But not together.

New Partner had her smart meters installed yesterday following a
profitable cock-up on Eon's part (they failed to show up for the first
appointment so £30 compensation and by the time she rescheduled they are
now offering £50 per meter incentive). But that's not the point - umrats
in the past have (IIRC) said that they have been unable to have meters
installed in subterranean outside boxes. Her gas meter was just such a
one and was swapped out with no problem and a comment of "We do this all
the time". Don't let the buggers fob you off.

Unrelatedly as she emerged in a state of deshabille I remarked that she
looked better than Farage "and with less obnoxious opinions". I have in
the past said that there were very few occasions where the distinction
between less and fewer matters. This is one. Had I said she held fewer
obnoxious opinions it would imply that she did have opinions I found
obnoxious but not as many as Nigel whereas less obnoxious implies that
the opinions she has are not as unacceptable as his.

This is because fewer qualifies countable entities (opinions) while less
qualifies continuous ones (the degree of obnoxiousnessosity). DINTAFBAPOU?

john

John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But not together.
>
> New Partner had her smart meters installed yesterday following a
> profitable cock-up on Eon's part (they failed to show up for the first
> appointment so £30 compensation and by the time she rescheduled they are
> now offering £50 per meter incentive). But that's not the point - umrats
> in the past have (IIRC) said that they have been unable to have meters
> installed in subterranean outside boxes. Her gas meter was just such a
> one and was swapped out with no problem and a comment of "We do this all
> the time". Don't let the buggers fob you off.
>
> Unrelatedly as she emerged in a state of deshabille I remarked that she
> looked better than Farage "and with less obnoxious opinions". I have in
> the past said that there were very few occasions where the distinction
> between less and fewer matters. This is one. Had I said she held fewer
> obnoxious opinions it would imply that she did have opinions I found
> obnoxious but not as many as Nigel whereas less obnoxious implies that
> the opinions she has are not as unacceptable as his.
>
> This is because fewer qualifies countable entities (opinions) while less
> qualifies continuous ones (the degree of obnoxiousnessosity). DINTAFBAPOU?
>
> john
>

Replace …”and with less obnoxious opinions". with ‘without the obnoxious
opinions’ and your home and dry!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On 25-Nov-23 14:05, Mike McMillan wrote:
> John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> But not together.
>>
>> New Partner had her smart meters installed yesterday following a
>> profitable cock-up on Eon's part (they failed to show up for the first
>> appointment so £30 compensation and by the time she rescheduled they are
>> now offering £50 per meter incentive). But that's not the point - umrats
>> in the past have (IIRC) said that they have been unable to have meters
>> installed in subterranean outside boxes. Her gas meter was just such a
>> one and was swapped out with no problem and a comment of "We do this all
>> the time". Don't let the buggers fob you off.
>>
>> Unrelatedly as she emerged in a state of deshabille I remarked that she
>> looked better than Farage "and with less obnoxious opinions". I have in
>> the past said that there were very few occasions where the distinction
>> between less and fewer matters. This is one. Had I said she held fewer
>> obnoxious opinions it would imply that she did have opinions I found
>> obnoxious but not as many as Nigel whereas less obnoxious implies that
>> the opinions she has are not as unacceptable as his.
>>
>> This is because fewer qualifies countable entities (opinions) while less
>> qualifies continuous ones (the degree of obnoxiousnessosity). DINTAFBAPOU?
>>
>> john
>>
>
> Replace …”and with less obnoxious opinions". with ‘without the obnoxious
> opinions’ and your home and dry!

Alas, I suspect that comparing one's inamorata to Farage, in any way
shape or form, is a serious vote loser - unless they are a fan of N.F.
in which case...
<lost for words>

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <8Er8N.7143$tIyd.515@fx34.iad> at Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:09:55,
Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>On 25-Nov-23 14:05, Mike McMillan wrote:
>> John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> But not together.
>>>
>>> New Partner had her smart meters installed yesterday following a
>>> profitable cock-up on Eon's part (they failed to show up for the first
>>> appointment so £30 compensation and by the time she rescheduled they are
>>> now offering £50 per meter incentive). But that's not the point - umrats
>>> in the past have (IIRC) said that they have been unable to have meters
>>> installed in subterranean outside boxes. Her gas meter was just such a
>>> one and was swapped out with no problem and a comment of "We do this all
>>> the time". Don't let the buggers fob you off.

