Discussion:
Ignoring *that* wedding.
(too old to reply)
Mike
2018-05-19 11:13:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
during this otherwise ‘dead space’.


--
Toodle Pip
SODAM
2018-05-19 11:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mike <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>
Really? I can multi task and do both, as well as eat ice cream and
entertain Bingo.

--
SODAM
The thinking umrat’s choice for editor
Mike
2018-05-19 12:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
SODAM <***@talktalk.net> wrote:
> Mike <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>>
> Really? I can multi task and do both, as well as eat ice cream and
> entertain Bingo.
>

I *don’t want* to do both. I’ll be multitasking elsewhere, a barbeque this
evening and a little light gardening here and there, radio goes back on for
the afternoon drama and moneybox later....

--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-19 12:18:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message
<1223260867.548423799.222757.kemp_m-***@news.eternal-september.o
rg>, SODAM <***@talktalk.net> writes:
>Mike <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.

I woke at 12:34; I'd vaguely been aware they were going to be married
around noon, so turned it on thinking it'd be all over, but that
happened to be the main point, the vows. I know she's an actress and all
that, but I did like that she was smiling all through them, which I
think is unusual. She _is_ very pretty/beautiful. (Though I'm a bit
disappointed in the wasteful use of material.) Ah, they're just coming
out now - yes, that _is_ a long train.

They do have a nice day for it.

I wish them well.
>>
>Really? I can multi task and do both, as well as eat ice cream and
>entertain Bingo.
>
Any new pictures? EMNTK ...

(I wonder what the people of Sussex think, having a new duke and duchess
imposed on them? Probably non-committal or positive, on the whole.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to
be doing at the moment. -Robert Benchley, humorist, drama critic, and actor
(1889-1945)
Mike
2018-05-19 12:51:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I woke at 12:34; I'd vaguely been aware they were going to be married
> around noon, so turned it on thinking it'd be all over, but that
> happened to be the main point, the vows. I know she's an actress and all
> that, but I did like that she was smiling all through them, which I
> think is unusual. She _is_ very pretty/beautiful. (Though I'm a bit
> disappointed in the wasteful use of material.) Ah, they're just coming
> out now - yes, that _is_ a long train.
>
[Richard Dimblebey]: As now... as they progress down the aisle.....



--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-19 13:06:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <u5VLC.148423$***@fx39.am4>, Mike
<***@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
[]
>> that, but I did like that she was smiling all through them, which I
>> think is unusual. She _is_ very pretty/beautiful. (Though I'm a bit
>> disappointed in the wasteful use of material.) Ah, they're just coming
>> out now - yes, that _is_ a long train.
>>
>[Richard Dimblebey]: As now... as they progress down the aisle.....
>
OK, here's a challenge for one of those people who _do_ that sort of
thing on YouTube: take the footage (strange how some of us still use
that word!) from today, and the Dimbleby commentary from one of the ones
he covered, and edit them together ...
>
(I can't help but reminded of that description of the BBC: "By Royal
Appointment, suppliers of Dimblebys to the nation.")
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

My mission in life is not merely to survive, but to thrive, and to do so with
some passion, some compassion, some humour, and some style. - Maya Angelou,
quoted by Annabel Nnochiri, in RT 2017/5/13-19
Btms
2018-05-19 15:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <1223260867.548423799.222757.kemp_m-***@news.eternal-september.o
>> , SODAM <***@talktalk.net> writes:
>> Mike <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>
> I woke at 12:34; I'd vaguely been aware they were going to be married
> around noon, so turned it on thinking it'd be all over, but that
> happened to be the main point, the vows. I know she's an actress and all
> that, but I did like that she was smiling all through them, which I
> think is unusual. She _is_ very pretty/beautiful. (Though I'm a bit
> disappointed in the wasteful use of material.) Ah, they're just coming
> out now - yes, that _is_ a long train.
>
> They do have a nice day for it.
>
> I wish them well.
>>>
>> Really? I can multi task and do both, as well as eat ice cream and
>> entertain Bingo.
>>
> Any new pictures? EMNTK ...
>
> (I wonder what the people of Sussex think, having a new duke and duchess
> imposed on them? Probably non-committal or positive, on the whole.)

Recycling opportunities for posh nets

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Jenny M Benson
2018-05-19 12:12:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19-May-18 12:13 PM, Mike wrote:
> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.

I liked the pic my daughter showed me - it was probably on Facebook.
Showed a man sitting facing a completely blank white wall. Caption read
"This is what I'll be watching on Saturday."

Sorry I haven't any wit for you. Just done 90 mins serious gardening
and now listening to Brian of Britain.

--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/
Penny
2018-05-19 15:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 May 2018 13:12:13 +0100, Jenny M Benson <***@hotmail.co.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>On 19-May-18 12:13 PM, Mike wrote:
>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>
>I liked the pic my daughter showed me - it was probably on Facebook.
>Showed a man sitting facing a completely blank white wall. Caption read
>"This is what I'll be watching on Saturday."

I liked the Brian Bilston verse on the subject, ‘Please Accept My
Regrets’. I'd copy and paste it but he always seems to publish his stuff as
images.

<https://www.instagram.com/p/Bi7lJvNAjHg/?taken-by=brian_bilston>

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Vicky Ayech
2018-05-19 12:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 May 2018 11:13:31 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com>
wrote:

>The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>during this otherwise ‘dead space’.

I watched it and liked seeing the dresses and hearing about them and
then the stuff in church, but one cleric overdid it massively.
vk
2018-05-19 13:34:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 13:59, Vicky Ayech wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 11:13:31 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>
> I watched it and liked seeing the dresses and hearing about them and
> then the stuff in church, but one cleric overdid it massively.
>

The Archbishop of Canterbury should have hooked him off with his crook.
Hilarious!
LFS
2018-05-19 13:34:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 13:59, Vicky Ayech wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 11:13:31 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>
> I watched it and liked seeing the dresses and hearing about them and
> then the stuff in church, but one cleric overdid it massively.
>

We had unexpected - but very welcome - visitors. We turned on the TV at
12 because the nine year old girl wanted to see it but all she really
wanted to see was them kissing and after an hour they still hadn't and
we turned it off because it was no fun to watch in a roomful of
republican atheists. But I was fascinated by the Rev Curry and his
enthusiastic preaching and will probably watch him on iPlayer to hear
what he was saying. I was a bit worried that he might knock the candles
over.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Kate B
2018-05-19 14:10:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 14:34, LFS wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 13:59, Vicky Ayech wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2018 11:13:31 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>>
>> I watched it and liked seeing the dresses and hearing about them and
>> then the stuff in church, but one cleric overdid it massively.
>>
>
> We had unexpected  - but very welcome - visitors. We turned on the TV at
> 12 because the nine year old girl wanted to see it but all she really
> wanted to see was them kissing and after an hour they still hadn't and
> we turned it off because it was no fun to watch in a roomful of
> republican atheists. But I was fascinated by the Rev Curry and his
> enthusiastic preaching and will probably watch him on iPlayer to hear
> what he was saying. I was a bit worried that he might knock the candles
> over.
>

Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian sermon.
He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in the middle,
but when he started asking how many people had arrived by car I did
wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from the States?

She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore sensible
hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a few weeks
after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's mother was
lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has taught her to
stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went obviously wrong.

Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
celebration.

--
Kate B
London
BrritSki
2018-05-19 14:14:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 16:10, Kate B wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 14:34, LFS wrote:
>> On 19/05/2018 13:59, Vicky Ayech wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 May 2018 11:13:31 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>>>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>>>
>>> I watched it and liked seeing the dresses and hearing about them and
>>> then the stuff in church, but one cleric overdid it massively.
>>>
>>
>> We had unexpected  - but very welcome - visitors. We turned on the TV
>> at 12 because the nine year old girl wanted to see it but all she
>> really wanted to see was them kissing and after an hour they still
>> hadn't and we turned it off because it was no fun to watch in a
>> roomful of republican atheists. But I was fascinated by the Rev Curry
>> and his enthusiastic preaching and will probably watch him on iPlayer
>> to hear what he was saying. I was a bit worried that he might knock
>> the candles over.
>>
>
> Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
> for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian sermon.
> He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in the middle,
> but when he started asking how many people had arrived by car I did
> wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from the States?
>
> She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore sensible
> hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a few weeks
> after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's mother was
> lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has taught her to
> stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went obviously wrong.
>
> Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
> celebration.
>
<languid wave> and the music was pretty good too...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-19 23:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@mid.individual.net>, BrritSki
<***@gmail.com> writes:
>On 19/05/2018 16:10, Kate B wrote:
[]
>> Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute,

I'd vaguely registered that they were going to be married about noon, so
when I woke at about 12:34 I turned on out of curiosity thinking it'd be
all over, and just happened to come in right at the vows.

>>except for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the
>>Episcopalian sermon. He began and ended wonderfully, and there were
>>good bits in the middle, but when he started asking how many people
>>had arrived by car I did wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to
>>anyone here from the States?

I missed the gospel choir and the long (and unexpected) sermon.

>> She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore

Yes, I thought she looked truly beautiful. She also smiled through the
vows (and most of the rest); they both looked very happy.

>>sensible hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a
>>few weeks after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning,
>>Meghan's mother was lovely and clearly using every technique that
>>yoga has taught her to stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and
>>nothing went obviously wrong.
>> Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
>>celebration.

