| Author |
Message |
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 9:24 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:59:55 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Charles Riggs wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 22:52:44 GMT, Tony Cooper
tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
On Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:39:53 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
me@privacy.net> wrote:
Tony Cooper wrote:
What in the world are you on about?
Oy!
What in the world are *you* on about?
Phoney-baloney TCE, obviously.
You are who you are, Coop. Try committing that to memory.
I was surprised to see Young Joey using "in future" yesterday, but I
didn't Oy! him. For a brief moment, though, I thought about the
conspiracy theories regarding the identity of Christopher Johnson.
|
While "what are you on about?" is a reasonably standard bi-pondial
phrase, this parochial attitude you have about terms and phrases is
out-dated and out-of-step in today's world. It is particularly
out-of-step when you attempt to enforce it in a newsgroup like aue.
We recognize that Americanisms are not just creeping into
international English, but advancing pell-mell. Your jingoistic
stance on the reverse influences is a bit silly. It's especially
silly when a term that is universally recognized and understood is
OY!ed.
I don't know how you decide where to draw your lines. Certain terms
and expressions may be completely American English in nature, but
American English as spoken in a particular geographic area. For
example, can "Wicked!" be used by a non-Boston native? How far away
from the Boston city limits can the term be used and be Fontana
approved? Can "Forget about it." be used by someone that didn't grow
up within 30 miles of a landfill full of bodies?
How do you draw your lines on non-English words like "cliche" and
"coterie" that have been melded in to everyday English? How do you
deal with words like "Ciao" that are still non-English but accepted as
standard by many Americans? Or, more appropriately in this area,
"Hola".
Why do you not OY! "OY!" when that is not a standard American English
term? Or, is it that OY! is street legal from a New Yawker but not
from a Nebraskan?
Your premise seems to be that nothing should be uttered that is not
native-speak to the individual. How, then, do you deal with growth
and death of native-speak terms from an individual standpoint? It
was, at one time, native-speak for me to describe a pleasurable
experience as a "blast". Am I locked into this term? Must I still
describe all pleasurable experiences as a blast or be accused of
forgetting "you are who you are"?
How well have you adhered to your own rules? Do you still confine
your lexicon to the street talk of Flatbush? Of course, in your case,
do you still carry on conversations in Pottsyisms? Ron Howard grew
up, Areff, when are you going to?
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Salvatore Volatile
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 29, 2005 10:53 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:31:34 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
me@privacy.net> wrote:
It's not a matter of parochialism. I think it is pretentious for you to
use British-specific phrases, idioms, and expressions.
I can live with that. Easily. An "OY!", though, is used here to
indicate error, not disapproval.
|
I disagree, Coop. The original popularizer (if not the originator) of
AUEan "Oy!" was Skitt, and I believe he generally used it to express
dismay at certain kinds of misspellings or grammatical errors. It's true
that your Hiberno-Briticisms are things that Skitt of old would not have
Oy!ed, but I think the usage of Oy! has been usefully broadened.
| Quote: | "Pretentious", in your context, is putting on airs of superiority.
|
Not exactly. Maybe pretentious isn't the best word. It's just silly.
You're using Britishisms on purpose when you respond to British posters or
perceive that British speakers will read your postings. There's no
justification for that. Speak in your native tongue (TCE)! As Arnold
Schoenberg said to Brooklyn-born George Gershwin: "Why do you want to be
a second-rate Schoenberg when you can be a first-rate Gershwin?". Why,
Coop, do you want to be a second rate Hiberno-Britic speaker when you can
be a first-rate TCE speaker?
If anything, I suppose what bothers me about it is that it is
condescending towards the Hiberno-Britons.
| Quote: | What's your defense for using "whilst"?
I don't need a defense. Why would I need one? I don't ask you for a
defense against your inane use of initials, your presumptions of
ability to pronounce pizza acceptable or not acceptable, your idiotic
nattering about post-Tet, or your now-stale too-often-repeated
blatherings about television watershed events. They are what I put up
with and winnow through to find your interesting posts.
|
There's a difference, though, Coop. My usages would be condemnable but
for their irony content. Your Hiberno-Briticisms have no irony content.
