A place for those passionate about port, and for those new to it. We hold lots of Port tastings: please join us!
https://www.theportforum.com/
I apologise and retract the wicked libel. It should have been apparent to me that you were checking the soundness and security of your cellar, and whilst there, realised that several of the bins might need their contents re-checking too, so carefully selected from each a bottle of median fill level. A very sensible absence, and a brief one.djewesbury wrote:Run away?
Nothing like that at all.‟blackleg” wrote:Both involved registering a domain name?
I think that following a ballot of my members (me, the dogs, an empty half bottle of champagne, a half full bottle of Rhone and a full decanter of Tesco 94) I am instructing my members to return to work.djewesbury wrote:Management are always coming out with sly tactics like this. The strike goes on. If any blacklegs want to answer Julian's question, they may do so, but they will have to cross the picket line.
But that was on the previous page. This is a different entrance to the works. (Yes, I know what post is coming next.)djewesbury wrote:but they will have to cross the picket line.
The bribe worked perfectly.LGTrotter wrote:I think that folloowing a ballot of my members (me, the dogs, an empty half bottle of champagne, a half full bottle of Rhone and a full decanter of Tesco 94) I am instructing my members to return to work.
jdaw1 wrote:Though I have realised that LGTrotter+JDAW+PhilW can drink Quinta do Noval Nacional.
You crumpled too soon. I was about to observe that DJ+DRT+DRT+DJ+DJ+DRT+DRT+DJ can drink Quinta do Noval Nacional, but instead the bottle can go back in the cellar.djewesbury wrote:The strike has crumbled thanks to Owen (aka 'Silver Birch') and his Nottinghamshire, UDM dogs.
Each and every random question I or somebody else has asked has not been ‟important to this thread”. (That’s a no.)djewesbury wrote:Did it involve Companies House?
DRT wrote:I just remembered that I gave up on socialism in the 1980s.
What is the new question?
jdaw1 wrote:Something happened last Friday. Something similar happened previously, and was important to this thread. What did the two things have in common?Back on page 183 jdaw1 wrote:I have a good question, but it has only a few hours shelf life remaining. So I’d like to win. But this objective is slightly hampered by my having no idea what the answer might be.
Only after a fair ballot of all members, Arthur.djewesbury wrote:The strike has crumbled thanks to Owen (aka 'Silver Birch') and his Nottinghamshire, UDM dogs.
We never gave in.
Completely wrong, but worth following.DRT wrote:A person won the quiz for the first time, therefore giving us a new questioner?
I do not own any slippers.djewesbury wrote:You bought slippers.
I do not own an owl mask. Nor have I ever worn one.LGTrotter wrote:You put on an owl mask and roamed Hampstead Heath.
(Aside: is that all for yourself, all for this evening? My!)LGTrotter wrote:I think that following a ballot of my members (me, the dogs, an empty half bottle of champagne, a half full bottle of Rhone and a full decanter of Tesco 94) I am instructing my members to return to work.
jdaw1 wrote:Each and every random question I or somebody else has asked has not been ‟important to this thread”. (That’s a no.)
If the domain in question had been theportforum.com it would have been important to this thread as it couldn't have existed otherwise.PhilW wrote:Both involved registering a domain name?
No.djewesbury wrote:You put on a pussycat mask, and roamed Hampstead Heath.
Is that:jdaw1 wrote:Completely wrong, but worth following.DRT wrote:A person won the quiz for the first time, therefore giving us a new questioner?
You seem to know that this is wrong.PhilW wrote:Did you watch a quiz show being recorded live? (stretching "important" too far, probably)
jdaw1 wrote:jdaw1 wrote:Something happened last Friday. Something similar happened previously, and was important to this thread. What did the two things have in common?Back on page 183 jdaw1 wrote:I have a good question, but it has only a few hours shelf life remaining. So I’d like to win. But this objective is slightly hampered by my having no idea what the answer might be.
a.DRT wrote:Is that:jdaw1 wrote:Completely wrong, but worth following.DRT wrote:A person won the quiz for the first time, therefore giving us a new questioner?
a) worth following that line of thought to get to the answer, or;
b) worth following the incidence of new participants in the quiz for some other reason.
