Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Declan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Really, shouldn't you be calling for a

> clampdown on local snoopers. Unless you're a

> little bit jealous of course.


Erm...I presume your tongue is firmly in your cheek? It sounded to me as though HAL9000 was joking.

Ladymuck Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Declan Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Really, shouldn't you be calling for a

> > clampdown on local snoopers. Unless you're a

> > little bit jealous of course.

>

> Erm...I presume your tongue is firmly in your

> cheek? It sounded to me as though HAL9000 was

> joking.


Yes......I know Hal was joking too.


*sighs and wonders if he is too obscure*

Declan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Yes......I know Hal was joking too.

>

> *sighs and wonders if he is too obscure*



Well that's just fine and dandy...apologies for suggesting otherwise...and no, you're not obscure - though perhaps (as suggested by brum) a winky smiley thingamijig might have assisted on this occasion.


*breathes a sigh of relief and raises a glass of uisce beatha in Declan's direction*

computedshorty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The picture of the 1960 M.O.T. shows the

> passengers are in the back demonstrating the extra

> stress to the susspesion under special

> circumstances that might arise.

> It was thought at the time this would not happen,

> so was not added to the items to be examined.



I think you have a great memory for someone your age computedshorty. Hope the streets of ED weren't like this in the 'old days'....xx

I had a shag in the back of my car many years ago and was caught by the milkman .....



.... the next day, only because I failed to dispose of the used condom correctly and it was stuck hanging ut of the rear door (sealed end showing) for all to see....


He didn't let me live that down for years (I have since moved away from where I was living then in shame)

computedshorty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The picture of the 1960 M.O.T. shows the

> passengers are in the back demonstrating the extra

> stress to the susspesion under special

> circumstances that might arise.

> It was thought at the time this would not happen,

> so was not added to the items to be examined.


________________________________________________________________



You are full of sh!te aren't you C.S


Ok what car make & model is that , Hm ?


Oh & that's photo is earlier than the vague old 60s BTW so it pre dates the actual MOT


Lastly it is on a rolling road but the men from the Ministry of Transport didn't wear a white lab coat


It was a Tan colour they wore .


Slipped the "old mans" mind did it, well give him a nudge



W**F

woofmarkthedog Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You are full of sh!te aren't you C.S...

> Slipped the "old mans" mind did it, well give him

> a nudge



*affixes muzzle*


Now leave him/her alone...bad dog...tis just good clean fun...s/he aint doin no arm to no-one...you ear me? Now SIT!

Michael Palaeologus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think we may have to have Woofie's nuts off. He

> is getting far too aggressive.


Oh Woofie just gets carried away...an excitable puppy that's all...but I have the phenobarbitol ready should the situation require it.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Or increase tax.  The freezing of personal allowances is one way, not what I would choose.  On principle I don't care if the rich immigrate.  The main parties could have been more honest before the election.  Reform is deluded.
    • I edited my post because I couldn't be sure we were talking about politicians and I couldn't be bothered to read it all back. But it was off the back of a thread discussing labour councillors, so it went without saying really and I should have left it.  What I said was 'There's something very aggressive about language like that - it's not big and it's not clever. Some of the angry energy that comes from the far left is pretty self-defeating.' (In relation to a labour councillor rather immaturely, in my view, wearing a jumper that read 'fuck the Tories').  But I don't recall saying that "violent rhetoric" is exclusively the domain of the left wing. So I do think you're taking a bit of a bit of leap here. 
    • You literally just edited your earlier reply to remove the point you made about it being “politicians”.  Then you call me pathetic.    I’m  not trying to say you approve any of the ugly right wing nonsense.  But I AM Saying your earlier post suggesting  violent rhetoric being “left wing” was one-sided and incorrect 
    • I never said that. Saying I don’t like some of the rhetoric coming from the left doesn’t mean I approve of Farage et al saying that Afghans being brought here to protect their lives and thank them for their service means there is an incalculable threat to women.    Anything to score a cheap point. It’s pretty pathetic. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...