 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2004My final ever swan song
After months and years of deliberation, I am leaving. Yes, I know that I have said that five times before, but this time I really mean it. I won't be coming back. I know I have said that four times before, but I'm serious this time. Really. Why am I leaving? It's your fault. Especially yours Tony Cooper. All of you people have been picking on me incessantly ever since I arrived all those years ago. Eventually it gets too much. Additionally, none of you who picks on me has offered any kind of support when I have been fighting everyone else on your behalf. I also resent the fact that no one is interested in helping me drive out the people I particularly dislike this week. I am tired of your immorality, amorality, animality, coevality, orality, and everything else that ends in -ality. And then there is the fact that you are all exceedingly boring. None of you answers anything I post in the way that I want: none of you wants to talk about the books I read, or my various diseases and ills; none of you is interested in what I eat for dinner; none of you is interested in the kind of underpants I wear. All you want to do is talk about boring things like all the different shades of meaning of some word, and all the words like it. I blame you for this and am leaving as a result. I really do mean it. I will not be coming back. Don't try to stop me; I really, really mean it this time. Yes I do. See you tomorrow.  SignatureSimon R. Hughes > After months and years of deliberation, I am leaving. Yes, I know > that I have said that five times before, but this time I really [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > See you tomorrow. Darn it, Simon. By adding that last line, you spoiled *my* using it as my reply to you. SignatureMaria Conlon Please send any email to the Hot Mail address. >> See you tomorrow. > > Darn it, Simon. By adding that last line, you spoiled *my* using it as > my reply to you. Had I not added it, the idiots would have started jubeling, which is something I didn't want. SignatureSimon R. Hughes >>> See you tomorrow. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Had I not added it, the idiots would have started jubeling, which >is something I didn't want. More nonsense from you. We idiots will be far too busy looking up "coevality" to do any jubeling. Of course, the one person least coeval to the rest of us will not bother looking it up. In alt.usage.english, Simon R. Hughes wrote: >none of you is interested in the kind of underpants I wear. All right, then, if you want to talk about underpants, tell me this: why are they so expensive? It was an odd (rather than even) year last year so I bought a pair of underpants. I am usually a most niggardly shopper but something must have been wrong with me that day because it wasn't until I got them home that I noticed they had cost me £20! Long-johns, they are, but all the same they're not silk or anything - £20 for a pair of plastic pants! The packaging tried to justify the expense by going on and on about how they weren't just underpants, they were trained germ-killers, guaranteed to wage war on dhobi itch and other unpleasantnesses for at least five years, but that's a load of cobblers. How can plastic pants kill germs? Eh? They're nice and warm, though. Very snug. And I confess that I sometimes use all the guff about germ-killing as an excuse to wear them continuously, sans douche, for several days and several nights on end. Dhobi itch? None of your business. (No.) SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, Simon R. Hughes wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Dhobi itch? None of your business. (No.) Godawmitey, Mick. Plastic pants already? I'd have thought you were much younger, and in better control of your output. But, then, continents apart, I suppose, and the pond isn't getting any smaller, is it? > In alt.usage.english, Simon R. Hughes wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Dhobi itch? None of your business. (No.) Sherley don't sound like long-johns to me. Pants, you say? I think not. Plastic, yet. Doubly not. Trap in the back? If not, then triply not. Cheers, Sage In alt.usage.english, sage wrote: >Sherley don't sound like long-johns to me. Pants, you say? I think not. >Plastic, yet. Doubly not. Trap in the back? If not, then triply not. Then what is the word for two-legged, close-fitting underwear that extends from one's waist to one's ankles and is manufactured wholly, or nearly wholly, from petroleum derivatives? All this stuff about rear sh.tter-shutters is arrant snobbery, a history-wistery denial of present facts. The frontier is long gone, long live the long-john. SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, sage wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sh.tter-shutters is arrant snobbery, a history-wistery denial of present > facts. The frontier is long gone, long live the long-john. Ah, now I understand: you're discussing gatkes. My uncle and grandfather wore woolly ones. I think they bought them at Gamages. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) In alt.usage.english, Laura F Spira wrote: >Ah, now I understand: you're discussing gatkes. My uncle and >grandfather wore woolly ones. I think they bought them at Gamages. Gatkes appear to be single-piece ankle-to-neck jobbies, the sort of thing that Lee Marvin wore in 'Paint Your Wagon'. http://www.torahaura.com/Adult_Books/Tales_of_the_Chutzper_Rebbe/The_Holy _Gatkes_of_Sliwowitz/the_holy_gatkes_of_sliwowitz.html (The accompanying text is quite droll.) As I recall, children used to wear something like that in the Olden Days. They would climb in through the neck in October or thereabouts, the shoulders would be stitched up, and they wouldn't emerge until the stitches were cut in April. A very sensible arrangement. SignatureMickwick > In alt.usage.english, Laura F Spira wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > (The accompanying text is quite droll.) Thank you for finding that - the perfect answer to a gift problem so I have ordered the book. > As I recall, children used to wear something like that in the Olden > Days. They would climb in through the neck in October or thereabouts, > the shoulders would be stitched up, and they wouldn't emerge until the > stitches were cut in April. A very sensible arrangement. You forgot the goose fat. SignatureLaura (emulate St. George for email) > Ah, now I understand: you're discussing gatkes. My uncle and grandfather > wore woolly ones. I think they bought them at Gamages. http://tinyurl.com/2x7sj Is this what you're