³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

This is worrying

Comments

1. At 12:22 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

   Well, Eddie, I can only apologise.

   Dr. H is clearly the turtle. The other picture keeps flashing 'mail 17' at me, so it's clearly a transvestite. That opens it up a bit, don't you think?

2. At 12:28 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

   Okay, Brian/Elaine: own up!

3. At 12:31 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

   I did say that, yes. And I can easily post the text in full over at that flickr place (other places available), should anybody even care...

   Well, I can’t see why you’d worry about receiving this particular image. I approve. And indeed, in the vernacular, I’m a fan! Great!

4. At 01:06 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Rufus T. Firefly wrote:

   Sultry or what!

5. At 01:34 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

   Another slow blog day .... I'm signing off.

6. At 01:35 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

   Gulp!! Kate O'Mara has now been superceded in the sultry stakes!

7. At 01:37 PM on 12 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

   Oh, go on! I admit it, it's me.

8. At 01:40 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Chris the Pickle wrote:

   Re: 4 - What!!

9. At 01:41 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Nick Firth wrote:

   Does anyone have the link to the spoof Webcameron mentioned in the Newsletter?

10. At 01:52 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Eddie Mair wrote:

11. At 02:09 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

    
    tRY THIS ONE, nICK.
    
    XX
    ED

12. At 02:33 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

    Nice one Eddie. I heard the fella in the video describe his effort as 'funny' and 'satirical'. Whilst it may be the latter, it certainly ain't the former.

13. At 04:17 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

    I notice no-one is claiming to be the Frogger in question... I've a suspicion of who it may be, but I'd rather not say as that could annoy others, particularly if I'm wrong....

14. At 04:33 PM on 12 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Fearless, I admitted it was me earlier. I must admit that it was taken a couple of years ago - and I haven't aged as well as I might have.

15. At 04:35 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

    FF

    Yes, I very nearly posted my thoughts on the matter, and elected to say nothing.

    Wasn't someone complaining about their postcard not being posted the other day? could it be them...

16. At 04:55 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    You are quite wrong Fearless - John H has admitted it is him! As for "Mail 17", nah - I reckon "Femail, quite a bit older than that" (sorry JH!).

    What has Big Sister started?

    Doc, you make a lovely turtle (mail, 18, apparently)!

17. At 05:14 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

    Ah, you see I think that John H. has thrown that in as a smokescreen... The real frogger is still out there...

18. At 05:16 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Wally Winker wrote:

    re 14

    I am Spartaca.

19. At 05:17 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Whisht wrote:

    strange that a "No! I am Spartacus" didn't move within us all when prompted to admit to be the person in question.

    In fact, more of a "No! I'm not Spartacus! She is!!"

20. At 05:18 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Ruud Fortt wrote:

    re14

    No! I am Spartaca!

21. At 06:16 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Frances O wrote:

    Doc, great postcard, but I can't read the text under the pics.

    If you're feeling kind, let me know...

    ps neither pic is of me.

22. At 06:49 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

    Tiger Shark, Loggerhead Turtle, Harbor Porpoise, Spotfin Butterfly Fish.

    Do I get a prize?

23. At 07:09 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

    I am feeling kind, although I will also let you in on the fact that it wasn’t actually a postcard.

    Nevertheless, the text reads Tiger Shark, Loggerhead Turtle, Harbor Porpoise and Spotfin Butterflyfish - yes, really.

    I feel I almost have to start an unofficial fanclub for ‘Mail17’, so a name would be nice...

24. At 07:27 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

    Andy, you get a no-prize. Artistic licence, or postcardistic licence, or sadistic licence, has led you to insert a space where there isn’t one.

25. At 07:46 PM on 12 Oct 2006, wrote:

    My "No, I'm Sparticus" still holds from the day of Eleanor/Brian prize winning.

26. At 07:52 PM on 12 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Fearless, you're a spoilsport. It is me. I'm lovely.

    Other than that, I'm confused by some of the other references - has there been a number shift? And Drinks, sorry, I guess I'm meant to understand something, but don't. I guess that means that your apology isn't required.

    Hm, now there's an interesting thought, what is the status of an apology for a minor slight that went completely over the head of the person it was aimed at?

27. At 07:53 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    That's harsh Doc - only a space out and no prize? Poor AndyCRat!

    Although, to be contrary, I can read it quite easily, so why is being able to reproduce what you can see worth a prize AndyCraHa!?

    Oh I think I might be indecisive today...

28. At 09:14 PM on 12 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Doc H, why does she need to be celebrated, does she have a birthday this month or something (her and a host of other froggers that is)??

29. At 09:41 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    The "Sorry", John H, was for suggesting that you are "femail and somewhat older than 17" by the look of your photo. It is, of course, for you to decide how minor/otherwise you find that 'slight'.

    Or is it actually Mrs H?

30. At 10:32 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    I have my reasons, as the saying goes. It says that she is a regular poster - presumably not the kind that you put up on your wall, or not until now at least - so I hope she appreciates our appreciation. You know who you are - would seem a redundant turn of phrase.

