Heartland

This came in the mail to our office. I present it with no further comment...

what fancy font did he use to type that out?

I reckon the real mystery has to be how the Post Office only took 11 weeks to deliver the letter (assuming the date is correct and it's just arrived). Is this some kind of record? Is the postman the toast of the sorting office now, "Ernie, the Fastest Postie in the West"?

I wrote that for your eyes only!

What a overzealous c**t.

EvilBastard wrote:I reckon the real mystery has to be how the Post Office only took 11 weeks to deliver the letter (assuming the date is correct and it's just arrived). Is this some kind of record? Is the postman the toast of the sorting office now, "Ernie, the Fastest Postie in the West"?

I've heard about a Christmas card that took over 100 years to arrive (it fell in a chimney IIRC) and others over 50 years (got lost between machines and cupboards I think). Never had anything that bad myself though

But I cannot read this handwriting, I'm afraid (says the one with a very legible handwriting )

Erm, any chance of a transcription? I'm buggered if I can read that

Who's Mary

Hom_Corleone wrote:Who's Mary

didn't you know that's what Mark gets up to on the weekends when he's away from here?

Motz wrote:Erm, any chance of a transcription? I'm buggered if I can read that

ditto

Oh! and I got a book from a strange Belgian Bloke today, what was he thinking of?

James Blast wrote:Oh! and I got a book from a strange Belgian Bloke today, what was he thinking of?

't was the Nac Mac Feegle! Really!


IZ.

Just saw something about a Cat of Nine Tails in there. Brrrrr. Not too sure a transcription would be wise.

Unless it gives us an excuse to do Pirates again! Arrrrr.

good GRIEF, children, it's perfectly readable.

emilystrange wrote:good GRIEF, children, it's perfectly readable.

Aha, a volunteer?

Obviousman wrote:

emilystrange wrote:good GRIEF, children, it's perfectly readable.

Aha, a volunteer?

ONly a teacher or a GP could decipher that. Or Tom Hanks in the Da Vinci code.

Hom_Corleone wrote:

Obviousman wrote:

emilystrange wrote:good GRIEF, children, it's perfectly readable.

Aha, a volunteer?

ONly a teacher or a GP could decipher that. Or Tom Hanks in the Da Vinci code.

If Zeno needs 4 or 5 Vodkas to understand me, maybe a few drinks is what's needed to read this

scotty wrote:

Hom_Corleone wrote:

Obviousman wrote: Aha, a volunteer?

ONly a teacher or a GP could decipher that. Or Tom Hanks in the Da Vinci code.

If Zeno needs 4 or 5 Vodkas to understand me, maybe a few drinks is what's needed to read this

You don't want to know what I need to decipher my own handwriting even I'm always very surprise my mail arrives round the world

does anyone mind if i do it tomorrow? i only have 20 more mins, and am temping full time this week. sigh.

You really want to do it? Take your time

It's all bollocks about how we should still be beating kids as "a deterrent", and how the Government should, and I quote, (because I can read it) "get back to the Holy Scriptures for instruction in righteousness and not lean on their own understanding".

So a rough translation would be "Don't write laws based on what we know now, base right and wrong on the nth translation of a book written thousands of years ago by ill-educated people who didn't know any better."

Yes, that's a good way of running a country, isn't it? </oozing scarcasm>

where do you work Markfiend? Number 10?

Hom_Corleone wrote:

Obviousman wrote:

emilystrange wrote:good GRIEF, children, it's perfectly readable.

Aha, a volunteer?

ONly a teacher or a GP could decipher that. Or Tom Hanks in the Da Vinci code.

Or the person who wrote it.

Just had a very brief scan through.

Obviously deranged. This kind of person needs help more than anything else.

Dark wrote:"get back to the Holy Scriptures for instruction in righteousness and not lean on their own understanding".

Right. Because our interpretation of sources is somehow more credible than our interpretation of experience. Obviously.

Motz wrote:

Dark wrote:"get back to the Holy Scriptures for instruction in righteousness and not lean on their own understanding".

Right. Because our interpretation of sources is somehow more credible than our interpretation of experience. Obviously.

Well obviously. We can't have people making up their own minds about things, now.