During the possible travel of Wagner to Moscow, there was a map often
shown, obviously on a big screen in the newsroom. At least we _got_ a
map (see my recent comments about the lack of such), but: there was a
row of lights in the studio, that reflected off it, in a rather
distracting manner. I don't know which thought was more depressing -
that nobody knew how to turn them off, or (more depressing, I think)
nobody knew that that was what was going out.

(I'm not sure if this link will work, but
https://twitter.com/G6JPG_/status/1672647100499206153 was my attempt to
tweet about it, after a couple of hours [I'd tweeted a text-only comment
initially]. The effect was a bit more irritating than I managed to
capture in that picture.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I can prove anything with statistics - except the truth.

I expect it was then Eileen's. as the spellchecker prefers.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk

Blind user, so no pictures please!

This document should only be read by those persons for whom Paranoia is
normal
and its contents are probably boring and confusing. If you receive this
e-Mail
message in error, do not notify the sender immediately, instead, print it
out and make
paper animals out of it. As the rest of this disclaimer is totally
incomprehensible, we have not bothered to attach it.
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:Qcpi$cC0pQmkFw4u@255soft.uk...
> During the possible travel of Wagner to Moscow, there was a map often
> shown, obviously on a big screen in the newsroom. At least we _got_ a map
> (see my recent comments about the lack of such), but: there was a row of
> lights in the studio, that reflected off it, in a rather distracting
> manner. I don't know which thought was more depressing - that nobody knew
> how to turn them off, or (more depressing, I think) nobody knew that that
> was what was going out.
>
> (I'm not sure if this link will work, but
> https://twitter.com/G6JPG_/status/1672647100499206153 was my attempt to
> tweet about it, after a couple of hours [I'd tweeted a text-only comment
> initially]. The effect was a bit more irritating than I managed to capture
> in that picture.)
> --
> J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
>
> I can prove anything with statistics - except the truth.

In message <u7ejgg$1cvbm$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:11:25,
Brian Gaff <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>I expect it was then Eileen's. as the spellchecker prefers.
>Brian
>
I don't understand! Who is Eileen? (Or what was it before the
spellchecker corrected it?)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Warning. The following ad break may contain sofas. - seen on Dave, 2018-4-20

On 27/06/2023 16:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <u7ejgg$1cvbm$1@dont-email.me> at Tue, 27 Jun 2023 13:11:25,
> Brian Gaff <briang1@blueyonder.co.uk> writes
>> I expect it was then Eileen's. as the spellchecker prefers.
>> Brian
>>
> I don't understand! Who is Eileen? (Or what was it before the
> spellchecker corrected it?)

Eileen. Come on, you know what I mean...

On Tue, 27 Jun 2023 16:38:17 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>I don't understand! Who is Eileen? (Or what was it before the
>spellchecker corrected it?)

It's a type of mascara