[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;240957]You are right that there is a difference.

However, remember that the district court ruled that such an extension was invalid.[/QUOTE]You're writing about the ERA, right?

[quote]This was subsequently appealed to the supreme court, who (as I mentioned) ruled the point was moot. You are right that the ratification deadline could be extended, but you are ignoring the fact[/quote]No, I'm not ignoring anything.

[quote]that (1) such an extension could be found invalid (again) by the courts,[/quote]... but an earlier extension [I]had[/I] been valid, so it'd be hard to go against that precedent.

[quote]or (2) the courts might rule that the original ratifications were valid only for the original timeline, because they might view the preamble (which as you rightly point out is not a part of the amendment)[/quote]"the preamble"? I've been referring to "the legislation accompanying the amendment". Is that what you mean?

[quote]But this is all but moot as the ratification deadline most likely won't be extended, as such an extension would be viewed as trying to change the constitution against the will of the people.[/quote]No, it wouldn't. Polls consistently showed then and show now that large majorities favor an equal-rights amendment, even if anti-ERA propaganda has managed to twist the meaning of the exact wording of the ERA in some minds.

[quote]Edited to add: you said: "Not one single state ever ratified the part of legislation containing a deadline..." I was under the impression (from reading the wiki articles) that this was incorrect. That a majority of the ratifications specifically mentioned the timeline. Was the wiki wrong on that point?[/quote]Your interpretation of the wiki article seems incorrect. The passage "... of the 35 legislatures that passed ratification resolutions, 24 explicitly referred to the 1979 deadline" does not say that what was ratified had a deadline. Was there something else?

[quote]Did the states NOT put their own timelines on their ratifications? [Note: This issue is different than unratification.][/quote]States' own time/deadlines wouldn't have overridden the congressionally-set deadline.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;240167]Since then a handful of other parties have sprung up which voice similarly racist and especially anti-muslim views, and one of these ("Partij voor de Vrijheid", or "Freedom Party") has in the last few years forced its way to the front of the political scene. In the national elections for parliament last June they took around 16% of the vote and this was enough to give them a big say in the policies of the new government which is now in office (they are not literally part of the government but took part in drawing up the agreement with the two coalition parties which have taken office and these two need the approval of the Freedom Party's parliament members to have a majority).[/QUOTE]"forced its way to the front of the political scene?" Forced? Really?

Wilders is often quoted as saying he has a problem with Islam, not Muslims per se.

I'm north of you, in Sweden. The anti-immigration party, Sweden Democrats, took about 6% of the recent vote and won 20 parliamentary seats.

I know Germans who tell me that "they like their coffee brown".

It is going to hit the fan in Europe, maybe in my lifetime.

As to the original topic of this thread "What is offensive language?" the answer is "anything that offends my mother."

[QUOTE=M29;241030]I know Germans who tell me that "they like their coffee brown".[/QUOTE]

What does that mean? (Or should I ask?)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;240981]... but an earlier extension [I]had[/I] been valid, so it'd be hard to go against that precedent.[/quote]From wikipedia: "In 1978, the Congress passed a controversial bill by simple majority (not a two-thirds supermajority) that extended the ratification deadline by 39 months.[citation needed] During this disputed extension, no new states ratified or rescinded." and again from wikipedia "In Idaho v. Freeman, the United States District Court for the District of Idaho ruled that the rescissions — all of which occurred before the original 1979 ratification deadline — were valid. According to research by Professor Jules B. Gerard, professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, of the 35 legislatures that passed ratification resolutions, 24 explicitly referred to the 1979 deadline. The court also ruled that the extension of the ratification deadline was unconstitutional."

Also, I don't know what precedent you are talking about, in terms of extending a deadline on ratification.

[quote]"the preamble"? I've been referring to "the legislation accompanying the amendment". Is that what you mean?[/quote]I'm talking about the joint resolution proposing the amendment. The text is available here: [url]http://www.house.gov/house/Amendnotrat.shtml[/url]

[quote]No, it wouldn't. Polls consistently showed then and show now that large majorities favor an equal-rights amendment, even if anti-ERA propaganda has managed to twist the meaning of the exact wording of the ERA in some minds.[/quote]You are confusing issues. It is one thing to want to pass the ERA. It is another thing to try and make it pass in a controversial manner. I think people are opposed to the 3 state strategy. But I could be wrong.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;241033]What does that mean? (Or should I ask?)[/QUOTE]

Just as long as you don't mention zee war.

