x








x


x




x
Nobody has posted about last night's TA and I wondered what people
thought?  I'm glad the threat of something nasty happening seems to
have gone but felt annoyed that Will,  who was so nasty when he'd wont
hte I am George's father contest and was so poisonous about every bad
thing that happened to Ed afterwards, and about the good things (I
don't mean the latest Emma thing and am not sure if that was a bad or
good one) should then be so self-pitying and Ed is then so nice to
him.

Yes, I know Will had his home broken up but it really was not just by
Ed or even mainly.  Ed had been told he was George's father. 

I feel it is like any story where the villan is really nasty and does
bad things to the hero and when the hero wins in the end the villan
never suffers as the hero did.  This happens quite often.  War
criminals, for instance, they torture and kill for some years.  They
get years to hide or be in power afterwards and then if caught are
tried and put in a civilised prison where nothing happening to them
compares with what they did.  OK Sadam was executed. But just once.
For all those he had killed.

Er...I'm just saying it's not FAIR!

In message , badriya 
 writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>x
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>x
>
>
>x
>
>
>
>
>x
>Nobody has posted about last night's TA and I wondered what people
>thought?  I'm glad the threat of something nasty happening seems to
[]
>I feel it is like any story where the villan is really nasty and does
>bad things to the hero and when the hero wins in the end the villan
>never suffers as the hero did.  This happens quite often.  War

It's not a new theme though - there's one not dissimilar in the 
Christian holy book. (At least I think it's in there - it's certainly 
one of their stories, whether in the book or not.)

>criminals, for instance, they torture and kill for some years.  They
>get years to hide or be in power afterwards and then if caught are
>tried and put in a civilised prison where nothing happening to them
>compares with what they did.  OK Sadam was executed. But just once.
>For all those he had killed.
>
>Er...I'm just saying it's not FAIR!
>
Agreed. (But then the way Ed was welcomed back after _his_ going off the 
rails wasn't fair either.) However, sometimes it's just good to put 
things behind: I'm sure I'm not the only one in UMRA hoping that things 
will now improve, between E&W, E&E and the rest of their families, and 
so on. My mother's "anything for a quiet life" is a bit _too_ far, but I 
do see the attraction of it sometimes.

And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and 
acted of late.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

At least with a British car, you know that everything that falls off it is a
product of true British workmanship. (Lord somethingorother on Robin Day's
programme, 1980-1-15.)

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:17:55 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
 wrote:

>In message , badriya 
> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>x
>>
>>
>>x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>x
>>Nobody has posted about last night's TA and I wondered what people
>>thought?  I'm glad the threat of something nasty happening seems to
>[]
>>I feel it is like any story where the villan is really nasty and does
>>bad things to the hero and when the hero wins in the end the villan
>>never suffers as the hero did.  This happens quite often.  War
>
>It's not a new theme though - there's one not dissimilar in the 
>Christian holy book. (At least I think it's in there - it's certainly 
>one of their stories, whether in the book or not.)
>
>>criminals, for instance, they torture and kill for some years.  They
>>get years to hide or be in power afterwards and then if caught are
>>tried and put in a civilised prison where nothing happening to them
>>compares with what they did.  OK Sadam was executed. But just once.
>>For all those he had killed.
>>
>>Er...I'm just saying it's not FAIR!
>>
>Agreed. (But then the way Ed was welcomed back after _his_ going off the 
>rails wasn't fair either.) However, sometimes it's just good to put 
>things behind: I'm sure I'm not the only one in UMRA hoping that things 
>will now improve, between E&W, E&E and the rest of their families, and 
>so on. My mother's "anything for a quiet life" is a bit _too_ far, but I 
>do see the attraction of it sometimes.
>
>And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and 
>acted of late.

Oh yes, I think so too, but I don't think I'll ever really like Will.
As I won't Matt.  He did seem less unlikeable though in that scene. It
was good that he worried about whether he'd be a danger to George and
that he realised his behaviour had been totally beyond the pale.

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:32:12 +0200, badriya  wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>x
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>x
>
>
>x
>
>
>
>
>x
>Nobody has posted about last night's TA and I wondered what people
>thought?  I'm glad the threat of something nasty happening seems to
>have gone but felt annoyed that Will,  who was so nasty when he'd wont
>hte I am George's father contest and was so poisonous about every bad
>thing that happened to Ed afterwards, and about the good things (I
>don't mean the latest Emma thing and am not sure if that was a bad or
>good one) should then be so self-pitying and Ed is then so nice to
>him.

Ed can afford to be nice, when he has not only got the girl but will most likely
become George's father to all intents and purposes as he grows up, while Will
will dwindle into an uncle figure to his own child.
>
>Yes, I know Will had his home broken up but it really was not just by
>Ed or even mainly.  Ed had been told he was George's father. 
>
>I feel it is like any story where the villan is really nasty and does
>bad things to the hero and when the hero wins in the end the villan
>never suffers as the hero did.  This happens quite often.  War
>criminals, for instance, they torture and kill for some years.  They
>get years to hide or be in power afterwards and then if caught are
>tried and put in a civilised prison where nothing happening to them
>compares with what they did.  OK Sadam was executed. But just once.
>For all those he had killed.
>
>Er...I'm just saying it's not FAIR!

As my Dad used to say, life isn't fair. 

I remember when the former GDR collapsed people asked why Stasi officials and
others got the justice that they'd denied their own citizens. The answer was
"Because we're not them". Think about Saddam's execution, which for once the
world got to see. I didn't see the video (IMO it would be  indecent to watch
such a thing out of curiousity), but from reports it seems that the executioners
were as degraded, or more so, than the prisoner

-- 
Jo

(What's the opinion on spoiler space in a thread marked as clearly as
this one? I think it's unnecessary at least for followups.)

J. P. Gilliver (John)  wrote:
> And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and 
> acted of late.

Am I alone then in finding the reconciliation much less than convincing?
Does it really take just a quiet moment at a memory-laden beach to put
this huge, and I mean really huge, amount of conflict behind them? To
me it was the kind of reconciliation perfectly suited to a soap, but
far from how I'd expect it to go in real life. One thing I like about
TA is that I don't see it as the kind of programme that would have soppy
music in the background if it was on TV but thinking back to that scene,
some tune of that kind almost forces itself onto my memory. And I had
been thinking of starting a thread on that complaint actually.

Sebastian

Sebastian Lisken wrote:
> (What's the opinion on spoiler space in a thread marked as clearly as
> this one? I think it's unnecessary at least for followups.)
Agreed. Personally, I think it's unnecessary anyway, but then I don't 
mind reading lipsores ;-)
> 
> J. P. Gilliver (John)  wrote:
>> And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and 
>> acted of late.
> 
> Am I alone then in finding the reconciliation much less than convincing?
> Does it really take just a quiet moment at a memory-laden beach to put
> this huge, and I mean really huge, amount of conflict behind them? To
> me it was the kind of reconciliation perfectly suited to a soap, but
> far from how I'd expect it to go in real life. One thing I like about
> TA is that I don't see it as the kind of programme that would have soppy
> music in the background if it was on TV but thinking back to that scene,
> some tune of that kind almost forces itself onto my memory. And I had
> been thinking of starting a thread on that complaint actually.