Indeed. Basically, although I agree with all those who have said the
saturation coverage has certainly been excessive, it's been a lovely
day, which has given lots of innocent happiness to lots of people (not
just those involved), so on the whole that's nice.
>>
><languid wave> and the music was pretty good too...
>
Just the physicality of it if nothing else: that fanfare that startled
one of the young train-bearers (though I fear his lack of teeth will
haunt him in future years), and the normal sound of a church organ (I'm
never sure whether it is just the diapason stop, or some combination
that is normally used: the jangly sound, anyway) is something I do like
- it's unlike any other instrument. (Which puzzles me, as it's basically
a wind instrument, so I'm not sure why it sounds so different.)
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Our enemies are inventive and resourceful. And so are we. They never stop
thinking of ways to harm out country and our people. And neither do we. -
George
W Bush, quoted by Rory Bremner in Radio Times, 10-16 January 2009
Chris McMillan
2018-05-21 13:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
BrritSki <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 16:10, Kate B wrote:
>> On 19/05/2018 14:34, LFS wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2018 13:59, Vicky Ayech wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 19 May 2018 11:13:31 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>>>>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>>>>
>>>> I watched it and liked seeing the dresses and hearing about them and
>>>> then the stuff in church, but one cleric overdid it massively.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We had unexpected  - but very welcome - visitors. We turned on the TV
>>> at 12 because the nine year old girl wanted to see it but all she
>>> really wanted to see was them kissing and after an hour they still
>>> hadn't and we turned it off because it was no fun to watch in a
>>> roomful of republican atheists. But I was fascinated by the Rev Curry
>>> and his enthusiastic preaching and will probably watch him on iPlayer
>>> to hear what he was saying. I was a bit worried that he might knock
>>> the candles over.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
>> for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian sermon.
>> He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in the middle,
>> but when he started asking how many people had arrived by car I did
>> wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from the States?
>>
>> She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore sensible
>> hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a few weeks
>> after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's mother was
>> lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has taught her to
>> stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went obviously wrong.
>>
>> Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
>> celebration.
>>
> <languid wave> and the music was pretty good too...
>
>
>

I’ll use iPlayer just to hear the music. It’s mostly what I find of
interest.

Sincerely Chris
Sid Nuncius
2018-05-19 17:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 15:10, Kate B wrote:
>
> Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
> for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian sermon.
> He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in the middle,
> but when he started asking how many people had arrived by car I did
> wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from the States?
>
> She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore sensible
> hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a few weeks
> after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's mother was
> lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has taught her to
> stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went obviously wrong.
>
> Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
> celebration.

Agreed. I loved the Episcopalian bishop's style, although the address
could have done with being about half the length.

I found some of it very touching, too, because it did seem to be about
two apparently very decent people who are thoroughly in love with each
other.

And the BBC kept the commentary on the service itself to a minimum,
which I appreciated. Obviously, plenty of people will disagree, but I
enjoyed it very much

--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
agsmith578688@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury
2018-05-19 17:08:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 19 May 2018 18:02:52 UTC+1, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 15:10, Kate B wrote:
> >
> > Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
> > for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian sermon.
> > He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in the middle,
> > but when he started asking how many people had arrived by car I did
> > wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from the States?
> >
> > She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore sensible
> > hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a few weeks
> > after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's mother was
> > lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has taught her to
> > stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went obviously wrong.
> >
> > Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
> > celebration.
>
> Agreed. I loved the Episcopalian bishop's style, although the address
> could have done with being about half the length.
>
> I found some of it very touching, too, because it did seem to be about
> two apparently very decent people who are thoroughly in love with each
> other.
>
> And the BBC kept the commentary on the service itself to a minimum,
> which I appreciated. Obviously, plenty of people will disagree, but I
> enjoyed it very much
>
> --
> Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
Btms
2018-05-19 17:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

Snipped
>
> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>
>


A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
vk
2018-05-19 20:01:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Snipped
>>
>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>
>>
>
>
> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>

George Clooney pulled it off though.
Jenny M Benson
2018-05-19 20:51:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19-May-18 09:01 PM, vk wrote:
>>
>
> George Clooney pulled it off though.

What? In public? In the chapel? How disgraceful!

--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/
BrritSki
2018-05-20 06:54:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 22:51, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 19-May-18 09:01 PM, vk wrote:
>>>
>>
>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>
> What?  In public?  In the chapel?  How disgraceful!
>
BTN !

Go on, accept it, I dares ya....
Jenny M Benson
2018-05-20 09:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20-May-18 07:54 AM, BrritSki wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 22:51, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>> On 19-May-18 09:01 PM, vk wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>>
>> What?  In public?  In the chapel?  How disgraceful!
>>
> BTN !
>
> Go on, accept it, I dares ya....
>
Thank you for the compliment, but you know the office precludes!

--
Jenny M Benson
http://jennygenes.blogspot.co.uk/
Btms
2018-05-20 09:43:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Jenny M Benson <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 20-May-18 07:54 AM, BrritSki wrote:
>> On 19/05/2018 22:51, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>> On 19-May-18 09:01 PM, vk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>>>
>>> What?  In public?  In the chapel?  How disgraceful!
>>>
>> BTN !
>>
>> Go on, accept it, I dares ya....
>>
> Thank you for the compliment, but you know the office precludes!

Well done dear. 🤩

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Sam Plusnet
2018-05-20 22:05:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20-May-18 10:33, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 20-May-18 07:54 AM, BrritSki wrote:
>> On 19/05/2018 22:51, Jenny M Benson wrote:
>>> On 19-May-18 09:01 PM, vk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>>>
>>> What?  In public?  In the chapel?  How disgraceful!
>>>
>> BTN !
>>
>> Go on, accept it, I dares ya....
>>
> Thank you for the compliment, but you know the office precludes!
>
The office does what?!

(Filth. Sheer filth.)

--
Sam Plusnet
vk
2018-05-20 07:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 21:51, Jenny M Benson wrote:
> On 19-May-18 09:01 PM, vk wrote:
>>>
>>
>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>
> What?  In public?  In the chapel?  How disgraceful!
>

Correct answer ;)
Fenny
2018-05-19 22:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 May 2018 21:01:12 +0100, vk <***@aol.com> wrote:

>On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Snipped
>>>
>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>
>
>George Clooney pulled it off though.

Chuck is going to be 70 in a few months. Clooney still has a way to
go to get there.

Personally, I thought he looked good for his age.
--
Fenny
BrritSki
2018-05-20 06:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/05/2018 00:11, Fenny wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 21:01:12 +0100, vk <***@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Snipped
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>>
>>
>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>
> Chuck is going to be 70 in a few months. Clooney still has a way to
> go to get there.
>
> Personally, I thought he looked good for his age.
>
Amal Nitrate keeps him going...
Btms
2018-05-20 07:21:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
BrritSki <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/05/2018 00:11, Fenny wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2018 21:01:12 +0100, vk <***@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>>>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Snipped
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>>
>> Chuck is going to be 70 in a few months. Clooney still has a way to
>> go to get there.
>>
>> Personally, I thought he looked good for his age.
>>
> Amal Nitrate keeps him going...
>
>

One is Hollywood; the other is not. This obsession with looks and age and
hair loss etc etc is tedious.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-19 23:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <pdpvok$9vs$***@dont-email.me>, vk <***@aol.com> writes:
>On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> Snipped
>>>
>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>
>>>
>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>
>
>George Clooney pulled it off though.

What, GC pulled Charles' suit off? Can't you be clapped in the tower or
something, for things like that?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Our enemies are inventive and resourceful. And so are we. They never stop
thinking of ways to harm out country and our people. And neither do we. -
George
W Bush, quoted by Rory Bremner in Radio Times, 10-16 January 2009
Sam Plusnet
2018-05-20 00:47:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20-May-18 0:28, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <pdpvok$9vs$***@dont-email.me>, vk <***@aol.com> writes:
>> On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>  Snipped
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>   A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>>
>>
>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>
> What, GC pulled Charles' suit off? Can't you be clapped in the tower or
> something, for things like that?

He's an actor. He must be used to applause.

--
Sam Plusnet
Btms
2018-05-20 06:05:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
vk <***@aol.com> wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Snipped
>>>
>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>
>
> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>

Yebut, George Clooney! I mean; George Clooney. C’mon!

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Mike Ruddock
2018-05-20 07:33:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 9:01 PM, vk wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Snipped
>>>
>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>
>
> George Clooney pulled it off though.

Victoria Beckham looked as though she was chewing a whole squadron of
wasps, whereas her husband was the soul of amiability.

Mike Ruddock
Chris J Dixon
2018-05-20 08:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mike Ruddock wrote:

>Victoria Beckham looked as though she was chewing a whole squadron of
>wasps, whereas her husband was the soul of amiability.

I'm not sure it is possible to smile whilst maintaining the
signature pout.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
SODAM
2018-05-20 12:19:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
>
> Victoria Beckham looked as though she was chewing a whole squadron of
> wasps, whereas her husband was the soul of amiability.
>
> Mike Ruddock

Did anyone else notice a woman dressed in yellow and orange in the back row
of the choir stalls? She would have rivalled V. Beckham for miserable
expression and looked as though she was there under not-very-well-disguised
protest.

