Threads I love on this forum

Re: Threads I don't like on this forum

Patrick Gibbons, Houston, TX

>My humor was too subtle. The original purpose, more than anything else, of my post above was to hijack the thread. Looks like I got it done. Just a bit of humor. I don't feel slighted by anyone here. I think you're all a great bunch of people and hope the New Year is beneficial to all.

Re: Threads I don't like on this forum

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>I could see the subtle humor, and of course your bit of frustration that made it humorous. After asking a few questions myself that got very little response, I eventually found it necessary to adopt the philosophical attitude that I was a whole lot deeper into this than everyone else and was asking very difficult questions. That was a lot better, psychologically, than the alternative: that I had PO'd everybody on the forum, and no one wanted to help me or encourage me in any way, shape, or form.

Sorry I missed your original post, and the dearth of responses. Whether you still need help, or have found a solution to your problem (the technical one, we can't do anything to help anyone's sense of humor), we'd like to hear about it.

Re: Much ado about nuffin'

Alice Frampton, UK

>Andrew,

I had a good chuckle as it happens, once I'd clocked the reference (you might have heard the clatter as the penny dropped).

Not so sure I can forgive a reference to cricket though; pretty touchy subject for a pom at the moment. Maybe we should talk about rugby instead. ;~)

Ooops, sorry Frank. Forget I said that. I'd better return to our normal programming...

Cheers, Alf

Humor police

Bob Hackett

>Sir William,

You are correct in stating that, short of invasive surgery which may or may not be be able to be covered by a hairpiece and requires the help of those posting on the power tools forum,There is nothing we can do for those who`s humor elevator does not go all the way to the top.

I therefore suggest we work on things we can have a positive impact on,facial expressions for those who just don`t get it.

This may require some training involving small to medium electronic devices and there may be some chafing until those involved acclimate to the shock collars,but we must remember this is for the common good.Sacrifices must be made by us all.

Thank you once again for your support.

Mainely,ZAP-UUNNNGGH,Bob (WOW that hurts)

Re: Humor police

Todd O. Cronkhite Native of Maine

>"(WOW that hurts)"

OOPS! Sorry Bob, I didn't know I had my finger on the button.

Do we have folks here that are humor challenged? I didn't know that. I don't think that is the case really, I think it is that everybody has a bad day sooner or later is all.

Do we need to put up a "No Crabbies Allowed" sign?

Todd O.

A favorite quote,

Bob Hackett

>Say it with me now Todd,"It`s not that it`s not funny,it`s just that you don`t get it."

Tim Samples is a true pillar of the humor community.

Mainely,(get your finger off that button)Bob

Not cricket either

Andrew F in Australia

>Went yesterday and saw Tendulkar and Lakshman bat through until 5pm and break all records but one. Pity we're the opposition. India finished at 5/650 and still no sign of a declaration.

How about pub darts or something else?

Andrew

Divided by a common language

Bill Houghton, Sebastopol, CA

>In one of PG Wodehouse's books, he has a lovely bit in which an American talks about baseball and a Brit talks about cricket, and they are mutually confused.

What would a declaration look like if I found one at my front door?

Re: Divided by a common language

Andrew F in Australia

>To describe cricketing terms is pretty well near impossible - they all came from the British upper class and public school system.

A declaration, redefined is when the team that's batting score enough runs and decide it's pointless any more, so they just decide that their innings is finished.

I've included a link to the basic rules of cricket and a simple explanation as a link - that one makes sense of the following absurdity, which does describe how a game is played but is meant to be confusing:

"cricket as explained to a foreigner," ,

"You have two sides, one out in the field and one in. Each man that's in goes out, and when he's out he comes in and the next man goes in until he is out. When they are all out, the side that's been out comes in and the side that's been in goes out and tries to get those coming in, out. Sometimes you get men still in and not out.

"When a man goes out to go in, the men who are out try to get him out, and when he is out, he goes in and the next man in goes out and goes in. There are two men called umpires who are all out all the time, and they decide when the men who are in are out. When both sides have been in and all the men have been out, and both sides have been out twice after all the men have been in, including those who are not out, that is the end of the game."

Cricket for baseball players

Andrew F in Australia

>

Re: Divided by a common language

Alice Frampton, UK

>Heh heh, I've always liked that explanation too, Andrew. And commiserations on the test, I know too well how it feels. When I saw how pear-shaped it was going for the Aussies I really wished for an edit feature on this forum :~( Still, at least you got to see two fine players in good form so it's not all bad. Is it? A tiny silver lining? (You can tell how much practice I have at looking on the bright side can't you!)

Cheers, Alf

Knowing nothing about darts, but hi-jacking threads with ease. Ooops. :~S

Oops - forgot link  *LINK*

Andrew F in Australia

>


Cricket for baseball players