Isn't it that if _both_ meters are subterranean, the chance of getting a
fobile signal is less? If only the gas meter is, then as long as the
electric one isn't and the gas is close enough to talk to the electric,
all is well?
>>>
>>> Unrelatedly as she emerged in a state of deshabille I remarked that she
>>> looked better than Farage "and with less obnoxious opinions". I have in
>>> the past said that there were very few occasions where the distinction
>>> between less and fewer matters. This is one. Had I said she held fewer
>>> obnoxious opinions it would imply that she did have opinions I found
>>> obnoxious but not as many as Nigel whereas less obnoxious implies that
>>> the opinions she has are not as unacceptable as his.

Excellent example.
[]
>> Replace …”and with less obnoxious opinions". with ‘without the
>>obnoxious
>> opinions’ and your home and dry!

My home and dry what? (Sorry, couldn't let that pass in a post
containing another language point! [Now, what error have _I_ made?!?])
>
>Alas, I suspect that comparing one's inamorata to Farage, in any way
>shape or form, is a serious vote loser - unless they are a fan of N.F.
>in which case...
><lost for words>
>
I always think of "Mud" when I hear the word inamorata.

And I've often wondered why weshepoform - why all three? What's the
difference, at least between the last two?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

he was eventually struck off by the BMA in 1968 for not knowing his gluteus
maximus from his humerus.

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:34:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <8Er8N.7143$tIyd.515@fx34.iad> at Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:09:55,
>Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>On 25-Nov-23 14:05, Mike McMillan wrote:
>>> John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> But not together.
>>>>
>>>> New Partner had her smart meters installed yesterday following a
>>>> profitable cock-up on Eon's part (they failed to show up for the first
>>>> appointment so £30 compensation and by the time she rescheduled they are
>>>> now offering £50 per meter incentive). But that's not the point - umrats
>>>> in the past have (IIRC) said that they have been unable to have meters
>>>> installed in subterranean outside boxes. Her gas meter was just such a
>>>> one and was swapped out with no problem and a comment of "We do this all
>>>> the time". Don't let the buggers fob you off.
>
>Isn't it that if _both_ meters are subterranean, the chance of getting a
>fobile signal is less? If only the gas meter is, then as long as the
>electric one isn't and the gas is close enough to talk to the electric,
>all is well?
>>>>
>>>> Unrelatedly as she emerged in a state of deshabille I remarked that she
>>>> looked better than Farage "and with less obnoxious opinions". I have in
>>>> the past said that there were very few occasions where the distinction
>>>> between less and fewer matters. This is one. Had I said she held fewer
>>>> obnoxious opinions it would imply that she did have opinions I found
>>>> obnoxious but not as many as Nigel whereas less obnoxious implies that
>>>> the opinions she has are not as unacceptable as his.
>
>Excellent example.
>[]
>>> Replace …”and with less obnoxious opinions". with ‘without the
>>>obnoxious
>>> opinions’ and your home and dry!
>
>My home and dry what? (Sorry, couldn't let that pass in a post
>containing another language point! [Now, what error have _I_ made?!?])
>>
>>Alas, I suspect that comparing one's inamorata to Farage, in any way
>>shape or form, is a serious vote loser - unless they are a fan of N.F.
>>in which case...
>><lost for words>
>>
>I always think of "Mud" when I hear the word inamorata.
>
>And I've often wondered why weshepoform - why all three? What's the
>difference, at least between the last two?

(I suspect that Sam, like Mike beofre him was following the age-old
law of USENET which requires that a post critical of another's
spelling, grammar or punctuation must contain at least one error of
it's own.)

