"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:49:21 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:11:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You lack common sense. Stop being a brainwashed Little Middle
Englander.

Oh, what irony that IMM, that unquestioning supporter of Tony's Tories
(whose political success has depended entirely on their efforts to win
and retain the support of Middle England, at the expense of the
tradional values of the Labour Party) should have picked up on this as
his latest feeble attempt at misplaced insults :-)

But I hit the nail on the head.

... and what, oh wise and mysterious one, are the characteristics of
"Little Middle Englanders"?

Look at Andy! A sad case.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:22:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:


It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.

Tony has treated teh electorate as a bunch or morons for somewhat too
long.

You can fool all teh the people some of the time, ad IMM all of the
time, but ......

...some pricelss gems coming out opf Tiones mouth reveal teh underlying
attituide.

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"
"he descision on whether to go to war is the not the public's, it is
for
us Politicians to decide!"

This from a man who apparently didn't know the difference between a
ballistic missile and a piece of field artillery.

And I'm sure he doesn't know how to fire an SA80 either. he doesn't need
to.
He is at the top of the pyramid.

It's worth remembering that there is only one way to go from
there.......

And too many cooks spoil the broth and many hands make light work, etc,
etc. And he who laughs last is ...er..a last laugher.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:04:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:49:21 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:11:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You lack common sense. Stop being a brainwashed Little Middle
Englander.

Oh, what irony that IMM, that unquestioning supporter of Tony's Tories
(whose political success has depended entirely on their efforts to win
and retain the support of Middle England, at the expense of the
tradional values of the Labour Party) should have picked up on this as
his latest feeble attempt at misplaced insults :-)

But I hit the nail on the head.

... and what, oh wise and mysterious one, are the characteristics of
"Little Middle Englanders"?

Look at Andy! A sad case.

Definition-by-example not accepted. However, if Andy is an example of
a "Little Middle Englander" then maybe its not such an insult -- I
agree with some of what he says and disagree with some of what he
says; at least he presents rational arguments on the basis of facts.

You still haven't answered my question, though: what are the
characteristics of "Little Middle Englanders" (other than anyone who
deviates from your I-read-it-in-a-book-so-it-must-be-true position on
anything/everything).

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:04:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:49:21 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:11:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You lack common sense. Stop being a brainwashed Little Middle
Englander.

Oh, what irony that IMM, that unquestioning supporter of Tony's
Tories
(whose political success has depended entirely on their efforts to
win
and retain the support of Middle England, at the expense of the
tradional values of the Labour Party) should have picked up on this
as
his latest feeble attempt at misplaced insults :-)

But I hit the nail on the head.

... and what, oh wise and mysterious one, are the characteristics of
"Little Middle Englanders"?

Look at Andy! A sad case.

Definition-by-example not accepted. However, if Andy is an example of
a "Little Middle Englander" then maybe its not such an insult -- I
agree with some of what he says and disagree with some of what he
says; at least he presents rational arguments on the basis of facts.

It put that right: "at least he presents irrational arguments on the basis
of ill-informed opinion.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:42:35 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:04:19 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:49:21 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:11:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You lack common sense. Stop being a brainwashed Little Middle
Englander.

Oh, what irony that IMM, that unquestioning supporter of Tony's
Tories
(whose political success has depended entirely on their efforts to
win
and retain the support of Middle England, at the expense of the
tradional values of the Labour Party) should have picked up on this
as
his latest feeble attempt at misplaced insults :-)

But I hit the nail on the head.

... and what, oh wise and mysterious one, are the characteristics of
"Little Middle Englanders"?

Look at Andy! A sad case.

Definition-by-example not accepted. However, if Andy is an example of
a "Little Middle Englander" then maybe its not such an insult -- I
agree with some of what he says and disagree with some of what he
says; at least he presents rational arguments on the basis of facts.

It put that right: "at least he presents irrational arguments on the basis
of ill-informed opinion.


LOL ... note to IMM's programmers: changing the words in someone
else's sentence is *not* an argument (especially when the result is
hilariously accurate as a self-description of the IMMbot)

--
Julian Fowler
julian (at) bellevue-barn (dot) org (dot) uk

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:03:51 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

These two gentlemen are investigative journalists who do what they do
very well, no doubt.