--
SODAM
The thinking umrat’s choice for editor
Jane Vernon
2018-05-21 17:42:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 21:01, vk wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Snipped
>>>
>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>
>
> George Clooney pulled it off though.

George Clooney could pull anything off IMO.


--
Jane
The Potter in the Purple socks - to reply, please remove PURPLE
BTME

http://www.clothandclay.co.uk/umra/cookbook.htm - Umrats' recipes
LFS
2018-05-21 18:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21/05/2018 18:42, Jane Vernon wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 21:01, vk wrote:
>> On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Snipped
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>>
>>
>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>
> George Clooney could pull anything off IMO.
>
>

<giggle> Off me, too...

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Btms
2018-05-21 18:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
LFS <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 21/05/2018 18:42, Jane Vernon wrote:
>> On 19/05/2018 21:01, vk wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>>>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Snipped
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>>>
>>>
>>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>>
>> George Clooney could pull anything off IMO.
>>
>>
>
> <giggle> Off me, too...
>

Hussey 😜😂

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Sid Nuncius
2018-05-22 06:03:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21/05/2018 19:24, LFS wrote:
> On 21/05/2018 18:42, Jane Vernon wrote:
>> On 19/05/2018 21:01, vk wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>>>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Snipped
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>>>
>>>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>>
>>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>>
>> George Clooney could pull anything off IMO.
>
> <giggle> Off me, too...

You will need to form an orderly queue behind wofe, ladies.
<sigh>

--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
BrritSki
2018-05-21 19:34:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21/05/2018 19:42, Jane Vernon wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 21:01, vk wrote:
>> On 19/05/2018 18:20, Btms wrote:
>>> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Snipped
>>>>
>>>> Agreed. But I though Charles was looking older than his years.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A light grey suit with grey hair might be a factor.
>>>
>>
>> George Clooney pulled it off though.
>
> George Clooney could pull anything off IMO.
>
In My Orangery ?
agsmith578688@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury
2018-05-19 17:15:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Saturday, 19 May 2018 18:02:52 UTC+1, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 15:10, Kate B wrote:
> >
> > Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
> > for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian sermon.
> > He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in the middle,
> > but when he started asking how many people had arrived by car I did
> > wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from the States?
> >
> > She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore sensible
> > hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a few weeks
> > after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's mother was
> > lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has taught her to
> > stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went obviously wrong.
> >
> > Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
> > celebration.
>
> Agreed. I loved the Episcopalian bishop's style, although the address
> could have done with being about half the length.
>
> I found some of it very touching, too, because it did seem to be about
> two apparently very decent people who are thoroughly in love with each
> other.
>
> And the BBC kept the commentary on the service itself to a minimum,
> which I appreciated. Obviously, plenty of people will disagree, but I
> enjoyed it very much
>
> --
> Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)

Agreed. But I thought Charles was looking older than his years.
Chris J Dixon
2018-05-20 08:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury wrote:

>Agreed. But I thought Charles was looking older than his years.

I'm not sure. I am a just couple of months older, so find it
interesting to compare. I guess a three-piece suit does not
particularly take off the years.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Btms
2018-05-20 09:43:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Chris J Dixon <***@cdixon.me.uk> wrote:
> ***@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury wrote:
>
>> Agreed. But I thought Charles was looking older than his years.
>
> I'm not sure. I am a just couple of months older, so find it
> interesting to compare. I guess a three-piece suit does not
> particularly take off the years.
>
> Chris

His face is quite craggy. I don’t this helps.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Btms
2018-05-19 17:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sid Nuncius <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 15:10, Kate B wrote:
>>
>> Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
>> for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian sermon.
>> He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in the middle,
>> but when he started asking how many people had arrived by car I did
>> wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from the States?
>>
>> She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore sensible
>> hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a few weeks
>> after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's mother was
>> lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has taught her to
>> stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went obviously wrong.
>>
>> Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
>> celebration.
>
> Agreed. I loved the Episcopalian bishop's style, although the address
> could have done with being about half the length.
>
> I found some of it very touching, too, because it did seem to be about
> two apparently very decent people who are thoroughly in love with each
> other.
>
> And the BBC kept the commentary on the service itself to a minimum,
> which I appreciated. Obviously, plenty of people will disagree, but I
> enjoyed it very much
>

Folk will disagree about most things but if you ate not interested then
leave it at that. I din’t like much sport so I don’t comment. Better uses
for my time. This said, I am trying to watch the cup final but is is just
so fast I can’t form any opinion on these pleas for penalties and fouls.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Sid Nuncius
2018-05-19 17:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 18:02, Sid Nuncius wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 15:10, Kate B wrote:
>>
>> Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
>> for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian
>> sermon. He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in
>> the middle, but when he started asking how many people had arrived by
>> car I did wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from
>> the States?
>>
>> She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore
>> sensible hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a
>> few weeks after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's
>> mother was lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has
>> taught her to stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went
>> obviously wrong.
>>
>> Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
>> celebration.
>
> Agreed.  I loved the Episcopalian bishop's style, although the address
> could have done with being about half the length.
>
> I found some of it very touching, too, because it did seem to be about
> two apparently very decent people who are thoroughly in love with each
> other.
>
> And the BBC kept the commentary on the service itself to a minimum,
> which I appreciated.  Obviously, plenty of people will disagree, but I
> enjoyed it very much

Oh, and Eternal Source Of Light Divine always moves me because it is
*so* beautiful, Sheku Kanneh-Mason was amazingly cool and quite
brillant, I enjoyed the gospel choir (although I'd have liked a bit more
swing and oomph somewhere) and the music in general was a pleasure.

--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Vicky Ayech
2018-05-19 18:20:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 May 2018 18:38:28 +0100, Sid Nuncius
<***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>On 19/05/2018 18:02, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>> On 19/05/2018 15:10, Kate B wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
>>> for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian
>>> sermon. He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in
>>> the middle, but when he started asking how many people had arrived by
>>> car I did wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from
>>> the States?
>>>
>>> She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore
>>> sensible hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a
>>> few weeks after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's
>>> mother was lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has
>>> taught her to stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went
>>> obviously wrong.
>>>
>>> Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
>>> celebration.
>>
>> Agreed.  I loved the Episcopalian bishop's style, although the address
>> could have done with being about half the length.
>>
>> I found some of it very touching, too, because it did seem to be about
>> two apparently very decent people who are thoroughly in love with each
>> other.
>>
>> And the BBC kept the commentary on the service itself to a minimum,
>> which I appreciated.  Obviously, plenty of people will disagree, but I
>> enjoyed it very much
>
>Oh, and Eternal Source Of Light Divine always moves me because it is
>*so* beautiful, Sheku Kanneh-Mason was amazingly cool and quite
>brillant, I enjoyed the gospel choir (although I'd have liked a bit more
>swing and oomph somewhere) and the music in general was a pleasure.

I heard one commentator say Prince Charles was a big influence on
choice of music, and was for William's wedding too.
Btms
2018-05-19 19:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Vicky Ayech <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 18:38:28 +0100, Sid Nuncius
> <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2018 18:02, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2018 15:10, Kate B wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
>>>> for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian
>>>> sermon. He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in
>>>> the middle, but when he started asking how many people had arrived by
>>>> car I did wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from
>>>> the States?
>>>>
>>>> She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore
>>>> sensible hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a
>>>> few weeks after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's
>>>> mother was lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has
>>>> taught her to stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went
>>>> obviously wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
>>>> celebration.
>>>
>>> Agreed.  I loved the Episcopalian bishop's style, although the address
>>> could have done with being about half the length.
>>>
>>> I found some of it very touching, too, because it did seem to be about
>>> two apparently very decent people who are thoroughly in love with each
>>> other.
>>>
>>> And the BBC kept the commentary on the service itself to a minimum,
>>> which I appreciated.  Obviously, plenty of people will disagree, but I
>>> enjoyed it very much
>>
>> Oh, and Eternal Source Of Light Divine always moves me because it is
>> *so* beautiful, Sheku Kanneh-Mason was amazingly cool and quite
>> brillant, I enjoyed the gospel choir (although I'd have liked a bit more
>> swing and oomph somewhere) and the music in general was a pleasure.
>
> I heard one commentator say Prince Charles was a big influence on
> choice of music, and was for William's wedding too.
>

Well, that certainly doesn’t surprise me.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Kate B
2018-05-19 21:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 19:20, Vicky Ayech wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 18:38:28 +0100, Sid Nuncius
> <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 19/05/2018 18:02, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2018 15:10, Kate B wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
>>>> for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian
>>>> sermon. He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in
>>>> the middle, but when he started asking how many people had arrived by
>>>> car I did wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from
>>>> the States?
>>>>
>>>> She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore
>>>> sensible hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a
>>>> few weeks after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's
>>>> mother was lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has
>>>> taught her to stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went
>>>> obviously wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
>>>> celebration.
>>>
>>> Agreed.  I loved the Episcopalian bishop's style, although the address
>>> could have done with being about half the length.
>>>
>>> I found some of it very touching, too, because it did seem to be about
>>> two apparently very decent people who are thoroughly in love with each
>>> other.
>>>
>>> And the BBC kept the commentary on the service itself to a minimum,
>>> which I appreciated.  Obviously, plenty of people will disagree, but I
>>> enjoyed it very much
>>
>> Oh, and Eternal Source Of Light Divine always moves me because it is
>> *so* beautiful, Sheku Kanneh-Mason was amazingly cool and quite
>> brillant, I enjoyed the gospel choir (although I'd have liked a bit more
>> swing and oomph somewhere) and the music in general was a pleasure.
>
> I heard one commentator say Prince Charles was a big influence on
> choice of music, and was for William's wedding too.
>

The music was fairly predictable and very calming, which was probably
necessary. I loved all the deep English stuff at the beginning, the
Warlock etc; the Tallis was perfect (and so handy that it's Whitsunday
tomorrow), the Rutter... well, Rutter; the Fauré was rather a puzzling
choice, though you could see people visibly relax when they heard the
Ave Maria, at last something they recognised; the gospel choir was just
terrific and I could have done with more. I agree with Sid that Eternal
Source of Light is ravishing, but I was very disappointed in the singer,
who seemed to be taking the currently fashionable lack of vibrato to
extremes - I thought she sounded unsupported and consequently flat, and
looked terribly uncomfortable (especially compared to the gospel singer
later on, who was just having a great time). I felt rather sorry for her.