Nick

In message <o1n4mi5fnm4rffoqghofor7hg6hrjfucv0@4ax.com> at Sat, 25 Nov
2023 20:45:25, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> writes
>On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:34:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
><G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <8Er8N.7143$tIyd.515@fx34.iad> at Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:09:55,
>>Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>>On 25-Nov-23 14:05, Mike McMillan wrote:
>>>> John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> But not together.
>>>>>
>>>>> New Partner had her smart meters installed yesterday following a
>>>>> profitable cock-up on Eon's part (they failed to show up for the first
>>>>> appointment so £30 compensation and by the time she rescheduled they are
>>>>> now offering £50 per meter incentive). But that's not the point - umrats
>>>>> in the past have (IIRC) said that they have been unable to have meters
>>>>> installed in subterranean outside boxes. Her gas meter was just such a
>>>>> one and was swapped out with no problem and a comment of "We do this all
>>>>> the time". Don't let the buggers fob you off.
>>
>>Isn't it that if _both_ meters are subterranean, the chance of getting a
>>fobile signal is less? If only the gas meter is, then as long as the
>>electric one isn't and the gas is close enough to talk to the electric,
>>all is well?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unrelatedly as she emerged in a state of deshabille I remarked that she
>>>>> looked better than Farage "and with less obnoxious opinions". I have in
>>>>> the past said that there were very few occasions where the distinction
>>>>> between less and fewer matters. This is one. Had I said she held fewer
>>>>> obnoxious opinions it would imply that she did have opinions I found
>>>>> obnoxious but not as many as Nigel whereas less obnoxious implies that
>>>>> the opinions she has are not as unacceptable as his.
>>
>>Excellent example.
>>[]
>>>> Replace …”and with less obnoxious opinions". with ‘without the
>>>>obnoxious
>>>> opinions’ and your home and dry!
>>
>>My home and dry what? (Sorry, couldn't let that pass in a post
>>containing another language point! [Now, what error have _I_ made?!?])
>>>
>>>Alas, I suspect that comparing one's inamorata to Farage, in any way
>>>shape or form, is a serious vote loser - unless they are a fan of N.F.
>>>in which case...
>>><lost for words>
>>>
>>I always think of "Mud" when I hear the word inamorata.
>>
>>And I've often wondered why weshepoform - why all three? What's the
>>difference, at least between the last two?
>
>(I suspect that Sam, like Mike beofre him was following the age-old
>law of USENET which requires that a post critical of another's
>spelling, grammar or punctuation must contain at least one error of
>it's own.)
>
>Nick

Ah, I thought that had to be accidental - oh, I see, you're suggesting
it was. (That's why I said "what have _I_ done".)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Advertising is legalized lying. - H.G. Wells

On 25-Nov-23 20:45, Nick Odell wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:34:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"
> <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <8Er8N.7143$tIyd.515@fx34.iad> at Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:09:55,
>> Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>>> On 25-Nov-23 14:05, Mike McMillan wrote:
>>>> John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> But not together.
>>>>>
>>>>> New Partner had her smart meters installed yesterday following a
>>>>> profitable cock-up on Eon's part (they failed to show up for the first
>>>>> appointment so £30 compensation and by the time she rescheduled they are
>>>>> now offering £50 per meter incentive). But that's not the point - umrats
>>>>> in the past have (IIRC) said that they have been unable to have meters
>>>>> installed in subterranean outside boxes. Her gas meter was just such a
>>>>> one and was swapped out with no problem and a comment of "We do this all
>>>>> the time". Don't let the buggers fob you off.
>>
>> Isn't it that if _both_ meters are subterranean, the chance of getting a
>> fobile signal is less? If only the gas meter is, then as long as the
>> electric one isn't and the gas is close enough to talk to the electric,
>> all is well?
>>>>>
>>>>> Unrelatedly as she emerged in a state of deshabille I remarked that she
>>>>> looked better than Farage "and with less obnoxious opinions". I have in
>>>>> the past said that there were very few occasions where the distinction
>>>>> between less and fewer matters. This is one. Had I said she held fewer
>>>>> obnoxious opinions it would imply that she did have opinions I found
>>>>> obnoxious but not as many as Nigel whereas less obnoxious implies that
>>>>> the opinions she has are not as unacceptable as his.
>>
>> Excellent example.
>> []
>>>> Replace …”and with less obnoxious opinions". with ‘without the
>>>> obnoxious
>>>> opinions’ and your home and dry!
>>
>> My home and dry what? (Sorry, couldn't let that pass in a post
>> containing another language point! [Now, what error have _I_ made?!?])
>>>
>>> Alas, I suspect that comparing one's inamorata to Farage, in any way
>>> shape or form, is a serious vote loser - unless they are a fan of N.F.
>>> in which case...
>>> <lost for words>
>>>
>> I always think of "Mud" when I hear the word inamorata.
>>
>> And I've often wondered why weshepoform - why all three? What's the
>> difference, at least between the last two?
>
> (I suspect that Sam, like Mike beofre him was following the age-old
> law of USENET which requires that a post critical of another's
> spelling, grammar or punctuation must contain at least one error of
> it's own.)

