spoiler Tue 2nd Sept

[DavidK]

Maybe I'd hear more if I weren't listening first thing with my first mug
of tea. It didn't occur to me, until I read it elsewhere, that Ed and
Emma talking about the squeaky voice

ED: I don’t know why people listen to it if they don’t like it. Just
turn it off.
EMMA: Oh people love to moan though don’t they? You’d think that with
everything that is going on in the world, they’d have other things to
complain about.

was a clever dig at the listeners moaning about the monologues.

PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I think, I
caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of 10 and 12
*respectfully*" instead of respectively.

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by DavidK
Maybe I'd hear more if I weren't listening first thing with my first mug
of tea. It didn't occur to me, until I read it elsewhere, that Ed and
Emma talking about the squeaky voice
ED: I don’t know why people listen to it if they don’t like it. Just
turn it off.
EMMA: Oh people love to moan though don’t they? You’d think that with
everything that is going on in the world, they’d have other things to
complain about.
was a clever dig at the listeners moaning about the monologues.

A clever dual purpose dig? At Susan and us.

Post by DavidK
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I think, I
caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of 10 and 12
*respectfully*" instead of respectively.

[Nick Leverton]

Post by DavidK
Maybe I'd hear more if I weren't listening first thing with my first mug
of tea. It didn't occur to me, until I read it elsewhere, that Ed and
Emma talking about the squeaky voice
ED: I don’t know why people listen to it if they don’t like it. Just
turn it off.
EMMA: Oh people love to moan though don’t they? You’d think that with
everything that is going on in the world, they’d have other things to
complain about.
was a clever dig at the listeners moaning about the monologues.
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I think, I
caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of 10 and 12
*respectfully*" instead of respectively.

At least you have respectful algorithms, rather than those unruly and
disrespectful ones that go around spontaneously mutating and changing
themselves behind people's backs without being told to by anyone in
charge at all, oh no, not our fault ...

Nick

[krw]

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by DavidK
Maybe I'd hear more if I weren't listening first thing with my first mug
of tea. It didn't occur to me, until I read it elsewhere, that Ed and
Emma talking about the squeaky voice
ED: I don’t know why people listen to it if they don’t like it. Just
turn it off.
EMMA: Oh people love to moan though don’t they? You’d think that with
everything that is going on in the world, they’d have other things to
complain about.
was a clever dig at the listeners moaning about the monologues.
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I think, I
caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of 10 and 12
*respectfully*" instead of respectively.

At least you have respectful algorithms, rather than those unruly and
disrespectful ones that go around spontaneously mutating and changing
themselves behind people's backs without being told to by anyone in
charge at all, oh no, not our fault ...
Nick

I think the final nail in Gavin's coffin is that apparently he told the
exam people to write in the logic to reflect past results of the school.
A fireplace salesman sacked by Theresa for leaking (oh no he didn't).
Bye bye Gavin - take Michael, Dominic (both of them), Robert and Rishi
with you as you go.

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by krw

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by DavidK
was a clever dig at the listeners moaning about the monologues.
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I think, I
caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of 10 and 12
*respectfully*" instead of respectively.

At least you have respectful algorithms, rather than those unruly and
disrespectful ones that go around spontaneously mutating and changing
themselves behind people's backs without being told to by anyone in
charge at all, oh no, not our fault ...
Nick

I think the final nail in Gavin's coffin is that apparently he told the
exam people to write in the logic to reflect past results of the school.
A fireplace salesman sacked by Theresa for leaking (oh no he didn't).
Bye bye Gavin - take Michael, Dominic (both of them), Robert and Rishi
with you as you go.

Oh is Gavin messing up algorithms for windows? So he has another and
one would think better source of income.

[Mike Ruddock]

Post by krw

Post by Nick Leverton

Post by DavidK
Maybe I'd hear more if I weren't listening first thing with my first mug
of tea. It didn't occur to me, until I read it elsewhere, that Ed and
Emma talking about the squeaky voice
ED: I don’t know why people listen to it if they don’t like it. Just
turn it off.
EMMA: Oh people love to moan though don’t they? You’d think that with
everything that is going on in the world, they’d have other things to
complain about.
was a clever dig at the listeners moaning about the monologues.
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I think, I
caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of 10 and 12
*respectfully*" instead of respectively.

