Discussion:
Anyone there?
(too old to reply)
Mike Ruddock
2019-07-16 17:28:30 UTC
Permalink
Well is there?

Mike Ruddock
Sid Nuncius
2019-07-16 17:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Jim Easterbrook
2019-07-16 17:31:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Ain't nobody here at all.
--
Jim <http://www.jim-easterbrook.me.uk/>
1959/1985? M B+ G+ A L- I- S- P-- CH0(p) Ar++ T+ H0 Q--- Sh0
Mike
2019-07-16 17:46:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Oh Cluck
--
Toodle Pip
Sam Plusnet
2019-07-16 22:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Oh Cluck
I'm still waiting for a definition of "there" before I answer.
--
Sam Plusnet
LFS
2019-07-17 06:28:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Oh Cluck
I'm still waiting for a definition of "there" before I answer.
Indeed. I'm here but I'm not at all sure if that's the same as there.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
John Ashby
2019-07-17 06:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by LFS
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Oh Cluck
I'm still waiting for a definition of "there" before I answer.
Indeed. I'm here but I'm not at all sure if that's the same as there.
Oops, I skim read that as "I'm here, but I'm not all there."

john
LFS
2019-07-17 19:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ashby
Post by LFS
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Oh Cluck
I'm still waiting for a definition of "there" before I answer.
Indeed. I'm here but I'm not at all sure if that's the same as there.
Oops, I skim read that as "I'm here, but I'm not all there."
Quite possibly.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Mike
2019-07-17 07:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Oh Cluck
I'm still waiting for a definition of "there" before I answer.
‘There’ is ‘Not there’. HTH, HAND
--
Toodle Pip
Mike
2019-07-17 07:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Oh Cluck
I'm still waiting for a definition of "there" before I answer.
‘There’ is ‘Not there’. HTH, HAND
IMTW ‘Here’ is ‘Not there’. Sorry to cause such confusion in such an August
group in mid-July.
--
Toodle Pip
Flop
2019-07-17 07:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
‘There’ is ‘Not there’. HTH, HAND
IMTW ‘Here’ is ‘Not there’. Sorry to cause such confusion in such an August
group in mid-July.
I think the first one is better :=)

BTW I have been analysing the content of this newsgroup. The ratio of
non-TA storyline [ie 'junk'] to TA storyline comments is astronomic.
Which may explain the lack of messages. ["Nothing to see here - move
along"].
--
Flop

Truly the Good Lord gave us computers that we might learn patience
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-17 09:06:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flop
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
‘There’ is ‘Not there’. HTH, HAND
IMTW ‘Here’ is ‘Not there’. Sorry to cause such confusion in such an August
group in mid-July.
There, there. Don't worry about it.
Post by Flop
I think the first one is better :=)
BTW I have been analysing the content of this newsgroup. The ratio of
non-TA storyline [ie 'junk'] to TA storyline comments is astronomic.
Which may explain the lack of messages. ["Nothing to see here - move
along"].
I think some of those who support the _revised_ 'group definition ("a
newsgroup for the sort of person who might listen to The Archers") might
object to your use of "junk".

However, I think if you post a post like the above which has at least a
trace of remonstrance, then you are honour-bound to append an on-topic
point ... (-:

I'm trying hard to do so. I can't think of much to comment on at the
moment, that hasn't already been commented on by otherrats at the moment
(and possibly better than I); maybe TA is in the sort of holding phase
with nothing much happening that many of us have clamoured for a lot
over the last few years. Or, we're just staggered by the half-million
pound thing. I will add that I think - so far - the Jim story is being
very sensitively and well done (I liked the day with Al and Fiona), but
others have already said that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Once you've started swinging, chimp-like, through the branches of your family
tree, you might easily end up anywhere. - Alexander Armstrong, RT 2014/8/23-29
Vicky Ayech
2019-07-17 10:27:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:06:05 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
maybe TA is in the sort of holding phase
with nothing much happening that many of us have clamoured for a lot
over the last few years. Or, we're just staggered by the half-million
pound thing. I will add that I think - so far - the Jim story is being
very sensitively and well done (I liked the day with Al and Fiona), but
others have already said that.
--
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e

I am glad Fiona has gone home before Shula got hold of her for the
'catch up' and was able to ferret the details about Jim out of her.
Also she was trying to push Jim to do something, because she found the
situation upsetting and wanted something done to make herself feel
better. Like Jazzer. Alastair feels a tiny bit like that but is being
good and sensible and knows Jim needs to settle things for himself and
process what has been revealed and how he feels. And I think Jim feels
and I agree that the best hting is to let him gt back to his normal
every day things.

Unfortunately because they wanted to do somehting loving, or just Do
Something, theybought him the keyboard. I thought that a bit tactless
and insensitive. And now Alastair will push him to use it. Hopefully
not hard if it upsets him. And hopefully Snappy can refrain from any
mroe cosy chats with the Saint. She was searching for clues and
getting them assembled.

I was not surprised to find out Will broke his promise to Ed and Ed
his to Will but was sad Ed did as he is in danger with the gang and
police. I hope he can get out and Tim really lets him before the poo
hits the A/C device.

I think Will wants to hang on to Poppy as much for ownership, you are
not taking THIS one, as for fear of Umbrella reporting him and getting
her removed by social services. He doesn't want Poppy to get too fond
of that gran and want to leave, as Mia did.