Was not the moment when William nearly strangled his own brother 
cathartic for both of them?
-- 
Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Extra-Traditionally Built Curvey Gumrat

Gumrat   wrote:
> Was not the moment when William nearly strangled his own brother cathartic?

Cathartic? I don't know, it didn't really resolve much - actually that
was my point, they created so much to resolve and then resolved it far
too easily. No, if anything I'd say it sounded catarrhic!

Sebastian

Sebastian Lisken wrote:
> Gumrat   wrote:
>> Was not the moment when William nearly strangled his own brother cathartic?
> 
> Cathartic? I don't know, it didn't really resolve much - actually that
> was my point, they created so much to resolve and then resolved it far
> too easily. No, if anything I'd say it sounded catarrhic!
:-)
To be honest, I agree with you about the easy resolution of their 
problems (despite enjoying last night's scene). I was wondering if the 
enormity of Will's having nearly murdered his brother had not made them 
both realize that they really had to sort everything out before someone 
died. Bit like a death-bed confession, or something. (You can tell, I 
would never make a TA SW, I can't understand how their minds work :-) )
-- 
Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Extra-Traditionally Built Curvey Gumrat

"Sebastian Lisken"  wrote in 
message news:6g5iguFedk1oU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> (What's the opinion on spoiler space in a thread marked as clearly as
> this one? I think it's unnecessary at least for followups.)
>
> J. P. Gilliver (John)  wrote:
>> And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and
>> acted of late.
>
> Am I alone then in finding the reconciliation much less than convincing?
> Does it really take just a quiet moment at a memory-laden beach to put
> this huge, and I mean really huge, amount of conflict behind them? To
> me it was the kind of reconciliation perfectly suited to a soap, but
> far from how I'd expect it to go in real life. One thing I like about
> TA is that I don't see it as the kind of programme that would have soppy
> music in the background if it was on TV but thinking back to that scene,
> some tune of that kind almost forces itself onto my memory. And I had
> been thinking of starting a thread on that complaint actually.
>
> Sebastian
>

You're right of course Sebastian, but even so I would like to see something 
good happen for the Grundys as a family. I know it's not realistic, but 
there have been far more implausible plotlines in recent times.
Steve Hague

Sebastian Lisken wrote:
> (What's the opinion on spoiler space in a thread marked as clearly as
> this one? I think it's unnecessary at least for followups.)
> 
> J. P. Gilliver (John)  wrote:
>> And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and 
>> acted of late.
> 
> Am I alone then in finding the reconciliation much less than convincing?
> Does it really take just a quiet moment at a memory-laden beach to put
> this huge, and I mean really huge, amount of conflict behind them? To
> me it was the kind of reconciliation perfectly suited to a soap, but
> far from how I'd expect it to go in real life. One thing I like about
> TA is that I don't see it as the kind of programme that would have soppy
> music in the background if it was on TV but thinking back to that scene,
> some tune of that kind almost forces itself onto my memory. And I had
> been thinking of starting a thread on that complaint actually.
> 

I thought it was very realistic for what it was.  I didn't get the 
feeling that either of them thought everything was fixed.  Will wasn't 
even convinced that things would be ok with George.  But having both now 
been in similar situations vis a vis disappearing and worrying the 
family, there was a degree of understanding between them.  There was 
also an acknowledgment on both sides that things had changed since the 
time when they got on well when they were small.


-- 
Jane
The potter in the purple socks

http://www.clothandclay.co.uk/umra/cookbook/contents.htm for recipes 
supplied by umrats

On 9 Aug 2008 12:57:02 GMT, Sebastian Lisken
 wrote:

>(What's the opinion on spoiler space in a thread marked as clearly as
>this one? I think it's unnecessary at least for followups.)
>
>J. P. Gilliver (John)  wrote:
>> And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and 
>> acted of late.
>
>Am I alone then in finding the reconciliation much less than convincing?
>Does it really take just a quiet moment at a memory-laden beach to put
>this huge, and I mean really huge, amount of conflict behind them? To
>me it was the kind of reconciliation perfectly suited to a soap, but
>far from how I'd expect it to go in real life. One thing I like about
>TA is that I don't see it as the kind of programme that would have soppy
>music in the background if it was on TV but thinking back to that scene,
>some tune of that kind almost forces itself onto my memory. And I had
>been thinking of starting a thread on that complaint actually.
>
>Sebastian
Maybe you have focussed on what was wrong.  I knew something was not
right and thought it was that Ed is so nice and Will wasn't and then
because nicer.  But that does seem a bit fast.  I suppose the SWs and
VW would argue that the shock of what he'd done and fear of losing
George completely because he felt he could not trust himself might
change Will?

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 15:50:37 +0100, Jane Vernon
 wrote:

>Sebastian Lisken wrote:
>> (What's the opinion on spoiler space in a thread marked as clearly as
>> this one? I think it's unnecessary at least for followups.)
>> 
>> J. P. Gilliver (John)  wrote:
>>> And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and 
>>> acted of late.
>> 
>> Am I alone then in finding the reconciliation much less than convincing?
>> Does it really take just a quiet moment at a memory-laden beach to put
>> this huge, and I mean really huge, amount of conflict behind them? To
>> me it was the kind of reconciliation perfectly suited to a soap, but
>> far from how I'd expect it to go in real life. One thing I like about
>> TA is that I don't see it as the kind of programme that would have soppy
>> music in the background if it was on TV but thinking back to that scene,
>> some tune of that kind almost forces itself onto my memory. And I had
>> been thinking of starting a thread on that complaint actually.
>> 
>
>I thought it was very realistic for what it was.  I didn't get the 
>feeling that either of them thought everything was fixed.  Will wasn't 
>even convinced that things would be ok with George.  But having both now 
>been in similar situations vis a vis disappearing and worrying the 
>family, there was a degree of understanding between them.  There was 
>also an acknowledgment on both sides that things had changed since the 
>time when they got on well when they were small.

Maybe I'm a nasty cynical person but the reminiscences made me feel a
bit impatient and queasy.  It felt like an easy plot device.

But I suppose it is arguable that being where they were innocent young
brothers together would trigger memories and feelings.  I haven't any
siblings so am not quite able to imagine it. 

 My daughters do argue and bear some grudges and things go bad quite
quickly but also they do have things they feel the same about (mostly
about me!) and they then forget their differences for a while.

"badriya"  wrote in message 
news:v5fr94tp6aeb4d10d40bvtolhb8682oqsh@4ax.com...
> On 9 Aug 2008 12:57:02 GMT, Sebastian Lisken
>  wrote:
>
>>(What's the opinion on spoiler space in a thread marked as clearly as
>>this one? I think it's unnecessary at least for followups.)
>>
>>J. P. Gilliver (John)  wrote:
>>> And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and
>>> acted of late.
>>
>>Am I alone then in finding the reconciliation much less than convincing?
>>Does it really take just a quiet moment at a memory-laden beach to put
>>this huge, and I mean really huge, amount of conflict behind them? To
>>me it was the kind of reconciliation perfectly suited to a soap, but
>>far from how I'd expect it to go in real life. One thing I like about
>>TA is that I don't see it as the kind of programme that would have soppy
>>music in the background if it was on TV but thinking back to that scene,
>>some tune of that kind almost forces itself onto my memory. And I had
>>been thinking of starting a thread on that complaint actually.
>>
>>Sebastian
> Maybe you have focussed on what was wrong.  I knew something was not
> right and thought it was that Ed is so nice and Will wasn't and then
> because nicer.  But that does seem a bit fast.  I suppose the SWs and
> VW would argue that the shock of what he'd done and fear of losing
> George completely because he felt he could not trust himself might
> change Will?