[QUOTE=M29;241030]
I know Germans who tell me that "they like their coffee brown".

It is going to hit the fan in Europe, maybe in my lifetime.
[/QUOTE]

I think Brian will understand why this makes me chuckle.

"Solids engaging with the cooling arrangements" is about
my favourite metaphor. Along with "Pissing into the wind".

David

Semi-seriously on topic
 

We go to some lengths these days not to mock
the blind or the deaf. However, "dumb" is still used
universally(?) as meaning "stupid".

I'll dig it up eventually, but one of Basil Fawlty's innumerable
funny "asides" was:

Hmmm. Deaf, dumb [B]and[/B] blind.

(Lady querying the advertised "Sea View")

David

Sorry. Can't stop laughing about the bit when she turned
up the volume on her earpiece, and Basil promply shouted into it.

[QUOTE=M29;241030]"forced its way to the front of the political scene?" Forced? Really?[/QUOTE]
Using normal political means, of course. I was using my own rhetoric there.:smile:

[QUOTE]Wilders is often quoted as saying he has a problem with Islam, not Muslims per se.[/QUOTE]Yes, that's how he sanitizes his policies but unfortunately he still fails to make any distinction between the religion and the people in other things that he says. And what he says is designed to spread hatred of muslims (and some racial and national groups too such as Maroccans, Turks and Antillians). There is a site [URL]http://www.watwilwilders.nl/[/URL] which gives a truly horrific selection of quotations which Wilders, or occasionally other members of his party, have come out with. They are mostly in Dutch, so I'll translate a few "gems" below:

"I really think there should be fewer muslims in The Netherlands." Geert Wilders, Het Nieuwsblad, 9 february 2008.

"That's enough. We want the borders closed, no more Islamists allowed into The Netherlands, plenty of muslims out, denaturalisation of islamist criminals ...." Geert Wilders, interview in "De Pers", 13 february 2007.

"Send the muslims who cause problems out of the country, with their families and all." Geert Wilders, HP/De Tijd, 12 december 2007.

Those three were taken from the site under its subheading "Wilders discriminates against muslims". There are plenty of others under that heading, plus more than a hundred more under the other headings "Wilders discriminates against foreign nationals", "Wilders spreads hatred", "Wilders spreads fear", "Wilders wants racisme", "Wilders insults groups", "Wilders refuses to debate".

[QUOTE]I'm north of you, in Sweden. The anti-immigration party, Sweden Democrats, took about 6% of the recent vote and won 20 parliamentary seats.

I know Germans who tell me that "they like their coffee brown".

It is going to hit the fan in Europe, maybe in my lifetime.[/QUOTE]Yes. I find it very disturbing that so much of Europe is heading this way, even your country Sweden which has such a tolerant reputation.

[QUOTE]As to the original topic of this thread "What is offensive language?" the answer is "anything that offends my mother."[/QUOTE]Probably a very good definition. I'm sure she has excellent judgment.:smile:

[QUOTE=davieddy;241040]I think Brian will understand why this makes me chuckle.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. Basil would make a good case-study for this thread.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;241071]There is a site [URL]http://www.watwilwilders.nl/[/URL] which gives a truly horrific selection of quotations which Wilders, or occasionally other members of his party, have come out with. They are mostly in Dutch, so I'll translate a few "gems" below:[/QUOTE]
Bah! After going to that trouble I've just noticed that that site has an English language section. Click on the little British flag for the Wilders quotations translated into English.:rofl:

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;241033][QUOTE=M29;241030]I know Germans who tell me that "they like their coffee brown".[/QUOTE]
What does that mean? (Or should I ask?)[/QUOTE]It is a reference to the Brown Shirts.

I've also heard "Why do we Germans always have to pay pay pay?", "Yes, they are guest workers, but a good guest knows when to go home.", and "What we need is a good Hitler".

I hear such things from ordinary white and blue collar people. And as I think about it, none are public servants or academics. I only know one public servant, but not very well.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;241071]"I really think there should be fewer muslims in The Netherlands." Geert Wilders[/QUOTE]Horrific?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;241071]"That's enough. We want the borders closed, no more Islamists allowed into The Netherlands, plenty of muslims out, denaturalisation of islamist criminals ...." .[/QUOTE]Horrific?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;241071]"Send the muslims who cause problems out of the country, with their families and all." [/QUOTE]Horrific?

