Discussion:
OT: Sprts Sunday
(too old to reply)
BrritSki
2019-07-14 18:07:56 UTC
Permalink
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
krw
2019-07-14 18:36:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Someone will be beaming.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
BrritSki
2019-07-14 18:40:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Someone will be beaming.
What a game, NZ played brilliantly, very unlucky. The super overs were
high drama, but I think if I was a Kiwi I'd wonder why it was needed
when we scored the same total, but they bowled us out and we didn't bowl
them out..
Sid Nuncius
2019-07-14 18:59:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet)
and now a super over !
Someone will be beaming.
What a game, NZ played brilliantly, very unlucky. The super overs were
high drama, but I think if I was a Kiwi I'd wonder why it was needed
when we scored the same total, but they bowled us out and we didn't bowl
them out..
Agreed. But what drama! I'll be beaming when I've stopped shaking.

Rugby World Cup Final 2003, Edgbaston 2005 and Lord's 2019. Take your pick.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
DavidK
2019-07-14 19:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet)
and now a super over !
Someone will be beaming.
What a game, NZ played brilliantly, very unlucky. The super overs were
high drama, but I think if I was a Kiwi I'd wonder why it was needed
when we scored the same total, but they bowled us out and we didn't bowl
them out..
I agree, number of wickets seems the obvious way to break a tie.
m***@btopenworld.com
2019-07-16 19:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Someone will be beaming.
What a game, NZ played brilliantly, very unlucky. The super overs were
high drama, but I think if I was a Kiwi I'd wonder why it was needed
when we scored the same total, but they bowled us out and we didn't bowl
them out..
The result in cricket is never about wickets, always about runs (D_L method excepted). The theory is that by saving wickets the team is batting less aggressively. The goal should be to bat aggressively enough to lose 10 wickets in exactly 50 overs. Lose less than that and you probably could have tried harder to score.
BrritSki
2019-07-16 20:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by BrritSki
Post by krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Someone will be beaming.
What a game, NZ played brilliantly, very unlucky. The super overs were
high drama, but I think if I was a Kiwi I'd wonder why it was needed
when we scored the same total, but they bowled us out and we didn't bowl
them out..
The result in cricket is never about wickets, always about runs (D_L method excepted). The theory is that by saving wickets the team is batting less aggressively. The goal should be to bat aggressively enough to lose 10 wickets in exactly 50 overs. Lose less than that and you probably could have tried harder to score.
So why do we say "won by x wickets" ?
m***@btopenworld.com
2019-07-16 20:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by m***@btopenworld.com
Post by BrritSki
Post by krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Someone will be beaming.
What a game, NZ played brilliantly, very unlucky. The super overs were
high drama, but I think if I was a Kiwi I'd wonder why it was needed
when we scored the same total, but they bowled us out and we didn't bowl
them out..
The result in cricket is never about wickets, always about runs (D_L method excepted). The theory is that by saving wickets the team is batting less aggressively. The goal should be to bat aggressively enough to lose 10 wickets in exactly 50 overs. Lose less than that and you probably could have tried harder to score.
So why do we say "won by x wickets" ?
Because the winning team still has to score more runs to win, and the number of wickets in hand gives a rough indication of the margin and tells that it was the team batting second who won. But it is a very poor indication. e.g. Team 1 scores 200/2 in 50 overs. Team 2 scores 201/9 in 40 overs. Team 2 wins by 1 wicket? Not really. Team 2 wins by 1 run with the unrealised potential to win by a few more. And if Team 2 scores 200/10, the match is a tie. Team 1 doesn't win by 8 wickets. That's the way it always has been even before limited overs cricket (i.e. with declarations). It has always been the number of runs scored that counts.
vk
2019-07-14 19:15:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Someone will be beaming.
Me! <beam>
Min
2019-07-15 01:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by vk
Post by krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Someone will be beaming.
Me! <beam>
Me too! I was travelling and it was *so* nail-biting!
--
Min <Still Beaming!>
Fenny
2019-07-17 18:00:00 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 18:25:00 -0700 (PDT), Min
Post by Min
Post by vk
Post by krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Someone will be beaming.
Me! <beam>
Me too! I was travelling and it was *so* nail-biting!
I was listening while driving to the hotel I was staying in Sunday
night. I arrived at the hotel around 6.45 and sat in the car for the
next half an hour or so to listen, as I'd miss bits while checkng in
and getting to my room.
--
Fenny
the Omrud
2019-07-15 09:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
We thought we'd watch the tennis and then switch over for the remainder
of the cricket. Fat chance. By the time the Duchess had handed over
the silver, the cricket was over (and over).
--
David
krw
2019-07-15 09:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
We thought we'd watch the tennis and then switch over for the remainder
of the cricket.  Fat chance.  By the time the Duchess had handed over
the silver, the cricket was over (and over).
Apparently there is this wonderful picture in picture system, but it was
not invented in time for our television. Do new tvs still have such a
function?
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
BrritSki
2019-07-15 09:30:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
We thought we'd watch the tennis and then switch over for the remainder
of the cricket.  Fat chance.  By the time the Duchess had handed over
the silver, the cricket was over (and over).
Waife wanted to do some gardening so we recorded the tennis from about
9-8 in the 5th and switched over to the cricket which I'd been watching
on muted laptop.