The thing that really needs to change about Will is that he should be played 
by a proper actor. What I find most irritating is the way he stresses the 
wrong syllables and thereby ruins some of the finest melodrama to be heard 
on radio.
Steve Hague
>

I've LA'd now and it's slightly less awful than I remembered, but I
still find the resolution too easy. I do see how they might both have
changed to genuinely wanting a reconciliation since Will went away. But
I still don't find the speed believable. Here's one example: when Will
says to Ed "you've won", he's basically still accusing him of wanting
to "win", probably both regarding Emma and George. This is something we
know to be false. There may be a lot of divided opinion on Ed, but we
have heard him trying very hard to get away from his feelings towards
Emma and hers towards him. And since he knew who was the father or at
least since the "France plan" (whichever came last), he has never tried
to take George away from Will. So Will repeats this very fundamental
but unjustified accusation and in previous confrontations, Ed hasn't
exactly found the best responses. But now his reaction is brillant:
Will says (about being a family man), "You took all that away" - Ed
just replies, "I'm sorry". Will goes on, "If don't matter any more,
you've won" - Ed replies, "If this is winning, I hate it. We should
be on the same side". He has the greatness to not justify himself at
all and instead manages to reignite that brotherly solidarity just
like that. Although I want the resulution too, I think the SWs did
climb out of the hole they had dug for themselves too quickly.

Sebastian

"Jo Lonergan"  wrote
>  badriya  wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>x
>>
>>
>>x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>x
>>Nobody has posted about last night's TA and I wondered what people
>>thought?  I'm glad the threat of something nasty happening seems to
>>have gone but felt annoyed that Will,  who was so nasty when he'd wont
>>hte I am George's father contest and was so poisonous about every bad
>>thing that happened to Ed afterwards, and about the good things (I
>>don't mean the latest Emma thing and am not sure if that was a bad or
>>good one) should then be so self-pitying and Ed is then so nice to
>>him.
>
> Ed can afford to be nice, when he has not only got the girl but will most 
> likely
> become George's father to all intents and purposes as he grows up, while 
> Will
> will dwindle into an uncle figure to his own child.

I don't see any reason why that should happen. It's true that many divorced 
fathers lose touch with their children rather quickly. But this is a most 
unusual sort of marriage breakdown. Assuming Ed & Emma don't decide to move 
away over the next few years the father-son relationship could easily work 
out just fine.

You're right about Ed feeling he can afford to be nice though. From where 
I'm sitting it's a bit of a poisoned chalice. If he's really lucky Emma will 
mature into someone who's no worse than her mother. <shudders.>

-- 
SB

In article <489d963c$0$16176$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>, gumrat@gmail.com 
says...
> Sebastian Lisken wrote:
> > (What's the opinion on spoiler space in a thread marked as clearly as
> > this one? I think it's unnecessary at least for followups.)
> > 
> > J. P. Gilliver (John)  wrote:
> >> And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and 
> >> acted of late.
> > 
> > Am I alone then in finding the reconciliation much less than convincing?
> > Does it really take just a quiet moment at a memory-laden beach to put
> > this huge, and I mean really huge, amount of conflict behind them? To
> > me it was the kind of reconciliation perfectly suited to a soap, but
> > far from how I'd expect it to go in real life. One thing I like about
> > TA is that I don't see it as the kind of programme that would have soppy
> > music in the background if it was on TV but thinking back to that scene,
> > some tune of that kind almost forces itself onto my memory. And I had
> > been thinking of starting a thread on that complaint actually.
> 
> Was not the moment when William nearly strangled his own brother cathartic?
> 
> 
He was certainly abel to give him a caining.

-- 
Sam

In message , Sebastian Lisken 
 writes
>(What's the opinion on spoiler space in a thread marked as clearly as
>this one? I think it's unnecessary at least for followups.)
>
>J. P. Gilliver (John)  wrote:
>> And I agree with whoever it was who said it's been well written and
>> acted of late.
>
>Am I alone then in finding the reconciliation much less than convincing?

Well, I probably wasn't including the reconciliation in the above - 
though I still think it was well acted; written may be more open for 
debate.

>Does it really take just a quiet moment at a memory-laden beach to put
>this huge, and I mean really huge, amount of conflict behind them? To

Well, of course, it wasn't just that moment: they'd both had some days 
to think it over, and probably had thought about little else. In Ed's 
case, he isn't really very bright (this has nothing to do with whether 
he's a nice person or not), but the combination of several things - 
seeing what Will's absence is doing to Clarrie, back-of-the-mind 
memories of Greg, some element of guilt at his part in it (he was a 
little preoccupied with Emma and their future), and memories (though 
presumably somewhat hazy) of his own time off the rails. For Will, I'm 
less sure - though fear that he might actually have killed Ed, and/or 
the possibility of EdnEmma taking some action against him, must have 
played on his mind somewhat over the last few days, plus _maybe_ seeing 
how unreasonable he's been. (Not that it couldn't be argued that EKE 
have too, but two lots of unreasonable don't sort things.)

>me it was the kind of reconciliation perfectly suited to a soap, but
>far from how I'd expect it to go in real life. One thing I like about
>TA is that I don't see it as the kind of programme that would have soppy
>music in the background if it was on TV but thinking back to that scene,
>some tune of that kind almost forces itself onto my memory. And I had

Albanian's Adagio was used (to almost comic excess) a lot in Butterflies 
(a 1970s TV - not sure, sitcom I suppose you'd call it, but it wasn't 
played _just_ for laughs).
[]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

At least with a British car, you know that everything that falls off it is a
product of true British workmanship. (Lord somethingorother on Robin Day's
programme, 1980-1-15.)

In message <Rijnk.2837$IP7.1906@newsfe16.ams2>, Steve Hague 
 writes
[]
>The thing that really needs to change about Will is that he should be played
>by a proper actor. What I find most irritating is the way he stresses the
>wrong syllables and thereby ruins some of the finest melodrama to be heard
>on radio.
>Steve Hague
>>
>
>
I disagree. I find Will's whining delivery really annoying at times, but 
I have never found it to make the character any less believable.
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

At least with a British car, you know that everything that falls off it is a
product of true British workmanship. (Lord somethingorother on Robin Day's
programme, 1980-1-15.)