At least you have respectful algorithms, rather than those unruly and
disrespectful ones that go around spontaneously mutating and changing
themselves behind people's backs without being told to by anyone in
charge at all, oh no, not our fault ...
Nick

I think the final nail in Gavin's coffin is that apparently he told the
exam people to write in the logic to reflect past results of the school.
 A fireplace salesman sacked by Theresa for leaking (oh no he didn't).
Bye bye Gavin - take Michael, Dominic (both of them), Robert and Rishi
with you as you go.

I read somewhere that Boris hasn't sacked Gavin yet because he may need
to sack him if the back-to-school scheme proves a failure. If he sacked
him because of the exams fiasco he would have to appoint a new person to
be in charge of education and if, as is possible, the back-to-school
requires another sacrifice it would look absurd to sack someone recently
appointed. It might seem that BJ is incapable of appointing competent
persons.

Mike Ruddock

[krw]

It might seem that BJ is incapable of appointing competent persons.

It is my contention that given the scrutiny undertaken by the press in
the last 20 - 30 years there are very few people who have an
unimpeachable background (I will admit there have been indiscretions in
my past which I would not want publishing) and consequently there are I
suggest a dwindling corps of both competent and unimpeachable
individuals and they are probably intelligent to not wish to stand for
office which means that there are no suitable people for BJ to appoint.

[Flop]

On 03/09/2020 10:28, krw wrote:

Bye bye Gavin - take Michael, Dominic (both of them), Robert and Rishi

Post by krw
with you as you go.

I strongly disagree with the above sentence on two counts.

1) You have left a lot out.
2) Rishi has done a competent job - which puts him head and shoulders
above the rest of the cabinet.

a) He has kept his head below the parapet. No promises.
b) The media have not been able to find fault with most of his schemes.
c) He has used in-house IT to manage money distribution rather than
going for outside consultant firms. [D must hate him].

I suspect that BJ has not sacked Gavin etc because no-one wants the job
and whoever is left is worse than what he already has.

[Sid Nuncius]

 Bye bye Gavin - take Michael, Dominic (both of them), Robert and Rishi

Post by krw
with you as you go.

I strongly disagree with the above sentence on two counts.
1) You have left a lot out.
2) Rishi has done a competent job - which puts him head and shoulders
above the rest of the cabinet.
    a) He has kept his head below the parapet. No promises.
    b) The media have not been able to find fault with most of his
schemes.
    c) He has used in-house IT to manage money distribution rather than
going for outside consultant firms. [D must hate him].

<languid wave>
There has been a good deal of hapless floundering by the government,
even allowing for the unprecedented[1] nature of what has been
happening, but RS does seem to have done a competent job. Of course, if
many of these measures had been introduced by Labour they would have
been Ludicrous Marxism and Ridiculously Fiscally Irresponsible - but
they're still largely sound, humane and imaginative whoever has
introduced them. I'm quite impressed with Mr Sunak.


[1]Surely the Word Of The Year?

[Mike]

Post by Sid Nuncius

 Bye bye Gavin - take Michael, Dominic (both of them), Robert and Rishi

Post by krw
with you as you go.

I strongly disagree with the above sentence on two counts.
1) You have left a lot out.
2) Rishi has done a competent job - which puts him head and shoulders
above the rest of the cabinet.
    a) He has kept his head below the parapet. No promises.
    b) The media have not been able to find fault with most of his
schemes.
    c) He has used in-house IT to manage money distribution rather than
going for outside consultant firms. [D must hate him].

<languid wave>
There has been a good deal of hapless floundering by the government,
even allowing for the unprecedented[1] nature of what has been
happening, but RS does seem to have done a competent job. Of course, if
many of these measures had been introduced by Labour they would have
been Ludicrous Marxism and Ridiculously Fiscally Irresponsible - but
they're still largely sound, humane and imaginative whoever has
introduced them. I'm quite impressed with Mr Sunak.
[1]Surely the Word Of The Year?