How very puritanical (almost American?) of you to notice. The champagne I shared, the rhone I drank myself and the port I doubt I shall get too far with.jdaw1 wrote:(Aside: is that all for yourself, all for this evening? My!)LGTrotter wrote:I think that following a ballot of my members (me, the dogs, an empty half bottle of champagne, a half full bottle of Rhone and a full decanter of Tesco 94) I am instructing my members to return to work.
There are two things. Port was involved in both of them, as you know for the one important to this thread.djewesbury wrote:Is port involved in any direct way?
Important to this thread, but not of greater importance.PhilW wrote:jdaw1 wrote:Each and every random question I or somebody else has asked has not been ‟important to this thread”. (That’s a no.)If the domain in question had been theportforum.com it would have been important to this thread as it couldn't have existed otherwise.PhilW wrote:Both involved registering a domain name?
I was concerned for you. Knowing, as I do, that the Tesco 1994 does not come in magnums, I wondered whether the night-cap would be brandy or whisky.LGTrotter wrote:How very puritanical (almost American?) of you to notice. The champagne I shared, the rhone I drank myself and the port I doubt I shall get too far with.jdaw1 wrote:(Aside: is that all for yourself, all for this evening? My!)LGTrotter wrote:I think that following a ballot of my members (me, the dogs, an empty half bottle of champagne, a half full bottle of Rhone and a full decanter of Tesco 94) I am instructing my members to return to work.
Of course: as in, "Is that all?"jdaw1 wrote:I was concerned for you. Knowing, as I do, that the Tesco 1994 does not come in magnums, I wondered whether the night-cap would be brandy or whisky.LGTrotter wrote:How very puritanical (almost American?) of you to notice. The champagne I shared, the rhone I drank myself and the port I doubt I shall get too far with.jdaw1 wrote:(Aside: is that all for yourself, all for this evening? My!)LGTrotter wrote:I think that following a ballot of my members (me, the dogs, an empty half bottle of champagne, a half full bottle of Rhone and a full decanter of Tesco 94) I am instructing my members to return to work.
Both were private, but you have previously been told about the one ‟important to this thread”.djewesbury wrote:The something that happened last Friday; was this a 'public' or 'private' occurrence? Would we have read it in the newspaper, or would we have been told about it by a friend?
Old chap, of course. At this time of year he wouldn’t have had much Pimms in the afternoon, but he might have started with a warming ale or three.djewesbury wrote:Of course: as in, "Is that all?"jdaw1 wrote:I was concerned for you. Knowing, as I do, that the Tesco 1994 does not come in magnums, I wondered whether the night-cap would be brandy or whisky.LGTrotter wrote:How very puritanical (almost American?) of you to notice. The champagne I shared, the rhone I drank myself and the port I doubt I shall get too far with.jdaw1 wrote:(Aside: is that all for yourself, all for this evening? My!)LGTrotter wrote:I think that following a ballot of my members (me, the dogs, an empty half bottle of champagne, a half full bottle of Rhone and a full decanter of Tesco 94) I am instructing my members to return to work.
Someone needs now to ask a question relating to the exponential growth of this thread. But it's not my turn.jdaw1 wrote:Both were private, but you have previously been told about the one ‟important to this thread”.djewesbury wrote:The something that happened last Friday; was this a 'public' or 'private' occurrence? Would we have read it in the newspaper, or would we have been told about it by a friend?
Behind the scenes collusion by participants intended to prolong the agony of a questioner?jdaw1 wrote:Both were private, but you have previously been told about the one ‟important to this thread”.djewesbury wrote:The something that happened last Friday; was this a 'public' or 'private' occurrence? Would we have read it in the newspaper, or would we have been told about it by a friend?
I warned you never to utter those words in front of him. There is nothing I can do to help you now.djewesbury wrote:exponential growth
Do you know what an ‟exponential” function is, and what its properties are? Look us in the eye and say that you do.djewesbury wrote:Someone needs now to ask a question relating to the exponential growth of this thread. But it's not my turn.