I think Tom and Nat would happily take Eddie's ideas and push him out
of any recognition that they are his, or payment. Tom did it to
Haley. Spoilers seem to indicate he is not getting rid of the pigs
fast enough. But for whom?
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-17 12:48:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vicky Ayech
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:06:05 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
maybe TA is in the sort of holding phase
with nothing much happening that many of us have clamoured for a lot
over the last few years. Or, we're just staggered by the half-million
pound thing. I will add that I think - so far - the Jim story is being
very sensitively and well done (I liked the day with Al and Fiona), but
others have already said that.
--
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
I am glad Fiona has gone home before Shula got hold of her for the
'catch up' and was able to ferret the details about Jim out of her.
Indeed. Though she won't stop - she doesn't seem to be able to detect
that she should.
Post by Vicky Ayech
Also she was trying to push Jim to do something, because she found the
situation upsetting and wanted something done to make herself feel
Who, Shula or Fiona?
Post by Vicky Ayech
better. Like Jazzer. Alastair feels a tiny bit like that but is being
good and sensible and knows Jim needs to settle things for himself and
process what has been revealed and how he feels. And I think Jim feels
and I agree that the best hting is to let him gt back to his normal
every day things.
Probably. I'm very much not knowing what needs doing in these
circumstances; not only with the victim Jim, which (I hope) the SWs have
reasonably in hand, but the offender: I personally am not at all sure
that society benefits from old men being imprisoned. On the other hand,
I can see that a lot of (probably most) people wouldn't want them to get
off scot free, either. They should certainly be made aware that society
knows what they did, and probably put on the register.
Post by Vicky Ayech
Unfortunately because they wanted to do somehting loving, or just Do
Something, theybought him the keyboard. I thought that a bit tactless
Indeed. (I hadn't realised they actually went as far as to buy it. I
know they were certainly discussing it.)
Post by Vicky Ayech
and insensitive. And now Alastair will push him to use it. Hopefully
not hard if it upsets him.
Which, I rather feel, it would. Should have been left until a lot
further down the healing process - if ever.
Post by Vicky Ayech
And hopefully Snappy can refrain from any
mroe cosy chats with the Saint. She was searching for clues and
getting them assembled.
Yes. I doubt he can, though, if only because of their professions.
Post by Vicky Ayech
I was not surprised to find out Will broke his promise to Ed and Ed
his to Will but was sad Ed did as he is in danger with the gang and
police. I hope he can get out and Tim really lets him before the poo
hits the A/C device.
Yes, it does feel like plot recycling - I can't put my finger on exactly
which plot, but. And, why does it have to be a Grundy. (OK, we had
Freddie as an example of the other end of the scale, but still.)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I think Will wants to hang on to Poppy as much for ownership, you are
not taking THIS one, as for fear of Umbrella reporting him and getting
her removed by social services. He doesn't want Poppy to get too fond
of that gran and want to leave, as Mia did.
There may be some of that (the ownership bit), but I think he genuinely
likes having her as part of his life (however badly he's managing at
least that aspect of it), and if she were taken away, would be very
close to doing a Greg, I think. Which, though we don't like him, I don't
think we'd _really_ want. (Not least because it'd destroy Clarrie
completely, and make Eddie and even Ed very sad.)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I think Tom and Nat would happily take Eddie's ideas and push him out
of any recognition that they are his, or payment. Tom did it to
Yes, but have we actually heard Eddie come out with anything
substantial? I think he could make appropriate noises, especially to
fool Nat, but - even with 500k in prospect - I don't think he could
really buckle down to hard brain work: it isn't his thing. He's a hard
worker, on things like cows or patios (though even there will take
shortcuts if he thinks he can get away with them), but I don't think big
plans are really his thing. L*nda's shepherd's hut for example: I think
that involved more than he anticipated, and he just about broke even?
Post by Vicky Ayech
Haley. Spoilers seem to indicate he is not getting rid of the pigs
fast enough. But for whom?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The war was over, but all those people were still dead - explainer why the
atmosphere of VE-day did not seem right to her; "Today" 2015-4-27
Mike
2019-07-17 14:37:16 UTC
Permalink
I’m risking nuggering up the attributions by snipping and inter-commenting
below but hey, what the heck...
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:06:05 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
maybe TA is in the sort of holding phase
with nothing much happening that many of us have clamoured for a lot
over the last few years. Or, we're just staggered by the half-million
pound thing. I will add that I think - so far - the Jim story is being
very sensitively and well done (I liked the day with Al and Fiona), but
others have already said that.
--
Not so much ‘nothing much happening’ as the nature of the storylines
themselves; it is as though every storyline has to justify a ‘If you have
been affected by....’ or it won’t be worthy of inclusion in this FOTWD.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
I am glad Fiona has gone home before Shula got hold of her for the
'catch up' and was able to ferret the details about Jim out of her.
I wonder if the PTF has been employed on the Saint for any good reason?
?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
Like Jazzer. Alastair feels a tiny bit like that but is being
good and sensible and knows Jim needs to settle things for himself and
process what has been revealed and how he feels. And I think Jim feels
and I agree that the best hting is to let him gt back to his normal
every day things.
Quite so! Raking up something so stressful from over 60 years ago doesn’t
appear to serve any useful purpose other than a storyline that triggers the
‘If you have been affected...’ no good will come of it, surely?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Probably. I'm very much not knowing what needs doing in these
circumstances; not only with the victim Jim, which (I hope) the SWs have
reasonably in hand, but the offender: I personally am not at all sure
that society benefits from old men being imprisoned. On the other hand,
I can see that a lot of (probably most) people wouldn't want them to get
off scot free, either. They should certainly be made aware that society
knows what they did, and probably put on the register.
Or even ‘old people’ rather than just men as I understand though not as
common, it is not a male only preserve. The ‘offender should certainly be
confronted with their past but, little purpose is likely to be served by
raking up and imprisonment.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
Unfortunately because they wanted to do somehting loving, or just Do
Something, theybought him the keyboard. I thought that a bit tactless
Not just tactless but, rubbing Jim’s nose in it in so many ways; such
actions are only going to exacerbate the situation.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Which, I rather feel, it would. Should have been left until a lot
further down the healing process - if ever.
Very much so!
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
And hopefully Snappy can refrain from any
mroe cosy chats with the Saint. She was searching for clues and
getting them assembled.
And of course 2 +2 will equate to 5!
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes. I doubt he can, though, if only because of their professions.
Post by Vicky Ayech
I was not surprised to find out Will broke his promise to Ed and Ed
his to Will but was sad Ed did as he is in danger with the gang and
police. I hope he can get out and Tim really lets him before the poo
hits the A/C device.
I still think the S/W’s are playing with us. The golden rule is ‘Keep the