Cahill's background is research. Paxman's is political journalism, now TV
anchor man/author.

However, their desired outcome is the
sensational story.

Look at the meat. You are influenced by headlines.

No I'm not.


not accept it at face value as you
seem prepared to do.

facts are facts. they be against what you thought all your life, so you
mentally dismiss them to give yourself a warm feeling, but they are facts.

Facts can be selected and can be presented out of context and with
improper scaling.

Should I wish to study any of the subjects written about by these two
individuals, I would of course take their data into account, but would
cross check it against other sources and researchers and form
conclusions based on all of the information.

The fact that these two are investigative journalists of one sort or
another calls into question as far as I am concerned, the presentation
of their results as being even handed especially when they correlate
to a specific agenda. There is always more than one side to any
story and I prefer to look at all sides and form my own conclusions
rather than accept something from a writer of this ilk verbatim.




..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Andy Hall wrote:

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 09:22:46 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Andy Hall wrote:


This from a man who apparently didn't know the difference between a
ballistic missile and a piece of field artillery.

And I'm sure he doesn't know how to fire an SA80 either. he doesn't need to.
He is at the top of the pyramid.


It's worth remembering that there is only one way to go from
there.......


and its begun already.

The month of the long knives....ROFLMAO.

What are litlewoods offering in his resignation before the summer?

If its more than 2:1 its worth a punt.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:03:51 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .

These two gentlemen are investigative journalists who do what they do
very well, no doubt.

Cahill's background is research. Paxman's is political journalism, now
TV
anchor man/author.

However, their desired outcome is the
sensational story.

Look at the meat. You are influenced by headlines.

No I'm not.


not accept it at face value as you
seem prepared to do.

facts are facts. they be against what you thought all your life, so you
mentally dismiss them to give yourself a warm feeling, but they are
facts.

Facts can be selected and can be presented out of context and with
improper scaling.

I know like the right wing press who did this over WMD. The government
accused them , quite rightly, of trying to rewrite history. Appalling!

The press assumed that WMD meant many thing and never clarified it with te
government.
The fact that these two are investigative journalists of one sort or
another

You have been told they are not.

snip babble

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:09:37 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

The fact that these two are investigative journalists of one sort or
another

You have been told they are not.

By you, when I know differently, and is precisely why I would not take
anything that they write at face value.


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:09:37 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

The fact that these two are investigative journalists of one sort or
another

You have been told they are not.

By you, when I know differently,

You mean you "think" differently.

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:26:43 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 15:09:37 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message

The fact that these two are investigative journalists of one sort or


another

You have been told they are not.

By you, when I know differently,

You mean you "think" differently.


To you, that's for sure. Evening thinking differently is a good
enough not to take things a face value
..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The fact that these two are investigative journalists of one sort or
another


You have been told they are not.

Yes - but only by you, not anyone with credibility.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...

The fact that these two are investigative journalists of one sort or
another


You have been told they are not.

Yes - but only by you, not anyone with credibility.

I am the most credible person in the world.

Andy Hall wrote:


Evening thinking differently is a good enough not to take things a face value

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??????? ^

Blimey. Whatever it is that IMM has, you've caught it badly now....

Care to rephrase that?

:-)

IMM wrote:

I am the most credible person in the world.

Credibility is a subjective thing based on how others value your
contribution. Your own views as to your credibility are hence of little
value in this context, since I presume you are not attempting to
convince yourself.

This perceived value is dictated by a number of factors, some a

1) Peoples past experiences of your advice / work / contributions;
2) The plausibility and technical accuracy of what you say;
3) The quality of rational explanation of what you say;
4) Your ability to do all this in a polite and non abrasive way.

Hence to assess your credibility with your peers on matters DIY (or any
other subject you have a history of posting to this group about) we
should perhaps consult the group.

So dear readers, marks out of 10 for IMM's credibility?



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

IMM wrote in message ...

facts are facts. they be against what you thought all your life, so you
mentally dismiss them to give yourself a warm feeling, but they are facts.


Deja vu?

Regards
Capitol

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:43:12 +0000, John Rumm
wrote:

So dear readers, marks out of 10 for IMM's credibility?

-101

PoP

Sending email to my published email address isn't
guaranteed to reach me.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Andy Hall wrote:


Evening thinking differently is a good enough not to take things a face
value

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??????? ^

Blimey. Whatever it is that IMM has, you've caught it badly now....