On Sat, 9 Aug 2008 18:04:08 +0100, "Steve Brooks" <steveb@postmaster.invalid>
wrote:

>
>"Jo Lonergan"  wrote
>>  badriya  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>x
>>>
>>>
>>>x
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>x
>>>Nobody has posted about last night's TA and I wondered what people
>>>thought?  I'm glad the threat of something nasty happening seems to
>>>have gone but felt annoyed that Will,  who was so nasty when he'd wont
>>>hte I am George's father contest and was so poisonous about every bad
>>>thing that happened to Ed afterwards, and about the good things (I
>>>don't mean the latest Emma thing and am not sure if that was a bad or
>>>good one) should then be so self-pitying and Ed is then so nice to
>>>him.
>>
>> Ed can afford to be nice, when he has not only got the girl but will most 
>> likely
>> become George's father to all intents and purposes as he grows up, while 
>> Will
>> will dwindle into an uncle figure to his own child.
>
>I don't see any reason why that should happen. It's true that many divorced 
>fathers lose touch with their children rather quickly. But this is a most 
>unusual sort of marriage breakdown. Assuming Ed & Emma don't decide to move 
>away over the next few years the father-son relationship could easily work 
>out just fine.

I tend to think if one of the brothers is living with George full-time, and the
other is visited, even twice a week, the full-time one will be the father
figure. 

>You're right about Ed feeling he can afford to be nice though. From where 
>I'm sitting it's a bit of a poisoned chalice. If he's really lucky Emma will 
>mature into someone who's no worse than her mother. <shudders.>

What was it about getting what you wish for?

The person I'm worried about is Fallon, who deserves better. 

-- 
Jo

On 9 Aug 2008 12:57:02 GMT Sebastian Lisken wrote :
> Am I alone then in finding the reconciliation much less than
> convincing?

I personally thought it was superbly written. My lack of conviction 
was with the idea that from somewhere in the West Midlands W would 
adjourn to a pillbox in GY and the idea of E&E going to GY to find 
him - I can take my mum to Tesco and struggle to find her 15 minutes 
later.

I realise that we are not the target audience, but I find it hard to 
believe that the recent TA 'ads' will deliver any new listeners. ISTM 
that they give non-listeners a picture of world of which they are not 
part, some sort of near-inaccessible cult.

-- 
Tony B

>
> I realise that we are not the target audience, but I find it hard to
> believe that the recent TA 'ads' will deliver any new listeners. ISTM
> that they give non-listeners a picture of world of which they are not
> part, some sort of near-inaccessible cult.
>
> -- 
> Tony B

You mean like UMRA?
Steve Hague

In message <LQxnk.168668$Lw1.75817@newsfe29.ams2>, Steve Hague 
 writes
>
>>
>> I realise that we are not the target audience, but I find it hard to
>> believe that the recent TA 'ads' will deliver any new listeners. ISTM
>> that they give non-listeners a picture of world of which they are not
>> part, some sort of near-inaccessible cult.
>>
>> --
>> Tony B
>
>You mean like UMRA?
>Steve Hague
>
>
I know you meant it in jest, but I'd say UMRA is about as accessible as 
any NG I know - any newrat who dares to post is showered with welcomes 
...

Although _leaving_ raises "don't"s, though AFAIK only in UMRA and 
without any further threats (as is alleged of some cults) ...
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

At least with a British car, you know that everything that falls off it is a
product of true British workmanship. (Lord somethingorother on Robin Day's
programme, 1980-1-15.)

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> I know you meant it in jest, but I'd say UMRA is about as accessible as 
> any NG I know - any newrat who dares to post is showered with welcomes ...

"Accessible" and "friendly" are not the same thing. Any newrat would 
first have to understand what the heck was going on, with all the 
acronyms, nicknames, in-jokes etc, and then pluck up the courage to join 
in what must often look very like a private conversation going at 
full-flood. And some weeks they might wonder where the discussion on TA 
was! ;o)

-- 
Kimbo xx

Books, by Kimbo!
Used and collectible books at sensible prices.
Buy direct at www.booksbykimbo.com
Find me on Ebid http://uk.ebid.net/stores/Books-by-Kimbo

Previously on The West Wing...
> >
> I know you meant it in jest, but I'd say UMRA is about as accessible as 
> any NG I know - any newrat who dares to post is showered with welcomes 
> ...
> 
Similarly with the Shed, except for those people who tend to barge in 
and shout a lot without accepting the proffered tea and biccies (or PP & 
BA).  Every group has its own characteristics and those who aren't 
familiar with them tend to be wary of the oddities.
-- 
Fenny

"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in message 
news:LDp7iex+4qnIFwC2@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message <LQxnk.168668$Lw1.75817@newsfe29.ams2>, Steve Hague 
>  writes
>>
>>>
>>> I realise that we are not the target audience, but I find it hard to
>>> believe that the recent TA 'ads' will deliver any new listeners. ISTM
>>> that they give non-listeners a picture of world of which they are not
>>> part, some sort of near-inaccessible cult.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony B
>>
>>You mean like UMRA?
>>Steve Hague
>>
>>
> I know you meant it in jest, but I'd say UMRA is about as accessible as 
> any NG I know - any newrat who dares to post is showered with welcomes ...
>
> Although _leaving_ raises "don't"s, though AFAIK only in UMRA and without 
> any further threats (as is alleged of some cults) ...
> -- 
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 
> MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Although some of the language we use must be baffling for non- initiates, if 
you get my umbrella.
Steve Hague

In message , Kim Andrews 
 writes
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I know you meant it in jest, but I'd say UMRA is about as accessible 
>>as  any NG I know - any newrat who dares to post is showered with 
>>welcomes ...
>
>"Accessible" and "friendly" are not the same thing. Any newrat would 
>first have to understand what the heck was going on, with all the 
>acronyms, nicknames, in-jokes etc, and then pluck up the courage to 
>join in what must often look very like a private conversation going at 
>full-flood. And some weeks they might wonder where the discussion on TA 
>was! ;o)
>
Agreed. Of course, it is difficult _not_ to sound cliquey - totally 
unintentionally; the alternative is to explain everything every time, 
which is tedious and boring for the regulars. Someone (quite often me) 
will usually ask about any unusual phrase or reference anyway, even if 
it has been explained (and I've missed the explanation).

Thinking about it (a different it to the above): I think the idea of 
putting the _date_ in the spoiler subject is a good idea. I'm LA the 
omnibus now, to the reconciliation scene, and still think it's not as 
implausible as some here - though the one thing that struck me as 
borderline, as with the first time I heard it, was Will not exploding 
when Ed offered to drive his car [home], given past history ... (-:
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

At least with a British car, you know that everything that falls off it is a
product of true British workmanship. (Lord somethingorother on Robin Day's
programme, 1980-1-15.)

