

Only with split personality.

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

Excuse me sir, are you playing the bagpipes or sexually abusing an octopus?

ah

unread,

Jun 2, 2012, 11:01:15 PM6/2/12

to

On 5/27/2012 5:04 AM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
> On Sun, 27 May 2012 03:12:56 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/24/2012 7:15 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 May 2012 01:05:05 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/21/2012 7:39 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 May 2012 03:10:52 +0100, ah <splif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/19/2012 1:27 PM, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>
>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, you admit to doubtful veracity?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. I said I can read between the lines, and you bet that I CAN. Why would I bet AGAINST what I just claimed?
>>>>
>>>> Mayhaps you lied?
>>>
>>> To myself?
>>
>> The most common route, I must admit.
>
> Only with split personality.

Self-deception is not a malady.