--
Kate B
London
Chris McMillan
2018-05-21 13:30:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kate B <***@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 19:20, Vicky Ayech wrote:
>> On Sat, 19 May 2018 18:38:28 +0100, Sid Nuncius
>> <***@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 19/05/2018 18:02, Sid Nuncius wrote:
>>>> On 19/05/2018 15:10, Kate B wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
>>>>> for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian
>>>>> sermon. He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in
>>>>> the middle, but when he started asking how many people had arrived by
>>>>> car I did wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from
>>>>> the States?
>>>>>
>>>>> She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore
>>>>> sensible hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a
>>>>> few weeks after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's
>>>>> mother was lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has
>>>>> taught her to stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went
>>>>> obviously wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
>>>>> celebration.
>>>>
>>>> Agreed.  I loved the Episcopalian bishop's style, although the address
>>>> could have done with being about half the length.
>>>>
>>>> I found some of it very touching, too, because it did seem to be about
>>>> two apparently very decent people who are thoroughly in love with each
>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>> And the BBC kept the commentary on the service itself to a minimum,
>>>> which I appreciated.  Obviously, plenty of people will disagree, but I
>>>> enjoyed it very much
>>>
>>> Oh, and Eternal Source Of Light Divine always moves me because it is
>>> *so* beautiful,

Don’t know it. By the sound of it I ought to.

Tallis and Faure (can do no wrong in my ears).

Sincerely Chris
Sid Nuncius
2018-05-21 17:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21/05/2018 14:30, Chris McMillan wrote:

>>> On Sat, 19 May 2018 18:38:28 +0100, Sid Nuncius

>>>> Oh, and Eternal Source Of Light Divine always moves me because it is
>>>> *so* beautiful,
>
> Don’t know it. By the sound of it I ought to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCSQd8Nx4mI

This is sung by Iestyn Davies (countertenor) and the trumpet is played
by Alison Balsom. I much prefer it to the Royal Wedding version, which
is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCSQd8Nx4mI
(Elin Managhan Thomas (soprano) and David Blackadder (trumpet). Both
brilliant musicians, but I tend to agree with Kate that EMT wasn't
sounding all that great on the day.)


--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-19 23:43:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@mid.individual.net>, Sid Nuncius
<***@hotmail.co.uk> writes:
[]
>Oh, and Eternal Source Of Light Divine always moves me because it is
>*so* beautiful, Sheku Kanneh-Mason was amazingly cool and quite
>brillant, I enjoyed the gospel choir (although I'd have liked a bit
>more swing and oomph somewhere) and the music in general was a pleasure.
>
Though I was with the others who sighed with relief when he moved into
Ave Maria.

A certain bit of crassness though: I had the coverage on in the
background, but when BBC1 went into football, I switched to ITV, which
continued to cover it for a bit longer, as I'm _really_ not interested
in football. But ITV has commercials - fair enough, it's its nature -
but, in I think several consecutive ad. breaks, they were pushing
S K-M's first album, with "selected to play at ... wedding". Now, I
mostly blame his record company, and also I do appreciate that it's
difficult for any musician, especially a classical one - but it did seem
a _bit_ OTT to be plugging it before his cello was cold, so to speak.

..

(I've just got the BBC news channel on. They _are_ covering some other
news, but still lots of Wedding. I don't really mind by now.) They - or
at least those of the commentators who feel placed to do so - do keep
commenting on The Dress. I'm afraid I found the train both excessive and
pointless; the dress itself, i. e. what was actually covering her,
looked fine, especially with a beautiful young woman inside it; however,
I've never quite been at home with (or, for that matter, familiar with
the symbolism of) wedding dress trains, and this was a long one. (I've
heard about the representation of the commonwealth by lots of
embroidery, but that was the veil rather than the train, wasn't it?)

Neither of them fluffed their lines ... (Diana the most famous ...)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Our enemies are inventive and resourceful. And so are we. They never stop
thinking of ways to harm out country and our people. And neither do we. -
George
W Bush, quoted by Rory Bremner in Radio Times, 10-16 January 2009
Chris J Dixon
2018-05-20 08:25:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

>Neither of them fluffed their lines ... (Diana the most famous ...)

Well it was made rather easier by only using their forename.

Are there rules about this sort of thing?

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
Chris J Dixon
2018-05-20 08:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Chris J Dixon wrote:

>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>
>>Neither of them fluffed their lines ... (Diana the most famous ...)
>
>Well it was made rather easier by only using their forename.
>
>Are there rules about this sort of thing?

I meant to say ... only a single commonly used forename.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
***@cdixon.me.uk
Plant amazing Acers.
krw
2018-05-20 15:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/05/2018 09:45, Chris J Dixon wrote; my response is lower down:
> Chris J Dixon wrote:
>
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>
>>> Neither of them fluffed their lines ... (Diana the most famous ...)
>>
>> Well it was made rather easier by only using their forename.
>>
>> Are there rules about this sort of thing?
>
> I meant to say ... only a single commonly used forename.
>
> Chris
>
I believe my mother and sister opined I was not married the second time
around as the registrar only used my middle name and not my first name.
I don't think that would prevent me needing a divorce when we get there.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
Mike
2018-05-20 16:15:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
krw <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On 20/05/2018 09:45, Chris J Dixon wrote; my response is lower down:
>> Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>
>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Neither of them fluffed their lines ... (Diana the most famous ...)
>>>
>>> Well it was made rather easier by only using their forename.
>>>
>>> Are there rules about this sort of thing?
>>
>> I meant to say ... only a single commonly used forename.
>>
>> Chris
>>
> I believe my mother and sister opined I was not married the second time
> around as the registrar only used my middle name and not my first name.
> I don't think that would prevent me needing a divorce when we get there.
>

Check with Shula.

--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-20 16:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <JahMC.213070$***@fx26.am4>, Mike
<***@ntlworld.com> writes:
>krw <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>> On 20/05/2018 09:45, Chris J Dixon wrote; my response is lower down:
>>> Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>
>>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Neither of them fluffed their lines ... (Diana the most famous ...)
>>>>
>>>> Well it was made rather easier by only using their forename.
>>>>
>>>> Are there rules about this sort of thing?
>>>
>>> I meant to say ... only a single commonly used forename.

Yes, I noticed they used "Harry" throughout. Presumably he was
Christened Harold or Henry? (I presume the use of Harry was looked into
by TPTB and deemed OK. Maybe it's like various other things, in English
law, where you can use any name you like [as long as deliberate fraud is
not intended], and it is still legal.)
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>> I believe my mother and sister opined I was not married the second time
>> around as the registrar only used my middle name and not my first name.
>> I don't think that would prevent me needing a divorce when we get there.
>>
Sorry to hear the "when"; hope you're just speaking sardonically. (No
need to reply.)
>
>Check with Shula.
>
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush.
It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.
-Robert Maynard Hutchins, educator (1899-1977)
Sally Thompson
2018-05-20 16:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <JahMC.213070$***@fx26.am4>, Mike
> <***@ntlworld.com> writes:
>> krw <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>> On 20/05/2018 09:45, Chris J Dixon wrote; my response is lower down:
>>>> Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither of them fluffed their lines ... (Diana the most famous ...)
>>>>>
>>>>> Well it was made rather easier by only using their forename.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there rules about this sort of thing?
>>>>
>>>> I meant to say ... only a single commonly used forename.
>
> Yes, I noticed they used "Harry" throughout. Presumably he was
> Christened Harold or Henry? (I presume the use of Harry was looked into
> by TPTB and deemed OK. Maybe it's like various other things, in English
> law, where you can use any name you like [as long as deliberate fraud is
> not intended], and it is still legal.)