Care to rephrase that?

:-)

Nah don't bother.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

I am the most credible person in the world.

This perceived value is dictated by a number of factors, some a

1) Peoples past experiences of your advice / work / contributions;

Mine is brilliant

2) The plausibility and technical accuracy of what you say;

Watchmakers precision.

3) The quality of rational explanation of what you say;

Wisdom extraordinaire.

4) Your ability to do all this in a polite and non abrasive way.

I am the utter gentleman and a great tango dancer.

Hence to assess your credibility with your peers on matters DIY (or any
other subject you have a history of posting to this group about) we
should perhaps consult the group.

So dear readers, marks out of 10 for IMM's credibility?

1000/10

"Capitol" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote in message ...

facts are facts. they be against what you thought all your life, so you
mentally dismiss them to give yourself a warm feeling, but they are
facts.

Deja vu?

You have the same problem eh?

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

To be fair, IMM is / technically / correct, if you take a very long
route
[1] back through successive UN resolutions they all do indeed refer back
to
that original resolution (No.1661 ?), but as you say, if there had been
actual UN support in 2003 there would have been 'UN' military forces
involved - rather than just military forces of member states.

There were no blue hats in 1991



No and I would expect no 'fighting' person to wear such a stupid coloured
helmet or uniform, they would stand out to bloody well against a desert
background...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Sounds like an intelligence cock up. Nevertheless a trivial point. They
could have WMD within days. Kelly said so.



So / could / Outer Mongolia, should we invade that country also ?

You don't go to war on suspicions, you go on facts, something that it now
turn out Mr Blair didn't have.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Julian Fowler" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004 11:11:33 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


You lack common sense. Stop being a brainwashed Little Middle
Englander.

Oh, what irony that IMM, that unquestioning supporter of Tony's Tories
(whose political success has depended entirely on their efforts to win
and retain the support of Middle England, at the expense of the
tradional values of the Labour Party) should have picked up on this as
his latest feeble attempt at misplaced insults :-)

But I hit the nail on the head.



Trouble is, the head you are talking about is your own, in other words, it
was the votes of 'Little Middle England' that put and kept Blair and his
'New Labour' in power.

In message , John Rumm
writes
IMM wrote:

I am the most credible person in the world.

Credibility is a subjective thing based on how others value your
contribution. Your own views as to your credibility are hence of little
value in this context, since I presume you are not attempting to
convince yourself.

This perceived value is dictated by a number of factors, some a

1) Peoples past experiences of your advice / work / contributions;
2) The plausibility and technical accuracy of what you say;
3) The quality of rational explanation of what you say;
4) Your ability to do all this in a polite and non abrasive way.

Hence to assess your credibility with your peers on matters DIY (or any
other subject you have a history of posting to this group about) we
should perhaps consult the group.

So dear readers, marks out of 10 for IMM's credibility?

"J" (being the square root of minus 1)

(Sorry, I can't uncapitalise it"
--
geoff

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Andy Hall wrote:

It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of
reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.

Tony has treated teh electorate as a bunch or morons for somewhat too long.

You can fool all teh the people some of the time, ad IMM all of the
time, but ......

...some pricelss gems coming out opf Tiones mouth reveal teh underlying
attituide.

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"

Aargh, another one goes down with IMM disease

Africa has ebola, ukdiy has ebolux

--
geoff

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Peter Ellis" wrote in message
. ac.uk...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, IMM wrote:

Sounds like an intelligence cock up. Nevertheless a trivial point.
They
could have WMD within days. Kelly said so.

No, he didn't. He said they wanted WMD, and that they were committed to
acquiring them, but that *if* they had stockpiles, it would take days
rather than minutes to mobilise them and use them.

The BBC knew it had screwed up totally. They put out a Panorama prog to
lessen the blow to the public before the report (the BBC investigating the
BBC) and showed an unbroadcast outtake of Kelly clearly saying they could
have WMD within weeks, and the emphasis on "days".



One has to admire IMM stamina, 99.8 percent of those taking part in this
thread are stating the facts of this matter and yet IMM refuses to accept
these facts - even more so when you think all the relevant facts have been
available on the web for at least a week (many for over a year now) !...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...
snip

the greatest threat to the world is global warming - Bush has ducked
out
of signing the Kyoto protocols which, while not perfect are at least a
step in the right direction


Allegedly...