And a very bold move altogether.... keeping his nerve must be quite a
strain - would any of us have done as well or better?

[krw]

Of course, if many of these measures had been introduced by Labour they
would have been Ludicrous Marxism and Ridiculously Fiscally
Irresponsible - but they're still largely sound, humane and imaginative
whoever has introduced them.  I'm quite impressed with Mr Sunak.

He has thrown away for no good reason 10 years of austerity and borrowed
an awful lot of money we cannot afford to pay back. Sorry but if other
people had not taken wrong headed decisions then this would not have
happened. He has probably only done what he was told to do - but
unwinding it will take several lifetimes of something which looks and
sounds like austerity but has another name. A competent book keeper
would have told those around him to stop running around like headless
chicken and to keep the country running. But opinions may vary.

[Nick Leverton]

Post by krw

Of course, if many of these measures had been introduced by Labour they
would have been Ludicrous Marxism and Ridiculously Fiscally
Irresponsible - but they're still largely sound, humane and imaginative
whoever has introduced them.  I'm quite impressed with Mr Sunak.

He has thrown away for no good reason 10 years of austerity and borrowed
an awful lot of money we cannot afford to pay back. Sorry but if other
people had not taken wrong headed decisions then this would not have
happened. He has probably only done what he was told to do - but
unwinding it will take several lifetimes of something which looks and
sounds like austerity but has another name. A competent book keeper
would have told those around him to stop running around like headless
chicken and to keep the country running. But opinions may vary.

It is a serious economic mistake to imagine that national economies are
zero sum games and that small-business style bookkeeping is a suitable way
to run a country. A naive mistake which the wealthy and powerful have
knowingly relied on for over ten years, by using the excuse of a fake
austerity programme to funnel more and more money out of the national
economy and the country (in the guise of cutting it down and privatising
it) and into their own overseas pockets and inaccessible private funds.

Consider just one example: if you invest to build infrastructure,
you can earn more using it. You increase productivity and get more
income for the same outgoing. The increased productivity pays off the
investment, you don't have to pay anything back. It's stupidly naive
to insist that investing in things now will cause nothing but debt and
misery for future generations. We're building a country, *building*
it, *making* new things that are worth money in themselves, from people
and their hard work. Not debating whether to spend something on the
shop fittings or on a new till that we won't get back.

I could write more but it's not as if these are new ideas, or in any
way not mainstream. Economists on all sides of the political spectrum
agree on them. The only ones who promulgate the zero-sum nonsense are
those who work for the financiers and big businesses which are benefiting
from the fake austerity. With respect, krw, I'd recommend searching
out these varied opinions you mention and learning from them.

I would agree, on the evidence to date, that Mr. Sunak is the only member
of the present government, or indeed of the last three governments, who
appears to be running his part of the show in a practical and factually
based manner rather than engaging in fixed and counterproductive political
dogmas or in falsehoods, fantasies and fakery.

Nick

[Penny]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 14:53:32 +0000 (UTC), Nick Leverton <***@leverton.org>
scrawled in the dust...

Post by Nick Leverton
It is a serious economic mistake to imagine that national economies are
zero sum games and that small-business style bookkeeping is a suitable way
to run a country. A naive mistake which the wealthy and powerful have
knowingly relied on for over ten years, by using the excuse of a fake
austerity programme to funnel more and more money out of the national
economy and the country (in the guise of cutting it down and privatising
it) and into their own overseas pockets and inaccessible private funds.
Consider just one example: if you invest to build infrastructure,
you can earn more using it. You increase productivity and get more
income for the same outgoing. The increased productivity pays off the
investment, you don't have to pay anything back. It's stupidly naive
to insist that investing in things now will cause nothing but debt and
misery for future generations. We're building a country, *building*
it, *making* new things that are worth money in themselves, from people
and their hard work. Not debating whether to spend something on the
shop fittings or on a new till that we won't get back.

Thank you Nick, that is the most sensible thing I've read in a long time
about the 'way to run a country'. The previous piece I recall was Nevil
Shute in 'Trustee from the toolroom' (I think) airing his views on the
'brain drain' - all those clever people, who had been invested in with a
good British education, being enticed abroad by a worthy salary which they
could not find at home. I came late to that book but do recall my father,
in the 1960s, bemoaning a government who would not fund research (probably
around the time he turned down a job in the States).