31. At 10:56 PM on 12 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    I'm sensing the boys like that photo more than the girls do.

32. At 11:10 PM on 12 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    to my mind she could do with a good laugh - seems a bit peeved to me... were you about to take someone's head off??

33. At 11:17 AM on 13 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Or a slap, whisht (32).

    You see, Drinks, you're doing it again. It's the "mail"/"femail" thing. I hadn't got a clue what Big Sis was trying to say, and then you pitched in as well and I've been trying to work out the joke behind mail and femail. It's just dawned on me that it might be a genuine mistake (male/female), but that seems SO unsatisfactory. Please put me out of my misery. Otherwise, I'm going to be thinking about it (Daily Mail, the magazine, etc, etc.) all day.

    As for the other thing, yes, Kirsty. Have I already said that somewhere else? If my timing is right, this should arrive on the old frog just after a new one has been published.

34. At 01:02 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    John H (33),

    It's really not that complicated - Big Sister, in an attempt to narrow down the frogger's identity right at the top of this blog, pointed out that, if one holds ones mouse over the photos, the words "Mail 17" and "Mail 18" appear (with the suffix .jpg actually). Clearly this is the reference given by Eddie/someone else on the office to the scanned image, but Big Sister made an observation playing on the word "mail" and interpreting it as "male"... I really should have told you to just read this thread from the beginning!...

    btw, I am disturbed by the idea that you might want to slap the photographee.

    And who is Kirsty and what are you on about there then?

35. At 02:48 PM on 13 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    "slap" - figure of speech, as in "oo, he needs a good slap" - as a counterpoint to whisht's "good laugh". Clearly I was attempting to mine mirth where there was none to be had.

    Your other explanation was all redundant after you said about the name of the picture file.... Firefox doesn't display text when you hover unless an "alt" is specified in the html. IE does (nice feature, actually). This was completely lost on me. As soon as you tell me that, it all makes perfect sense. I just had no starting point from which to fit it all together. I am now at peace with this frog.

    So then, Drinks, is it you? No sign of false teeth, though.

36. At 03:37 PM on 13 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    "At peace with this frog" - I like it.

    Of course it's me.

37. At 06:18 PM on 13 Oct 2006, John H. wrote:

    Hm (36), I anticipate fireworks when Fearless gets home from work.

38. At 09:36 PM on 13 Oct 2006, wrote:

    I’m afraid I rather hoped it would be. Good to know.

39. At 10:10 PM on 13 Oct 2006, wrote:

    I shall say nothing

40. At 10:02 PM on 14 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Oh, I was being ironic.

41. At 12:30 AM on 15 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    I’m only a doctor, after all, and am afraid I’m a bit lost. At which point were you being ironic?

42. At 08:23 PM on 15 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    I don't know - I go away for a few days and all this happens. And we still don't know who Brian/Elaine is.

    I'm the wrong sex to make an objective comment on the person in question, but I guess sultry does apply.

    Perhaps there's a link between Wolf's piccie and this 'lassie' and s/he's actually Red Riding Hood in disguise?

    Personally, I still think its a trannie. Wonderful bit of makeup, though.

43. At 10:00 PM on 15 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    right - its Big Sister herself then.

    gotta be. She'd never have made those comments about someone else.

    so.... "next!" c'mon c'mon... get yer piccies out!!

44. At 10:03 AM on 16 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Whisht - Believe me, if I were 'she' I'd 'fess up. But I ain't. Wrong hair , wrong size, wrong era.
    Shame, really.
    Big Sis.

45. At 12:00 PM on 16 Oct 2006, The Woman in the Photo wrote:

    A couple of things:

    1. Thanks to those who complimented my picture. It had not occurred to me that I appeared "sultry". It was taken by my father so was certainly not an attempt at such. We were at a family party (hence the party dress) and I was tired but happy, leaning against the wall watching people dancing and oblivious to the camera. I chose this picture as it was the first relatively recent one I came across that only had me in it.

    2. It was Big Sister who wanted to see photos of all the regulars, so her derision and apparent distaste for my photo is a little upsetting - but only a little. I can only assume she is jealous of some of the nice things some of the others have said (mostly male as has already been pointed out somewhere).

46. At 01:04 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    TWIT(P) - Oh, and BTW, I don't want to see photos of ALL the regulars. In fact, I didn't expect anyone to take the suggestion TOO seriously (hence my misunderstanding re your entry)

47. At 01:15 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Hmmm, this is worrying. After TWIT(P)'s entry, I posted an apology, which has failed to appear in the blog, so clearly lost somewhere in the ether. Hence my latest posting now makes no sense whatsoever.

    Hello, who ever is on Blog Duty today, Is this an attempt to make our efforts even more surreal?

    Must be time for lunch.

48. At 04:16 PM on 16 Oct 2006, The Woman in the Photo wrote:

    Sure you did.

    If we are going with acronyms we all know what BS stands for.

49. At 06:41 PM on 16 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Gosh, TWIT(P), I do seem to have rattled your cage!
    Let's cool it over a glass of Sancerre, or whatever.