| Before the beginning [message #881942] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 01:52 |
|
In teh beginning, as we all know, there was Robert Poleson. That's when the
universe found meaning and life grew context. When time, in every important
sense of the world, began. Shortly after that, most Youksefers were born
and we all now live in (and take for granted) a wonderful righteous cosmos
that has a Poleson.
I've been thinking tonight, though, that this really wasn't all that long
ago, a little over thirty years in fact. This means that some people, and
even a couple of Youksefers, existed before there was Poleson. Me, I
shudder to imagine, I like the fact that even before I knew him, he
was there. He existed, and the universe was okay. Before that, though, it
all
must have been dangerously unsafe, and I can't help wondering what it's like
for the likes of Crankshaw, Osbourne and Kullrad to know that at some point,
they were alive and there was no Poleson.
Poor Crankshaw must have spent 99.9% of his life in a Polesonless world,
that surely sucked bigly.
Primitive times.
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Before the beginning [message #881949 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 02:19 |
|
"Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in
news:1p8Kf.23997$Q22.13560 [at] fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
> must have been dangerously unsafe, and I can't help wondering what
> it's like for the likes of Crankshaw, Osbourne and Kullrad to know
> that at some point, they were alive and there was no Poleson.
>
I can't remember too much about those times tbh Joe. But I do remember that
all television and photographs were in black & white.
Even the most ungrateful cunts on the planet must be at least a little
thankful that teh Poleson invented Kodachrome.
--
Cheers, Os
|
|
|
| Re: Before the beginning [message #881950 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 02:22 |
|
"Osbourne Ruddock" <strikeboy [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns977091C9496C4strikeboyhotmailcom [at] 130.133.1.4...
> "Joe Horowitz" <my_name [at] youblunder.co.youghey> wrote in
> news:1p8Kf.23997$Q22.13560 [at] fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>> must have been dangerously unsafe, and I can't help wondering what
>> it's like for the likes of Crankshaw, Osbourne and Kullrad to know
>> that at some point, they were alive and there was no Poleson.
>>
>
> I can't remember too much about those times tbh Joe. But I do remember
> that
> all television and photographs were in black & white.
See, that's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. I asked my Mum
about pre-Polesonic times and she started banging on about fucking
ration-books and blackouts, and there wasn't even an Interweb or anything.
Who the fuck would want to live before Poleson?
> Even the most ungrateful cunts on the planet must be at least a little
> thankful that teh Poleson invented Kodachrome.
AWTWP.
--
Joe
Pay it fast it will be great..!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Before the beginning [message #882025 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 20:41 |
|
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:52:13 GMT, Joe Horowitz presented this to
uk.sport.football:
>
> Poor Crankshaw must have spent 99.9% of his life in a Polesonless world,
> that surely sucked bigly.
>
I think this realisation is why he isn't posting very much
nowadays.
--
rob at rjp dot clara dot net
|
|
|
| Re: Before the beginning [message #882029 ] |
Mon, 20 February 2006 21:02 |
|
In article <MPG.1e642bacf102aedb989767 [at] news.clara.net>, sp [at] m.no says...
> > Poor Crankshaw must have spent 99.9% of his life in a Polesonless world,
> > that surely sucked bigly.
> >
>
> I think this realisation is why he isn't posting very much
> nowadays.
>
Bigly has a smile on his face though and Crankshaws gag reflex has
apparently improved ten fold.
|
|
|
| Re: Before the beginning [message #882082 ] |
Tue, 21 February 2006 23:28 |
|
> Sometimes Martin, just sometimes mind, I think you might be Barrett in
> disguise.
>
It's the smell of haddock isnt it. I noticed it too.
|
|
|
| Re: Before the beginning [message #882100 ] |
Wed, 22 February 2006 14:54 |
|
In article <3fimv1hobsamv8hjkl11uqll8p2q6vclqd [at] 4ax.com>, dat_004
[at] yahoo.co.uk says...
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:33:40 -0000, Martin <news [at] mandab.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Well I hope he un-realises long enough to post a clarification about
> >whether or not fixures in the current Yahoo week count towards the final
> >round of the CHamps League etc.
>
> Sometimes Martin, just sometimes mind, I think you might be Barrett in
> disguise.
>
> He's kindly already supplied an answer on this:-
> http://tinyurl.com/rqxnk
>
"Week 28 will lie fallow and the final round of matches will be held in
week 29 (assuming it's a normalish week)."
Not entirely unequivocal, is it? Some teams do not have matches in week
29 - does this make it not normalish?
M
|
|
|
| Re: Before the beginning [message #882151 ] |
Wed, 22 February 2006 23:23 |
|
Martin <news [at] mandab.co.uk> Chewed on uk.sport.football then managed to
spit out :
> In article <3fimv1hobsamv8hjkl11uqll8p2q6vclqd [at] 4ax.com>, dat_004
> [at] yahoo.co.uk says...
>> On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:33:40 -0000, Martin <news [at] mandab.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Well I hope he un-realises long enough to post a clarification
>> >about whether or not fixures in the current Yahoo week count
>> >towards the final round of the CHamps League etc.
>>
>> Sometimes Martin, just sometimes mind, I think you might be Barrett
>> in disguise.
>>
>> He's kindly already supplied an answer on this:-
>> http://tinyurl.com/rqxnk
>>
> "Week 28 will lie fallow and the final round of matches will be held
> in week 29 (assuming it's a normalish week)."
>
> Not entirely unequivocal, is it? Some teams do not have matches in
> week 29 - does this make it not normalish?
>
> M
>
I believe he also stated at some stage that it needs only 5 matches to
go ahead for it to be a normal week.
--
Steve
As best I can tell 2005 was the year of the sprout... [Dat 2005]
|
|
|
| Re: Before the beginning [message #882221 ] |
Thu, 23 February 2006 20:37 |
|
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:54:37 -0000, Martin <news [at] mandab.co.uk> wrote:
>"Week 28 will lie fallow and the final round of matches will be held in
>week 29 (assuming it's a normalish week)."
>
>Not entirely unequivocal, is it? Some teams do not have matches in week
>29 - does this make it not normalish?
I think you know the answer to that.
Paul is an infrequent poster these days. You can hang about waiting
for him to spell it out if you like.
--
Dat
|
|
|