You're just trying to speak Hiberno-Britically.
| Quote: | It's different when a usage has become localized or naturalized. That's
not the case with your pretentious use of Britishisms, Coop. You use
expressions that have not yet made it into AmE.
Unh-hunh. And "Kojak Theory", "jumped the shark", and "NWOTKELS", are
well-established in the mainstream of conversational American English?
|
Certainly "jumped the shark" is now well-established, perhaps even outside
of the US. And it's the Kojak Conjecture. The substance of which, by the
way, is not original to me, and is actually pretty ancient, going back at
least to suggestions made by Johnny Carson on _The Tonight Show Starring
Johnny Carson_ at least as early as the early 1980s. You act like you
just fell off the neep lorry, as Professor Malcolm might say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salvatore Volatile
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:49 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | Obviously, you missed the "mainstream of conversational American
English" part of the sentence. I don't think half the people here
have any idea of what the Kojak Conjecture is. Or care.
|
What's here? I think half the active readers of AUE must have some idea
of what the Kojak Conjecture is. I agree that fewer than half of them
care (TICBW).
| Quote: | You can use
"jumped the shark" here, because it has been discussed frequently, but
it would be another one of those things you might say that would cause
people to move to another seat on the bus.
|
Here I think you're wrong. "Jumped the shark" has passed into mainstream
American English.
| Quote: | I had never heard of
"jumped the shark" before I started posting here because the show had
jumped the shark long before that episode and I quit watching it.
|
Well, I had forgotten about Fonzie jumping the shark, until the popular
"Jump the Shark" website was launched back in the late 20th century.
| Quote: | What it breaks down to, Areff, is that I really don't give a badger's
bum if you object to my word choices. If you find my posts
interesting, read 'em.
|
I do, Coop. Most of your postings are more interesting than most AUE
postings. That's why it's so distressing that you limit the readability
of your postings by peppering them with Hiberno-Briticisms.
In sum: When you're right, you're right, but you're not right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:04 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 18:31:34 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 13:59:55 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
me@privacy.net> wrote:
I was surprised to see Young Joey using "in future" yesterday, but I
didn't Oy! him. For a brief moment, though, I thought about the
conspiracy theories regarding the identity of Christopher Johnson.
While "what are you on about?" is a reasonably standard bi-pondial
phrase, this parochial attitude you have about terms and phrases is
out-dated and out-of-step in today's world. It is particularly
out-of-step when you attempt to enforce it in a newsgroup like aue.
Coop, I don't try to enforce anything. I don't even attack people for
top-posting. I leave that to Liebs.
|
You attempt to enforce as much as this venue allows.
| Quote: | It's not a matter of parochialism. I think it is pretentious for you to
use British-specific phrases, idioms, and expressions.
|
I can live with that. Easily. An "OY!", though, is used here to
indicate error, not disapproval. Come up with something that
indicates disapproval.
"Pretentious", in your context, is putting on airs of superiority.
Rather like deciding who should be able to say what, eh? Rather like
appointing yourself the arbiter of what is acceptable and handing down
black marks to violators.
| Quote: | An American should not be using
|
Should not?
| Quote: | "at university", "in future" (unless that American is Truly
Donovan, who has special rights and privileges), "whilst", "spot on",
"roit then", "Pants!", dangling "do" (e.g. "yes, you can do"), "at the
week-end" [sic], and "what are you on about".
We recognize that Americanisms are not just creeping into
international English, but advancing pell-mell. Your jingoistic
stance on the reverse influences is a bit silly. It's especially
silly when a term that is universally recognized and understood is
OY!ed.
I'll admit that I'm approaching the limit with "what are you on about",
but I think it's sufficiently British-sounding
|
This "sufficiently" thing...nothing pretentious about you deciding
what the boundaries are in usage? That's not even "sufficient to me",
but "sufficient" full-stop?
| Quote: | that an American who
non-ironically uses it should be condemned therefor
|
Condemned? Is there a penalty phase or a three-game suspension or
something? How does your kangaroo court work?
| Quote: | What's your defense for using "whilst"?
|
I don't need a defense. Why would I need one? I don't ask you for a
defense against your inane use of initials, your presumptions of
ability to pronounce pizza acceptable or not acceptable, your idiotic
nattering about post-Tet, or your now-stale too-often-repeated
blatherings about television watershed events. They are what I put up
with and winnow through to find your interesting posts.
| Quote: | I don't know how you decide where to draw your lines. Certain terms
and expressions may be completely American English in nature, but
American English as spoken in a particular geographic area. For
example, can "Wicked!" be used by a non-Boston native?