What a silly Billy. ALL top scientists in the world say global warming is
a
reality. 18C today and people packing the golf courses.



Read what I said, I was not questioning Global warming, but was saying that
there are people who question the 'accepted cause (which has not been proved
one way or the other).

IMM, you really must learn to read.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"geoff" wrote in message
...

So the world is a safer place, how?

Yes.

May I suggest you take you head out of your arse

May I suggest you get a brain. The biggest threat to the world is
nuclear
weapons getting into the hands of terrorist or idiot governments.
After
Iraq Gaddafy strangely becomes nice.

Regarding Gaddafy, he was well on his way

He wasn't.


Sorry the fact is he was.
IMM snipped my remarks at this point

He wasn't. he was taking nuclear equipment from that Pakistani man.



You really must learn to read IMM.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

I am the most credible person in the world.

Credibility is a subjective thing based on how others value your
contribution. Your own views as to your credibility are hence of little
value in this context, since I presume you are not attempting to
convince yourself.

I'm not so sure !...


This perceived value is dictated by a number of factors, some a

1) Peoples past experiences of your advice / work / contributions;
2) The plausibility and technical accuracy of what you say;
3) The quality of rational explanation of what you say;
4) Your ability to do all this in a polite and non abrasive way.

Hence to assess your credibility with your peers on matters DIY (or any
other subject you have a history of posting to this group about) we
should perhaps consult the group.

So dear readers, marks out of 10 for IMM's credibility?


-10..... :~(
(but I've not long been subscribed so it many reflects his ability of
rational explanation and the plausibility and technical accuracy of what he
has said in this thread.

John Rumm wrote:

IMM wrote:

I am the most credible person in the world.


Credibility is a subjective thing based on how others value your
contribution. Your own views as to your credibility are hence of little
value in this context, since I presume you are not attempting to
convince yourself.


Actually it was a Freudian slip.

The way I interpret his statement is that hes is the most naive and
trusting person in the world.

Jerry. wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...

snip

Sounds like an intelligence cock up. Nevertheless a trivial point. They
could have WMD within days. Kelly said so.




So / could / Outer Mongolia, should we invade that country also ?

You don't go to war on suspicions, you go on facts, something that it now
turn out Mr Blair didn't have.



Well, we don't know that for sure.

We have two alternatives, he knew and was content to let the misp[laced
comprehesnin of his public and his cabinet go unremarked, which makes
him a scoundrel, and, latterly, a liar.

Or he didn't know, which makes him a fool, and an unfit person to be
holding office.

In eithercase he shouldresign. He won;t tho. Not untol he gets
stilletooed in the back by the party faithful who realise he is now a
libality, not an asset.

Jerry. wrote:

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Peter Ellis" wrote in message
m.ac.uk...

On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, IMM wrote:

Sounds like an intelligence cock up. Nevertheless a trivial point.

They

could have WMD within days. Kelly said so.

No, he didn't. He said they wanted WMD, and that they were committed to
acquiring them, but that *if* they had stockpiles, it would take days
rather than minutes to mobilise them and use them.

The BBC knew it had screwed up totally. They put out a Panorama prog to
lessen the blow to the public before the report (the BBC investigating the
BBC) and showed an unbroadcast outtake of Kelly clearly saying they could
have WMD within weeks, and the emphasis on "days".




One has to admire IMM stamina, 99.8 percent of those taking part in this
thread are stating the facts of this matter and yet IMM refuses to accept
these facts - even more so when you think all the relevant facts have been
available on the web for at least a week (many for over a year now) !...




IMM is learning how to troll successfully. Be a dickhead and stick to
your guns.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

What we want is the ng'sopion on:

1. Does John Rumm belly laugh at the Vicar of Dibley?

2. Does John Rumms missus wear a Woman's Institute hat?

"Jerry." wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Peter Ellis" wrote in message
. ac.uk...
On Thu, 5 Feb 2004, IMM wrote:

Sounds like an intelligence cock up. Nevertheless a trivial point.
They
could have WMD within days. Kelly said so.

No, he didn't. He said they wanted WMD, and that they were committed
to
acquiring them, but that *if* they had stockpiles, it would take days
rather than minutes to mobilise them and use them.