"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote in message 
news:d0JOvm39AsnIFwi8@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Kim Andrews 
>  writes
>>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> I know you meant it in jest, but I'd say UMRA is about as accessible as 
>>> any NG I know - any newrat who dares to post is showered with welcomes 
>>> ...
>>
>>"Accessible" and "friendly" are not the same thing. Any newrat would first 
>>have to understand what the heck was going on, with all the acronyms, 
>>nicknames, in-jokes etc, and then pluck up the courage to join in what 
>>must often look very like a private conversation going at full-flood. And 
>>some weeks they might wonder where the discussion on TA was! ;o)
>>
> Agreed. Of course, it is difficult _not_ to sound cliquey - totally 
> unintentionally; the alternative is to explain everything every time, 
> which is tedious and boring for the regulars. Someone (quite often me) 
> will usually ask about any unusual phrase or reference anyway, even if it 
> has been explained (and I've missed the explanation).
>
> Thinking about it (a different it to the above): I think the idea of 
> putting the _date_ in the spoiler subject is a good idea. I'm LA the 
> omnibus now, to the reconciliation scene, and still think it's not as 
> implausible as some here - though the one thing that struck me as 
> borderline, as with the first time I heard it, was Will not exploding when 
> Ed offered to drive his car [home], given past history ... (-:
> -- 
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 
> MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Yes, I've just listened to the omnibus, and I found it more convincing, 
possibly because I've got used to the idea. I thought the same as you when 
Ed offered to drive Will's car. Of course with both brothers in one car the 
SWs will have to grit their teeth and resist temptation. If there's a 
terrible accident it will take a heart of stone not to laugh.
Steve Hague

"Steve Hague"  wrote in message 
news:Jtznk.6182$a%4.431@newsfe11.ams2...
>

> Yes, I've just listened to the omnibus, and I found it more convincing, 
> possibly because I've got used to the idea. I thought the same as you when 
> Ed offered to drive Will's car. Of course with both brothers in one car 
> the SWs will have to grit their teeth and resist temptation. If there's a 
> terrible accident it will take a heart of stone not to laugh.
> Steve Hague
I thought Will was going to travel back with his dad while Ed drove Will's 
car?

Mind you, I listened on Friday so I may have forgotten the details.

ally

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:45:30 +0100, "a l l y"
 wrote:

>
>"Steve Hague"  wrote in message 
>news:Jtznk.6182$a%4.431@newsfe11.ams2...
>>
>
>> Yes, I've just listened to the omnibus, and I found it more convincing, 
>> possibly because I've got used to the idea. I thought the same as you when 
>> Ed offered to drive Will's car. Of course with both brothers in one car 
>> the SWs will have to grit their teeth and resist temptation. If there's a 
>> terrible accident it will take a heart of stone not to laugh.
>> Steve Hague
>I thought Will was going to travel back with his dad while Ed drove Will's 
>car?
>
>Mind you, I listened on Friday so I may have forgotten the details.
>
>ally 
>
MTAAW

"badriya"  wrote in message 
news:uhcu9455ll43703bb5kjnsehnqdi4fk023@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:45:30 +0100, "a l l y"
>  wrote:
>
>>
>>"Steve Hague"  wrote in message
>>news:Jtznk.6182$a%4.431@newsfe11.ams2...
>>>
>>
>>> Yes, I've just listened to the omnibus, and I found it more convincing,
>>> possibly because I've got used to the idea. I thought the same as you 
>>> when
>>> Ed offered to drive Will's car. Of course with both brothers in one car
>>> the SWs will have to grit their teeth and resist temptation. If there's 
>>> a
>>> terrible accident it will take a heart of stone not to laugh.
>>> Steve Hague
>>I thought Will was going to travel back with his dad while Ed drove Will's
>>car?
>>
>>Mind you, I listened on Friday so I may have forgotten the details.
>>
>>ally
>>
> MTAAW

My Telephone Applies A Whisker?
Most Tonsils Aren't Awfully Well?
Make This Anyway, And Wait?

Yeah, I know, there's somewhere I can look up these acronyms, but I've 
forgotten where it is, and I haven't had time to memorize them all yet. I'm 
still new! Please translate!

ally

>> MTAAW
>
> My Telephone Applies A Whisker?
> Most Tonsils Aren't Awfully Well?
> Make This Anyway, And Wait?
>
> Yeah, I know, there's somewhere I can look up these acronyms, 
> but I've forgotten where it is, and I haven't had time to 
> memorize them all yet. I'm still new! Please translate!

Me Too Also As Well, I believe.

Anne B

"Anne Burgess"  wrote in message 
news:AtSdnWiHfZTf-ALVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> MTAAW
>>
>> My Telephone Applies A Whisker?
>> Most Tonsils Aren't Awfully Well?
>> Make This Anyway, And Wait?
>>
>> Yeah, I know, there's somewhere I can look up these acronyms, but I've 
>> forgotten where it is, and I haven't had time to memorize them all yet. 
>> I'm still new! Please translate!
>
> Me Too Also As Well, I believe.
>
Aha! Thank you. Makes perfect sense now.

ally (still learning the ropes)

In message , Kim Andrews 
 writes
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>> I know you meant it in jest, but I'd say UMRA is about as accessible 
>>as  any NG I know - any newrat who dares to post is showered with 
>>welcomes ...
>
>"Accessible" and "friendly" are not the same thing. Any newrat would 
>first have to understand what the heck was going on, with all the 
>acronyms, nicknames, in-jokes etc, and then pluck up the courage to 
>join in what must often look very like a private conversation going at 
>full-flood. And some weeks they might wonder where the discussion on TA 
>was! ;o)
>
Err, .... do UMRATs discuss TA occasionally? Shame on them!!! ;-)))
-- 
Mike McMillan,
The email address is spam trapped but any genuine communications may be sent to
mike dot mcmillan at ntlworld dot com

"Let's all calm down shall we? Let's forget there is a llama in here at all."
(Lynda Snell, 010603)

Tel: (+44) 0118 9265450. website: <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.mcmillan/>

On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:59:54 +0100, "a l l y"
 scrawled in the dust...

>I know, there's somewhere I can look up these acronyms, but I've 
>forgotten where it is, and I haven't had time to memorize them all yet.

It's extremely out of date and probably doesn't include that one but there
is a link in my sig.

-- 
Penny
There are unexpected holes in my ignorance.
umra Nicknames & Abbreviations http://www.umra.freeuk.com/nicks.html

badriya wrote:
> x
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> x
>
>
> x
>
>
>
>
> x
> OK Sadam was executed. But just once.
> For all those he had killed.
Hmm, neat idea. Execute him multiple times.

Reminds me of an email I recently received from PETA.org.uk which contained 
a photo of "A Raccoon Being Electrocuted Whilst Still Alive"...

Paul Lautman wrote:
> badriya wrote:
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>> x
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> x
>> OK Sadam was executed. But just once.
>> For all those he had killed.
> Hmm, neat idea. Execute him multiple times.
> 
> Reminds me of an email I recently received from PETA.org.uk which contained 
> a photo of "A Raccoon Being Electrocuted Whilst Still Alive"...
> 
> 
> 
> 
Oh, thank you, Paul, I laughed out loud for the first time for days :-) 
Dorter is very unhappy as nestling sparrow which had fallen off its 
perch onto our terrace and we'd been looking after since the week-end, 
with its parents visiting to feed it during the day, whilst we kept it 
inside in a box at night, finally fell off its perch this morning, on 
our terrace.. :-( At least the nasty black bird didn't swoop down and 
capture it..

-- 
Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Extra-Traditionally Built Curvey Gumrat

Gumrat  writes:
>(You can tell, I 
>would never make a TA SW, I can't understand how their minds work :-) )

i expect you get a course of mind-training[*] from the beetle, once
you have accepted the job.