The New England-specific usage is not "Wicked!" but "wicked good" and so
forth. No, a non-Bostonian should not be using that.
|
Again, the pretentious "should not".
| Quote: | How do you draw your lines on non-English words like "cliche" and
"coterie" that have been melded in to everyday English? How do you
deal with words like "Ciao" that are still non-English but accepted as
standard by many Americans? Or, more appropriately in this area,
"Hola".
It's different when a usage has become localized or naturalized. That's
not the case with your pretentious use of Britishisms, Coop. You use
expressions that have not yet made it into AmE.
|
Unh-hunh. And "Kojak Theory", "jumped the shark", and "NWOTKELS", are
well-established in the mainstream of conversational American English?
| Quote: | When they do, feel free to use them as much as you'd like. That's happened, for example, with
such former Briticisms as "at the end of the day". It will probably never
happen with "whilst".
I'm "pretentious" but you are allowing me to feel free about using |
certain words and terms?
| Quote: | How well have you adhered to your own rules? Do you still confine
your lexicon to the street talk of Flatbush? Of course, in your case,
do you still carry on conversations in Pottsyisms? Ron Howard grew
up, Areff, when are you going to?
BTW, is Ron Howard related to Ross Howard? Is Ron Banister related to Rob
Bannister? EMWTK.
|
I'm not going to say something like "If you don't like what I write,
don't read what I write" because that's so trite, but I will suggest
that there are muscle relaxants on the market that might help that
sphincter problem you have.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 5:08 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 20:53:38 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
If anything, I suppose what bothers me about it is that it is
condescending towards the Hiberno-Britons.
|
We wouldn't want to do that, would we? We wouldn't want to, for
example, say "'truck' (BrE 'lorry')" on the assumption that the Brits
don't know what a truck is, or to be so pretentious that we want to
show off that we do know their term.
It's good of you to try to protect them, though. The ones here that
might qualify as Hiberno-Britons are delicate flowers indeed, and lack
the bottle to look out for themselves.
| Quote: | What's your defense for using "whilst"?
I don't need a defense. Why would I need one? I don't ask you for a
defense against your inane use of initials, your presumptions of
ability to pronounce pizza acceptable or not acceptable, your idiotic
nattering about post-Tet, or your now-stale too-often-repeated
blatherings about television watershed events. They are what I put up
with and winnow through to find your interesting posts.
There's a difference, though, Coop. My usages would be condemnable but
for their irony content. Your Hiberno-Briticisms have no irony content.
You're just trying to speak Hiberno-Britically.
|
Uh-hunh. I've never been known to salt the mine.
| Quote: | It's different when a usage has become localized or naturalized. That's
not the case with your pretentious use of Britishisms, Coop. You use
expressions that have not yet made it into AmE.
Unh-hunh. And "Kojak Theory", "jumped the shark", and "NWOTKELS", are
well-established in the mainstream of conversational American English?
Certainly "jumped the shark" is now well-established, perhaps even outside
of the US. And it's the Kojak Conjecture. The substance of which, by the
way, is not original to me, and is actually pretty ancient, going back at
least to suggestions made by Johnny Carson on _The Tonight Show Starring
Johnny Carson_ at least as early as the early 1980s. You act like you
just fell off the neep lorry, as Professor Malcolm might say.
|
Obviously, you missed the "mainstream of conversational American
English" part of the sentence. I don't think half the people here
have any idea of what the Kojak Conjecture is. Or care. You can use
"jumped the shark" here, because it has been discussed frequently, but
it would be another one of those things you might say that would cause
people to move to another seat on the bus. I had never heard of
"jumped the shark" before I started posting here because the show had
jumped the shark long before that episode and I quit watching it.
You have a very odd view of what American mainstream conversational
English is like.