Grundies down’; the £Texel will vanish in a fine - mark my words!
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, it does feel like plot recycling - I can't put my finger on exactly
which plot, but. And, why does it have to be a Grundy. (OK, we had
Freddie as an example of the other end of the scale, but still.)
My comment above applies here too.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I think Will wants to hang on to Poppy as much for ownership, you are
not taking THIS one, as for fear of Umbrella reporting him and getting
her removed by social services. He doesn't want Poppy to get too fond
of that gran and want to leave, as Mia did.
SS should remove Mia if only because Will is such a miserable git! No child
should be subjected to parental ‘care’ from anyone like that!
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
There may be some of that (the ownership bit), but I think he genuinely
likes having her as part of his life (however badly he's managing at
least that aspect of it), and if she were taken away, would be very
close to doing a Greg, I think. Which, though we don't like him, I don't
think we'd _really_ want. (Not least because it'd destroy Clarrie
completely, and make Eddie and even Ed very sad.)
Will is just bad news to everyone - including Martin G it seems.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I think Tom and Nat would happily take Eddie's ideas and push him out
of any recognition that they are his, or payment. Tom did it to
Bargepole factors apply here - don’t trust either of ‘em; they are bad
news.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Yes, but have we actually heard Eddie come out with anything
substantial? I think he could make appropriate noises, especially to
fool Nat, but - even with 500k in prospect - I don't think he could
really buckle down to hard brain work: it isn't his thing. He's a hard
worker, on things like cows or patios (though even there will take
shortcuts if he thinks he can get away with them), but I don't think big
plans are really his thing. L*nda's shepherd's hut for example: I think
that involved more than he anticipated, and he just about broke even?
Eddie is a past master at BS, gets it from his father I suspect.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
Haley. Spoilers seem to indicate he is not getting rid of the pigs
fast enough. But for whom?
???
--
Toodle Pip
Min
2019-07-18 01:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
I’m risking nuggering up the attributions by snipping and inter-commenting
below but hey, what the heck...
Quite so! Raking up something so stressful from over 60 years ago doesn’t
appear to serve any useful purpose other than a storyline that triggers the
‘If you have been affected...’ no good will come of it, surely?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Probably. I'm very much not knowing what needs doing in these
circumstances; not only with the victim Jim, which (I hope) the SWs have
reasonably in hand, but the offender: I personally am not at all sure
that society benefits from old men being imprisoned. On the other hand,
I can see that a lot of (probably most) people wouldn't want them to get
off scot free, either. They should certainly be made aware that society
knows what they did, and probably put on the register.
Or even ‘old people’ rather than just men as I understand though not as
common, it is not a male only preserve. The ‘offender should certainly be
confronted with their past but, little purpose is likely to be served by
raking up and imprisonment.
Hmm...I'm not so sure about this. From what I have read, these particular criminals, committing this particular crime, tend to be the worst recidivists ever. It is fairly common for them to be still committing these particular offences in wheelchairs, at ages where people with more acceptable proclivities are happy (or at least satisfied) with a malted milk and a soothing novel. So I would want to be *very* sure that he was no longer offending, and if he was, regardless of age, I would prefer him to be behind bars with no access to children.
Thread swerve: As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say 'commit' suicide? Are there any things that we 'commit' that are *not* criminal? Marriage? I know you commit *to* someone, but surely the preposition matters? And if we don't 'commit' suicide, what do we do? BTW, this post appears to have correctly formatted itself - so Kudos to Google - not something I have written often!
--
Min
Min
2019-07-18 01:20:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Min
Post by Mike
I’m risking nuggering up the attributions by snipping and inter-commenting
below but hey, what the heck...
Quite so! Raking up something so stressful from over 60 years ago doesn’t
appear to serve any useful purpose other than a storyline that triggers the
‘If you have been affected...’ no good will come of it, surely?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Probably. I'm very much not knowing what needs doing in these
circumstances; not only with the victim Jim, which (I hope) the SWs have
reasonably in hand, but the offender: I personally am not at all sure
that society benefits from old men being imprisoned. On the other hand,
I can see that a lot of (probably most) people wouldn't want them to get
off scot free, either. They should certainly be made aware that society
knows what they did, and probably put on the register.
Or even ‘old people’ rather than just men as I understand though not as
common, it is not a male only preserve. The ‘offender should certainly be
confronted with their past but, little purpose is likely to be served by
raking up and imprisonment.
Hmm...I'm not so sure about this. From what I have read, these particular
criminals, committing this particular crime, tend to be the worst
recidivists ever. It is fairly common for them to be still committing these
particular offences in wheelchairs, at ages where people with more
acceptable proclivities are happy (or at least satisfied) with a malted milk
and a soothing novel. So I would want to be *very* sure that he was no
longer offending, and if he was, regardless of age, I would prefer him to be
behind bars with no access to children.
Post by Min
Thread swerve: As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide? Are there any things that we 'commit' that are *not*
criminal? Marriage? I know you commit *to* someone, but surely the
preposition matters? And if we don't 'commit' suicide, what do we do? BTW,
this post appears to have correctly formatted itself - so Kudos to Google -
not something I have written often!
Post by Min
--
Min
No, it nuggering hadn't so Kudos removed.
--
Min, altering posts by hand....
Penny
2019-07-18 08:29:53 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 18:20:46 -0700 (PDT), Min <***@googlemail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Min
BTW,
this post appears to have correctly formatted itself - so Kudos to Google -
not something I have written often!
--
Min
No, it nuggering hadn't so Kudos removed.
Ah, is it Google Gropes which causes this problem?
I wish I'd met this corrected version first - scrolling sideways is not
something my newsreader does easily :(
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Min
2019-07-18 16:33:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...
Post by Min
BTW,
this post appears to have correctly formatted itself - so Kudos to Google -
not something I have written often!
--
Min
No, it nuggering hadn't so Kudos removed.
Ah, is it Google Gropes which causes this problem?
I wish I'd met this corrected version first - scrolling sideways is not
something my newsreader does easily :(
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
It is, Penny, so apologies! It *looked* to be formatting correctly,
so I posted, only to find out that it hadn't. I did fix it and delete
the OP (Offending Post in this case) ASAP!
--
Min
carolet
2019-07-18 09:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Min
Post by Min
Post by Mike
I’m risking nuggering up the attributions by snipping and inter-commenting
below but hey, what the heck...
So am I.
Post by Min
Post by Min
Thread swerve: As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide? Are there any things that we 'commit' that are *not*
criminal? Marriage? I know you commit *to* someone, but surely the
preposition matters? And if we don't 'commit' suicide, what do we do?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".

