I have no time for drunk drivers

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:27:54 -0000, Ginge blethered:

Ooh I say, that's a bit harsh surely?

I did not imagine anything. Just because you don't talk proper doesn't mean that not writing proper should be a natural consequence.

Invoke article 4:

1. And never start a sentence with a conjunction.

Rules for correct written English are not governed by what 'sounds correct' to you.

Errrk! Could you repeat that, using sensible punctuation, so that it makes sense to the reader rather than just the speaker?

Perhaps not.

Ah! The simple, cheap, throwaway line. Always useful when you have no lucid argument to offer.

Allan Bennett Not a fan of bad examples

How do you know I don't talk properly, have we met? :-)

When on Usenet I generally reply in a quickly typed, highly informal, conversational style. I never spell-check and I very rarely proof read - there are better things to waste my time upon. I find the informal approach lends itself to the kind of lively banter often seen in uk.rec.motorcycles, the newsgroup where I'm currently reading this delightful cross-post.

Treat it as though I was rudely interupting your diatribe, butting in without drawing a single breath.

"Anyhow, I see no point in carrying on with this...

...At least not until I find my ingerlish teecher and sew hymn fer knot teaching me write.... I were just a GCSE guinea-pig, for crying out loud... They aint not teached us nuffink!"

ITYM automagical

That would be a sig

But *oh* so true in your case

That would be the sig you don't use again

That, on the other hand, would be the sig separator that is a) Broken b) In the wrong place.

I say, this is jolly interesting.

Popcorn, anyone?

Does the waitress always cum when you push your horn.

You claim that the way you write is how you speak: "I wrote that line exactly as I'd say the sentence..."

Thanks for sharing that with us. It's always rewarding when first impressions are proved accurate.

In article , Ginge wrote a few words illustrating emphatically that he doesn't talk properly:

Thanks for sharing that with us. It's always rewarding when first impressions are proved accurate.

Thanks for sharing that with us. It's always rewarding when first impressions are proved accurate.

Allan Bennett Not a fan of repetition Not a fan of repetition

When I'm that drunk, pushing it is all I can manage.

You know, I'd never realised how true that is.

but, reading the rest of the thread, fair, I think you'd agree.

It was *I* who was pointing out the irony to....

...oh, f*ck it - life's too short

-- Chris

ZX-9R (in green, obviously) BOTAFOT#51

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:56:19 +0100, Ace blethered:

Yes, after much (OK a bit of) consideration, I do agree.

Shame when you have to point it out rather than just use it and sit back with a smug grin.

Shame when people can't just accept it for what it is.

Agreed!

Allan Bennett Not a fan of shorts

Alcohol drinking scum!!!

Now, this is the thing. If I was drinking alcohol and not driving, presumably you wouldn't have a problem? By the same token, if I was driving without having drink taken, again no problem, yes? Similarly, if I was driving after drinking, but not enough to put me over the current - ridiculously low - limit, this would be okay?

But one little sniff over? Heh. Figures from the States reckon there's one fatality for every 600,000 miles driven while over the limit. That gives me a bit of leeway.

It could be argued the limit is ridiculously high. The '92 T&WA limit is the same as the road.

The BR Board adopted the medical zero (30mg) for their safety critical staff.

Without becoming a drink drive bore, you either drink, or you drive. You don't do both. I speak as a train driver and the embarrasing uncle at /whatever/ wedding.

Personally I don't give a toss.

Just hope all understand an 'average' pint of beer takes 2.5 hours to be assimilated, (the usual specs say 1 hour per unit for 1/2 pint of 3% Heineken). So the sensible *8* pint night on Guiness/Stella/Directors you won't be fit to /drive/ until 17:00 the following day.

But there are variables within the strength of the drinks mentioned above; Guinness is 4.1, Directors is 4.8 and Stella is 5.2. Oh, and apparently Heineken (with the ABV of 3.4%) has been replaced with the 5% ABV as sold abroad.

I'm struggling to think of a lager that would be sold per pint with an average ABV of 3% nowadays, even the Carling is 4.1%.

Did you just realise you had almost made a rational post?

Best not to let that troll reputation slip by, isn't it...