I follow the Anarchist's punctuation guide - slavishly.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 25/11/2023 20:45, Nick Odell wrote:
> must contain at least one error of
> it's own.)
>
> Nick

Well done.

john

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 11:11:17 +0000, John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>But not together.
>
>New Partner had her smart meters installed yesterday following a
>profitable cock-up on Eon's part (they failed to show up for the first
>appointment so £30 compensation and by the time she rescheduled they are
>now offering £50 per meter incentive). But that's not the point - umrats
>in the past have (IIRC) said that they have been unable to have meters
>installed in subterranean outside boxes. Her gas meter was just such a
>one and was swapped out with no problem and a comment of "We do this all
>the time". Don't let the buggers fob you off.
>
>Unrelatedly as she emerged in a state of deshabille I remarked that she
>looked better than Farage "and with less obnoxious opinions". I have in
>the past said that there were very few occasions where the distinction
>between less and fewer matters. This is one. Had I said she held fewer
>obnoxious opinions it would imply that she did have opinions I found
>obnoxious but not as many as Nigel whereas less obnoxious implies that
>the opinions she has are not as unacceptable as his.
>
>This is because fewer qualifies countable entities (opinions) while less
>qualifies continuous ones (the degree of obnoxiousnessosity). DINTAFBAPOU?

I think you were lucky to get away with that, assuming you did. To me, it
still implies you find some of her opinions somewhat obnoxious.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:34:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>I always think of "Mud" when I hear the word inamorata.

Glorious!
(was she wearing a garter?)

>And I've often wondered why weshepoform - why all three? What's the
>difference, at least between the last two?

Whoosh!
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On 25/11/2023 04:11, Penny wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 11:11:17 +0000, John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> But not together.
>>
>> New Partner had her smart meters installed yesterday following a
>> profitable cock-up on Eon's part (they failed to show up for the first
>> appointment so £30 compensation and by the time she rescheduled they are
>> now offering £50 per meter incentive). But that's not the point - umrats
>> in the past have (IIRC) said that they have been unable to have meters
>> installed in subterranean outside boxes. Her gas meter was just such a
>> one and was swapped out with no problem and a comment of "We do this all
>> the time". Don't let the buggers fob you off.
>>
>> Unrelatedly as she emerged in a state of deshabille I remarked that she
>> looked better than Farage "and with less obnoxious opinions". I have in
>> the past said that there were very few occasions where the distinction
>> between less and fewer matters. This is one. Had I said she held fewer
>> obnoxious opinions it would imply that she did have opinions I found
>> obnoxious but not as many as Nigel whereas less obnoxious implies that
>> the opinions she has are not as unacceptable as his.
>>
>> This is because fewer qualifies countable entities (opinions) while less
>> qualifies continuous ones (the degree of obnoxiousnessosity). DINTAFBAPOU?
>
> I think you were lucky to get away with that, assuming you did. To me, it
> still implies you find some of her opinions somewhat obnoxious.

We're still in that first flush of a later-years teen-like relationship
where teasing is still possible.

john

In message <94t2mi5bcqmijp10jl4inafb3i73s8ch13@4ax.com> at Sat, 25 Nov
2023 04:17:59, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 19:34:32 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>scrawled in the dust...
>
>>I always think of "Mud" when I hear the word inamorata.
>
>Glorious!
>(was she wearing a garter?)

Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>
>>And I've often wondered why weshepoform - why all three? What's the
>>difference, at least between the last two?
>
>Whoosh!
"Way, shape, or form". (Often used when only one would suffice.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

As individuals, politicians are usually quite charming, so it is quite hard to
dislike them, but in most cases, it is worth making the effort.
- Mark Williams (UMRA), 2013-4-26

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>
> Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>>

грязь, грязь, великолепная грязь.

(Does USENET do Cyrillic?)

On 26/11/2023 15:58, Wenlock wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>>>
>
> грязь, грязь, великолепная грязь.
>
> (Does USENET do Cyrillic?)
>

Yes, looks like it ;)

--
Best wishes, Serena
Q. What do you get if you cross a sheep with a grasshopper?
A. A woolly jumper.

On 26/11/2023 15:58, Wenlock wrote:
> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>>>
>
> грязь, грязь, великолепная грязь.
>
> (Does USENET do Cyrillic?)
>

It does here.

john

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:42:15 +0000, John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
scrawled in the dust...

>On 25/11/2023 04:11, Penny wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2023 11:11:17 +0000, John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com>
>> scrawled in the dust...
>>
>>> But not together.
>>>
>>> New Partner had her smart meters installed yesterday following a
>>> profitable cock-up on Eon's part (they failed to show up for the first
>>> appointment so £30 compensation and by the time she rescheduled they are
>>> now offering £50 per meter incentive). But that's not the point - umrats
>>> in the past have (IIRC) said that they have been unable to have meters
>>> installed in subterranean outside boxes. Her gas meter was just such a
>>> one and was swapped out with no problem and a comment of "We do this all
>>> the time". Don't let the buggers fob you off.
>>>
>>> Unrelatedly as she emerged in a state of deshabille I remarked that she
>>> looked better than Farage "and with less obnoxious opinions". I have in
>>> the past said that there were very few occasions where the distinction
>>> between less and fewer matters. This is one. Had I said she held fewer
>>> obnoxious opinions it would imply that she did have opinions I found
>>> obnoxious but not as many as Nigel whereas less obnoxious implies that
>>> the opinions she has are not as unacceptable as his.
>>>
>>> This is because fewer qualifies countable entities (opinions) while less
>>> qualifies continuous ones (the degree of obnoxiousnessosity). DINTAFBAPOU?
>>
>> I think you were lucky to get away with that, assuming you did. To me, it
>> still implies you find some of her opinions somewhat obnoxious.
>
>We're still in that first flush of a later-years teen-like relationship
>where teasing is still possible.