An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself" or
"she took her own life".


BTW,
Post by Min
this post appears to have correctly formatted itself - so Kudos to Google -
not something I have written often!
Post by Min
--
Min
No, it nuggering hadn't so Kudos removed.
--
CaroleT
BrritSki
2019-07-18 09:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by carolet
Post by Min
Thread swerve:  As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself"
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
Sid Nuncius
2019-07-18 09:26:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by carolet
Post by Min
Thread swerve:  As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself"
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
En route to Birmingham?
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48212/the-rolling-english-road
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
LFS
2019-07-18 10:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by BrritSki
Post by carolet
Post by Min
Thread swerve:  As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself"
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
En route to Birmingham?
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48212/the-rolling-english-road
One of my favourite poems. Almost as good as his Lepanto for reading
aloud. I'm a little sad to discover that I'm no longer word perfect.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Penny
2019-07-19 07:41:12 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 11:48:38 +0100, LFS <***@gmail.com>
scrawled in the dust...
Post by LFS
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by BrritSki
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
En route to Birmingham?
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/48212/the-rolling-english-road
One of my favourite poems. Almost as good as his Lepanto for reading
aloud. I'm a little sad to discover that I'm no longer word perfect.
Me too, it was one of a few I decided to learn for my own amusement. I can
just about manage the first verse now but might get a little further with
the odd prompt.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959
Sally Thompson
2019-07-18 18:14:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by carolet
Post by Min
Thread swerve:  As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself"
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
BTN!
Surprised no one else has suggested this.
--
Sally in Shropshire, UK
BrritSki
2019-07-18 18:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by BrritSki
Post by carolet
Post by Min
Thread swerve:  As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself"
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
BTN!
Surprised no one else has suggested this.
I know. I have posted several things recently all in execrable taste
[1], and not a sniff of a BTN. Shocking !

[1] or possibly Mega Vulgarity.
LFS
2019-07-18 18:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by BrritSki
Post by carolet
Post by Min
Thread swerve:  As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself"
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
BTN!
Surprised no one else has suggested this.
I know. I have posted several things recently all in execrable taste
[1], and not a sniff of a BTN. Shocking !
[1] or possibly Mega Vulgarity.
I think Sid has brought such commendable clarity to the criteria that
your readers are more discerning. The bar has been raised. You will have
to try harder.
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Sid Nuncius
2019-07-19 06:16:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by BrritSki
Post by carolet
Post by Min
Thread swerve:  As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself"
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
BTN!
Surprised no one else has suggested this.
I think not. It's a clever and funny play on Carolet's typo, but as the
topic was already suicide, I don't think it introduces sufficient BT to
qualify.

Sorry, Britters, but that's life (or the end of it, to be more precise),
I'm afraid.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
BrritSki
2019-07-19 07:09:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by BrritSki
Post by carolet
Post by Min
Thread swerve:  As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself"
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
BTN!
Surprised no one else has suggested this.
I think not.  It's a clever and funny play on Carolet's typo, but as the
topic was already suicide, I don't think it introduces sufficient BT to
qualify.
Sorry, Britters, but that's life (or the end of it, to be more precise),
I'm afraid.
I'm gutted Brian.