Does he also say to send away Bosnians who cause trouble?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;241071]Yes. I find it very disturbing that so much of Europe is heading this way, even your country Sweden which has such a tolerant reputation.[/QUOTE]Oops! You don't know me. I am a Yank who has been in Sweden for four years. Sorry.

I know plenty of Swedes who are fed up. One guy actually said to me "Maybe America will rescue us?" I was shocked. I've heard even more shocking things from (non-Muslim) Iranian and Syrian immigrants

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;241036]

<snip>

[/QUOTE]You've made it clear that you're opposed to an ERA.

[QUOTE=M29;241115]Horrific?[/QUOTE]
Perhaps not. I'm not a muslim so I'm not directly threatened by the blanket hatred which is being stirred up, still less by threats of deportation of myself or my loved ones. So why should I be horrified?

[QUOTE]Does he also say to send away Bosnians who cause trouble?[/QUOTE]
No, he hasn't singled out Bosnians as far as I know. The Bosnian refugees from the Balkan slaughter largely settled elsewhere: while there are some in The Netherlands they are not here in such numbers that Wilders is likely to make much political capital out of them.

[QUOTE]Oops! You don't know me. I am a Yank who has been in Sweden for four years. Sorry.[/QUOTE]
I referred to Sweden as your country. Sorry if I inadvertently ascribed more allegiance to your home of four years than is in fact the case.

[QUOTE]I know plenty of Swedes who are fed up. One guy actually said to me "Maybe America will rescue us?" I was shocked. I've heard even more shocking things from (non-Muslim) Iranian and Syrian immigrants[/QUOTE]
Could you explain what people in Sweden (native and immigrant) are fed up with and what they want to be rescued from? It might shed some light on things.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;241146]So why should I be horrified?[/QUOTE]You wrote "a truly horrific selection of quotations which Wilders" so I assumed that Wilders' politics horrified you.
[QUOTE=Brian-E;241146]....that Wilders is likely to make much political capital out of them.[/quote]Thanks for writing that. Do people think that Wilders is using immigration problems as a political stepping stone, or do they believe that he is sincere?
[QUOTE=Brian-E;241146]I referred to Sweden as your country. Sorry if I inadvertently ascribed more allegiance to your home of four years than is in fact the case.[/quote]No problem and most certainly no offense. I didn't want you to think that you were talking with a Swede. I've been stuck here on "the project from hell".
[QUOTE=Brian-E;241146]Could you explain what people in Sweden (native and immigrant) are fed up with and what they want to be rescued from? It might shed some light on things.[/QUOTE]Most (most?) non-Muslim immigrants have fled their home countries to escape Muslims. Not only do they find themselves rubbing elbows with them again, but they resent being lumped together with them.

Iranian non-Muslims, such as Zoroastrians, refer to Iranian Muslims as "Muslims from Iran". The implication is that they are not true Iranians. Right or wrong, that is what they say.

According to Riksdag member Abdirisak Waberi (quote courtesy of Wikileaks) Somalians will never feel integrated... will never feel Swedish. And to see them walking around, they certainly don't look or act Swedish.

The "rescue" remark came from the father of a young girl. She is not allowed to go out alone at night. People of all ages are used to walking kilometers at all hours, but it is getting dangerous, they say. Here in town, a teen-aged Iraqi boy murdered his Swedish girlfriend a few months ago. This father has had other run-ins with immigrants (Croat kids, I think).

The Iraqi husband of an Iraqi lady at work was murdered by another Iraqi man. They say that he will be released from prison after five (seven?) years. She is worried sick that her sons will try to avenge her husband.

The list goes on. People see their way of life changing and the crime rates (especially rape) going up.

Oh, here's one that *really* upsets everybody. Thai immigrants working in teams pick all the mushrooms! This is, actually, serious. It is a family thing to walk into the forest and gather mushrooms. Parents, young children, grandparents. So it is Saturday morning, the family is all here again this year, you go the neighborhood park/forest across the street and there is..... NOTHING! It really ruins a family tradition.

There are apple trees scattered about. A friend rides his bike to work and often stops to pick one apple for himself and one for me. One day he finds a Polish lady up in the tree picking every last one. Little things like this add up and people get sick and tired of it.

Ernst, if you are reading this, I went out into the countryside and got 11.5 kg of Pfifferlingen! Not in one day, mind you, but I found a great spot. And I had my Garmin with me.