Aww, just bear it in mind... I liked Mike's suggestion.

--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 15:58:13 -0000 (UTC), Wenlock
<wenlock.house@googlemail.com> scrawled in the dust...

>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>>>
>
>?????, ?????, ???????????? ?????.
>
>(Does USENET do Cyrillic?)

No (not on my screen), is that the Russian version?
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:46:37 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>>>And I've often wondered why weshepoform - why all three? What's the
>>>difference, at least between the last two?
>>
>>Whoosh!
>"Way, shape, or form". (Often used when only one would suffice.)

Oh.
Why did you spell it so strangely?
Vaguely reminds me of Freffly posh, but with spelling errors.

Anyway, it's just an emphatic NO.

Not sure where it fits in the post though, doesn't occur in the song.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 15:58:13 -0000 (UTC), Wenlock
> <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>>>>
>>
>> ?????, ?????, ???????????? ?????.
>>
>> (Does USENET do Cyrillic?)
>
> No (not on my screen), is that the Russian version?

It should work in this country on a rainy day … UK Rain.😉

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Serena Blanchflower <nospam@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> On 26/11/2023 15:58, Wenlock wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>>>>
>>
>> грязь, грязь, великолепная грязь.
>>
>> (Does USENET do Cyrillic?)
>>
>
> Yes, looks like it ;)
>

Indeed it does!

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes:

> On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 15:58:13 -0000 (UTC), Wenlock
> <wenlock.house@googlemail.com> scrawled in the dust...
>
>>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>>>>
>>
>>?????, ?????, ???????????? ?????.
>>
>>(Does USENET do Cyrillic?)
>
> No (not on my screen), is that the Russian version?

О да, это так!

Розий

In message <1463miprbjfqhvn8e6e96lu4aad1t7ro14@4ax.com> at Sat, 25 Nov
2023 06:58:13, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
>On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 14:46:37 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>scrawled in the dust...
>
>>>>And I've often wondered why weshepoform - why all three? What's the
>>>>difference, at least between the last two?
>>>
>>>Whoosh!
>>"Way, shape, or form". (Often used when only one would suffice.)
>
>Oh.
>Why did you spell it so strangely?

People tend to say it; written less often.

>Vaguely reminds me of Freffly posh, but with spelling errors.
>
>Anyway, it's just an emphatic NO.

OK. I just find it tautological, as it's archaic.
>
>Not sure where it fits in the post though, doesn't occur in the song.

It was used earlier in the thread. (No, it isn't in the song.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

In message <ujvsn2$3b3pi$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 26 Nov 2023 16:45:22,
John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes
>On 26/11/2023 15:58, Wenlock wrote:
>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>>>>
>> 0 >> (Does USENET do Cyrillic?)
>>
>
>It does here.
>
>john
I see that line as
" , ,"
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

A waist is a terrible thing to mind.

On 26-Nov-23 17:55, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <ujvsn2$3b3pi$1@dont-email.me> at Sun, 26 Nov 2023 16:45:22,
> John Ashby <johnashby20@yahoo.com> writes
>> On 26/11/2023 15:58, Wenlock wrote:
>>> J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>>>>>
>>>  0 >>  (Does USENET do Cyrillic?)
>>>
>>
>> It does here.
>>
>> john
> I see that line as
> "            ,           ,"

"Your Usenet client may vary."

--
Sam Plusnet

On Sun, 26 Nov 2023 15:58:13 -0000 (UTC), Wenlock
<wenlock.house@googlemail.com> wrote:

>J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Kranj, kranj, ljubliche kranj! (Phonetically, from memory.)
>>>
>
>?????, ?????, ???????????? ?????.
>
>(Does USENET do Cyrillic?)

USENET does everything, including pictures and videos and programs and
more. Unfortunately text-only newsreaders, like mine, only work with a
limited range of character sets.

Nick