Seriously, I didn't expect even the nomination for that and my "rant"
earlier was very tongue in cheek as I'm sure you know. Laura's reply was
perfect :)
Mike
2019-07-19 07:33:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by BrritSki
Post by carolet
Post by Min
Thread swerve:  As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself"
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
BTN!
Surprised no one else has suggested this.
I think not. It's a clever and funny play on Carolet's typo, but as the
topic was already suicide, I don't think it introduces sufficient BT to
qualify.
Sorry, Britters, but that's life (or the end of it, to be more precise),
I'm afraid.
*Listen* - that’s the sound of Britters expectations plummeting!
--
Toodle Pip
Sam Plusnet
2019-07-19 20:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Sally Thompson
Post by BrritSki
Post by carolet
Post by Min
Thread swerve:  As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still say
'commit' suicide?
I think that the correct thing to say now is "died by suicide".
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself"
Presumably by jumping off Beachy Head ?
BTN!
Surprised no one else has suggested this.
I think not. It's a clever and funny play on Carolet's typo, but as the
topic was already suicide, I don't think it introduces sufficient BT to
qualify.
Sorry, Britters, but that's life (or the end of it, to be more precise),
I'm afraid.
*Listen* - that’s the sound of Britters expectations plummeting!
Did anyone time it?
That might give important data on the height of...
something or other.
--
Sam Plusnet
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 15:48:21 UTC
Permalink
In message <qgpcmg$tdi$***@dont-email.me>, carolet
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by carolet
An alternative might be to say something like "he hilled himself" or
Doe that involve Beachy Head?
Post by carolet
"she took her own life".
[]
IGMC ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. -Ambrose Bierce, writer
(1842-1914)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 05:59:44 UTC
Permalink
In message <8f67c0d2-731d-4c51-ab3d-***@googlegroups.com>, Min
<***@googlemail.com> writes:
[]
Post by Min
Hmm...I'm not so sure about this. From what I have read, these
particular criminals, committing this particular crime, tend to be the
worst recidivists ever. It is fairly common for them to be still
committing these particular offences in wheelchairs, at ages where
people with more acceptable proclivities are happy (or at least
satisfied) with a malted milk and a soothing novel. So I would want to
I just get _very_ concerned by the extreme reactions this sort of
_accusation_ can generate: "Innocent until proven guilty" seems to go
out of the Window at the slightest suggestion, and lives _are_ ruined
(mud sticks). I've signed Sir Cliff's petition (and I do know the
counter-argument).
Post by Min
be *very* sure that he was no longer offending, and if he was,
regardless of age, I would prefer him to be behind bars with no access
to children.
Thread swerve: As it is not now a criminal offence - should we still
say 'commit' suicide? Are there any things that we 'commit' that are
I think the two-word phrase has become part of the language. You could
say "perform" I suppose, but you'd get odd looks.
Post by Min
*not* criminal? Marriage? I know you commit *to* someone, but surely
the preposition matters? And if we don't 'commit' suicide, what do we
do? BTW, this post appears to have correctly formatted itself - so
Kudos to Google - not something I have written often!
It seems to have behaved in this repost too, though I did see your
followup where it didn't.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"I'm a paranoid agnostic. I doubt the existence of God, but I'm sure there is
some force, somewhere, working against me." - Marc Maron
Sid Nuncius
2019-07-18 09:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I just get _very_ concerned by the extreme reactions this sort of
_accusation_ can generate: "Innocent until proven guilty" seems to go
out of the Window at the slightest suggestion, and lives _are_ ruined
(mud sticks). I've signed Sir Cliff's petition (and I do know the
counter-argument).
Not to disagree with anything you've said, John, (although I am
sufficiently ambivalent about the petition not to want to sign it) but
may I just have a pedantic but possibly important rant?

The principle is not "Innocent until proven guilty." It is "*Presumed*
innocent until proven guilty." Peter Sutcliffe was guilty from the
moment he first attacked one of his victims; he most certainly wasn't
innocent until the moment a guilty verdict was announced in court.
However, he had the right (thank heavens!) to the presumption of
innocence until that moment so that justice may most fairly be done.

I think it's an important distinction, the blurring of which can be
abused by people to assert that they must be innocent because they
haven't yet been proved to have committed an offence. Rebekah Brooks
completely innocent of any wrongdoing at the News Of The World because
there was no criminal conviction? Well, perhaps...