[Nick Odell]

Post by Penny
scrawled in the dust...

Post by Nick Leverton
It is a serious economic mistake to imagine that national economies are
zero sum games and that small-business style bookkeeping is a suitable way
to run a country. A naive mistake which the wealthy and powerful have
knowingly relied on for over ten years, by using the excuse of a fake
austerity programme to funnel more and more money out of the national
economy and the country (in the guise of cutting it down and privatising
it) and into their own overseas pockets and inaccessible private funds.
Consider just one example: if you invest to build infrastructure,
you can earn more using it. You increase productivity and get more
income for the same outgoing. The increased productivity pays off the
investment, you don't have to pay anything back. It's stupidly naive
to insist that investing in things now will cause nothing but debt and
misery for future generations. We're building a country, *building*
it, *making* new things that are worth money in themselves, from people
and their hard work. Not debating whether to spend something on the
shop fittings or on a new till that we won't get back.

Thank you Nick, that is the most sensible thing I've read in a long time
about the 'way to run a country'. The previous piece I recall was Nevil
Shute in 'Trustee from the toolroom' (I think) airing his views on the
'brain drain' - all those clever people, who had been invested in with a
good British education, being enticed abroad by a worthy salary which they
could not find at home. I came late to that book but do recall my father,
in the 1960s, bemoaning a government who would not fund research (probably
around the time he turned down a job in the States).

+1

Nick: I keep trying to explain these things to others but you have
done it far more eloquently than I have ever managed. Thank you.

Nick

[krw]

Post by Nick Leverton
I could write more but it's not as if these are new ideas, or in any
way not mainstream. Economists on all sides of the political spectrum
agree on them. The only ones who promulgate the zero-sum nonsense are
those who work for the financiers and big businesses which are benefiting
from the fake austerity. With respect, krw, I'd recommend searching
out these varied opinions you mention and learning from them.

Nick

There is in my opinion a huge difference between investing in new
hospitals (where I seem to spend a lot of time), improving school
buildings and hopefully teachers, looking after other infrastructure
(railways, highways and docks) which increase productivity and develop
the future of the country and the expenditure Mr Sunak has undertaken
under instructions from his boss in recent months. The sort of money
spent in recent months has added to debt and when it becomes a burden as
interest rates return to some "new normal" then it becomes expensive to
service.

That is excess debt and the only solution to bringing that level of debt
back to an acceptable level (and I am not proposing zero debt) where it
is not a burden is for money to be taken out of the economy through
higher taxes and (I fear) through higher levels of inflation.

Austerity as a term has been wrongly used for the last 10 years and
provided a weapon to opposition parties. It did however mean that Mr
Sunak had the room to add debt without the IMF arriving to prop us up as
in the past. If inflation runs away that tends to be followed by higher
interest rates from the independent Bank of England which then makes the
debt burden feel like a burden.

So it is inevitable that there will be some action - not to eliminate
debt - but to bring it back to a point where there is a relation between
debt and investment and provides headroom should another emergency emerge.

[Penny]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 22:56:54 +0100, krw <***@whitnet.uk> scrawled in the
dust...

Post by krw
Austerity as a term has been wrongly used for the last 10 years and
provided a weapon to opposition parties. It did however mean that Mr
Sunak had the room to add debt without the IMF arriving to prop us up as
in the past.

Do you actually believe that?
From where I'm sitting, it looked like the government wasting shed-loads of
money on systems which worked badly and filled the pockets of the private
sector to wage war on the poor, the sick and the disabled while also
depriving them of the services which had previously been helping them (and
the rest of us) to survive.

[Vicky Ayech]

Post by Penny
dust...

Post by krw
Austerity as a term has been wrongly used for the last 10 years and
provided a weapon to opposition parties. It did however mean that Mr
Sunak had the room to add debt without the IMF arriving to prop us up as
in the past.

Do you actually believe that?
From where I'm sitting, it looked like the government wasting shed-loads of
money on systems which worked badly and filled the pockets of the private
sector to wage war on the poor, the sick and the disabled while also
depriving them of the services which had previously been helping them (and
the rest of us) to survive.