What it breaks down to, Areff, is that I really don't give a badger's
bum if you object to my word choices. If you find my posts
interesting, read 'em. If you are baffled by some terms, look 'em up
or ask. I'll continue to write the words that come naturally to my
mind and you can continue to OY! away to your heart's content.
Whilst I greatly value your input on my word choice, and Skitt's input
on my comma placement, I don't feel compelled to honor (BrE=honour in
case any Brits reading are confused by the word) the suggestions.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salvatore Volatile
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:04 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Tony Cooper wrote:
| Quote: | On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:49:18 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
me@privacy.net> wrote:
Here I think you're wrong. "Jumped the shark" has passed into mainstream
American English.
I don't think you know "mainstream" Americans. To be fair, limit the
group to over 25, white, not belonging to a Pentecostal church, not
presently or previously confined in an institution, capable of making
change for a dollar, not presently in a coma, capable of qualifying
for driver's license, and domiciled in a construction built by man in
an area served by at least two of the major utility groups. I'd bet
that not one in twenty of this group would have the slightest
awareness of the correct meaning of the term "jumped the shark".
|
I'll bet that 3 of the 20 will be aware of "jumped the shark". Further
limit the group to under 55 and Internet users and television watchers and
it might be even more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:06 am
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:49:18 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
Obviously, you missed the "mainstream of conversational American
English" part of the sentence. I don't think half the people here
have any idea of what the Kojak Conjecture is. Or care.
What's here? I think half the active readers of AUE must have some idea
of what the Kojak Conjecture is. I agree that fewer than half of them
care (TICBW).
You can use
"jumped the shark" here, because it has been discussed frequently, but
it would be another one of those things you might say that would cause
people to move to another seat on the bus.
Here I think you're wrong. "Jumped the shark" has passed into mainstream
American English.
|
I don't think you know "mainstream" Americans. To be fair, limit the
group to over 25, white, not belonging to a Pentecostal church, not
presently or previously confined in an institution, capable of making
change for a dollar, not presently in a coma, capable of qualifying
for driver's license, and domiciled in a construction built by man in
an area served by at least two of the major utility groups. I'd bet
that not one in twenty of this group would have the slightest
awareness of the correct meaning of the term "jumped the shark".
| Quote: | What it breaks down to, Areff, is that I really don't give a badger's
bum if you object to my word choices. If you find my posts
interesting, read 'em.
I do, Coop. Most of your postings are more interesting than most AUE
postings. That's why it's so distressing that you limit the readability
of your postings by peppering them with Hiberno-Briticisms.
|
So you want bland? You want vanilla with no sprinkles? The interest
aspect of any post that I make is not in terms used in that post, but
in the idea presented in that post. A dull post cannot be made
interesting by adding a "gombeen man" here and a "seated in the
lounge" there. An interesting post is not interesting because it
starts out "Now, we..." or contains "people that". It may be "of
interest" for that kind of reason, but it is not "interesting" for
that kind of reason.
Besides, you know damn well one of the reasons you read all of my
posts is because you hope to catch me out. You'd read 27 paragraphs
of narrative on the pills in my medicine cabinet hoping to find a
reference of me buying them from the chemist.
'Course, Bob Lieblich would be chewing nails over such a long
narrative post, but that's a horse of a different colour.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 2:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Tony Cooper spake thusly:
| Quote: | So you want bland? You want vanilla with no sprinkles?
|
=HibernoBritishEnglish "Hundreds and Thousands".
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Salvatore Volatile
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 4:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Salvatore Volatile wrote:
[...]
I do, Coop. Most of your postings are more interesting than most
AUE
postings. That's why it's so distressing that you limit the
readability of your postings by peppering them with
Hiberno-Briticisms.
[...]
Ang abaht! You mean those of us who use Hibernations, Britvicisms, or
Hiberno-Briticisms in the course of nature suffer limited readability
in consequence? Are those of us condemned by accident of birth
perforce to deploy Oceanianisms doomed, ex hypothesi, to a
well-nigh-total incomprehensibility?
|
Not at all. Hiberno-Briticisms are to be expected in the postings of
certified Hiberno-Britons, or even special-status posters like
Australo-Britons, of which we have one or three. They can also be
tolerated in the postings of Harvey van Hoboken and Sir Garry Vass, since
those guys live over there. But they simply don't belong in Coop's
writings. Coop's natural idiom is that of the country Midland speaker.