Having enjoyed cricket victory we switched to our recording which
unfortunately just stopped at around 11-10 which I guess was the time
the original program would have ended :(

Boodly BBC and Sky and similar recording devices should get their act
together as that always happens when programs over-run. And the Beeb
should stop switching matches between channels and red button. Grrrr.

</rant>
Chris McMillan
2019-07-15 09:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by the Omrud
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
We thought we'd watch the tennis and then switch over for the remainder
of the cricket.  Fat chance.  By the time the Duchess had handed over
the silver, the cricket was over (and over).
Waife wanted to do some gardening so we recorded the tennis from about
9-8 in the 5th and switched over to the cricket which I'd been watching
on muted laptop.
Having enjoyed cricket victory we switched to our recording which
unfortunately just stopped at around 11-10 which I guess was the time
the original program would have ended :(
Boodly BBC and Sky and similar recording devices should get their act
together as that always happens when programs over-run. And the Beeb
should stop switching matches between channels and red button. Grrrr.
</rant>
Those of us who wouldn’t want to know more or less than s ores often miss
out on our devices not recording our choices. So, on that point I feel
your pain.

Sincerely Chris
LFS
2019-07-16 07:36:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
We thought we'd watch the tennis and then switch over for the remainder
of the cricket.  Fat chance.  By the time the Duchess had handed over
the silver, the cricket was over (and over).
Multitasking: I watched the tennis on the TV and the cricket on my iPad.
(Not that I understood anything about the cricket, in spite of my
impressive cricket connections.)
--
Laura (emulate St George for email)
Krw
2019-07-18 11:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Apparently the same was due this time next year with some football in place
of the cricket but it has been realised that it is all a bit much. I blame
Wimbledon. It should finish on Saturday.
--
Krw
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 16:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Apparently the same was due this time next year with some football in place
of the cricket but it has been realised that it is all a bit much. I blame
So what solution has been reached?
Post by Krw
Wimbledon. It should finish on Saturday.
I get increasingly irritated by how much of any regular news bulletin
they get, especially if "we" win - said coverage mostly being asking
variants of "how do you feel" to people (presumed fans) who aren't
expecting to be asked, and which doesn't contribute anything to the
general news IMO. But I doubt I'm going to be allowed on NewsWatch again
to talk about the general principle (of letting one story [or worse,
non-story] overdominate the news).
--
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)
Vicky Ayech
2019-07-18 16:53:51 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 17:16:50 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by Krw
Post by BrritSki
Boodly hell, Hamilton, Wimbledon (we still don't know who won yet) and
now a super over !
Apparently the same was due this time next year with some football in place
of the cricket but it has been realised that it is all a bit much. I blame
So what solution has been reached?
Post by Krw
Wimbledon. It should finish on Saturday.
I get increasingly irritated by how much of any regular news bulletin
they get, especially if "we" win - said coverage mostly being asking
variants of "how do you feel" to people (presumed fans) who aren't
expecting to be asked, and which doesn't contribute anything to the
general news IMO. But I doubt I'm going to be allowed on NewsWatch again
to talk about the general principle (of letting one story [or worse,
non-story] overdominate the news).
Part of a news broadcast I heard today, not sure which radio station
as I was hopping about, was about a netball match! I am sure it is a
worthy game, in fact I played it myself at school, but newsworthy?? It
was something about the England team.
Rosemary Miskin
2019-07-18 17:07:21 UTC
Permalink
 a netball match! I am sure it is a worthy game, in fact I played it myself at school, but newsworthy?? It 
was something about the England team. 
I think England doing well in a World Championship is worth reporting - even,
or especially, if it is a female team!

