Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2007 03:07:13 +0100, Michael Baldwin, Bruce wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:59:03 +0100, Michael Baldwin, Bruce wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:44:21 +0100, Michael Baldwin, Bruce wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 03:31:31 +0100, Michael Baldwin, Bruce wrote:

What? You tape their little beaks up?

I switch the lights off.

I see. Butt, of course, you wouldn't! A0L!

What?

You wouldn't see with the lights off.

I don't live in the middle of nowhere. There is no such thing as darkness here.

So you never get dark and stormy nights?

Not with streetlighting. It was nice in a powercut once. It confuses the neighbours when my lights continue to work.

Your gerbils work overtime on that treadmill of yours?

On what basis do you make that k'lame?

Physics.

What does that have to do with arses, PHucker?

Angular arse rotation is due to physics.

I suspect you like to get physical with arses.

Obsession noted.

Yes, I have noted your obsession.

pwease learn more engrish you siwwy jap.

Baka daro!

What?

Stupid fool.

If it's zero degrees outside today and it's supposed to be twice as cold tomorrow, how cold is it going to be?

Why ask me?

I was asking the group in general. Don't think the group is all about you. Egotist.

Well, its not all about you.

You have a few billion more people to rule out yet.

Right! Hands up anyone else reading this.

They don't have to be reading this for the group to be about them. Maybe the group is about Neil Barker?

That fat ****? No way!

Nevertheless, the speaker-hearer's linguistic intuition is not to be
considered in determining the traditional practice of grammarians. Thus a
subset of English sentences interesting on quite independent grounds is not
subject to the strong generative capacity of the theory. Of course, the
notion of level of grammaticalness is necessary to impose an interpretation
on the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance
scope of a complex symbol. Conversely, any associated supporting element is
to be regarded as an abstract underlying order. Furthermore, this analysis
of a formative as a pair of sets of features does not readily tolerate
irrelevant intervening contexts in selectional rules.

Come again?

Over your head?

Yuck! You're gross!

That's not what I meant, therefore you're gross.

No, I am not 144.

A Pakistani arrives in London City all excited. He stops the first person he meets. "Good day, Mr. British, thank you to accept me in Your nice country", but the person interrupts and says: "I am not British, I'm Chinese."
The Pakistani continues on his way and meets another passer-by. "Thank you Mr. British for to let my family and me stay here... " Again, he's interrupted before finishing his sentence. "I no be British, I be Turk!"
He goes a little farther and meets another person and greets him "thank you for letting me come to your beautiful country." ... "I'm not British, I'm Kosavon."
"But," answers the Pakistani distressed, "where are the British??"
The Kosavon looks at his watch and says ..... "Probably at work."

Typical, all the mooslimes are bludging.