[*] or brainwashing.  colonic irrigation of the brain, anyway.
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.			Spoiler Space
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.* Steve Hague wrote, On 09/08/2008 17:09:

> The thing that really needs to change about Will is that he should be played 
> by a proper actor. What I find most irritating is the way he stresses the 
> wrong syllables and thereby ruins some of the finest melodrama to be heard 
> on radio.

I strongly suspect you're going to get your wish.  That seems the most 
likely reason for Will to need to spend a few months away from Ambridge.

-- 
Cheers, Serena

To be astonished is one of the surest ways of not growing old too 
quickly. (Colette)

Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> 
> 
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .            Spoiler Space
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .* Steve Hague wrote, On 09/08/2008 17:09:
> 
>> The thing that really needs to change about Will is that he should be 
>> played by a proper actor. What I find most irritating is the way he 
>> stresses the wrong syllables and thereby ruins some of the finest 
>> melodrama to be heard on radio.
> 
Yes, he did that again last night. The scenes he was in were ruined by 
his acting - poor Mary Cutler, perfectly good script spoilt..
> I strongly suspect you're going to get your wish.  That seems the most 
> likely reason for Will to need to spend a few months away from Ambridge.
> 
They've never done anything so obvious in a plot-line before, though, 
have they? When Mr Carrot's daughter left for pastures new, we just 
didn't hear from Hayley for a few months, though she was mentioned en 
passant, I think.

-- 
Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Extra-Traditionally Built Curvey Gumrat

* Gumrat wrote, On 16/08/2008 10:26:
> Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>
>>
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .            Spoiler Space
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> .* Steve Hague wrote, On 09/08/2008 17:09:
>>
>>> The thing that really needs to change about Will is that he should be 
>>> played by a proper actor. What I find most irritating is the way he 
>>> stresses the wrong syllables and thereby ruins some of the finest 
>>> melodrama to be heard on radio.
>>
> Yes, he did that again last night. The scenes he was in were ruined by 
> his acting - poor Mary Cutler, perfectly good script spoilt..
>> I strongly suspect you're going to get your wish.  That seems the most 
>> likely reason for Will to need to spend a few months away from Ambridge.
>>
> They've never done anything so obvious in a plot-line before, though, 
> have they? When Mr Carrot's daughter left for pastures new, we just 
> didn't hear from Hayley for a few months, though she was mentioned en 
> passant, I think.
> 

I can't remember whether they've ever done it this way before.  Maybe 
I'm just being a bit over optimistic.

-- 
Cheers, Serena

You cannot prevent the birds of sadness from flying overhead, but you 
can prevent them from nesting in your hair. (Chinese proverb)

Serena Blanchflower wrote:
> * Gumrat wrote, On 16/08/2008 10:26:
>> Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .            Spoiler Space
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .
>>> .* Steve Hague wrote, On 09/08/2008 17:09:
>>>
>>>> The thing that really needs to change about Will is that he should
>>>> be played by a proper actor. What I find most irritating is the
>>>> way he stresses the wrong syllables and thereby ruins some of the
>>>> finest melodrama to be heard on radio.
>>>
>> Yes, he did that again last night. The scenes he was in were ruined
>> by his acting - poor Mary Cutler, perfectly good script spoilt..
>>> I strongly suspect you're going to get your wish.  That seems the
>>> most likely reason for Will to need to spend a few months away from
>>> Ambridge.
>> They've never done anything so obvious in a plot-line before, though,
>> have they? When Mr Carrot's daughter left for pastures new, we just
>> didn't hear from Hayley for a few months, though she was mentioned en
>> passant, I think.
>>
>
> I can't remember whether they've ever done it this way before.  Maybe
> I'm just being a bit over optimistic.

As Will is likely to be central to the story for a while, it might be rather
odd if he didn't speak for some time. It wasn't so surprising for Hayley to
be always somewhere other than wherever the active hidden microphone
happened to be. So maybe ther is something in this theory.

On the other hand it will allow George to get closer to Ed, so that there
can be even more jealousy when Will returns.


-- 

CaroleT

Gumrat wrote:
...
> didn't hear from Hayley for a few months, though she was mentioned en 
> passant, I think.
> 
Taken en passant shirley ?

And that's probably why she didn't get pregnant....

"carolet" wrote

[Will shoots off]

> On the other hand it will allow George to get closer to Ed, so that there
> can be even more jealousy when Will returns.

Or it will allow George to yell

"You're not my real dad!" when things aren't going exactly his way.

Or is that just teenagers? I heard exactly those words floating through the 
walls from next door a few years ago. The silly girl should have listened. A 
few months later she was pregnant.

-- 
SB

"badriya"  wrote

> I feel it is like any story where the villan is really nasty and does
> bad things to the hero and when the hero wins in the end the villan
> never suffers as the hero did.  This happens quite often.  War
> criminals, for instance, they torture and kill for some years.  They
> get years to hide or be in power afterwards and then if caught are
> tried and put in a civilised prison where nothing happening to them
> compares with what they did.  OK Sadam was executed. But just once.
> For all those he had killed.
>
> Er...I'm just saying it's not FAIR!

But it's one of the essential things which mean that we are not like them. 
I don't know what I think would constitute "fairness" in such a situation, 
but maintaining our humanity and civilization seems to me to be paramount.

Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog, but 
this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
-- 
Sid
Make sure Matron is away when you reply

Siderius Nuncius wrote:

> Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog, but 
> this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.

Oh, I hope this means you're feeling a bit better now and that you're 
back to stay?

-- 
Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Extra-Traditionally Built Curvey Gumrat

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 07:56:47 +0100, "Siderius Nuncius"
 wrote:

>
>"badriya"  wrote
>
>> I feel it is like any story where the villan is really nasty and does
>> bad things to the hero and when the hero wins in the end the villan
>> never suffers as the hero did.  This happens quite often.  War
>> criminals, for instance, they torture and kill for some years.  They
>> get years to hide or be in power afterwards and then if caught are
>> tried and put in a civilised prison where nothing happening to them
>> compares with what they did.  OK Sadam was executed. But just once.
>> For all those he had killed.
>>
>> Er...I'm just saying it's not FAIR!
>
>But it's one of the essential things which mean that we are not like them. 
>I don't know what I think would constitute "fairness" in such a situation, 
>but maintaining our humanity and civilization seems to me to be paramount.
>
>Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog, but 
>this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
No, I know a civilised society does not do revenge. The purpose of a
sentence is supposed to be to reform and to protect the public, isn't
it.  Or to deter others.  

If we could be 100 per cent sure we had the right person, would
punishment be ok?  There was a Startrek Voyager episode where Paris
was (wrongly I think) convicted by some alien race of some crime and
he had to re-live ..possibly as the victim, the sequence again and
again as punishment.  

It's one of the things SF does well, examining different ways a
civilisation might develop and how they deal with things like
sentencing.