It looked like that from over here too. I must have the same view as
Penny.

[krw]

Post by Penny
dust...

Post by krw
Austerity as a term has been wrongly used for the last 10 years and
provided a weapon to opposition parties. It did however mean that Mr
Sunak had the room to add debt without the IMF arriving to prop us up as
in the past.

Do you actually believe that?
From where I'm sitting, it looked like the government wasting shed-loads of
money on systems which worked badly and filled the pockets of the private
sector to wage war on the poor, the sick and the disabled while also
depriving them of the services which had previously been helping them (and
the rest of us) to survive.

I am not sure which bit you are asking about. Very firmly I believe
that austerity was misuse of terminology for ten years (approximately
during which the Chancellors concerned (largely Osborne) sought to
ensure that borrowing was reduced but always at some future date which
always got further away each year and the term became a weapon for the
opposition to use. During this period there were some poor system
implementations - but many of those (given the gestation period
concerned) related to decisions taken earlier.

Having been in charge of an absolute balls-up of a system change I was
allowed to spend 10 years turning it into a spiffing system which met
the business needs, was liked by the users who acknowledged eventually
that the road had been painful but the benefits were there.

I have also had first hand experience in recent months of the way
investment and systems can bring good. The NHS (no doubt with others)
has built a wonderful new centre in Aldershot and my visits there have
been (sorry) world class in terms of organisation and being seen on time
and well treated by excellent staff. Alongside this although there was
a problem with my visit to RSH and the process did not happen to me I
could see how genuinely invested the individuals were, the numbers of
patients they were seeing and getting through the scanning machine -
such machines did not exist 15 years ago - and so there has been huge
investment in the hardware and the people over the intervening period.

Alongside this my daughter works for a firm which has to assess those on
long term benefits. Yes she sees those who are ill and need to have
those benefits and then there are the others - one who stole her purse
(silly girl for leaving it out) - and the one who read the newspaper
throughout the interview and did not answer any questions needed to
continue on their benefits. (I hope this observes GDPR). Plus the
entire range in between. There is an implication that some of those
receiving benefits may not meet the criteria. But every case is
assessed and that assessment is then reviewed. Mistakes are made but if
the individuals do the jobs correctly that is not waging war on the poor.

Sorry at the length of the diatribe but there are many sides to all
stories and my belief (which is where we started) is that some level of
husbandry has provided the headroom Sunak needed in an emergency. There
has to be some realisation that the same headroom needs to be reclaimed
for the next emergency if our politicians run around like headless
chickens visiting Barnard Castle the next time around!

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 14:53:32, Nick Leverton <***@leverton.org> wrote:
[]

Post by Nick Leverton
misery for future generations. We're building a country, *building*
it, *making* new things that are worth money in themselves, from people

I couldn't help thinking Soylent Green at that point.
[]

[Jenny M Benson]

Post by DavidK
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I think, I
caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of 10 and 12
*respectfully*" instead of respectively.

Welcome to Umra, Mr Malaprop.

[BrritSki]

Post by DavidK
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I think, I
caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of 10 and 12
*respectfully*" instead of respectively.

The Times yesterday reported that Gus O'Donnel had said that what the
Civil Service needed was not "a hard rain but an enervating shower".

Boggle. I went back to the original article and he'd actually written
"refreshing shower". Presumably the article writer thought that
enervating was the same thing as energising. :/

[DavidK]

Post by BrritSki

Post by DavidK
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I think,
I caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of 10 and
12 *respectfully*" instead of respectively.

The Times yesterday reported that Gus O'Donnel had said that what the
Civil Service needed was not "a hard rain but an enervating shower".
Boggle. I went back to the original article and he'd actually written
"refreshing shower".  Presumably the article writer thought that
enervating was the same thing as energising.  :/

I confess that I did too, for a while, just as I thought that bucolic
meant red-faced (as in a bucolic farmer). OTOH I did point out to the
BBC that signets don't hatch at a swannery.