talking about? I don't recall seeing anything like them in Gamages. SignatureFrances Kemmish Production Manager East Coast Youth Ballet www.byramartscenter.com >> In alt.usage.english, sage wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Ah, now I understand: you're discussing gatkes. My uncle and grandfather >wore woolly ones. I think they bought them at Gamages. I wear thermally insulated long-johns, which seem to be mostly wool, from M&S. My mother used to have an industrial-strength sewing machine at home in the early 1950s, and sew the gussets into long-johns. I used to collect a bundle of them each afternoon after school from a local factory and take those back that she'd completed the previous day. Signaturewrmst rgrds Robin Bignall Quiet part of Hertfordshire England > Gamages. Oh, the memories! The annual expedition to High Holborn to see the model railway exhibit. SignatureRob Bannister >In alt.usage.english, Simon R. Hughes wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Dhobi itch? None of your business. (No.) You wear plastic pants? I guess there could be a reason. Depends. > In alt.usage.english, Simon R. Hughes wrote: > >> none of you is interested in the kind of underpants I wear. > > All right, then, if you want to talk about underpants, tell me this: why > are they so expensive? I want to know about women's underwear. I have for years washed my own mixed in with coloured shirts, etc. without ever changing the original white. So why is it that so many female undergarments end up a sort of grey? I can't believe they keep them any longer. Even less can I believe that they pay less for them, so is it a plot by women's lingerie manufacturers. I should add that, in my advancing years, I don't get to see nearly as many women's undergarments as I would wish, so possibly I am out of date. SignatureRob Bannister > I should add that, in my advancing years, I don't get to see nearly as > many women's undergarments as I would wish, so possibly I am out of date. One thing I've heard women complain about is that their clothes are more expensive (and flimsier, and require more dry cleaning) than men's. Now I can rejoin that their hair dye is cheaper. And so we get older. On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:34:40 +0000, Mickwick <mickwick@use.reply.to> when referring to that unnecessary and overly expensive article of clothing, underpants, wrote: >They're nice and warm, though. Warmth can be harmful to the spermatozoa in the testicles. That area need be kept no warmer than the legs, hence there is no need for underpants. >Very snug. That too. The little guys don't like a lot of pressure, nor do the big guys that hold them. >And I confess that I sometimes >use all the guff about germ-killing as an excuse to wear them >continuously, sans douche, for several days and several nights on end. And why not? I get several weeks, not days, from a pair of trousers, somewhat less from my shirts. People, Americans and the Dutch especially, greatly overemphasize the need for frequent showering and laundering. I concede that not everyone has the advantage of not perspiring except on the hottest of days, though. No sweat. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > And why not? I get several weeks, not days, from a pair of trousers, > somewhat less from my shirts. People, Americans and the Dutch > especially, greatly overemphasize the need for frequent showering and > laundering. I concede that not everyone has the advantage of not > perspiring except on the hottest of days, though. No sweat. The Americans and Dutch, eh? Donna R. should be squeaky clean then, no? I like frequent showering and laundering, so I'm an overemphasizer IYHO only. John In alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs wrote: >On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:34:40 +0000, Mickwick <mickwick@use.reply.to> >Warmth can be harmful to the spermatozoa in the testicles. That area >need be kept no warmer than the legs, hence there is no need for >underpants. But long-johns cover legs and nether regions with an equal amount of material. My legs are as warm as my nether regions and my nether regions are as warm as my legs, but not more so (generally). Does that not throw your reasoning to the winds? >>Very snug. > >That too. The little guys don't like a lot of pressure, nor do the big >guys that hold them. I don't know who these big guys are but John Dean is AUE's expert on testicular support (and migration). SignatureMickwick >In alt.usage.english, Charles Riggs wrote: >>On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 20:34:40 +0000, Mickwick <mickwick@use.reply.to> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >are as warm as my legs, but not more so (generally). Does that not throw >your reasoning to the winds? You were referring to a plastic pair of underpants, I thought. I thoroughly approve of silk long-johns in the coldest of weather. I have two pairs, myself. In Bangor, Maine they were a necessity; here they are a nice luxury. >>>Very snug. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I don't know who these big guys are but John Dean is AUE's expert on >testicular support (and migration). Then he'll know about the two big guys, I'm sure. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > After months and years of deliberation, I am leaving. Yes, I know > that I have said that five times before, but this time I really > mean it. I won't be coming back. I know I have said that four > times before, but I'm serious this time. Really. You are George Sanders AICMFP -- John Dean Oxford De-frag to reply > After months and years of deliberation, I am leaving. > See you tomorrow. The well-known Riggsonian farewell. SignatureRob Bannister >After months and years of deliberation, I am leaving. Yes, I know >that I have said that five times before, but this time I really [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >See you tomorrow. Good. I hope we'll see more posts like this from you. Great job. SignatureCharles Riggs Email address: chriggs¦at¦eircom¦dot¦net > And then there is the fact that you are all exceedingly boring. > None of you answers anything I post in the way that I want: none > of you wants to talk about the books I read, or my various > diseases and ills; none of you is interested in what I eat for > dinner; none of you is interested in the kind of underpants I > wear. A consolation grook perhaps? Jan -- THE EGOCENTRICS People are self-centered to a nauseous degree. They will keep on about themselves while I'm explaining me. (Piet Hein) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.