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 09:57:24 +0200, Gumrat  wrote:

>Siderius Nuncius wrote:
>
>> Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog, but 
>> this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
>
>Oh, I hope this means you're feeling a bit better now and that you're 
>back to stay?
MTAAW

* Gumrat wrote, On 25/08/2008 08:57:
> Siderius Nuncius wrote:
> 
>> Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog, 
>> but this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
> 
> Oh, I hope this means you're feeling a bit better now and that you're 
> back to stay?
> 

So do I.

-- 
Cheers, Serena

I am a Quaker.  In case of an emergency….  Please be quiet.

Previously on The West Wing...
> 
> If we could be 100 per cent sure we had the right person, would
> punishment be ok?  There was a Startrek Voyager episode where Paris
> was (wrongly I think) convicted by some alien race of some crime and
> he had to re-live ..possibly as the victim, the sequence again and
> again as punishment.  
> 
It's so long since I've seen Voyager that on first reading, I wondered 
when they'd encountered the inhabitants of Troy.  My memory kicked in on 
second reading and everything was OK again.  Not that I remember the 
episode, though.

Yes, scifi does do this well.  There was an episode of Next Generation 
where Wesley inadvertently broke some minor law on a planet and was 
sentenced to death because that was the local punishment for even the 
smallest of transgressions.  It took all of Picard's diplomacy in the 
face of Mother Crusher's [1] panicking to sort the matter out.

[1] Mother Crusher makes her sound like some kind of WWE Wrestling 
Champion!  Dr Crusher isn't actually all that less worrisome.
-- 
Fenny

In message , Serena Blanchflower 
 writes
>* Gumrat wrote, On 25/08/2008 08:57:
>> Siderius Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the 
>>>backlog,  but this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
>>  Oh, I hope this means you're feeling a bit better now and that 
>>you're  back to stay?
>>
>
>So do I.
>
Likewise, me also, as well too.
-- 
Mike McMillan,
The email address is spam trapped but any genuine communications may be sent to
mike dot mcmillan at ntlworld dot com

"Let's all calm down shall we? Let's forget there is a llama in here at all."
(Lynda Snell, 010603)

Tel: (+44) 0118 9265450. website: <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.mcmillan/>

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 10:11:39 +0100, Fenny  wrote:

>Previously on The West Wing...
>> 
>> If we could be 100 per cent sure we had the right person, would
>> punishment be ok?  There was a Startrek Voyager episode where Paris
>> was (wrongly I think) convicted by some alien race of some crime and
>> he had to re-live ..possibly as the victim, the sequence again and
>> again as punishment.  
>> 
>It's so long since I've seen Voyager that on first reading, I wondered 
>when they'd encountered the inhabitants of Troy.  My memory kicked in on 
>second reading and everything was OK again.  Not that I remember the 
>episode, though.
>
>Yes, scifi does do this well.  There was an episode of Next Generation 
>where Wesley inadvertently broke some minor law on a planet and was 
>sentenced to death because that was the local punishment for even the 
>smallest of transgressions.  It took all of Picard's diplomacy in the 
>face of Mother Crusher's [1] panicking to sort the matter out.
>
>[1] Mother Crusher makes her sound like some kind of WWE Wrestling 
>Champion!  Dr Crusher isn't actually all that less worrisome.
I remember the episode too.  Actually I'm getting a vague impression
it happened to Harry too on Voyager, so could that have been him not
Paris?

"Gumrat"  wrote
> Siderius Nuncius wrote:
>
>> Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog, 
>> but this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
>
> Oh, I hope this means you're feeling a bit better now and that you're back 
> to stay?

Thanks, MOPMOB - and for the other good wishes.

Better?  Well, I'm not in A&E, I can sit up for longer periods and can move 
about without actually falling over and puking, all of which is a bonus.  I 
am, however, dizzy and queasy most of the time, hideously debilitated and 
unable to get very far at all - certainly no driving.  And I'm totally and 
(God help me) permanently deaf in my left ear, which is a really horrible 
blow: music is my joy and my consolation and it just doesn't sound the same. 
:o(

So - the next few months trying to learn to walk sensibly again, lots of 
lovely hospital appointments, possibly a titanium screw in my skull and 
generally trying to cope now that everything is far more difficult even than 
it was before.  Frankly, I'm not really a happy umrat, and may be a rather 
intermittent one.

Sorry to go on.  But, really.  I mean to say - dash it all, what?
-- 
Sid
Make sure Matron is away when you reply

"Siderius Nuncius"  writes:
>Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog, but 
>this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.

you are brave.  i keep not being able to cope, and coming back to a
ridiculous backlog[*]; i'm afraid my response has been well-supported
by mr.m.r.

sorry, all.  it's just the way it is.

[*] it only seems to take a couple of day before i've too much to
read, nowadays.
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Cambridge

Siderius Nuncius wrote:
> "Gumrat"  wrote
>> Siderius Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog, 
>>> but this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
>> Oh, I hope this means you're feeling a bit better now and that you're back 
>> to stay?
> 
> Thanks, MOPMOB - and for the other good wishes.
> 
> Better?  Well, I'm not in A&E, I can sit up for longer periods and can move 
> about without actually falling over and puking, all of which is a bonus.  I 
> am, however, dizzy and queasy most of the time, hideously debilitated and 

Bllody hell Sid, time to ease off on the Rioja methinks...

> unable to get very far at all - certainly no driving.  And I'm totally and 
> (God help me) permanently deaf in my left ear, which is a really horrible 
> blow: music is my joy and my consolation and it just doesn't sound the same. 
> :o(
> 
> So - the next few months trying to learn to walk sensibly again, lots of 
> lovely hospital appointments, possibly a titanium screw in my skull and 
> generally trying to cope now that everything is far more difficult even than 
> it was before.  Frankly, I'm not really a happy umrat, and may be a rather 
> intermittent one.
> 
> Sorry to go on.  But, really.  I mean to say - dash it all, what?

Still, at least you've got a good screw to look forward to !


Seriously, what appalling news. Puts my unpleasant few days recently 
(shit, sleep, sweat, shiver: repeat) into perspective. I felt like death 
for a while, but I always knew it would pass...

And the music too, fingers crosssed that they're wrong about the 
permanency xxxxx

<<<<<<<<<manly hugs>>>>>>>>>

Siderius Nuncius wrote:
> "Gumrat"  wrote
>> Siderius Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog, 
>>> but this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
>> Oh, I hope this means you're feeling a bit better now and that you're back 
>> to stay?
> 
> Thanks, MOPMOB - and for the other good wishes.
> 
> Better?  Well, I'm not in A&E, I can sit up for longer periods and can move 
> about without actually falling over and puking, all of which is a bonus.  I 
> am, however, dizzy and queasy most of the time, hideously debilitated and 
> unable to get very far at all - certainly no driving.  And I'm totally and 
> (God help me) permanently deaf in my left ear, which is a really horrible 
> blow: music is my joy and my consolation and it just doesn't sound the same. 
> :o(
> 
> So - the next few months trying to learn to walk sensibly again, lots of 
> lovely hospital appointments, possibly a titanium screw in my skull and 
> generally trying to cope now that everything is far more difficult even than 
> it was before.  Frankly, I'm not really a happy umrat, and may be a rather 
> intermittent one.
> 
> Sorry to go on.  But, really.  I mean to say - dash it all, what?

