On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:38:32 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 7/7/2016 4:18 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> She is basically unharmed, apart from losing a fair bit of weight and
>> being very sore and sorry for herself. She's never going to my
>> friend's place again, needless to say... at least as long as my
>> friend's dog Zed is around. It's only when those two get together that
>> this happens.
>
>I'm so glad she showed back up!

Thanks Jill. Home is back to normal again

On 7/7/2016 6:10 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-07-07 5:22 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>>> That was ok then?
>>
>> Sure, I don't see anything intentional about it. He said the dog was
>> asleep under the car. Happens.
>
>
> It does indeed. It happened to my neighbour. She ran over her own dog, a
> mutt that I despised, but I tried to say something sympathetic anyway.
>
>

OK then, I have a twisted mind. The topic here is restaurant ethics.
We drifted to dead dogs. My question, combining the two:

What was the stir fry special at the unethical restaurant?

In article >, says...
>
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 18:40:49 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
> >Just so happened he didn't like the dog. But I don't think he
> >intentionally tried to kill it.
>
> Of course not. From what I can see, it was only two certain people who
> thought I did. And what a remarkable coincidence who those two people
> just happen to be...


You live like a troglodyte and kill all kinds of animals, so it wasn't
that far fetched.

"Jeßus" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:22:41 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
>>On 7/7/2016 4:18 PM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> "Nancy Young" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 7/7/2016 10:21 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Nancy Young" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>> But I don't see anything in his story that says he deliberately
>>>>>> ran over that dog.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think winnie had come home when he wrote that and he has
>>>>> written
>>>>> plenty since.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see that he's written anything since you said he rolled
>>>> over that dog deliberately.
>>>>
>>> Fine so ...
>>>
>>> " and the damned thing got up and walked away, totally unharmed. I
>>> thought that *finally* the thing would be gone forever, but no..."
>>>
>>> That was ok then?
>>
>>Sure, I don't see anything intentional about it. He said the dog was
>>asleep under the car. Happens.
>
> I'll be generous and just say I think she sometimes has trouble with
> figures of speech and metaphorical type concepts (has happened many
> times before). We'll just leave it at that... tempting as it is to go
> further

KPB!

You deliberately misread what I said at being surprised when someone swore.
As I said, look to your own behaviour.

Your pretence at mealy mouthed magnanimity isn't working! We have known you
too long. *smile*


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Moronic asshats such as you aren't smart enough to be making moral
decisions.

In article >, Ed
Pawlowski > wrote:

> What was the stir fry special at the unethical restaurant?

Dog Wok Chow?

leo

On 7/6/2016 19:17, Je�us wrote:

> Thanks for crossing your fingers Lucretia. Because it seems to have
> worked! I got a phone call about an hour ago... Winnie is back
> Apparently in reasonable shape too, she will be back here in about an
> hour
>

Good news! Kinda like getting your kid back after going missing-

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 20:16:20 -0700, Does it really matter?
> wrote:

>On 7/6/2016 19:17, Je?us wrote:
>
>> Thanks for crossing your fingers Lucretia. Because it seems to have
>> worked! I got a phone call about an hour ago... Winnie is back
>> Apparently in reasonable shape too, she will be back here in about an
>> hour
>>
>
> Good news! Kinda like getting your kid back after going missing-

Thank you.