I may need egg whites and a whisk, but I think he was actually called
Harry, not Henry or Harold.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
Btms
2018-05-20 17:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Sally Thompson <***@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> In message <JahMC.213070$***@fx26.am4>, Mike
>> <***@ntlworld.com> writes:
>>> krw <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 20/05/2018 09:45, Chris J Dixon wrote; my response is lower down:
>>>>> Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither of them fluffed their lines ... (Diana the most famous ...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well it was made rather easier by only using their forename.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there rules about this sort of thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> I meant to say ... only a single commonly used forename.
>>
>> Yes, I noticed they used "Harry" throughout. Presumably he was
>> Christened Harold or Henry? (I presume the use of Harry was looked into
>> by TPTB and deemed OK. Maybe it's like various other things, in English
>> law, where you can use any name you like [as long as deliberate fraud is
>> not intended], and it is still legal.)
>
> I may need egg whites and a whisk, but I think he was actually called
> Harry, not Henry or Harold.
>

I say it was always Henry (to be known as Harry).

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
LFS
2018-05-20 18:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/05/2018 18:15, Btms wrote:
> Sally Thompson <***@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver (John) <G6JPG-***@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <JahMC.213070$***@fx26.am4>, Mike
>>> <***@ntlworld.com> writes:
>>>> krw <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 20/05/2018 09:45, Chris J Dixon wrote; my response is lower down:
>>>>>> Chris J Dixon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither of them fluffed their lines ... (Diana the most famous ...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well it was made rather easier by only using their forename.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are there rules about this sort of thing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I meant to say ... only a single commonly used forename.
>>>
>>> Yes, I noticed they used "Harry" throughout. Presumably he was
>>> Christened Harold or Henry? (I presume the use of Harry was looked into
>>> by TPTB and deemed OK. Maybe it's like various other things, in English
>>> law, where you can use any name you like [as long as deliberate fraud is
>>> not intended], and it is still legal.)
>>
>> I may need egg whites and a whisk, but I think he was actually called
>> Harry, not Henry or Harold.
>>
>
> I say it was always Henry (to be known as Harry).
>

Their full names were used at the beginning. When the archbish took over
he called them Harry and Meghan.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
the Omrud
2018-05-21 09:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/05/2018 19:38, LFS wrote:

> Their full names were used at the beginning. When the archbish took over
> he called them Harry and Meghan.

Is it just me, or does that h trip others up every time you see it printed?

--
David
LFS
2018-05-21 11:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21/05/2018 10:17, the Omrud wrote:
> On 20/05/2018 19:38, LFS wrote:
>
>> Their full names were used at the beginning. When the archbish took
>> over he called them Harry and Meghan.
>
> Is it just me, or does that h trip others up every time you see it printed?
>

No problem for me as I had a friend who spelled it that way. What threw
me was that the first name of the new Duchess is Rachel - which is the
name of the character she played in Suits.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
the Omrud
2018-05-21 18:09:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 21/05/2018 12:27, LFS wrote:
> On 21/05/2018 10:17, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 20/05/2018 19:38, LFS wrote:
>>
>>> Their full names were used at the beginning. When the archbish took
>>> over he called them Harry and Meghan.
>>
>> Is it just me, or does that h trip others up every time you see it
>> printed?
>>
>
> No problem for me as I had a friend who spelled it that way. What threw
> me was that the first name of the new Duchess is Rachel - which is the
> name of the character she played in Suits.

So I now know two more facts about her than I did a minute ago. Well,
three if you count the fact that she was in something called Suits.

--
David
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-22 00:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <WXDMC.193095$***@fx43.am4>, the Omrud
<***@gmail.com> writes:
>On 21/05/2018 12:27, LFS wrote:
>> On 21/05/2018 10:17, the Omrud wrote:
>>> On 20/05/2018 19:38, LFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Their full names were used at the beginning. When the archbish took
>>>>over he called them Harry and Meghan.
>>>
>>> Is it just me, or does that h trip others up every time you see it
>>>printed?
>>>
>> No problem for me as I had a friend who spelled it that way. What
>>threw me was that the first name of the new Duchess is Rachel - which
>>is the name of the character she played in Suits.
>
>So I now know two more facts about her than I did a minute ago. Well,

Me too, except that I forgot them immediately on reading them.

>three if you count the fact that she was in something called Suits.
>
That was the only thing I knew she _had_ been in; looking at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex#Acting_career
(for a correspondent who has a chip on his shoulder about the royals,
and said he hadn't heard of that actress), I see that [she's worked
reasonably hard at her craft, although the only things _I_'ve probably
seen her in are the two CSI episodes and] she was paid about $50k an
episode for Suits, so it must have been quite a big show (and her a
major character).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Radio 4 is the civilising influence in this country ... I think it is the most
important institution in this country. - John Humphrys, Radio Times
7-13/06/2003
LFS
2018-05-22 07:20:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 22/05/2018 01:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <WXDMC.193095$***@fx43.am4>, the Omrud
> <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 21/05/2018 12:27, LFS wrote:
>>> On 21/05/2018 10:17, the Omrud wrote:
>>>> On 20/05/2018 19:38, LFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Their full names were used at the beginning. When the archbish took
>>>>> over he called them Harry and Meghan.
>>>>
>>>> Is it just me, or does that h trip others up every time you see it
>>>> printed?
>>>>
>>>  No problem for me as I had a friend who spelled it that way. What
>>> threw  me was that the first name of the new Duchess is Rachel -
>>> which is the  name of the character she played in Suits.
>>
>> So I now know two more facts about her than I did a minute ago.  Well,
>
> Me too, except that I forgot them immediately on reading them.
>
>> three if you count the fact that she was in something called Suits.
>>
> That was the only thing I knew she _had_ been in; looking at
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex#Acting_career
> (for a correspondent who has a chip on his shoulder about the royals,
> and said he hadn't heard of that actress), I see that [she's worked
> reasonably hard at her craft, although the only things _I_'ve probably
> seen her in are the two CSI episodes and] she was paid about $50k an
> episode for Suits, so it must have been quite a big show (and her a
> major character).

I really like Suits although the first couple of seasons were better
than the later ones. The premise on which it was based was clever and
kept up the tension for quite a long time.

For something about US lawyers but with a bit more bite, I recommend The
Good Fight. The current season is brilliantly anti Trump.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Vicky Ayech
2018-05-22 07:56:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:26 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 22/05/2018 01:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <WXDMC.193095$***@fx43.am4>, the Omrud
>> <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 21/05/2018 12:27, LFS wrote:
>>>> On 21/05/2018 10:17, the Omrud wrote:
>>>>> On 20/05/2018 19:38, LFS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Their full names were used at the beginning. When the archbish took
>>>>>> over he called them Harry and Meghan.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it just me, or does that h trip others up every time you see it
>>>>> printed?
>>>>>
>>>>  No problem for me as I had a friend who spelled it that way. What
>>>> threw  me was that the first name of the new Duchess is Rachel -
>>>> which is the  name of the character she played in Suits.
>>>
>>> So I now know two more facts about her than I did a minute ago.  Well,
>>
>> Me too, except that I forgot them immediately on reading them.
>>
>>> three if you count the fact that she was in something called Suits.
>>>
>> That was the only thing I knew she _had_ been in; looking at
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex#Acting_career
>> (for a correspondent who has a chip on his shoulder about the royals,
>> and said he hadn't heard of that actress), I see that [she's worked
>> reasonably hard at her craft, although the only things _I_'ve probably
>> seen her in are the two CSI episodes and] she was paid about $50k an
>> episode for Suits, so it must have been quite a big show (and her a
>> major character).
>
>I really like Suits although the first couple of seasons were better
>than the later ones. The premise on which it was based was clever and
>kept up the tension for quite a long time.
>
>For something about US lawyers but with a bit more bite, I recommend The
>Good Fight. The current season is brilliantly anti Trump.


I watched the first episode of Suits and Good fight, and possibly a
couple mopre of Good Fight as I like the actors, but gave up. Neither
was a patch on Boston Legal or L.A. Law Or Ally McBeale. BL is pretty
hard to beat :). Shatner was wonderful. Maybe I should give Suits a
few more episodes. I was hasty.

I did give the new Australian series, The Heart Guy or Dr Dr, at least
6 goes but am not going to watch more I think, which is disappointing,
as it's on #2 daughter's channels. She is a manager at UK TV now.
(small k.f.)
Kate B
2018-05-22 08:51:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 22/05/2018 08:56, Vicky Ayech wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:26 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/05/2018 01:42, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <WXDMC.193095$***@fx43.am4>, the Omrud
>>> <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 21/05/2018 12:27, LFS wrote:
>>>>> On 21/05/2018 10:17, the Omrud wrote:
>>>>>> On 20/05/2018 19:38, LFS wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Their full names were used at the beginning. When the archbish took
>>>>>>> over he called them Harry and Meghan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it just me, or does that h trip others up every time you see it
>>>>>> printed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>  No problem for me as I had a friend who spelled it that way. What
>>>>> threw  me was that the first name of the new Duchess is Rachel -
>>>>> which is the  name of the character she played in Suits.
>>>>
>>>> So I now know two more facts about her than I did a minute ago.  Well,
>>>
>>> Me too, except that I forgot them immediately on reading them.
>>>
>>>> three if you count the fact that she was in something called Suits.
>>>>
>>> That was the only thing I knew she _had_ been in; looking at
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meghan,_Duchess_of_Sussex#Acting_career
>>> (for a correspondent who has a chip on his shoulder about the royals,
>>> and said he hadn't heard of that actress), I see that [she's worked
>>> reasonably hard at her craft, although the only things _I_'ve probably
>>> seen her in are the two CSI episodes and] she was paid about $50k an
>>> episode for Suits, so it must have been quite a big show (and her a
>>> major character).
>>
>> I really like Suits although the first couple of seasons were better
>> than the later ones. The premise on which it was based was clever and
>> kept up the tension for quite a long time.
>>
>> For something about US lawyers but with a bit more bite, I recommend The
>> Good Fight. The current season is brilliantly anti Trump.
>
>
> I watched the first episode of Suits and Good fight, and possibly a
> couple mopre of Good Fight as I like the actors, but gave up. Neither
> was a patch on Boston Legal or L.A. Law Or Ally McBeale. BL is pretty
> hard to beat :). Shatner was wonderful. Maybe I should give Suits a
> few more episodes. I was hasty.
>
> I did give the new Australian series, The Heart Guy or Dr Dr, at least
> 6 goes but am not going to watch more I think, which is disappointing,
> as it's on #2 daughter's channels. She is a manager at UK TV now.
> (small k.f.)
>

We really enjoyed Goliath (Amazon, I think). Fabulous music and a
smashing story with a terrific ending. Sadly they want to make a second
series.