That said, I agree that the presumption of innocence is now a rare thing
in public discourse and we are the worse for it. Cliff Richard is one
example. Poor Christopher Jefferies is another and there are countless
others.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 15:52:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I just get _very_ concerned by the extreme reactions this sort of
_accusation_ can generate: "Innocent until proven guilty" seems to go
out of the Window at the slightest suggestion, and lives _are_ ruined
(mud sticks). I've signed Sir Cliff's petition (and I do know the
counter-argument).
Not to disagree with anything you've said, John, (although I am
sufficiently ambivalent about the petition not to want to sign it) but
may I just have a pedantic but possibly important rant?
Of course you may, and in this case I'd agree, it is most important.
Post by Sid Nuncius
The principle is not "Innocent until proven guilty." It is "*Presumed*
innocent until proven guilty." Peter Sutcliffe was guilty from the
moment he first attacked one of his victims; he most certainly wasn't
innocent until the moment a guilty verdict was announced in court.
However, he had the right (thank heavens!) to the presumption of
innocence until that moment so that justice may most fairly be done.
I think it's an important distinction, the blurring of which can be
Yes, and not just for pedantry, but the reason you describe. (Like my
irritation when people quote "I before E except after C" without
continuing with "when the sound is ee".)
Post by Sid Nuncius
abused by people to assert that they must be innocent because they
haven't yet been proved to have committed an offence. Rebekah Brooks
That's another matter. I rather like the Scottish verdict option of "not
proven", which is not available (I think - IANAL) in England.
Post by Sid Nuncius
completely innocent of any wrongdoing at the News Of The World because
there was no criminal conviction? Well, perhaps...
That said, I agree that the presumption of innocence is now a rare
thing in public discourse and we are the worse for it. Cliff Richard
is one example. Poor Christopher Jefferies is another and there are
countless others.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. -Ambrose Bierce, writer
(1842-1914)
Min
2019-07-18 16:27:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
It seems to have behaved in this repost too, though I did see your
followup where it didn't.
That's because I altered it by hand for the repost, then deleted the annoying one....
--
Min
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 05:52:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
I’m risking nuggering up the attributions by snipping and inter-commenting
below but hey, what the heck...
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:06:05 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
maybe TA is in the sort of holding phase
with nothing much happening that many of us have clamoured for a lot
over the last few years. Or, we're just staggered by the half-million
pound thing. I will add that I think - so far - the Jim story is being
very sensitively and well done (I liked the day with Al and Fiona), but
others have already said that.
--
Not so much ‘nothing much happening’ as the nature of the storylines
themselves; it is as though every storyline has to justify a ‘If you have
been affected by....’ or it won’t be worthy of inclusion in this FOTWD.
I do find those irritating. I'm not proud of that, but I do.
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
I am glad Fiona has gone home before Shula got hold of her for the
'catch up' and was able to ferret the details about Jim out of her.
I wonder if the PTF has been employed on the Saint for any good reason?
I think she was genuinely concerned, rather than just being nosey. Not
that that means she won't do harm.
Post by Mike
?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
Like Jazzer. Alastair feels a tiny bit like that but is being
good and sensible and knows Jim needs to settle things for himself and
process what has been revealed and how he feels. And I think Jim feels
Indeed.
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
and I agree that the best hting is to let him gt back to his normal
every day things.
Quite so! Raking up something so stressful from over 60 years ago doesn’t
appear to serve any useful purpose other than a storyline that triggers the
‘If you have been affected...’ no good will come of it, surely?
Well, modern thinking seems to be that revealing things long held in can
be beneficial - "cathartic" is a word often used. I can see that it
might in some circumstances, but I feel this aspect is over-egged, often
by people who don't know when to back off or are in too much of a hurry.
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Probably. I'm very much not knowing what needs doing in these
circumstances; not only with the victim Jim, which (I hope) the SWs have
reasonably in hand, but the offender: I personally am not at all sure
that society benefits from old men being imprisoned. On the other hand,
I can see that a lot of (probably most) people wouldn't want them to get
off scot free, either. They should certainly be made aware that society
knows what they did, and probably put on the register.
Or even ‘old people’ rather than just men as I understand though not as
common, it is not a male only preserve. The ‘offender should certainly be
Good point.
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
And hopefully Snappy can refrain from any
mroe cosy chats with the Saint. She was searching for clues and
getting them assembled.
And of course 2 +2 will equate to 5!
Oh, at the moment, I think she's got a fair chance of working out what
had happened. Though she could also make a wrong (and potentially
catastrophic) deduction too.
[]
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I think Will wants to hang on to Poppy as much for ownership, you are
not taking THIS one, as for fear of Umbrella reporting him and getting
her removed by social services. He doesn't want Poppy to get too fond
of that gran and want to leave, as Mia did.
SS should remove Mia if only because Will is such a miserable git! No child
should be subjected to parental ‘care’ from anyone like that!
I thought Mia had already removed herself, leaving only Poppy?
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
There may be some of that (the ownership bit), but I think he genuinely
likes having her as part of his life (however badly he's managing at
least that aspect of it), and if she were taken away, would be very
close to doing a Greg, I think. Which, though we don't like him, I don't
think we'd _really_ want. (Not least because it'd destroy Clarrie
completely, and make Eddie and even Ed very sad.)
Will is just bad news to everyone - including Martin G it seems.
Oh, I think MG is bad news in himself.
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I think Tom and Nat would happily take Eddie's ideas and push him out
of any recognition that they are his, or payment. Tom did it to
Bargepole factors apply here - don’t trust either of ‘em; they are bad
news.
Which two? I suspect you mean Tom and Nat - but I wouldn't trust Eddie
with anything either. I quite _like_ Eddie, but wouldn't rely on him
most of the time. I think he'd come through in a disaster, but that's
all.
[]
Post by Mike
Eddie is a past master at BS, gets it from his father I suspect.
Not sure he could come up with anything for the competition, that isn't
just clearly a make-money-for-Eddie scheme.
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
Haley. Spoilers seem to indicate he is not getting rid of the pigs
fast enough. But for whom?
???
?? Indeed ...
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells
Vicky Ayech
2019-07-18 07:26:27 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:52:45 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I’m risking nuggering up the attributions by snipping and inter-commenting
below but hey, what the heck...
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 10:06:05 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
maybe TA is in the sort of holding phase
with nothing much happening that many of us have clamoured for a lot
over the last few years. Or, we're just staggered by the half-million
pound thing. I will add that I think - so far - the Jim story is being
very sensitively and well done (I liked the day with Al and Fiona), but
others have already said that.
--
Not so much ‘nothing much happening’ as the nature of the storylines
themselves; it is as though every storyline has to justify a ‘If you have
been affected by....’ or it won’t be worthy of inclusion in this FOTWD.
I do find those irritating. I'm not proud of that, but I do.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
s
p
o
i
l
e
r
s
p
a
c
e
I am glad Fiona has gone home before Shula got hold of her for the
'catch up' and was able to ferret the details about Jim out of her.
I wonder if the PTF has been employed on the Saint for any good reason?
I think she was genuinely concerned, rather than just being nosey. Not
that that means she won't do harm.
?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
Like Jazzer. Alastair feels a tiny bit like that but is being
good and sensible and knows Jim needs to settle things for himself and
process what has been revealed and how he feels. And I think Jim feels
Indeed.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
and I agree that the best hting is to let him gt back to his normal
every day things.
Quite so! Raking up something so stressful from over 60 years ago doesn’t
appear to serve any useful purpose other than a storyline that triggers the
‘If you have been affected...’ no good will come of it, surely?
Well, modern thinking seems to be that revealing things long held in can
be beneficial - "cathartic" is a word often used. I can see that it
might in some circumstances, but I feel this aspect is over-egged, often
by people who don't know when to back off or are in too much of a hurry.
Well, there might be a large number of people who did suffer the abuse
and then went on with their lives and have never had counselling and
are fine. They lead good lives, not tragic. We just don't know how
many as we don't hear about them.