Rosemary
BrritSki
2019-07-18 18:13:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rosemary Miskin
 a netball match! I am sure it is a worthy game, in fact I played it myself at school, but newsworthy?? It
was something about the England team.
I think England doing well in a World Championship is worth reporting - even,
or especially, if it is a female team!
And they're playing very well too. Confirmed their place in the
semi-finals yesterday and they play SA tonight to decide who are group
winners.
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 20:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by BrritSki
Post by Rosemary Miskin
 a netball match! I am sure it is a worthy game, in fact I played
it myself at school, but newsworthy?? It
was something about the England team.
I think England doing well in a World Championship is worth
reporting - even,
That's what we anti-obsessionals have so much difficulty conveying:
we're NOT saying don't report it. We're saying don't concentrate on it
for a third to a half of the entire news prog. - at least, not if the
extra time used doesn't actually _add_ much. Not just sporting wins -
_any_ event (royal baby was the last big such; a lot of political events
too). As a rule, "reaction" is rarely that interesting _or
unpredictable_.
Post by BrritSki
Post by Rosemary Miskin
or especially, if it is a female team!
And they're playing very well too. Confirmed their place in the
semi-finals yesterday and they play SA tonight to decide who are group
winners.
I see two stages of the parity of women's sport coverage. The first,
which I think _might_ happen in my lifetime, is the universal usage of
the word "men's": for example, if some manager has taken up a contract
to manage Arsenal, the report should refer to him managing Arsenal
men's; we should refer to the men's Premier League; and so on. (And it
shouldn't really matter whether there _is_ an Arsenal women's - the
usage should be automatic.)
The second stage would be mixed teams, the abolition of gendered ones; I
just about concede that _some_ sports do need the discrimination (on
grounds of differences in, mainly, raw strength), but I think the
women's football and cricket teams have shown that at least those sports
don't.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Can you open your mind without it falling out?
krw
2019-07-18 22:31:33 UTC
Permalink
I think the women's football and cricket teams have shown that at least
those sports don't
I suspect that in cricket the women could not bowl as fast as the men so
a mixed team might be difficult.

In football the potential for men to run faster might well mean it would
be unfair to field mixed teams.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 22:47:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
I think the women's football and cricket teams have shown that at
least those sports don't
I suspect that in cricket the women could not bowl as fast as the men
so a mixed team might be difficult.
They might be better at bowling googlies, yorkers, or whatever, though.
(Knowledge of cricket terms now exhausted.)
Post by krw
In football the potential for men to run faster might well mean it
would be unfair to field mixed teams.
Hmm. But, again, there might have other things they're better at -
passing, dribbling, goalkeeping ...