--
Kate B
London
Fenny
2018-05-22 19:41:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:26 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>I really like Suits although the first couple of seasons were better
>than the later ones. The premise on which it was based was clever and
>kept up the tension for quite a long time.

I think I got to about S5 before I started getting annoyed at all the
bickering and flouncing. And not just from Lewis Litt!
>
>For something about US lawyers but with a bit more bite, I recommend The
>Good Fight. The current season is brilliantly anti Trump.

I used to really enjoy The Good Wife, but never finished the
penultimate season - I think the one where Alicia was running for
office. By the time it became The Good Fight, I really couldn't be
bothered to get back into it. However, I'm a huge fan of Christine
Baranski. Ten years ago this week, I was in NYC and saw the play that
she was in [1] four times in the week we were there.

[1] It also happened to have one Mr Bradley Whitford in the cast,
which may have been the reason we flew 3,000 miles to see it. And
some chap called Mark Rylance.
--
Fenny
Btms
2018-05-22 20:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Fenny <***@removethis.gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:26 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I really like Suits although the first couple of seasons were better
>> than the later ones. The premise on which it was based was clever and
>> kept up the tension for quite a long time.
>
> I think I got to about S5 before I started getting annoyed at all the
> bickering and flouncing. And not just from Lewis Litt!
>>
>> For something about US lawyers but with a bit more bite, I recommend The
>> Good Fight. The current season is brilliantly anti Trump.
>
> I used to really enjoy The Good Wife, but never finished the
> penultimate season - I think the one where Alicia was running for
> office. By the time it became The Good Fight, I really couldn't be
> bothered to get back into it. However, I'm a huge fan of Christine
> Baranski. Ten years ago this week, I was in NYC and saw the play that
> she was in [1] four times in the week we were there.
>
> [1] It also happened to have one Mr Bradley Whitford in the cast,
> which may have been the reason we flew 3,000 miles to see it. And
> some chap called Mark Rylance.

Good lord. Astounded.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Vicky Ayech
2018-05-22 21:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 22 May 2018 20:41:58 +0100, Fenny
<***@removethis.gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:26 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>I really like Suits although the first couple of seasons were better
>>than the later ones. The premise on which it was based was clever and
>>kept up the tension for quite a long time.
>
>I think I got to about S5 before I started getting annoyed at all the
>bickering and flouncing. And not just from Lewis Litt!
>>
>>For something about US lawyers but with a bit more bite, I recommend The
>>Good Fight. The current season is brilliantly anti Trump.
>
>I used to really enjoy The Good Wife, but never finished the
>penultimate season - I think the one where Alicia was running for
>office. By the time it became The Good Fight, I really couldn't be
>bothered to get back into it. However, I'm a huge fan of Christine
>Baranski. Ten years ago this week, I was in NYC and saw the play that
>she was in [1] four times in the week we were there.

I stopped watching The Good Wife around then too.
>
>[1] It also happened to have one Mr Bradley Whitford in the cast,
>which may have been the reason we flew 3,000 miles to see it. And
>some chap called Mark Rylance.


Was BW good on stage? They are not always as good as on tv. Did you
like Studio 60? I loved that too. We saw wossisname, the one from TWW
who leaked the details of the space shuttle, on stage here in the UK.
It was a one man play. He was good but it wasn't very jolly.
Fenny
2018-05-22 22:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 22 May 2018 22:29:02 +0100, Vicky Ayech
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Was BW good on stage? They are not always as good as on tv. Did you
>like Studio 60? I loved that too. We saw wossisname, the one from TWW
>who leaked the details of the space shuttle, on stage here in the UK.
>It was a one man play. He was good but it wasn't very jolly.

Brad was amazing. The entire show was truly hilarious and they were
all clearly having a ball.

I liked S60. It had some flaws, but it was fun while it lasted.

I saw Richard Schiff in his one man play. He's not quite as talkative
as Brad when meeting fans, but I did like the play.

I also saw Matthew Perry in a play here a couple of years ago. The
play was just about bearable - it only had 4 people in and was
actually very good, but a bit close to the bone in places. But I
don't know if he'd had a bad night or was always like it, but Matt
really resented signing anything afterwards. He couldn't have been
less interested in the people who had paid to see his play if he'd
tried.
--
Fenny
Kate B
2018-05-23 08:29:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 22/05/2018 23:21, Fenny wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 22:29:02 +0100, Vicky Ayech
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Was BW good on stage? They are not always as good as on tv. Did you
>> like Studio 60? I loved that too. We saw wossisname, the one from TWW
>> who leaked the details of the space shuttle, on stage here in the UK.
>> It was a one man play. He was good but it wasn't very jolly.
>
> Brad was amazing. The entire show was truly hilarious and they were
> all clearly having a ball.
>
> I liked S60. It had some flaws, but it was fun while it lasted.
>
> I saw Richard Schiff in his one man play. He's not quite as talkative
> as Brad when meeting fans, but I did like the play.
>
> I also saw Matthew Perry in a play here a couple of years ago. The
> play was just about bearable - it only had 4 people in and was
> actually very good, but a bit close to the bone in places. But I
> don't know if he'd had a bad night or was always like it, but Matt
> really resented signing anything afterwards. He couldn't have been
> less interested in the people who had paid to see his play if he'd
> tried.
>
I don't know Matthew Perry (I don't think I've ever heard of him, though
that doesn't mean anything), but a four-hander that sounds like a
difficult, almost unbearable piece, particularly if you're playing every
night and may not be used to the stress of live theatre, may well leave
you drained and not up to socialising at all. You may well feel that the
punters have paid for the show, in which you have given your all (FCVO
all), and they're not really entitled to anything else.

--
Kate B
London
Vicky Ayech
2018-05-23 10:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 23 May 2018 09:29:34 +0100, Kate B <***@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 22/05/2018 23:21, Fenny wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 22:29:02 +0100, Vicky Ayech
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>> I also saw Matthew Perry in a play here a couple of years ago. The
>> play was just about bearable - it only had 4 people in and was
>> actually very good, but a bit close to the bone in places. But I
>> don't know if he'd had a bad night or was always like it, but Matt
>> really resented signing anything afterwards. He couldn't have been
>> less interested in the people who had paid to see his play if he'd
>> tried.
>>
>I don't know Matthew Perry (I don't think I've ever heard of him, though
He was in Studio 60 with Brad

>that doesn't mean anything), but a four-hander that sounds like a
>difficult, almost unbearable piece, particularly if you're playing every
>night and may not be used to the stress of live theatre, may well leave
>you drained and not up to socialising at all. You may well feel that the
>punters have paid for the show, in which you have given your all (FCVO
>all), and they're not really entitled to anything else.

Who's Afriad of Virigina Wolf?
Kate B
2018-05-23 16:57:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 23/05/2018 11:20, Vicky Ayech wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2018 09:29:34 +0100, Kate B <***@nospam.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 22/05/2018 23:21, Fenny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 22:29:02 +0100, Vicky Ayech
>>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I also saw Matthew Perry in a play here a couple of years ago. The
>>> play was just about bearable - it only had 4 people in and was
>>> actually very good, but a bit close to the bone in places. But I
>>> don't know if he'd had a bad night or was always like it, but Matt
>>> really resented signing anything afterwards. He couldn't have been
>>> less interested in the people who had paid to see his play if he'd
>>> tried.
>>>
>> I don't know Matthew Perry (I don't think I've ever heard of him, though
> He was in Studio 60 with Brad

Erm, none the wiser, I'm afraid.

>
>> that doesn't mean anything), but a four-hander that sounds like a
>> difficult, almost unbearable piece, particularly if you're playing every
>> night and may not be used to the stress of live theatre, may well leave
>> you drained and not up to socialising at all. You may well feel that the
>> punters have paid for the show, in which you have given your all (FCVO
>> all), and they're not really entitled to anything else.
>
> Who's Afriad of Virigina Wolf?
>
Is that what he was playing in? Then I'm not really surprised he just
wanted to get out and home.

--
Kate B
London
BrritSki
2018-05-23 10:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 23/05/2018 10:29, Kate B wrote:
>
> I don't know Matthew Perry (I don't think I've ever heard of him...