[QUOTE=M29;241160]
No problem and most certainly no offense.[/QUOTE]

AFAIK no fence was taken.

Touche

David

PS It's more "Eddyfying" to hear you two going at it
than Cheesehead and Zetaflux:)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;241139]You've made it clear that you're opposed to an ERA.[/QUOTE]No. I've made it clear that I question the 3 state strategy (on multiple fronts) for passing the previous ERA. That is all.

[QUOTE=M29;241160]You wrote "a truly horrific selection of quotations which Wilders" so I assumed that Wilders' politics horrified you.[/QUOTE]
It does horrify me.

As my naive and unnecessary attempts to avoid unpleasant statements by asking related questions haven't worked, I'll say it directly instead. I should have done that before.

Wilders, like other similar politicians in Europe, plays on human fears and insecurities and the tendency that people have to want to blame an entire group - he's singled out muslims especially, also to a lesser extent first and second generation immigrants, for the problems and dangers, real and perceived, in their lives. He tells people what they want to hear, namely that we wouldn't have these problems if we didn't have muslims living here. This collective scapegoat is perfect for his purposes: the group is large enough (about 5% of the population) to be visible, but not so large or as yet well-integrated that Wilders' target voters are likely to count many muslims amongst their friends.

You write about these same fears and insecurities as Swedish people experience them. Thankyou for these excellent examples. So on the serious side we read that there were two murders, that crime rates have increased generally, and that people think (very likely correctly) that the streets are less safe at night than they used to be. For the more mundane issues - which of course also seriously concern people - we read about observing Somali people walking around and thinking that they don't look integrated, or difficulties with the fair distribution of wild fruit and vegetables. And you write that people are fed up with these problems and want an answer.

Isn't it beguiling when a politician or political party says that they have an answer: it's all the fault of muslims or of immigrants in general and if they weren't here it would all be alright?

Is there any rational basis at all for this wider assigning of blame onto entire groups? Sometimes yes, in the sense that in certain specific instances you can measure an over-representation of a particular group amongst perpetrators of a particular antisocial attribute. Here in The Netherlands for example it has been established that Maroccan youths are over-represented in crimes involving random attacks against lesbians and gay men in so-called hate crimes. It can probably be explained by fact that these young Maroccans have grown up in families where the parents moved from a country which to this day criminalises homosexuality. "Over-representation" means in this case that the small percentage of Maroccan youngsters who perpetrate these attacks is matched by an even smaller percentage of Dutch youths who do the same thing. In both cases the overwhelming majority do not offend. The information may be important for some purposes (targetting information about sexuality and diversity springs to mind) but must not be misused to paint all Maroccans as dangerous or antisocial. That is a myth and its continued propagation causes untold damage.

Integration of religious- and immigrant groups with the wider community has proceeded slowly over the half century in which it has been an issue and it is still fraught with problems. Nevertheless we have long since reached the stage in the more prosperous European countries where all groups are part of society and everyone takes part. There is nothing to be gained, and everything to lose, from reactivating old fears and suspicions as Wilders and others like him in Europe are doing.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;241185]No. I've made it clear that I question the 3 state strategy (on multiple fronts) for passing the previous ERA. That is all.[/QUOTE]If you weren't basically against the ERA, you'd probably have noticed the mistakes in your reasoning before you posted, or at least after they were pointed out. That (lack of acknowledgment of mistakes) is why I said you've made your opposition clear, and why I'm not bothering to repeat my corrections.

You're not trying to avoid admitting that you oppose the ERA, are you?

[QUOTE=cheesehead;241440]You're not trying to avoid admitting that you oppose the ERA, are you?[/QUOTE]I think that the IRA went about things all wrong.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;241486]I think that the IRA went about things all wrong.[/QUOTE]

Aren't you thinking of the EMU?

IRA Gershwin wrote some fine songs, but by way
of apologizing, I shall refrain from posting any links:)

David (England)

[QUOTE]Aren't you thinking of the EMU?[/QUOTE]:orly emu:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;241440]If you weren't basically against the ERA, you'd probably have noticed the mistakes in your reasoning before you posted, or at least after they were pointed out. That (lack of acknowledgment of mistakes) is why I said you've made your opposition clear, and why I'm not bothering to repeat my corrections.

You're not trying to avoid admitting that you oppose the ERA, are you?[/QUOTE]


You don't expect him to admit it do you?