The BBC knew it had screwed up totally. They put out a Panorama prog to
lessen the blow to the public before the report (the BBC investigating
the
BBC) and showed an unbroadcast outtake of Kelly clearly saying they
could
have WMD within weeks, and the emphasis on "days".



One has to admire IMM stamina, 99.8 percent of those taking part in this
thread are stating the facts of this matter and yet IMM refuses to accept
these facts - even more so when you think all the relevant facts have been
available on the web for at least a week (many for over a year now) !...

You have only stated half baked opinions. Hutton was right.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
John Rumm wrote:

IMM wrote:

I am the most credible person in the world.
Credibility is a subjective thing based on how others value your
contribution. Your own views as to your credibility are hence of
little value in this context, since I presume you are not attempting
to convince yourself.


Actually it was a Freudian slip.

The way I interpret his statement is that hes is the most naive and
trusting person in the world.

One for IMM he http://www.aitch.org.uk/misc/justification.jpg
--
geoff

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:08:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


Evening thinking differently is a good enough not to take things a face value

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??????? ^

Blimey. Whatever it is that IMM has, you've caught it badly now....

Care to rephrase that?

:-)


Frightening isn't it. The lunatics are running the asylum.


To rephrase:

Andy: The fact that these two are investigative journalists of one
sort or another ..... (snipped)

IMM: You have been told they are not.

Andy: By you, when I know differently,

IMM: You mean you "think" differently.

Andy: To you, that's for sure. Even thinking differently is a
good enough reason not to take things at face value


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
Andy Hall wrote:

It is having enquiries for the sake of it if their terms of
reference
are so limited as to make the conclusions foregone. OK, so the
government wants to waste tax payer's money and organise defective
enquiries, believing that the issues will go away. They won't.

Tony has treated teh electorate as a bunch or morons for somewhat too
long.

You can fool all teh the people some of the time, ad IMM all of the
time, but ......

...some pricelss gems coming out opf Tiones mouth reveal teh underlying
attituide.

"People _should_ draw a line and moe on"

Aargh, another one goes down with IMM disease

Africa has ebola, ukdiy has ebolux

You are thick Maxie. The government never lied or sexed anything up. That
is clear. Hutton also said so. Just accept it instead of being a bad
looser. The scum are not going to get in so hard luck. Anyway why do you
want those incompetent fools in anyway? No one has anything to gain from
them being in charge.

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 18:08:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Hall wrote:


Evening thinking differently is a good enough not to take things a face
value

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ??????? ^

Blimey. Whatever it is that IMM has, you've caught it badly now....

Care to rephrase that?

:-)


Frightening isn't it. The lunatics are running the asylum.

To rephrase:

Andy: The fact that these two are investigative journalists of one
sort or another ..... (snipped)

IMM: You have been told they are not.

Andy: By you, when I know differently,

IMM: You mean you "think" differently.

Andy: To you, that's for sure. Even thinking differently is a
good enough reason not to take things at face value

Andy, go and take a few tablets.

IMM wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


What we want is the ng'sopion on:

No need for an opinion - I can tell you...

1. Does John Rumm belly laugh at the Vicar of Dibley?

Don't watch it that often - but when I do, it has its moments. More into
Only Fools and Horses, or even The Good Life myself.....

That's a thought - you don't suppose IMM could be Trigger in real life
do you?

2. Does John Rumms missus wear a Woman's Institute hat?

Nope - she is not into hats at all.

So the results of the IMM credibility survey so far indicate that marks
out of 10 are errr... "-111 j". Ooops forgot to add my vote - so make
that "-111 j"

A credibility rating of "Light Entertainment" (although less
entertaining than the Vicar of Dibley)

Which translated into English would suggest "We think you live under a
bridge, and only read your posts out of a sense of morbid curiosity"

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

IMM wrote:


What we want is the ng'sopion on:

No need for an opinion - I can tell you...

1. Does John Rumm belly laugh at the Vicar of Dibley?

Don't watch it that often - but when
I do, it has its moments.

He does! My God.

More into Only Fools and Horses,
or even The Good Life myself.....

The Good Life! It is getting worse.

2. Does John Rumms missus wear a Woman's Institute hat?

Nope - she is not into hats at all.

This I don't believe.