Are you not Friends on FB ? Look him up on Bing...
Kate B
2018-05-23 16:58:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 23/05/2018 11:43, BrritSki wrote:
> On 23/05/2018 10:29, Kate B wrote:
>>
>> I don't know Matthew Perry (I don't think I've ever heard of him...
>
> Are you not Friends on FB ?  Look him up on Bing...
>

Whoosh

--
Kate B
London
Fenny
2018-05-23 17:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 23 May 2018 09:29:34 +0100, Kate B <***@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>
>I don't know Matthew Perry (I don't think I've ever heard of him, though
>that doesn't mean anything), but a four-hander that sounds like a
>difficult, almost unbearable piece, particularly if you're playing every
>night and may not be used to the stress of live theatre, may well leave
>you drained and not up to socialising at all. You may well feel that the
>punters have paid for the show, in which you have given your all (FCVO
>all), and they're not really entitled to anything else.

He was Chandler in Friends.

Yes, a 4 person play is hard work, but I wouldn't have put it any more
than Brad's part in Boeing, Boeing, where a) he was barely off stage
and b) he had some fairly hefty physical moves.

Matt Perry is a far "bigger" name than Brad and would expect fans to
want autographs. Brad and the cast on Broadway pretty much took it as
part of the show (Brad stuck around far more than the others).

Even if he was knackered, he didn't have to be so f-ing miserable and
rude about it.
--
Fenny
LFS
2018-05-23 10:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 22/05/2018 20:41, Fenny wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:26 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I really like Suits although the first couple of seasons were better
>> than the later ones. The premise on which it was based was clever and
>> kept up the tension for quite a long time.
>
> I think I got to about S5 before I started getting annoyed at all the
> bickering and flouncing. And not just from Lewis Litt!
>>
>> For something about US lawyers but with a bit more bite, I recommend The
>> Good Fight. The current season is brilliantly anti Trump.
>
> I used to really enjoy The Good Wife, but never finished the
> penultimate season - I think the one where Alicia was running for
> office.

It had passed its best by the last season.

By the time it became The Good Fight, I really couldn't be
> bothered to get back into it.

It's rather different. I'm really enjoying the digs at Trump.

However, I'm a huge fan of Christine
> Baranski. Ten years ago this week, I was in NYC and saw the play that
> she was in [1] four times in the week we were there.
>
> [1] It also happened to have one Mr Bradley Whitford in the cast,
> which may have been the reason we flew 3,000 miles to see it. And
> some chap called Mark Rylance.
>

Boeing Boeing? Struck me as an odd thing for Rylance but I am a great
fan of his.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Btms
2018-05-23 11:12:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
LFS <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22/05/2018 20:41, Fenny wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:26 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I really like Suits although the first couple of seasons were better
>>> than the later ones. The premise on which it was based was clever and
>>> kept up the tension for quite a long time.
>>
>> I think I got to about S5 before I started getting annoyed at all the
>> bickering and flouncing. And not just from Lewis Litt!
>>>
>>> For something about US lawyers but with a bit more bite, I recommend The
>>> Good Fight. The current season is brilliantly anti Trump.
>>
>> I used to really enjoy The Good Wife, but never finished the
>> penultimate season - I think the one where Alicia was running for
>> office.
>
> It had passed its best by the last season.
>
> By the time it became The Good Fight, I really couldn't be
>> bothered to get back into it.
>
> It's rather different. I'm really enjoying the digs at Trump.
>
> However, I'm a huge fan of Christine
>> Baranski. Ten years ago this week, I was in NYC and saw the play that
>> she was in [1] four times in the week we were there.
>>
>> [1] It also happened to have one Mr Bradley Whitford in the cast,
>> which may have been the reason we flew 3,000 miles to see it. And
>> some chap called Mark Rylance.
>>
>
> Boeing Boeing? Struck me as an odd thing for Rylance but I am a great
> fan of his.
>

I don‘t rate him at all generally but he was excellent in that Henry 8 TV
thing. Perhaps its when I have seen him on stage he disappoints.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
LFS
2018-05-23 13:37:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 23/05/2018 12:12, Btms wrote:
> LFS <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 22/05/2018 20:41, Fenny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 22 May 2018 08:20:26 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I really like Suits although the first couple of seasons were better
>>>> than the later ones. The premise on which it was based was clever and
>>>> kept up the tension for quite a long time.
>>>
>>> I think I got to about S5 before I started getting annoyed at all the
>>> bickering and flouncing. And not just from Lewis Litt!
>>>>
>>>> For something about US lawyers but with a bit more bite, I recommend The
>>>> Good Fight. The current season is brilliantly anti Trump.
>>>
>>> I used to really enjoy The Good Wife, but never finished the
>>> penultimate season - I think the one where Alicia was running for
>>> office.
>>
>> It had passed its best by the last season.
>>
>> By the time it became The Good Fight, I really couldn't be
>>> bothered to get back into it.
>>
>> It's rather different. I'm really enjoying the digs at Trump.
>>
>> However, I'm a huge fan of Christine
>>> Baranski. Ten years ago this week, I was in NYC and saw the play that
>>> she was in [1] four times in the week we were there.
>>>
>>> [1] It also happened to have one Mr Bradley Whitford in the cast,
>>> which may have been the reason we flew 3,000 miles to see it. And
>>> some chap called Mark Rylance.
>>>
>>
>> Boeing Boeing? Struck me as an odd thing for Rylance but I am a great
>> fan of his.
>>
>
> I don‘t rate him at all generally but he was excellent in that Henry 8 TV
> thing. Perhaps its when I have seen him on stage he disappoints.
>

I wasn't a huge fan until Wolf Hall. I am always reluctant to watch
dramatisations of books I have particularly enjoyed but he was my exact
imagining of Thomas Cromwell. And he was good in that spy thing.

--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Kosmo
2018-05-23 17:07:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 23 May 2018 11:18:02 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It had passed its best by the last season.

Good wife lost its way when the investigator left.

--
Kosmo
Fenny
2018-05-23 17:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 23 May 2018 18:07:23 +0100, Kosmo <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 May 2018 11:18:02 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>> It had passed its best by the last season.
>
>Good wife lost its way when the investigator left.

It lost more than 50% of its appeal when Will "left".
--
Fenny
Fenny
2018-05-23 17:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 23 May 2018 11:18:02 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Boeing Boeing? Struck me as an odd thing for Rylance but I am a great
>fan of his.

He played the visiting best friend who was totally stunned by the
whole set up. His look of utter bewilderment throughout was
hilarious.
--
Fenny
Vicky Ayech
2018-05-23 10:28:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 22 May 2018 20:41:58 +0100, Fenny
<***@removethis.gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm a huge fan of Christine
>Baranski. Ten years ago this week, I was in NYC and saw the play that
>she was in [1] four times in the week we were there.

Oh, she's the one used to be in Cybill. I loved her in that. And in
The Good Wife, and she was the reason I began watching Good Fight. Too
much going on in it.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-21 14:09:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <L8wMC.213664$***@fx08.am4>, the Omrud
<***@gmail.com> writes:
>On 20/05/2018 19:38, LFS wrote:
>
>> Their full names were used at the beginning. When the archbish took
>>over he called them Harry and Meghan.
>
>Is it just me, or does that h trip others up every time you see it printed?
>
No, it's not just you!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm not against women. Not often enough, anyway." - Groucho Marx
Fenny
2018-05-20 17:22:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20 May 2018 16:46:49 GMT, Sally Thompson
<***@gmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>I may need egg whites and a whisk, but I think he was actually called
>Harry, not Henry or Harold.

Prince Henry of Wales.
--
Fenny
Kosmo
2018-05-21 16:51:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 20 May 2018 18:22:59 +0100, Fenny
<***@removethis.gmail.com> wrote:
> Prince Henry of Wales.

Wales is his father and at some future point his brother.

--
Kosmo
Btms
2018-05-21 17:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Kosmo <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2018 18:22:59 +0100, Fenny
> <***@removethis.gmail.com> wrote:
>> Prince Henry of Wales.
>
> Wales is his father and at some future point his brother.
>

He was Henry (Harry) Wales at Sandhurst.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Fenny
2018-05-21 18:40:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 21 May 2018 17:51:25 +0100, Kosmo <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 May 2018 18:22:59 +0100, Fenny
><***@removethis.gmail.com> wrote:
>> Prince Henry of Wales.
>
>Wales is his father and at some future point his brother.

Both William and Henry used the name Wales from going to school.
--
Fenny
agsmith578688@gmail.com Tony Smith Prestbury
2018-05-21 19:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Monday, 21 May 2018 19:40:43 UTC+1, Fenny wrote:
> On Mon, 21 May 2018 17:51:25 +0100, Kosmo <***@whitnet.uk> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 20 May 2018 18:22:59 +0100, Fenny
> ><***@removethis.gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Prince Henry of Wales.
> >
> >Wales is his father and at some future point his brother.
>
> Both William and Henry used the name Wales from going to school.
> --
> Fenny

He was listed as "Wales HRH Prince of" at the foot of his staircase at Trinity
Fenny
2018-05-19 18:46:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 19 May 2018 15:10:13 +0100, Kate B <***@nospam.demon.co.uk>
wrote:

>Well, I don't care. I watched it all and enjoyed every minute, except
>for perhaps about half-an-hour in the middle of the Episcopalian sermon.
>He began and ended wonderfully, and there were good bits in the middle,
>but when he started asking how many people had arrived by car I did
>wonder if he was going to do a shout-out to anyone here from the States?
>
>She looked marvellous, he looked besotted, the York girls wore sensible
>hats, Philip was walking without a stick, which at 96 and a few weeks
>after a hip operation is nothing short of stunning, Meghan's mother was
>lovely and clearly using every technique that yoga has taught her to
>stay calm, the flowers were staggering, and nothing went obviously wrong.
>
>Just the very last item, in this day and age, should be cause for
>celebration.

