Hello

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
I believe we will have the necessary members so as to be quorate at that time.

And then some...

[RangerJoe]

. . . I shall refer this to a plenary session of the numpty-consideration sub-committee which sits in two weeks. . .

What part of the US Congress is that? I think that most would qualify . . .

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

. . . I shall refer this to a plenary session of the numpty-consideration sub-committee which sits in two weeks. . .

What part of the US Congress is that? I think that most would qualify . . .

warspite1

Nothing to do with US Congress. This is the Executive Committee of the General Forum party and its National Congress. As a full Executive Committee member (although of course not a member of the Politburo) I really thought you would have known that. Get with the program Ranger Joe - the Committee can always have you replaced......

[RangerJoe]

Okay, I thought that I was showing my brilliance but instead was showing my numptyness. Does that mean I get a promotion? Or am I already at my incompetence level according to the Peter principle? If I was married I would know this since my wife would inform me. But since I am still free . . . [8D]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

But you used the symbol for British money . . .

warspite1

LoL - that is what I thought but saw Zorch's post and assumed I'd missed it off my post. But it would appear that both yourself and Zorch removed the symbol when making your subsequent posts. [shakes fist in exaggerated black and white comedy stylee] Grr you rotters!

And I thought £ was the short form for the word pound. If so, it could be interpreted liberally. I could give a couple hundred pounds of flesh.

No, £ is not the short form for pound. £ is the short form for pound sterling. And pound sterling is the official currency of UK. So pounds of flesh will not do if you pay in £.

[8|]

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

Why 25 pages?

No no no. That's the wrong question. Ask not "why 25 pages"? Ask instead: "Why NOT 25 pages!"

Indeed. One could ask that. Or one could ask: "Why only 25 pages?".

[RangerJoe]

True, why limit ourselves?

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

Why 25 pages?

No no no. That's the wrong question. Ask not "why 25 pages"? Ask instead: "Why NOT 25 pages!"

Indeed. One could ask that. Or one could ask: "Why only 25 pages?".

Because the Executive Committee of the General Forum has a certain level of numptiness. So counting beyond twenty-five pages is too much to ask.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




No no no. That's the wrong question. Ask not "why 25 pages"? Ask instead: "Why NOT 25 pages!"

Indeed. One could ask that. Or one could ask: "Why only 25 pages?".

Because the Executive Committee of the General Forum has a certain level of numptiness. So counting beyond twenty-five pages is too much to ask.

I understand. It is difficult counting past the number of fingers and toes on your hands and feet.

Perhaps the Executive Committee of the General Forum can educate the numpty in the art of counting nostril hairs in order to help with the more advanced math?

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Zap

ORIGINAL: Orm



Indeed. One could ask that. Or one could ask: "Why only 25 pages?".

Because the Executive Committee of the General Forum has a certain level of numptiness. So counting beyond twenty-five pages is too much to ask.

I understand. It is difficult counting past the number of fingers and toes on your hands and feet.

Perhaps the Executive Committee of the General Forum can educate the numpty in the art of counting nostril hairs in order to help with the more advanced math?

Management always asks for an executive summary anyway. With small words. And in big print.

[RangerJoe]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Why 25 pages?



No no no. That's the wrong question. Ask not "why 25 pages"? Ask instead: "Why NOT 25 pages!"


Indeed. One could ask that. Or one could ask: "Why only 25 pages?".




Because the Executive Committee of the General Forum has a certain level of numptiness. So counting beyond twenty-five pages is too much to ask.


I understand. It is difficult counting past the number of fingers and toes on your hands and feet.

Perhaps the Executive Committee of the General Forum can educate the numpty in the art of counting nostril hairs in order to help with the more advanced math?

Zorch

Management always asks for an executive summary anyway. With small words. And in big print.

If it is in big print, how can the words be small? [&:]

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

Why 25 pages?



No no no. That's the wrong question. Ask not "why 25 pages"? Ask instead: "Why NOT 25 pages!"


Indeed. One could ask that. Or one could ask: "Why only 25 pages?".




