Peter, instead of argueing with eachother - lets start a fight with dan L. I don't like the way he says things - he makes his arguments so long, that no one can be bothered to read the whole thing, and hence he wins. It's like a brief history of time, no one reads beyond the first three pages (WHO MADE THIS JOKE?)

Ideally I'd have to read one of his messages before it made any sense for me to start arguing with him. Or am I being old-fashioned?

Okay, I undertake to disagree with the next thing he says.

>Okay, I undertake to disagree with the next thing he says.

I put it to you that you are talking sense. I put it to you that you are the brains behind this and not Joe. I put it to you that you have normal sexual feelings. I put it to you that that rumours that you suck your dog off are false. I put it to you that you are an intelligent person and that your heart is full of wisdom. I put it to you that every thing you say is funny and that everyone things Peter's a right funny man.

I made a mess of the last posting.

I meant: I put it to you that everything you say is funny and that Peter says a right funny man.

>and that Peter says a right funny man.

No, look, you fucked that one up as well!

Yes I did. I think I lost the tread of what I was trying to say. I won't even bother to repeat it. Oh well.

>Yes I did. I think I lost the tread

thread?

You must have done that one deliberately.(tip: say yes.)

Oh yeah, right, the deliberate mistake. Well...er...spotted that man.

<He felt dejected. Why, he asked himself, had he made so many errors?>

>He felt dejected. Why, he asked himself,
>had he made so many errors?

Some kind of clever double bluff?

Hang on, shouldn't that be 'errers'?

Oh arse, no it shouldn't.