Originally Posted by cashman (Post 779327)

Ta margaret, but it sure cracked me up.:D

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 779330)

Me too - can hardly wait for Jaysay to come on line tomorrow - I may even set my alarm clock:D

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 779314)

Oh my goodness!

Forget your atheism Rind, there is a God, and he's looking down on you old sunbeam!!!

The day after posting this, up pops a little message in my box.

Odd, Jaysay isn't in the habit of messaging me much.

Opens message.

'Dear Andrew'!!!!!!!!!

It then goes on to give sensitive details of the current state of play regarding the Conservative candidate short-list.

Who said lightning couldn't strike twice?

John, thank you. I'm laughing so much l'm crying, and am in danger of hyper-ventilating.

I can't think straight at the moment, and don't know rules regarding publishing personal messages, or is that just karma?

Who cares I'm sure I'll be able to release the information somehow.

:yelrotflm:worthy::jump3::joint::cuddle::s_aim1::s :kiss8::bow8::Banane20:


Just checked.

Personal messages can't be posted in public.

Anyone wanting to know the information in the message sent to me, but meant for andrewb, just message me, and l'll personally give you the jist.

:D

'A' is quite near 'g' in the alphabet.

It's an easy enough mistake to happen....twice.

:D

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 779353)

Well you suggest I did it yesterday so I did, if you think I did that by mistake your thicker than I through you were:D:D:D:D
Lightening doesn't strike twice Rindi if you think it does join the Labour Party they're very gullible:tongueout:tongueout:tongueout:tongueout:t ongueout

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 779332)

Without breaking any rules, it does start with Dear Andrew....and ends with but best not tell everyone on Accy Web, John.

:rofl38::rofl38::rofl38::rofl38::rofl38:

Originally Posted by blazey (Post 779361)

Maybe I'm just making a wrong assumption here... but surely posting any information contained in a personal message is against rules, whether it has any value or not? You have quoted text from a PM rather than any sort of paraphrasing, which surely makes that information? Then you still went on to say what the content of the message was...

I'm all for bending rules though so do carry on. It looks like it was all set up to make you look stupid anyway. Actually, it is quite amusing that you yourself pointed out how far away 'a' and 'g' are from each other, especially as anyone who has used this PM system would know that even hitting 'a' or 'g' would then involve you specifically selecting a person... and yet you still feel that it was a mistake rather than something suspicious...

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 778916)

Oh well I tried to be helpful.

If you're unwilling to pm the person whom answers are apparently sought from, you can continue pm'ing each other, and hopefully send them to me by mistake...again.

How I'd love to receive another 'Doo-doo' message, addressed to andrewb, but sent to myself in error.

You've wiped it from your memory?

It was the one in which you said you'd warned andrewb about not using the Freedom of Information Act to look into councillor's expenses, because Peter Britcliffe would end up in the 'Doo-doo'.

Any more interesting messages gratefully recieved c/o garinda's messages at Accy Web.

:)

Originally Posted by blazey (Post 779361)

Maybe I'm just making a wrong assumption here... but surely posting any information contained in a personal message is against rules, whether it has any value or not? You have quoted text from a PM rather than any sort of paraphrasing, which surely makes that information? Then you still went on to say what the content of the message was...

I'm all for bending rules though so do carry on. It looks like it was all set up to make you look stupid anyway. Actually, it is quite amusing that you yourself pointed out how far away 'a' and 'g' are from each other, especially as anyone who has used this PM system would know that even hitting 'a' or 'g' would then involve you specifically selecting a person... and yet you still feel that it was a mistake rather than something suspicious...

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 779364)

Its when I read this post of yours Rindi that I wondered if you would be silly enough to think I'd do it twice

Originally Posted by jaysay (Post 779353)

Well you suggest I did it yesterday so I did, if you think I did that by mistake your thicker than I through you were:D:D:D:D
Lightening doesn't strike twice Rindi if you think it does join the Labour Party they're very gullible:tongueout:tongueout:tongueout:tongueout:t ongueout

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 779423)

This post comes across to me as a 'damage limitation' exercise.
The fact that Garinda did not consider that you could have ever been so devious does him credit.

The fact that you were so devious (if what you say you did is correct) then it discredits you.

All this deviousness about is very destructive for good communication between all of us :(

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 779384)

Sadly the answer is evidently yes.

The pathetic reasoning that it was somehow a bluff, is risible.

Keep backpedaling.

I wonder if HisMastersVoiceHBC would like to read it, and decide as to whether it's content should be made public?

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by garinda (Post 779384)

Sadly the answer is evidently yes.

The pathetic reasoning that it was somehow a bluff, is risible.

Keep backpedaling.

I wonder if HisMastersVoiceHBC would like to read it, and decide as to whether it's content should be made public?

:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by MargaretR (Post 779423)

This post comes across to me as a 'damage limitation' excercise.
The fact that Garinda did not consider that you could have ever been so devious does him credit.

The fact that you were so devious (if what you say you did is correct) then it discredits you.

All this deviousness about is very destructive for good communication between all of us :(