It seems to be Aunty's let's cover child abuse and how it affects the
families season. Dark Money on BBC tv is 4 episodes and in this case a
child who is still a child when the family finds out and the
perpetrator has good protectors. The family had some issues anyway and
this affects everyone. The victim, again, wants not to go public but
does want the abuser to pay. It is a very complicated situation. It
is excellently done.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Probably. I'm very much not knowing what needs doing in these
circumstances; not only with the victim Jim, which (I hope) the SWs have
reasonably in hand, but the offender: I personally am not at all sure
that society benefits from old men being imprisoned. On the other hand,
I can see that a lot of (probably most) people wouldn't want them to get
off scot free, either. They should certainly be made aware that society
knows what they did, and probably put on the register.
Or even ‘old people’ rather than just men as I understand though not as
common, it is not a male only preserve. The ‘offender should certainly be
Good point.
[]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
And hopefully Snappy can refrain from any
mroe cosy chats with the Saint. She was searching for clues and
getting them assembled.
And of course 2 +2 will equate to 5!
Oh, at the moment, I think she's got a fair chance of working out what
had happened. Though she could also make a wrong (and potentially
catastrophic) deduction too.
[]
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I think Will wants to hang on to Poppy as much for ownership, you are
not taking THIS one, as for fear of Umbrella reporting him and getting
her removed by social services. He doesn't want Poppy to get too fond
of that gran and want to leave, as Mia did.
SS should remove Mia if only because Will is such a miserable git! No child
should be subjected to parental ‘care’ from anyone like that!
I thought Mia had already removed herself, leaving only Poppy?
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
There may be some of that (the ownership bit), but I think he genuinely
likes having her as part of his life (however badly he's managing at
least that aspect of it), and if she were taken away, would be very
close to doing a Greg, I think. Which, though we don't like him, I don't
think we'd _really_ want. (Not least because it'd destroy Clarrie
completely, and make Eddie and even Ed very sad.)
Will is just bad news to everyone - including Martin G it seems.
Oh, I think MG is bad news in himself.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
I think Tom and Nat would happily take Eddie's ideas and push him out
of any recognition that they are his, or payment. Tom did it to
Bargepole factors apply here - don’t trust either of ‘em; they are bad
news.
Which two? I suspect you mean Tom and Nat - but I wouldn't trust Eddie
with anything either. I quite _like_ Eddie, but wouldn't rely on him
most of the time. I think he'd come through in a disaster, but that's
all.
[]
Eddie is a past master at BS, gets it from his father I suspect.
Not sure he could come up with anything for the competition, that isn't
just clearly a make-money-for-Eddie scheme.
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Vicky Ayech
Haley. Spoilers seem to indicate he is not getting rid of the pigs
fast enough. But for whom?
???
?? Indeed ...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 16:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vicky Ayech
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 06:52:45 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
[]
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mike
Quite so! Raking up something so stressful from over 60 years ago doesn’t
appear to serve any useful purpose other than a storyline that triggers the
‘If you have been affected...’ no good will come of it, surely?
Well, modern thinking seems to be that revealing things long held in can
be beneficial - "cathartic" is a word often used. I can see that it
might in some circumstances, but I feel this aspect is over-egged, often
by people who don't know when to back off or are in too much of a hurry.
I _do_ concede that revelation _can_ help - in _some_ circumstances.
However, I don't think we're yet at the point (and may never be) where
we can tell in advance (of a full revelation), which cases will be
helped, and which just make things worse.
Post by Vicky Ayech
Well, there might be a large number of people who did suffer the abuse
and then went on with their lives and have never had counselling and
are fine. They lead good lives, not tragic. We just don't know how
many as we don't hear about them.
VERY good point! (There's even the question of whether "suffer" is the
right word [like the recent discussion of "commit" suicide], though I
suppose if there was "abuse", then they "must" have "suffered" it.
[FTAOD, of course, I'm not condoning such behaviour - just daring to
suggest that not all recipients "suffered" as much as we assume.)
Post by Vicky Ayech
It seems to be Aunty's let's cover child abuse and how it affects the
families season. Dark Money on BBC tv is 4 episodes and in this case a
child who is still a child when the family finds out and the
perpetrator has good protectors. The family had some issues anyway and
this affects everyone. The victim, again, wants not to go public but
does want the abuser to pay. It is a very complicated situation. It
is excellently done.
Oh, is that what Dark Money's about; I haven't got into that one. The
subject is covered a lot (from the American perspective) on L&A:SVU (and
I think at least one episode of CSI) [both are on FreeView channel 21 a
lot]: they always seem almost paranoid about it, justifiably in that
there always _is_ an offender, but they do cover the life-destruction
that a false accusation can cause too (including where it's the police
who make it). There are at least a couple of episodes that cover all
aspects well: they repeat a lot, so I'm sure they'll be around again
before long.
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Probably. I'm very much not knowing what needs doing in these
circumstances; not only with the victim Jim, which (I hope) the SWs have
reasonably in hand, but the offender: I personally am not at all sure
that society benefits from old men being imprisoned. On the other hand,
Interesting that the SWs have decided to have the offender still be
alive.
Post by Vicky Ayech
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Mike
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I can see that a lot of (probably most) people wouldn't want them to get
off scot free, either. They should certainly be made aware that society
knows what they did, and probably put on the register.
Or even ‘old people’ rather than just men as I understand though not as
common, it is not a male only preserve. The ‘offender should certainly be
Good point.
[big snip]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. -Ambrose Bierce, writer
(1842-1914)
krw
2019-07-18 16:18:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vicky Ayech
It seems to be Aunty's let's cover child abuse and how it affects the
families season.
As Private Eye often observes on these matters Jimmy Savile remains dead.

I remain of the opinion that an "ishoo" on The Archers needs to flow
demonstrably from the characters and to me this does not sit well with
Jim. As potentially the most intelligent man in the village he would
have addressed the matter in recent years with the law or would have
come to terms with it such that he did not let it upset him.

Hence my absolute abhorrence at the imposure on his life story.

Meanwhile we have all sorts of dropped stories - Lee most recently, but
apparently there was a reason behind Dan joining the Army which has been
thrown away and many other nonsense twists and turns.