Because the Executive Committee of the General Forum has a certain level of numptiness. So counting beyond twenty-five pages is too much to ask.


I understand. It is difficult counting past the number of fingers and toes on your hands and feet.

Perhaps the Executive Committee of the General Forum can educate the numpty in the art of counting nostril hairs in order to help with the more advanced math?

Zorch

Management always asks for an executive summary anyway. With small words. And in big print.

If it is in big print, how can the words be small? [&:]

It's like a giant shrimp.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

Why 25 pages?

No no no. That's the wrong question. Ask not "why 25 pages"? Ask instead: "Why NOT 25 pages!"

Indeed. One could ask that. Or one could ask: "Why only 25 pages?".

One could. But unless they were being circumlocutious why would they? I believe that one should eschew obfuscation.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




No no no. That's the wrong question. Ask not "why 25 pages"? Ask instead: "Why NOT 25 pages!"

Indeed. One could ask that. Or one could ask: "Why only 25 pages?".

One could. But unless they were being circumlocutious why would they? I believe that one should eschew obfuscation.

Back to the dictionary for me[:)]

[warspite1]

So, in the interests of time, I think it would be sensible for each Committee member to formulate and present his/her arguments, for and against comrade Chickenboy's question, ahead of the Numpty Consideration Plenary Session. Voting can then take place during the Plenum and the results presented at the 27th National Congress.

In the interests of brevity I would ask all Committee members to present their views (in no more than a paragraph) on the matter in question - ergo and theretofore:

"Why is Warspite1 a numpty?"

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




No no no. That's the wrong question. Ask not "why 25 pages"? Ask instead: "Why NOT 25 pages!"

Indeed. One could ask that. Or one could ask: "Why only 25 pages?".

One could. But unless they were being circumlocutious why would they? I believe that one should eschew obfuscation.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

[Zorch]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So, in the interests of time, I think it would be sensible for each Committee member to formulate and present his/her arguments, for and against comrade Chickenboy's question, ahead of the Numpty Consideration Plenary Session. Voting can then take place during the Plenum and the results presented at the 27th National Congress.

In the interests of brevity I would ask all Committee members to present their views (in no more than a paragraph) on the matter in question - ergo and theretofore:

"Why is Warspite1 a numpty?"

Ask not, "Why is Warspite1 a numpty?" Ask instead "Why are not the rest of us numpty?".

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

So, in the interests of time, I think it would be sensible for each Committee member to formulate and present his/her arguments, for and against comrade Chickenboy's question, ahead of the Numpty Consideration Plenary Session. Voting can then take place during the Plenum and the results presented at the 27th National Congress.

In the interests of brevity I would ask all Committee members to present their views (in no more than a paragraph) on the matter in question - ergo and theretofore:

"Why is Warspite1 a numpty?"

Excuse me! Excuse me! [bangs on desk with a shoe]

Sorry. Too Russian.

Anyways, as I was saying, let's not rush to vote on this one singular issue. There are so many useful numptinian votes we could have. Comrade Zilch raises an excellent (for him) suggestion. One that paws at the very back door of one's imagination, needing to go outside for a logistical tinkle.

I think we should cast a net and canvas our local numptinian comrades. Those that have 'contributed' to this thread would be good for starters. I think the question we should ask our...erm...'illustrious' group gathered here today should be:

"What numptinian or numpty-like votes do people desire here today?"

I believe that the question you've forwarded for a vote is worthy of consideration. I also believe that Zilch's 'Why are not the rest of us numpty' is an interesting question to be posed as well. I for one countenance both of these questions-and more-as our present company shall identify in good time.

[Zovs]

Can me make 25?

[RangerJoe]

'Why are not the rest of us numpty'

Because we do not Bloviate nor Pontificate on matters. We actually never bloviate nor pontificate on any subject matter worth of discourse. We always elucidate whatever our answers are to any query that has been put to us. We never use any more verbiage than is truly necessary for our audience to be enlightened by our illuminating responses.