[BrritSki]

Post by DavidK

Post by BrritSki

Post by DavidK
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I
think, I caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of
10 and 12 *respectfully*" instead of respectively.

The Times yesterday reported that Gus O'Donnel had said that what the
Civil Service needed was not "a hard rain but an enervating shower".
Boggle. I went back to the original article and he'd actually written
"refreshing shower".  Presumably the article writer thought that
enervating was the same thing as energising.  :/

I confess that I did too, for a while, just as I thought that bucolic
meant red-faced (as in a bucolic farmer). OTOH I did point out to the
BBC that signets don't hatch at a swannery.

Did you give them a ring ?

[Mike]

Post by BrritSki

Post by DavidK

Post by BrritSki

Post by DavidK
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I
think, I caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of
10 and 12 *respectfully*" instead of respectively.

The Times yesterday reported that Gus O'Donnel had said that what the
Civil Service needed was not "a hard rain but an enervating shower".
Boggle. I went back to the original article and he'd actually written
"refreshing shower".  Presumably the article writer thought that
enervating was the same thing as energising.  :/

I confess that I did too, for a while, just as I thought that bucolic
meant red-faced (as in a bucolic farmer). OTOH I did point out to the
BBC that signets don't hatch at a swannery.

Did you give them a ring ?

Too insignetificant a matter for that - unless you were just swanning
about.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by BrritSki

Post by DavidK

Post by BrritSki

Post by DavidK
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I
think, I caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of
10 and 12 *respectfully*" instead of respectively.

The Times yesterday reported that Gus O'Donnel had said that what the
Civil Service needed was not "a hard rain but an enervating shower".
Boggle. I went back to the original article and he'd actually written
"refreshing shower".  Presumably the article writer thought that
enervating was the same thing as energising.  :/

I confess that I did too, for a while, just as I thought that bucolic
meant red-faced (as in a bucolic farmer). OTOH I did point out to the
BBC that signets don't hatch at a swannery.

Did you give them a ring ?

Or put pen to paper?
(Just cob-ble something together at the last minute.)

[BrritSki]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by BrritSki

Post by DavidK

Post by BrritSki

Post by DavidK
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I
think, I caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows
of 10 and 12 *respectfully*" instead of respectively.

The Times yesterday reported that Gus O'Donnel had said that what
the Civil Service needed was not "a hard rain but an enervating
shower".
Boggle. I went back to the original article and he'd actually
written "refreshing shower".  Presumably the article writer thought
that enervating was the same thing as energising.  :/

I confess that I did too, for a while, just as I thought that bucolic
meant red-faced (as in a bucolic farmer). OTOH I did point out to the
BBC that signets don't hatch at a swannery.

Did you give them a ring ?

Or put pen to paper?
(Just cob-ble something together at the last minute.)

I see you're upping the ante there Sam :)

[Mike]

Post by BrritSki

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by BrritSki

Post by DavidK

Post by BrritSki

Post by DavidK
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I
think, I caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows
of 10 and 12 *respectfully*" instead of respectively.

The Times yesterday reported that Gus O'Donnel had said that what
the Civil Service needed was not "a hard rain but an enervating
shower".
Boggle. I went back to the original article and he'd actually
written "refreshing shower".  Presumably the article writer thought
that enervating was the same thing as energising.  :/

I confess that I did too, for a while, just as I thought that bucolic
meant red-faced (as in a bucolic farmer). OTOH I did point out to the
BBC that signets don't hatch at a swannery.

Did you give them a ring ?

Or put pen to paper?
(Just cob-ble something together at the last minute.)

I see you're upping the ante there Sam :)

You’ve got some neck!

[Penny]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 09:24:39 +0100, DavidK <***@invalid.invalid> scrawled
in the dust...

Post by DavidK
PS more embarrassment. I just had to edit elsewhere; happily, I think, I
caught it after I wrote "algorithms A and B have windows of 10 and 12
*respectfully*" instead of respectively.

If it's any consolation, one of the first things I put down to the constant
low-level stress of the plague was an increase in my typing errors and a
(new) inability to figure out how the word I intended to use is actually
spelt. Which for someone who spends far too much of her time editing the
errors of others can only be embarrassing :(