|
|
Posted by anthonyberet on 02/19/06 00:11
Hammerer wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
> news:45pil5F7csh9U1@individual.net...
>
>>Hammerer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:45hsiqF6nmvfU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hammerer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:45cm4jF63hfeU2@individual.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Jack Sprat wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:09:52 +0000, anthonyberet
>>>>>>><nospam@me.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It was a slow video of a large recording studio, and
>>>>>>>>an orchestra. Anyway, anyone know which artiste it
>>>>>>>>could have been? It had a traditional orchestral backing,
>>>>>>>>with a very deadpan male vocal. - In fact the lyrics were
>>>>>>>>pretty much spoken. Anyway, any other ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Could be the David Bowie/Bing Crosby duo??
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope that has Bowie and Bing in the video.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He could have a point there, anthonyberet. Despite the fact
>>>>>that there's two of them in the video; they sing rather than
>>>>>speak the words; there's hardly any deadpan-ness in the
>>>>>performances (though some would argue); there's no visual
>>>>>sign of a recording studio or orchestra; and the song they're
>>>>>singing isn't 'White Christmas'.
>>>
>>>>>Apart from those small differences, Jack could have hit
>>>>>the nail on the head.
>>>
>>>>>>- Wasn't their effort The Little Drummer Boy anyway?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It certainly wasn't 'White Christmas'. This thread has been
>>>>>most insane. Very refreshing. Jack Sprat and D. Kirkpatrick
>>>>>should de-lurk more. Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Incidentally, there were about 1183 versions of White Christmas
>>>>on that site that Petersen recommended. That is more than 542
>>>>which is what you said.
>>>>
>>>
>>>You're not wrong there, anthonyberet. It's considerably more
>>>than I said. It's . . . . well, hundreds more, at least. It just goes
>>>to show, doesn't it?
>>>
>>
>>>>In fact, in my opinion 1183 versions is thousands,
>>>>
>>>
>>>As you know, I respect your opinion, anthonyberet, even when I
>>>don't. 1183, if I'm not mistaken (and, unlike the 'White Christmas'
>>>versions fiasco, I'm not) is *1* thousand, and spare change. Hundreds,
>>>in other words. So, in a way, despite my shite attempt at researching
>>>the versions, I'm still up on the deal, if you think about it.
>>>
>>
>>Think about this for a moment - if you had 10% of your legs cut
>>off, you would still describe the remainder as your 'legs', not your
>>'leg and a bit', or similar.
>>
>
> Depends where the hypothetical amputation takes place. If the 10% is taken
> off one leg - say, the foot to halfway up the shin - then it's all "the
> glass isn't half-full, it's half-empty", isn't it? Though I get the
> impression that if I hobbled into the Karaoke Bar that night and announced
> "Hi folks! I've got two legs!", everyone would say "No you haven't! You've
> got a leg and a bit, or similar!". Majority rule, anthonyberet.
>
Well, obviously I didn't mean the bit between your hip and half-way down
your thigh. The you would be one-legged, even if you carried the other
one around with you.
>>Anyway it was actually 1813 versions, so I bet you feel pretty stupid now!
>>
>
> Of course! But also kinda smug, as it's still hundreds, and not thousands.
> Heh!
nope, 1.8 legs is still legs and 1.8 thousands is still thousands :)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|