I can't watch. This is going to be horrible.DRT wrote:I warned you never to utter those words in front of him. There is nothing I can do to help you now.djewesbury wrote:exponential growth
You really wouldn’t enjoy seeing my legs. However, I remind you:LGTrotter wrote:C'mon Julian show a bit of leg!
jdaw1 wrote:a.DRT wrote:Is that:jdaw1 wrote:Completely wrong, but worth following.DRT wrote:A person won the quiz for the first time, therefore giving us a new questioner?
a) worth following that line of thought to get to the answer, or;
b) worth following the incidence of new participants in the quiz for some other reason.
?DRT wrote:Behind the scenes collusion by participants intended to prolong the agony of a questioner?jdaw1 wrote:Both were private, but you have previously been told about the one ‟important to this thread”.djewesbury wrote:The something that happened last Friday; was this a 'public' or 'private' occurrence? Would we have read it in the newspaper, or would we have been told about it by a friend?
Nothing relevant to this question is ‟behind the scenes” by me. You all have equal information, if only you could remember it.DRT wrote:Behind the scenes collusion by participants intended to prolong the agony of a questioner?jdaw1 wrote:Both were private, but you have previously been told about the one ‟important to this thread”.djewesbury wrote:The something that happened last Friday; was this a 'public' or 'private' occurrence? Would we have read it in the newspaper, or would we have been told about it by a friend?
Do you want to propose it but are too shy or are you actually proposing it?LGTrotter wrote:I want to propose that we do a 'greatest hits' of questions on this thread. Introduced by Webb from Mitchell and Webb it could go on for five hours on E4.
Seriously we should do it.
Eek. Maths klaxon. Daniel; just go to page 183 and look at what happened new. OK.djewesbury wrote:Of course I do. Are you still over-excited? Were we to plot the frequency of postings on this thread on a graph, we would see a logarithmic curve described. To me, that is 'exponential growth'.
I think we would see spikes followed by periods of nothingness with occasional sustained plateaus of high activity. That isn't an exponential curve.djewesbury wrote:Of course I do. Are you still over-excited? Were we to plot the frequency of postings on this thread on a graph, we would see a logarithmic curve described. To me, that is 'exponential growth'.
Er.. what? I'm not too shy as anyone on #nudieselfie can vouchsafe. I just thought it was a scorcher of an idea. But I have been drinking.DRT wrote:Do you want to propose it but are too shy or are you actually proposing it?LGTrotter wrote:I want to propose that we do a 'greatest hits' of questions on this thread. Introduced by Webb from Mitchell and Webb it could go on for five hours on E4.
Seriously we should do it.
So close.DRT wrote:periods of nothingness
jdaw1 wrote:jdaw1 wrote:Something happened last Friday. Something similar happened previously, and was important to this thread. What did the two things have in common?Back on page 183 jdaw1 wrote:I have a good question, but it has only a few hours shelf life remaining. So I’d like to win. But this objective is slightly hampered by my having no idea what the answer might be.
jdaw1 wrote:a.DRT wrote:Is that:jdaw1 wrote:Completely wrong, but worth following.DRT wrote:A person won the quiz for the first time, therefore giving us a new questioner?
a) worth following that line of thought to get to the answer, or;
b) worth following the incidence of new participants in the quiz for some other reason.
Important to this thread, but not of greater importance.PhilW wrote:jdaw1 wrote:Each and every random question I or somebody else has asked has not been ‟important to this thread”. (That’s a no.)If the domain in question had been theportforum.com it would have been important to this thread as it couldn't have existed otherwise.PhilW wrote:Both involved registering a domain name?
Both were private, but you have previously been told about the one ‟important to this thread”.djewesbury wrote:The something that happened last Friday; was this a 'public' or 'private' occurrence? Would we have read it in the newspaper, or would we have been told about it by a friend?
So close.DRT wrote:periods of nothingness