#61
Igor Belanov wrote:
Richard and Judy are evidence that ‘intelligent design’ doesn’t exist. And no God would be so cruel as to inflict those two on the world.
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 09:20
#62
hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:
:eek: Igor, I’m shocked. They are an institution. A very funny one.
@Mum - John Humphreys has written a book called In God We Doubt, about his own rubbishness at being an athiest.
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 10:31
#63
mrs h wrote:
I love John Humphreys. And Humphrey Littleton. Coincidence? I think not.
Well maybe.
And in truth I love Humphrey Littleton the most :)
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 10:34
#64
Dennis wrote:
I liked John Inman as Mr Humphries. Does that count?
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 10:36
#65
hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:
Aw, I shall tell him so tomorrow :)
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 10:36
#66
mrs h wrote:
Ok. But when you tell him, make sure you tell him with a ‘y’ - Humphrey Lyttelton. Like that. But call him humph. And ask him if he remembers when I went to see him in London about 10 years ago. I was in the 9th row, behind the woman in the big hat.
@ Dennis. I misread that - I thought you said ‘licked’! :p
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 10:42
#67
hoochalobster (Sarah) Super Moderator wrote:
Mrs Trellis?
I read online that they’re planning to do an annual tour so me and Ruth have decided we shall take you and her mum, who rivals even you in the Humph love.
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 10:44
#68
mrs h wrote:
She does not!!! I bet she doesn’t have a ‘Hump Me Humph’ T-shirt :mad:
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 10:50
#69
mrs h wrote:
I wish I hadn’t said that …
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 10:50
#70
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 10:54
#71
mrs h wrote:
lol - so you are finally getting a smattering of northern dialect. About time too.
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 11:02
#72
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
Yeah, I am, but the doctor said it’d clear up in no time, if I just kept using t’cream.
Posted on Wed, 29 August 2007 at 11:07
#73
mrs h wrote:
I have painted a picture using only black paint on a white canvas, and called it ‘The Catholic’.
Just so you know.
edit: So it’s true - we can edit! :)
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 14:43
#74
Igor Belanov wrote:
Religious iconography is so 15th Century. Will you be doing a painting with only white paint on black canvas and calling it ‘The Richard Dawkins’? Or perhaps, ‘Snowman down a Coal Mine’. Though I think Van Eyck or Brueghel the Elder might have had that idea first.
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 15:05
#75
mrs h wrote:
I already did a white painting on a black background. It was of some wine bottles and a wine glass :) It involved the use of a hell of a lot of paint for not much result :(
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 15:50
#76
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
Should have left a bit of time between emptying the bottles and painting them, perhaps?
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:01
#77
mrs h wrote:
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:03
#78
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
Yes, I expect that’s exactly what your face looked like as you were painting. :)
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:04
#79
mrs h wrote:
It is! It’s called ‘method painting’. You should have seen my face when i painted 48 bottles of vodka and an ounce of black :S
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:08
#80
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
Oh! I’ve been doing Methodist painting. It’s less fun, but I remember more of it.
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:09
#81
mrs h wrote:
You shouldn’t paint those methodists, they’ve told you a hundred times not to do it and after you glossed their baby they said they would call the police if you ever went near them again! :mad:
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:13
#82
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
That’s what telephoto lenses were made for.
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:14
#83
mrs h wrote:
Really? I thought they were so that old people could read bingo cards?
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:18
#84
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
No, that’s just a fortuitous side effect.
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:20
#85
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
An UNfortuitous side effect is that telephoto lenses make your glasses too heavy to wear.
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:21
#86
mrs h wrote:
Why do you want to wear my glasses?
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:22
#87
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
I don’t. I want YOU to wear them. Then maybe you’ll realise you’ve been having a conversation with the doorpost for the last half hour.
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:25
#88
mrs h wrote:
You’re a doorpost? :eek: You poor thing! Did you do it yourself or were you framed?
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:28
#89
Misanthropologist (d) wrote:
I’ve always been this way. And for your information, your hearing aid needs fixing too: I don’t really speak. Because I’m a doorpost.
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:30
#90
mrs h wrote:
You don’t squeak because you’re a doorpost? What a load of cobblers.
*gets out the WD40*
There. I bet you feel much better now, don’t you? :)
Posted on Fri, 31 August 2007 at 16:36
