Helen Bristol

07 August 2004 14:20

Re: cont.

No, stupid, they need them for their conjugal thingies. 
 
You can't get away with saying a Pope.  Which one?  I expect you to come up with names, dates etc, etc. after all you ARE jelly the historian. 
 
Don't think I fancy leaving someone else in charge of my bod - you never know what might happen to it.
 
What further proof could you need?

Vile Jelly

07 August 2004 16:10

Overrated. As one who has neither conjugals or thingies I fail to see why the taxpayer should fund such fecundity.
 
A Pope, not a Pope. 1688-1744. In my worthless opinion only surpassed by Owen and Sassoon as England's finest poetists (and Wilf and Sieg only get the nod because they had such good material to work with). Oooh, the things he said about the movers and shakers of his day. He would have been a scream on HIGNFY.
 
Why the hell would you care? You've finished with it. What's dignified about being stuffed in the dirt and left for worm-fodder? Me, I want a viking funeral when I go. Put me on my boat, better still my bitterest enemy's boat, push me out to sea and torch it!
 
I don't but there are still unbelievers who refuse to accept universal cuddliness as the way to true enlightenment. As Paul Mac once observed:-
 
"When I find myself in times of trouble
cuddly people come to me ..."

Helen Bristol

07 August 2004 16:51

You should try it sometime.  Nowt to do with the generic taxpayer.  If I choose to have a wild bit on my estate its up to me.  I don't get any grants for it. Mind you, Tone and his mates seem to want to have their grubby little fingers on everything.
 
Oh, that Pope.  Didn't think they had telly then.
 
Its their loss. Is that why you've so many cuddly peeps?

Vile Jelly

08 August 2004 09:13

Well, who pays for social services to look after all those unwanted and neglected caterpillars that end up in care?
 
He was a visionary and ahead of his time.
 
Of course. Einstein's General Theory of Cuddlivity states that the amount of your Cuddly Peeps is directly proportional to your amount of Troubles. His Specific Theory of Relative Cuddlivity then goes on to state that Happiness is inversely proportional to the amount of Troubles and directly proportional to the amount of Cuddly Peeps generated by the Troubles.

Helen Bristol

08 August 2004 11:42

No problem.  You see,  little caterpungles don't grow up into stroppy teenage caterpungles and then to be grumpy adults.  Those that don't get eaten by hungry birds, hedgepigs etc become beautiful ephemeral things.  I think they've got it sussed. No care homes, no drain on the national purse, just natural euthanasia.
 
Natch.
 
Yeeees. Are you able to put that in English?  and possibly expand on it a little.

Vile Jelly

08 August 2004 14:26

What about moths? They flap all around your lights, TVs, etc and eat all your clothes in the wardrobe. Clearly the evolved form of stroppy delinquent caterpillars!
 
Which bit don't you get?
 
nCP = nT [where CP = cuddly peeps, T = troubles and n is a number tending towards infinity]
 
or
 
T/CP=H [where T = troubles, CP = cuddly peeps and H = happiness]

Helen Bristol

08 August 2004 18:16

I got the first bit but you hadn't made T/CP=H clear. Now I understand why you're such a happy chappie.

Vile Jelly

09 August 2004 09:10

Ah but you're forgetting The Jelly Corollary:-
 
nU = T/RT [where n = a large number tending to infinity, U = unhappiness, T = troubles and RT = a number of cuddly peeps who tend to disappear to the pub in times of crisis]

Helen Bristol

10 August 2004 18:47

Carry on like this and it'll be a Jelly coronary.  Never been one to work with formulae, me I go for the gut instinct, might have to rationalise from time to time to make it sound plausible. But then that's what my life's work is all about - thinking laterally not pretending I know what I'm talking about

Vile Jelly

11 August 2004 15:10

Nonsense, wummun. These are the basic equations of life which any self-respecting lifeform should be able to cope with.
 
It's no use trying to rely on feminine intuition. I've lost count of the number of times I've stood in a checkout queue as a person of the female persuasion has stood there watching the items being rung up, only to be caught completely unprepared when money is demanded at the end of the transaction. Cue search to locate handbag, cue search to find purse in handbag, cue search to find money in purse. How intuitive is that!

Helen Bristol

11 August 2004 18:31

Well then, I guess I have no self respect
 
And, of course, persons of a bloke persuasion never do anything like that - Oh I must have left my credit cards in the car!  We can't all be perfect like you.

Vile Jelly

12 August 2004 09:21

Of course not. What self-respecting person would associate with me for a start?
 
That's just basic self-defence to prevent the female personage going into a shopping frenzy in Harvey Nicks. You can't? Why not? Is this just a lack of application or a lack of ability? If the latter then it seems futile for me to bother looking for any redeeming features in humans. The RT don't have this problem. Clearly they are a superior species!

Helen Bristol

13 August 2004 17:46

Presisamundo.  P'raps SSI officianados are a race apart?
 
Lack of vision mayhap.  Anyway if one is perfect what is there to aim for?  Oh, OK lack of application...

Vile Jelly

14 August 2004 14:11

Never doubted it for a minute.
 
More beer, according to the RT!

Next    Back    Home    Site Map

 
I (thatís me) own the copyright in all the content of this site (except where otherwise acknowledged). You can read it, download it, transmit it and reproduce it only for your own personal use. You are not allowed to bugger about with it. If your computer explodes as a result of accessing this site and its contents, itís nothing to do with me, mate! Copyright Vile Jelly Publications 2001-2009. All rights (and some wrongs) reserved.