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;241608]You don't expect him to admit it do you?[/QUOTE]

To which era are we referring?

[QUOTE=davieddy;241626]To which era are we referring?[/QUOTE]

Presuming that this is another poor attempt at humor, could keep your comments on topic?

[QUOTE=rogue;241630]Presuming that this is another poor attempt at humor, could keep your comments on topic?[/QUOTE]
Could you bother to read the few preceding posts?

Treat us to a better attempt if you can.

David

[QUOTE=rogue;241630]Presuming that this is another poor attempt at humor, could keep your comments on topic?[/QUOTE]

More seriously, the best humour (mods note the u) arises
when more than one person exchange quips.

YOUR TURN

David

[QUOTE=rogue;241630]Presuming that this is another poor attempt at humor, could keep your comments on topic?[/QUOTE]
And most "on topic": perhaps you could expand the TLA ERA
for the benefit of those allergic to Google.

Thankyou in anticipation,

(Wishful thinking again)

[QUOTE=davieddy;241639]And most "on topic": perhaps you could expand the TLA ERA
for the benefit of those allergic to Google.

Thankyou in anticipation,

(Wishful thinking again)[/QUOTE]

Based upon your typical posts, I read that post as a pun.

ERA refers to the Equal Rights Amendment.

[QUOTE=rogue;241648]Based upon your typical posts, I read that post as a pun.

ERA refers to the Equal Rights Amendment.[/QUOTE]
By which I assume you agree ERA could stand for virtually anything.
My point in a nutshell.

Amendment to what? Presumably your parochial constitution.

David

i.e. I am merely attempting to render this TYPICAL (SIC)
USA-biased discussion accessible to the rest of the world.
Yes. You'll find it on some maps.

Yes I'm PISSED (in your sense and not mine (for a change:))

[QUOTE=davieddy;241639]And most "on topic": perhaps you could expand the TLA ERA for the benefit of those allergic to Google.

Thankyou in anticipation,

(Wishful thinking again)[/QUOTE]David, you're exposing your ignorance. Stop it.

Paul

[QUOTE=xilman;241670]David, you're exposing your ignorance. Stop it.

Paul[/QUOTE]

That's a risque thing to do!

I take it you have just seen my PM:smile:

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;241652]Yes I'm PISSED (in your sense and not mine (for a change:))[/QUOTE]What a coincidence! So am I.

Just polished off a macaroni aglio, olio y peperoncino washed down with a bottle of Montepulciano d'Abruzzo.

The peperoncino (in reality two home-grown Cheyenne) stimulated a probably excessive release of endorphines, not to mention a rather noticeable attack of perspiration.

If anyone would like the recipe, please ask.

Paul

Sounds totally irresistable to me
 

:direction:[QUOTE=xilman;241676]What a coincidence! So am I.

Just polished off a macaroni aglio, olio y peperoncino washed down with a bottle of Montepulciano d'Abruzzo.

The peperoncino (in reality two home-grown Cheyenne) stimulated a probably excessive release of endorphines, not to mention a rather noticeable attack of perspiration.

If anyone would like the recipe, please ask.

Paul[/QUOTE]

David

x (This is the Soap Box after all)

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;241608]You don't expect him to admit it do you?[/QUOTE]You want to know what's really funny about this response? Apparently Silverman blocked me, so he hasn't even read any of my responses (except possibly in the out of context snippets quoted in others posts).

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

[QUOTE=cheesehead]If you weren't basically against the ERA, you'd probably have noticed the mistakes in your reasoning before you posted, or at least after they were pointed out. That (lack of acknowledgment of mistakes) is why I said you've made your opposition clear, and why I'm not bothering to repeat my corrections.

You're not trying to avoid admitting that you oppose the ERA, are you? [/QUOTE]By pointing out mistakes, were you referring to things like "... but an earlier extension had been valid, so it'd be hard to go against that precedent." I'm pretty sure I admitted I didn't know of any earlier extension on an amendment that was found valid. You are still free to give an example.

Not Punny
 

[QUOTE=rogue;241648]Based upon your typical posts, I read that post as a pun.[/QUOTE]
Well, if an acronym spells a real word, it cries out for punning does it not?

Speaking of awful puns, it seems they have renamed the Sydney
Opera House the "Oprah House". Now that is what I would consider
seriously unfunny.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;241652]Amendment to what? Presumably your parochial constitution.