He's also pretty good at businessese (e.g. "out of pocket", "to incent",
etc.). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:18 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 04:04:02 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
<me@privacy.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper wrote:
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 22:49:18 +0000 (UTC), Salvatore Volatile
me@privacy.net> wrote:
Here I think you're wrong. "Jumped the shark" has passed into mainstream
American English.
I don't think you know "mainstream" Americans. To be fair, limit the
group to over 25, white, not belonging to a Pentecostal church, not
presently or previously confined in an institution, capable of making
change for a dollar, not presently in a coma, capable of qualifying
for driver's license, and domiciled in a construction built by man in
an area served by at least two of the major utility groups. I'd bet
that not one in twenty of this group would have the slightest
awareness of the correct meaning of the term "jumped the shark".
I'll bet that 3 of the 20 will be aware of "jumped the shark". Further
limit the group to under 55 and Internet users and television watchers and
it might be even more.
|
Under 55 would produce fewer, not more, hits. The term was allegedly
coined in 1985. The oldsters would have had more time to be exposed
to the term. I don't think there are too many in my group that are
not television watchers to some extent.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:20 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:39:30 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com>
wrote:
| Quote: | Tony Cooper spake thusly:
So you want bland? You want vanilla with no sprinkles?
=HibernoBritishEnglish "Hundreds and Thousands".
|
I hear the sound of rushing air over my head.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:34 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005, Tony Cooper wrote
| Quote: | On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:39:30 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Tony Cooper spake thusly:
So you want bland? You want vanilla with no sprinkles?
=HibernoBritishEnglish "Hundreds and Thousands".
I hear the sound of rushing air over my head.
|
Assuming "sprinkles" are those tiny, garishly multi-coloured, hard
sugar things that one puts on ice cream or fancy little cupcakes -- -
well, they're called "hundreds and thousands" in the UK.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:37 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005, Harvey Van Sickle wrote
| Quote: | On 30 Sep 2005, Tony Cooper wrote
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:39:30 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Tony Cooper spake thusly:
So you want bland? You want vanilla with no sprinkles?
=HibernoBritishEnglish "Hundreds and Thousands".
I hear the sound of rushing air over my head.
Assuming "sprinkles" are those tiny, garishly multi-coloured, hard
sugar things that one puts on ice cream or fancy little cupcakes -- -
well, they're called "hundreds and thousands" in the UK.
|
Photo of them here -- top image -- from an Australian site:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/09/23/1064082968598.html
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony Cooper
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:55 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:34:28 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
<harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
| Quote: | On 30 Sep 2005, Tony Cooper wrote
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:39:30 GMT, the Omrud <usenet.omrud@gmail.com
wrote:
Tony Cooper spake thusly:
So you want bland? You want vanilla with no sprinkles?
=HibernoBritishEnglish "Hundreds and Thousands".
I hear the sound of rushing air over my head.
Assuming "sprinkles" are those tiny, garishly multi-coloured, hard
sugar things that one puts on ice cream or fancy little cupcakes -- -
well, they're called "hundreds and thousands" in the UK.
|
Didn't know that. As a Registered Hiberno-Whatever Abuser, I feel
like I've missed an opportunity to earn condemnation by Areff.
--
Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 30, 2005 7:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Sinecuree? |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005, Tony Cooper wrote
| Quote: | On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 12:34:28 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle
harvey.news@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On 30 Sep 2005, Tony Cooper wrote
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:39:30 GMT, the Omrud
usenet.omrud@gmail.com> wrote:
Tony Cooper spake thusly:
So you want bland? You want vanilla with no sprinkles?
=HibernoBritishEnglish "Hundreds and Thousands".
I hear the sound of rushing air over my head.
Assuming "sprinkles" are those tiny, garishly multi-coloured,
hard sugar things that one puts on ice cream or fancy little
cupcakes -- - well, they're called "hundreds and thousands" in
the UK.
Didn't know that. As a Registered Hiberno-Whatever Abuser, I feel
like I've missed an opportunity to earn condemnation by Areff.
|
Adopt it now -- before he notices -- and you might still be in time to
curdle his cupcake with it.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in