I also watched it and enjoyed it. Had a bit of hassle getting my
laptop to connect to the chromecast, so missed a few of the arrivals
(I went out shopping this morning and didn't get in until about
10.30).

I thought Philip was doing remarkably well to be walking without a
stick, even the short distance from the car into the chapel and back.
I bet he's been practising as much as they've let him.

The York girls' hats were OK, but I thought their dresses were a bit
underwhelming.

I liked the bishop's sermon. It was possibly a touch over long and
went off piste a little, but it's the kind of address he's used to
giving and they asked him to speak.

I'm looking forward to the official photographs tomorrow. As much as
I liked "The Dress", I very much liked the Blues & Royals uniforms and
thought they did well to dress the page boys in mini versions of the
same. Too many royal page boys end up looking very naff (like Will &
Kate's!). These were very dignified and wouldn't be embarrassing for
the lads 20 years from now.
--
Fenny
Btms
2018-05-19 15:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Vicky Ayech <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2018 11:13:31 GMT, Mike <***@ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>
>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>
> I watched it and liked seeing the dresses and hearing about them and
> then the stuff in church, but one cleric overdid it massively.
>

Some very funny tweets from HMQ on this. Though possibly not genuine 🧐

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
Btms
2018-05-19 15:23:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Mike <***@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>
>

Sorry but thoroughly enjoying voyeuristic delight at the happiness of
others. Also, art work with Grandchildren, a dip in the hot tub and
relaxing in what may be the prelude to a wonderful week of summer for
Chelsea. Might even watch some football. Not interested in the game myself
but the joy of others is good to share.

--
BTMS - Equine Advisor Extraordinaire.
the Omrud
2018-05-20 18:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 19/05/2018 12:13, Mike wrote:
> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.

I believe it was yesterday, but I missed it as I was volunteering at the
Manchester Repair Café. I do like taking other people's stuff apart,
particularly after they've signed a paper absolving me of any blame for
damage caused by incompetance.

--
David
BrritSki
2018-05-20 19:07:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/05/2018 20:49, the Omrud wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 12:13, Mike wrote:
>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>
> I believe it was yesterday, but I missed it as I was volunteering at the
> Manchester Repair Café.  I do like taking other people's stuff apart,
> particularly after they've signed a paper absolving me of any blame for
> damage caused by incompetance.
>
Or spelling misteaks ;)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-20 19:19:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <***@mid.individual.net>, BrritSki
<***@gmail.com> writes:
>On 20/05/2018 20:49, the Omrud wrote:
>> On 19/05/2018 12:13, Mike wrote:
>>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>> I believe it was yesterday, but I missed it as I was volunteering at
>>the Manchester Repair Café.  I do like taking other people's stuff
>>apart, particularly after they've signed a paper absolving me of any
>>blame for damage caused by incompetance.
>>
>Or spelling misteaks ;)
>
[(-:]

Tell us more about this Repair Café; sounds interesting. Computers?
Household appliances?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

One of my tricks as an armchair futurist is to "predict" things that are
already happening and watch people tell me it will never happen.
Scott Adams, 2015-3-9
the Omrud
2018-05-21 09:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/05/2018 20:19, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <***@mid.individual.net>, BrritSki
> <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 20/05/2018 20:49, the Omrud wrote:
>>> On 19/05/2018 12:13, Mike wrote:
>>>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>>>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>>>  I believe it was yesterday, but I missed it as I was volunteering at
>>> the  Manchester Repair Café.  I do like taking other people's stuff
>>> apart,  particularly after they've signed a paper absolving me of any
>>> blame for  damage caused by incompetance.
>>>
>> Or spelling misteaks  ;)
>>
> [(-:]
>
> Tell us more about this Repair Café; sounds interesting. Computers?
> Household appliances?

It's still a bit fledgling - there is a central organisation but they
only offer advice and a starter pack. All the organising is local. The
items which can be tackled depend on which volunteers are available, but
in general they cover bicycles, small electricals, audio & video,
technology and clothing. I've worked on hedge trimmers, a petrol mower,
lamps, printers and a laptop PC. Surprisingly few people bring IT kit
other than printers. I've seen others working on toasters, TVs,
speakers, bikes, clothes. There's no charge for repairs (successful or
not) but people may give a donation towards the running of the event.

I have volunteered at the two which exist in Manchester, but there's a
group starting up a Warrington one which is much closer.

https://repaircafe.org/en/

--
David
Chris McMillan
2018-05-21 13:45:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
the Omrud <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/05/2018 20:19, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <***@mid.individual.net>, BrritSki
>> <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 20/05/2018 20:49, the Omrud wrote:
>>>> On 19/05/2018 12:13, Mike wrote:
>>>>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>>>>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>>>>  I believe it was yesterday, but I missed it as I was volunteering at
>>>> the  Manchester Repair Café.  I do like taking other people's stuff
>>>> apart,  particularly after they've signed a paper absolving me of any
>>>> blame for  damage caused by incompetance.
>>>>
>>> Or spelling misteaks  ;)
>>>
>> [(-:]
>>
>> Tell us more about this Repair Café; sounds interesting. Computers?
>> Household appliances?
>
> It's still a bit fledgling - there is a central organisation but they
> only offer advice and a starter pack. All the organising is local. The
> items which can be tackled depend on which volunteers are available, but
> in general they cover bicycles, small electricals, audio & video,
> technology and clothing. I've worked on hedge trimmers, a petrol mower,
> lamps, printers and a laptop PC. Surprisingly few people bring IT kit
> other than printers. I've seen others working on toasters, TVs,
> speakers, bikes, clothes. There's no charge for repairs (successful or
> not) but people may give a donation towards the running of the event.
>
Reading has a Bicycle Repair Cafe but it may have much more only now the
shop space (the famous Jacksons dept store) has been sold on, all the
little groups in there, inc Cycle kitchen have moved on I know not where)

Sincerely Chris
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2018-05-21 14:17:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In message <PewMC.245836$***@fx20.am4>, the Omrud
<***@gmail.com> writes:
>On 20/05/2018 20:19, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <***@mid.individual.net>, BrritSki
>><***@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 20/05/2018 20:49, the Omrud wrote:
[]
>>>>  I believe it was yesterday, but I missed it as I was volunteering
>>>>at the  Manchester Repair Café.  I do like taking other people's
>>>>stuff apart,  particularly after they've signed a paper absolving
>>>>me of any blame for  damage caused by incompetance.
>>>>
>>> Or spelling misteaks  ;)
>>>
>> [(-:]
>> Tell us more about this Repair Café; sounds interesting. Computers?
>>Household appliances?
>
>It's still a bit fledgling - there is a central organisation but they
>only offer advice and a starter pack. All the organising is local. The
>items which can be tackled depend on which volunteers are available,
>but in general they cover bicycles, small electricals, audio & video,
>technology and clothing. I've worked on hedge trimmers, a petrol
>mower, lamps, printers and a laptop PC. Surprisingly few people bring
>IT kit other than printers. I've seen others working on

I suppose "repair" implies physical or electrical faults, whereas most
IT problems are not.

I presume the trimmer, mower, and lamp problems were caused by the
breakage of small parts? How did you fix them?

>toasters, TVs, speakers, bikes, clothes. There's no charge for repairs
>(successful or not) but people may give a donation towards the running
>of the event.
>
>I have volunteered at the two which exist in Manchester, but there's a
>group starting up a Warrington one which is much closer.
>
>https://repaircafe.org/en/
>
Nothing near me I fear. Does sound like something I'd like to take part
in, but no I'm not going to organise one.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm not against women. Not often enough, anyway." - Groucho Marx
Fred
2018-05-21 15:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
> >>> On 19/05/2018 12:13, Mike wrote:
> >>>  I believe it was yesterday, but I missed it as I was volunteering at
> >>> the  Manchester Repair Café.  I do like taking other people's stuff
> >>> apart,  particularly after they've signed a paper absolving me of any
> >>> blame for  damage caused by incompetance.


We have similar in Leeds called Hackspace.
Repairs done but mostly available space and kit for people to 'play' at making stuff.

Similar to Men in Sheds which I attend in Morley.

Fred
Sid Nuncius
2018-05-21 06:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 20/05/2018 19:49, the Omrud wrote:
> On 19/05/2018 12:13, Mike wrote:
>> The Toodle house is wedding free and I wait on Umra’s every witticism
>> during this otherwise ‘dead space’.
>
> I believe it was yesterday, but I missed it as I was volunteering at the
> Manchester Repair Café.  I do like taking other people's stuff apart,
> particularly after they've signed a paper absolving me of any blame for
> damage caused by incompetance.

Respec'! Those places are *such* a good idea and I really admire people
who volunteer there. I wish we had something like it locally.

--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Loading...