Also, the fact that the two bell curves probably _are_ displaced,
doesn't mean they don't overlap: just because the average sportsman may
be able to run faster (lift more, etc.) than the average sportswoman, by
no means means that they all can, and I don't think is a reason for
banning the _idea_ of mixed teams. At least, they should be tried.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously."
- Hubert H. Humphrey
Steve Hague
2019-07-19 15:13:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
Post by krw
I think the women's football and cricket teams have shown that at
least  those sports don't
I suspect that in cricket the women could not bowl as fast as the men
so a mixed team might be difficult.
They might be better at bowling googlies, yorkers, or whatever, though.
(Knowledge of cricket terms now exhausted.)
Post by krw
In football the potential for men to run faster might well mean it
would be unfair to field mixed teams.
Hmm. But, again, there might have other things they're better at -
passing, dribbling, goalkeeping ...
Also, the fact that the two bell curves probably _are_ displaced,
doesn't mean they don't overlap: just because the average sportsman may
be able to run faster (lift more, etc.) than the average sportswoman, by
no means means that they all can, and I don't think is a reason for
banning the _idea_ of mixed teams. At least, they should be tried.
I know nothing about football, but I am well versed in cricket. The ball
used in the women's game is smaller than the one the men use, purely
because women generally have smaller hands. Men bowl a lot faster than
women, but there's no reason why a woman couldn't bat as well as a man.
A few years ago an English female wicketkeeper played for an Australian
state side which was previously all male, but I don't know how well she
did.
Steve
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-19 19:14:12 UTC
Permalink
In message <qgsmmp$104d$***@gioia.aioe.org>, Steve Hague
<***@gmail.com> writes:
[]
Post by Steve Hague
I know nothing about football, but I am well versed in cricket. The
ball used in the women's game is smaller than the one the men use,
purely because women generally have smaller hands. Men bowl a lot
I did not know that. Presumably men could use the smaller ball (fnarr)?
Post by Steve Hague
faster than women, but there's no reason why a woman couldn't bat as
Does bowling _speed_ have an effect on match outcome? (Genuine question;
I don't know.) I can see that _accuracy_ can, as well as tricks (spin
etc.).
Post by Steve Hague
well as a man. A few years ago an English female wicketkeeper played
for an Australian state side which was previously all male, but I don't
know how well she did.
Steve
Interesting. Do you know what the reaction was?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Heaven forbid today's audience should feel bombarded with information or
worse, lectured. Dont'scare the horses by waving facts around.
- David Butcher, RT 2014/11/29-12/5
Steve Hague
2019-07-20 08:18:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]
Post by Steve Hague
I know nothing about football, but I am well versed in cricket. The
ball used in the women's game is smaller than the one the men use,
purely because women generally have smaller hands. Men bowl a lot
I did not know that. Presumably men could use the smaller ball (fnarr)?
Post by Steve Hague
faster than women, but there's no reason why a woman couldn't bat as
Does bowling _speed_ have an effect on match outcome? (Genuine question;
I don't know.) I can see that _accuracy_ can, as well as tricks (spin
etc.).
Post by Steve Hague
well as a man. A few years ago an English female wicketkeeper played
for an Australian state side which was previously all male, but I
don't know how well she did.
Steve
Interesting. Do you know what the reaction was?
As far as I can recall, it was generally thought she was there on merit
rather than some sort of pandering to PC. As for bowling speed, it's a
huge factor. If a genuinely fast bowler is bowling, the batsman has
something like .3 of a second to decide how to play the stroke and
execute it.
Steve
Sid Nuncius
2019-07-18 17:29:02 UTC
Permalink
On 18/07/2019 17:16, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

<sport>
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I get increasingly irritated by how much of any regular news bulletin
they get, especially if "we" win - said coverage mostly being asking
variants of "how do you feel" to people (presumed fans) who aren't
expecting to be asked, and which doesn't contribute anything to the
general news IMO. But I doubt I'm going to be allowed on NewsWatch again
to talk about the general principle (of letting one story [or worse,
non-story] overdominate the news).
Fair point, although one could argue that trying to convey the sense of
excitement among fans is legitimate. I agree, though, that a lot of
people saying "incredible", "unbelieveble", "fantastic" etc gets very
tedious very quickly.

Of course, vacuous vox-pops aren't confined to sport. When KFC ran out
of chicken because of a logistics cock-up a few months ago, Radio 4
stuck a reporter outside a closed KFC in Nottingham to ask people what
they thought about it. We got (and I do not exaggerate here) at least
five people all saying words to the effect of "I'm disappointed because
I wanted some KFC for my lunch and now I'll have to find something
else." Frankly, I didn't feel that this provided much in the way of
additional insight.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Sam Plusnet
2019-07-18 20:17:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
<sport>
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I get increasingly irritated by how much of any regular news bulletin
they get, especially if "we" win - said coverage mostly being asking
variants of "how do you feel" to people (presumed fans) who aren't
expecting to be asked, and which doesn't contribute anything to the
general news IMO. But I doubt I'm going to be allowed on NewsWatch
again to talk about the general principle (of letting one story [or
worse, non-story] overdominate the news).
Fair point, although one could argue that trying to convey the sense of
excitement among fans is legitimate.  I agree, though, that a lot of
people saying "incredible", "unbelieveble", "fantastic" etc gets very
tedious very quickly.
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
regardless of the occasion or question.

