cybercat wrote:

> "Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
>>>
>>>>So you can see why i was a bit confused by an accusation of being
>>>>inappropriate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Should have been a separate subject, JL. You know this, we all know
>>>this.
>>
>>Now your claiming to be a 'mind reader' as well as a style maven?
>>
>>Must be nice having that kind of omniscience, not only knowing what every
>>body else knows, but knowing me better than i know my self.
>>
>>This isn't "thread drift",
>>
>>Yes it is. As well as my own epistolary creativity.
>>
>>your suggested recipe is a totally
>>
>>>different animal (lamb, even!). And not lamb hash.
>>>
>>
>>D'uh!
>>
>>
>>>Jill
>>
>>I disagree, go back and read "Goomba's" comment that i was commenting on,
>>that was a comment on technique i merely expanded on.
>>--
>
>
> You are giving this silly, self-important bitch wayyy too much unction here,
> Joseph. Life is short enough already.
>
>

Well....i've been called prick in my life but never a Bishopric
indulging in Ex Cathedra unction

Im not too sure any emotions i have about it are anything other than
shallow and superficial and a moments passing amusement.
--
JL