|
|
Posted by Hammerer on 02/19/06 03:38
"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message
news:45pre6F7t2ntU1@individual.net...
>
> 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.
>
What - you mean the leg? Sorry, anthonyberet! My mistake. When will I ever
learn? Never - that's when! When you said "legs", I thought you were
referring to "legs" - when all the time you meant "legs". Still - I like
your idea about amputating the bits *above* the knee. That would leave me
with a perfectly functioning foot, ankle, and shin. Of course, I'd need a
thigh-transplant to be able to walk, but these things were sent to try us.
>
> The you would be one-legged, even if you carried the
> other one around with you.
>
As opposed to having two legs (one for perambulation; one carried), and not
a 'leg and a bit', or similar? You're contradicting yourself, anthonyberet!
>
> >>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 :)
>
And 1.8 in good old sterling is "pounds"? No! It's 1 and 80 shiny, new
pence! Twenty shiny, new pence short of *2* pounds sterling! Really,
anthonyberet . . . . hold together a cogent argument, whu don't you?!
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|