That should put a stop to this silly habit.
--
Sam Plusnet
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 20:42:11 UTC
Permalink
In message <***@brightview.co.uk>, Sam
Plusnet <***@home.com> writes:
[]
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
regardless of the occasion or question.
That should put a stop to this silly habit.
VG!
I have always thought that if, as a result of something newsworthy (such
as terrorist action) I was in a hospital bed, and was asked some
variation on the "how do you feel" question (which virtually all such
questions are), I'd say that I had something important to say, but only
if they come back with a guarantee of wide coverage. Then, when (if)
they did, I'd seize some equipment (or if no suitable equipment in
reach, the reporter), and look into the camera and say, "you are,
basically, asking me how do I feel. On behalf of all people asked this,
this is how I feel" - and then ram the equipment (or a fist) into the
questioner's face, causing injury.

Sorry. But it _does_ irritate me - especially when the questioned are
grieving, or injured, or both. I see _no_ public _benefit_ (I hate the
expression "public interest" as its slight ambiguity is so much abused)
in interviewing, or even just filming, the grieving.

In the meantime, I like Sam's suggestion. (But not enough people would
do it to avoid the editor finding sufficient others. My assault would at
least get coverage, along with my subsequent trial.)
--
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)
krw
2019-07-18 22:32:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-18 22:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
I think that was the intention behind Sam's suggestion!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"The right to be heard does not include the right to be taken seriously."
- Hubert H. Humphrey
Nick Odell
2019-07-19 11:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
I think I've fallen off my chair, Brian.

Nick
Nick Leverton
2019-07-19 11:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"

Nick
--
"The Internet, a sort of ersatz counterfeit of real life"
-- Janet Street-Porter, BBC2, 19th March 1996
BrritSki
2019-07-19 12:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy !
Fenny
2019-07-19 22:45:02 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
--
Fenny
steveski
2019-07-20 00:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
--
Steveski
Sid Nuncius
2019-07-20 05:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
--
Sid (Make sure Matron is away when you reply)
Mike
2019-07-20 06:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
What do the sheep dip? EMNTK
--
Toodle Pip
Steve Hague
2019-07-20 08:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
And what was that about American beer?
John Ashby
2019-07-20 10:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Hague
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
And what was that about American beer?
It's like making love in a punt.

john
Mike
2019-07-20 11:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Ashby
Post by Steve Hague
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
And what was that about American beer?
It's like making love in a punt.
john
A mile deep stretch of water eh? ;-)))
--
Toodle Pip
Sam Plusnet
2019-07-20 18:58:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
I didn't realise sheep went in for ballroom dancing.
--
Sam Plusnet
J. P. Gilliver (John)
2019-07-20 22:05:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
I didn't realise sheep went in for ballroom dancing.
Oh, they sing, too: "I'll never find another ewe".
IGMC
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And Jonathan Harker would never have sent all those letters to his beloved
Mina from Transylvania, he'd have texted her instead. "Stuck in weird castle w
guy w big teeth. Missing u. xxxx (-:" - Alison Graham, RT 2015/11/7-13
Chris McMillan
2019-07-21 18:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
I didn't realise sheep went in for ballroom dancing.
Rotflmao

Sincerely Chris
Mike
2019-07-22 07:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
I didn't realise sheep went in for ballroom dancing.
Rotflmao
Sincerely Chris
Some go dancing wearing lambswool, some even wear Tex’s ;-)
--
Toodle Pip
Sam Plusnet
2019-07-22 21:10:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
I didn't realise sheep went in for ballroom dancing.
Rotflmao
Sincerely Chris
Some go dancing wearing lambswool, some even wear Tex’s ;-)
There you go spinning another yarn.
--
Sam Plusnet
Mike
2019-07-23 07:17:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Mike
Post by Chris McMillan
Post by Sam Plusnet
Post by Sid Nuncius
Post by steveski
Post by Fenny
On Fri, 19 Jul 2019 11:45:22 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton
Post by Nick Leverton
Post by krw
Post by Sam Plusnet
All vox popped people on the street should be trained to respond with
"Well, I was gutted Brian."
But if the interviewer is not Brian it might be a bit annoying.
"Mind if we call you 'Brian' to keep it clear ?"
"What's that, Bruce?"
Logical positivism, Bruce.
And the sheep dip.
I didn't realise sheep went in for ballroom dancing.
Rotflmao
Sincerely Chris
Some go dancing wearing lambswool, some even wear Tex’s ;-)
There you go spinning another yarn.
Oh you are a card....
--
Toodle Pip
Loading...