David

i.e. I am merely attempting to render this TYPICAL (SIC)
USA-biased discussion accessible to the rest of the world.
Yes. You'll find it on some maps.[/QUOTE]

Don't get mad, get even. Post about whatever the Torries are doing these days and don't provide a gloss for the Americans.

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;241796]Don't get mad, get even. Post about whatever the Torries are doing these days and don't provide a gloss for the Americans.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm. I'm sure this post was well intentioned in every respect,
but I'm having a bit of trouble interpreting it.

Are the Torries anything to do with that oil spillage in the
Canyon a few years back?

I could continue:smile:

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;241890]Hmmm. I'm sure this post was well intentioned in every respect,
but I'm having a bit of trouble interpreting it.[/QUOTE]

You were apparently annoyed at Americans talking about American politics without explaining it to non-Americans. I was suggesting that you do the same with British politics. (Of course you could pick the politics of any nation you liked, or even a topic other than politics.)

[QUOTE=CRGreathouse;241891]You were apparently annoyed at Americans talking about American politics without explaining it to non-Americans. I was suggesting that you do the same with British politics. (Of course you could pick the politics of any nation you liked, or even a topic other than politics.)[/QUOTE]

You are reading far to much into the origin of this
"mainly" humo(u)r(o)us exchange.

OK I didn't remember what ERA stood for, (and didn't care).
RDS is always worth teasing, so in response to his use of said TLA
I posted a four word reply, namely "What era was that?"

Cue snotty post from Rogue.

As I posted recently "DON'T YOU AMERICANS DO ANYTHING BY HAND THESE DAYS?"
(Context available on request, although I think it was in the Pubic (sic) Domain).
David

[QUOTE=davieddy;241892]You are reading far to much into the origin of this
"mainly" humo(u)r(o)us exchange.

OK I didn't remember what ERA stood for, (and didn't care).
RDS is always worth teasing, so in response to his use of said TLA
I posted a four word reply, namely "What era was that?"

Cue snotty post from Rogue.

As I posted recently "DON'T YOU AMERICANS DO ANYTHING BY HAND THESE DAYS?"
(Context available on request, although I think it was in the Pubic (sic) Domain).
David[/QUOTE]

I believe that you are the only one laughing at your attempts at humor. I don't find your posts particularly punny. I actually find most of them quite annoying. Of course it could be the difference between snotty people like me and everyone else.

Congratulations, you have won a prize. You have made it to my ignore list. You are the second person to achieve that goal. Considering that I have been on this forum for more than 7 years on, that is quite an honor.

:bs meter::groupwave:[QUOTE=rogue;241895]I believe that you are the only one laughing at your attempts at humor. I don't find your posts particularly punny. I actually find most of them quite annoying. Of course it could be the difference between snotty people like me and everyone else.

Congratulations, you have won a prize. You have made it to my ignore list. You are the second person to achieve that goal. Considering that I have been on this forum for more than 7 years on, that is quite an honor.[/QUOTE]

Tried to find ROFL but couldn't. (Funny that).

Perhaps you would be kind enough never to post to me again.

Or is that option not available yet?

David

PS You asked for that.

To end on a more humor(sic)ous note, who was the first on your
ignore list?

PPS He offered her honor, she honored his offer,
and all night long it was honor and offer.

PPPS Shakespeare walks into pub.
Landlady: You're Bard.

Quite enough for now.

Fluid dynamics
 

[QUOTE=rogue;241895]I believe that you are the only one laughing at your attempts at humor.[/QUOTE]

Are we talking aqueous, vitreous or special brew here?

(Not too confident about my IOUs, be it spelling or otherwise).

I'm not casting pearls before swine again, am I?
More likely trying to make a silk purse from a pig's ear.
Or was that cow's? Until I think of a joke about it, or
(less likely) Googol the exact phrase, I really couldn't give a Yank.
I didn't get where I am without mixing a few metaphors,
but I do like omelettes, and even know how not to make one.

Bon appetit Rogue.

David

PS :smile: withheld do to dryness of humor/mouth.

It's a bit punny
 

[QUOTE=rogue;241895]I don't find your posts particularly punny.[/QUOTE]
I prefer it that way.
It may be punnier than you like it sir.
I don't care how 'king punny it is,
give me that Camembert from La Belle Paese.

Maybe we are both a bit xilmaned out.

David

Oh dear, the cat's eaten it.