|
|
Posted by Don M. on 10/18/26 11:40
"anthonyberet" <nospam@me.invalid> wrote in message news:45r81eF7tqulU1@individual.net...
> Hammerer wrote:
> > "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
>
> So which other bits did you think could be amputated whilst still
> retaining 'legs'?
>
> >>>- 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.
> >
> It seems that we are both referring to 'legs' plural. Need I go on?
>
> >>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!
> >
> As far as I am aware 'legedness' refers to the number of legs actually
> attached to a creature. - Othewise it isn't really a leg (at least, not
> in the Orwellian sense of a limb used for bodily propulsion).
>
> As it is Sunday this morning, I am not sure about the legs of inanimate
> objects like tables, tripods and carpets.
>
> >>>>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?!
> >
> No of course 1.8 pounds sterling is not pounds - try convincing the man
> in my local off-licence (or 'out-door' as they call them in some funy
> parts of the country - but not here in swinging London, apart from by
> immigrants from the midlands) to let you have cans of Stella plural
> without pounds sterling plural!
>
> You mustn't introduce strawman arguments, really! That's crazy talk,
> although you could get lots of bags of crisps.
=========
Argh! That's ENOUGH from you. Go to your room and don't come out until dinner time.
Don
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|