I remember Robin not being keen on the Beetle's takeover - but she went
on to manage a period of relative stability compared to the mess which
has followed since she retired from the fray. Her Archers might have
had some peculiarities but the crap offered subsequently must be
welcomed by someone - just not me.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 16:31:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Vicky Ayech
It seems to be Aunty's let's cover child abuse and how it affects the
families season.
As Private Eye often observes on these matters Jimmy Savile remains dead.
(-:.
Post by krw
I remain of the opinion that an "ishoo" on The Archers needs to flow
demonstrably from the characters and to me this does not sit well with
Jim. As potentially the most intelligent man in the village he would
have addressed the matter in recent years with the law or would have
come to terms with it such that he did not let it upset him.
Hence my absolute abhorrence at the imposure on his life story.
I think the revelation _is_ plausible: such incidents _do_ come to
light. And intelligence, of Jim's sort (crosswords, Latin, ability to
investigate things in depth and objectively) _is_ often accompanied by
certain social inabilities in other areas, as has been demonstrated with
him not infrequently. Whether that aspect (social insensitivity) of his
character is inevitably a result of the abuse, I too feel uneasy about;
I found it entirely believable anyway.
Post by krw
Meanwhile we have all sorts of dropped stories - Lee most recently, but
apparently there was a reason behind Dan joining the Army which has
been thrown away and many other nonsense twists and turns.
I remember Robin not being keen on the Beetle's takeover - but she went
Not only Robin - we all complained about her, not least the nickname
which was more than just a reference to her initials I think (I in
particular regret her dislike of the music in general and the doom music
in particular [which seems to have remained, i. e. it not being used]),
but ...
Post by krw
on to manage a period of relative stability compared to the mess which
has followed since she retired from the fray. Her Archers might have
... I did mention the "nurse" principle more than once!
Post by krw
had some peculiarities but the crap offered subsequently must be
welcomed by someone - just not me.
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. -Ambrose Bierce, writer
(1842-1914)
Krw
2019-07-18 11:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Flop
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
‘There’ is ‘Not there’. HTH, HAND
IMTW ‘Here’ is ‘Not there’. Sorry to cause such confusion in such an August
group in mid-July.
I think the first one is better :=)
BTW I have been analysing the content of this newsgroup. The ratio of
non-TA storyline [ie 'junk'] to TA storyline comments is astronomic.
Which may explain the lack of messages. ["Nothing to see here - move
along"].
Simples. The Jim storyline is shit. The Ed story is shit. The Peggy
story is shit. The Will story is shit. None of it is rural based.
--
Krw
Mike
2019-07-18 12:02:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krw
Post by Flop
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
‘There’ is ‘Not there’. HTH, HAND
IMTW ‘Here’ is ‘Not there’. Sorry to cause such confusion in such an August
group in mid-July.
I think the first one is better :=)
BTW I have been analysing the content of this newsgroup. The ratio of
non-TA storyline [ie 'junk'] to TA storyline comments is astronomic.
Which may explain the lack of messages. ["Nothing to see here - move
along"].
Simples. The Jim storyline is shit. The Ed story is shit. The Peggy
story is shit. The Will story is shit. None of it is rural based.
‘Just add straw’ ;-)
--
Toodle Pip
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 16:11:14 UTC
Permalink
[]
Post by Mike
Post by Krw
Post by Flop
BTW I have been analysing the content of this newsgroup. The ratio of
non-TA storyline [ie 'junk'] to TA storyline comments is astronomic.
Which may explain the lack of messages. ["Nothing to see here - move
along"].
Simples. The Jim storyline is shit. The Ed story is shit. The Peggy
story is shit. The Will story is shit. None of it is rural based.
Oh, I think there is at least some justification for saying the Peggy
one is at least farming-based (whether "rural" I don't know).

I think UMRA disagrees with you on the quality of the Jim storyline. It
doesn't _like_ the Ed, Peggy, or Will ones, certainly.
Post by Mike
‘Just add straw’ ;-)
(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

War is God's way of teaching Americans geography. -Ambrose Bierce, writer
(1842-1914)
Sam Plusnet
2019-07-17 20:10:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Mike
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Oh Cluck
I'm still waiting for a definition of "there" before I answer.
‘There’ is ‘Not there’. HTH, HAND
IMTW ‘Here’ is ‘Not there’. Sorry to cause such confusion in such an August
group in mid-July.
Well quite.
You're too early for the August group so you'd better wait for Eternal
September - which could be ages.
--
Sam Plusnet
Tony Smith Gloucestershire
2019-07-17 21:22:20 UTC
Permalink
"Is there anybody there?" Said the traveller, Knocking on the moonlit door.
Vicky Ayech
2019-07-17 21:29:08 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 14:22:20 -0700 (PDT), Tony Smith Gloucestershire
Post by Tony Smith Gloucestershire
"Is there anybody there?" Said the traveller, Knocking on the moonlit door.
Used to be a favourite.
Nick Leverton
2019-07-17 22:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Oh Cluck
I'm still waiting for a definition of "there" before I answer.
‘There’ is ‘Not there’. HTH, HAND
IMTW ‘Here’ is ‘Not there’. Sorry to cause such confusion in such an August
group in mid-July.
Well quite.
You're too early for the August group so you'd better wait for Eternal
September - which could be ages.
Today is (still, just) Wednesday, 9451st September 1993

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
Sid Nuncius
2019-07-17 08:48:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
Ain't nobody here but us chickens.
Oh Cluck
I'm still waiting for a definition of "there" before I answer.
‘There’ is ‘Not there’. HTH, HAND
YA René Magritte AICM5 pipes.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
the Omrud
2019-07-17 09:07:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
I'm not there. But I am reasonably sure that I'm here.
--
David
Mike
2019-07-17 09:15:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
I'm not there. But I am reasonably sure that I'm here.
Here-here! There, is that better?
--
Toodle Pip
the Omrud
2019-07-17 09:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by the Omrud
Post by Mike Ruddock
Well is there?
I'm not there. But I am reasonably sure that I'm here.
Here-here! There, is that better?
There, there.
--
David
Loading...