So sorry to hear all this, Sid, I'd no idea what you'd been going through.
<group hug>

-- 
Marjorie

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, Siderius Nuncius wrote
>
>"Gumrat"  wrote
>> Siderius Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog,
>>> but this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
>>
>> Oh, I hope this means you're feeling a bit better now and that you're back
>> to stay?
>
>Thanks, MOPMOB - and for the other good wishes.
>
>Better?  Well, I'm not in A&E, I can sit up for longer periods and can move
>about without actually falling over and puking, all of which is a bonus.  I
>am, however, dizzy and queasy most of the time, hideously debilitated and
>unable to get very far at all - certainly no driving.  And I'm totally and
>(God help me) permanently deaf in my left ear, which is a really horrible
>blow: music is my joy and my consolation and it just doesn't sound the same.
>:o(
>
>So - the next few months trying to learn to walk sensibly again, lots of
>lovely hospital appointments, possibly a titanium screw in my skull and
>generally trying to cope now that everything is far more difficult even than
>it was before.  Frankly, I'm not really a happy umrat, and may be a rather
>intermittent one.
>
>Sorry to go on.  But, really.  I mean to say - dash it all, what?

Vast love and hugs to you and Robin both, and also very particularly to 
Matron and lff.  Am well myself but trying to keep tabs on very sick 
mother and intermittently sick husband and all of us have seen 
altogether too much of hospitals lately.  I do hope things will 
stabilise and perhaps even improve soon. The deafness is a terrible 
thing too, but there are improvements from time to time too in hearing 
aids, Ralph has loss in both ears and did not think he could ever enjoy 
music properly again, but a new kind of aid has improved things, even in 
the ear he thought had gone. Plugging on is the mot du jour, kissing the 
joy as it flies, all that.  Thinking of you all.


-- 
Kate B

PS 'elvira' is spamtrapped - please reply to 'elviraspam' at cockaigne dot org dot uk if you
want to reply personally

A very emphatic wave from me for everything Kate wrote. I do hope
things improve for both of you, Sid and Robin.

Sebastian

BrritSki wrote:


> <<<<<<<<<manly hugs>>>>>>>>>

and <<<womanly hugs>> too

In message , vk  
writes
>BrritSki wrote:
>
>
>> <<<<<<<<<manly hugs>>>>>>>>>
>
>and <<<womanly hugs>> too
err, ... shouldn't the womanly hugs be more of a ' {{{{{{{{{{ 
}}}}}}}}}}}} type of thing?

Ducks and runs for the Bunker - LIZBUFF - OPEN UP NOW!!!

Seriously, come on you too, UMRA Needs You!

Toodle Pip,

Mike
-- 
Mike McMillan,
The email address is spam trapped but any genuine communications may be sent to
mike dot mcmillan at ntlworld dot com

"Let's all calm down shall we? Let's forget there is a llama in here at all."
(Lynda Snell, 010603)

Tel: (+44) 0118 9265450. website: <http://homepage.ntlworld.com/mike.mcmillan/>

Sebastian Lisken wrote:
> A very emphatic wave from me for everything Kate wrote. I do hope
> things improve for both of you, Sid and Robin.
> 
And from MTAAW, and also for Kate and her family..
-- 
Tout de bonbon, Anne, Seriously, Extra-Traditionally Built Curvey Gumrat

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:17:45 +0100, Siderius Nuncius wrote:

> "Gumrat"  wrote
>> Siderius Nuncius wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog,
>>> but this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
>>
>> Oh, I hope this means you're feeling a bit better now and that you're
>> back to stay?
> 
> Thanks, MOPMOB - and for the other good wishes.
> 
> Better?  Well, I'm not in A&E, I can sit up for longer periods and can
> move about without actually falling over and puking, all of which is a
> bonus.  I am, however, dizzy and queasy most of the time, hideously
> debilitated and unable to get very far at all - certainly no driving. 
> And I'm totally and (God help me) permanently deaf in my left ear, which
> is a really horrible blow: music is my joy and my consolation and it
> just doesn't sound the same. :o(
> 
> So - the next few months trying to learn to walk sensibly again, lots of
> lovely hospital appointments, possibly a titanium screw in my skull and
> generally trying to cope now that everything is far more difficult even
> than it was before.  Frankly, I'm not really a happy umrat, and may be a
> rather intermittent one.
> 
> Sorry to go on.  But, really.  I mean to say - dash it all, what?

Unutterably ghastly.  I can't think of much more to say really.



-- 
Waterways route planning website: http://canalplan.org.uk

In message <g8utbk$jmn$3@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk>, Robin Fairbairns 
 writes
> "Siderius Nuncius"  writes:
>>Sorry - I'm trying to avoid gillivering as I work through the backlog, but
>>this one seemed important enough to make an exception for.
>
>you are brave.  i keep not being able to cope, and coming back to a
>ridiculous backlog[*]; i'm afraid my response has been well-supported
>by mr.m.r.
>
>sorry, all.  it's just the way it is.
>
>[*] it only seems to take a couple of day before i've too much to
>read, nowadays.

I find the only way to keep current is to leave expiry turned on: this 
means that after a post has been on this computer for x after 
downloading, it gets deleted, whether I've even read it or not, let 
alone replied to it. (I think x is three days for me for UMRA.)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL(+++)IS-P--Ch+(p)Ar+T[?]H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for thoughts on PCs. **

Correct me if I'm wrong ... everybody else does.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In message , BrritSki 
 writes
>Siderius Nuncius wrote:
>> "Gumrat"  wrote
>>> Siderius Nuncius wrote:
>>>
>And the music too,

There's a big difference between how Emma wotsit enjoys music and 
clearly communicates her passion, and losing the hearing in one ear.

A quick peruse of the RNID site under 'entertainment' talks about 
sub-titling on TV and in the theatre, but not a word about music.  To be 
pursued.

I have a close friend who has been losing his hearing for many years who 
also is visually impaired.  The last time I spoke to him about this he 
listened to everything : radio, TV, music in all forms using headphones. 
But he lives alone and feels this is a way not to impinge on his 
neighbours who would certainly hear his preferences (they may not enjoy 
'the Ring' or Mahler!).

My friend also gets a lot of pleasure from reading scores.  I still 
don't understand how a school for the blind taught him to read and write 
braille but allowed him to learn to read sighted music scores rather 
than the usual braille code - but its stood him in good stead.  He used 
to read classical music scores for pleasure in the library in Coventry 
on a Saturday afternoon while the rest of us went out buying pop music.

Girlfriends (of which I was one) came a very poor second to his need to 
read music scores.  :-)

Sincerely chris


-- 
Chris McMillan
http://www.chinavision.org.uk/
http://www.oneplusone.org.cn

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:58:10 +0100, vk  wrote:

>BrritSki wrote:
>
>
>> <<<<<<<<<manly hugs>>>>>>>>>
>
>and <<<womanly hugs>> too

and (coming late to the scene) more <<<<<<<<<manly hugs>>>>>>>>> from
over here.

Nick O
-- 
real e-mail is nickodell (at) bigfoot (dot) com