



Results 256 to 270 of 458
Thread: The Code of Practice
-
3rd August 2006, 11:10 AM #256
Further pondering on the above has revealed to me an alarming paradox, which I hope you can put right. In essence, we are saying that to read a manual is not acceptable under the code. If the code itself can in any way be construed as a "manual", well you can see the dangerous position this puts us in.
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
3rd August 2006, 11:25 AM #257
Originally Posted by silentC
....and as for
Originally Posted by silentC
1. It's the Code, man, the Code. It's not a manual. They're for fools with tools (as opposed to blokes, you understand).
2. And you're calling me up!?! :eek:
3.Driver of the Forums
Lord of the Manor of Upper Legover
-
3rd August 2006, 11:32 AM #258
Ok, well if you are sure it's not a manual, then I suppose it's alright. I haven't read it yet, just to be safe.
I suppose it's a bit like the old test of witchery. They push you off a cliff, if you survive you're a witch, if you die you're not. If you read the code and it confirms what you already know, then you are a bloke. But if you learn something from it, then you are not and never can be a true bloke."I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
3rd August 2006, 11:34 AM #259
-
3rd August 2006, 11:53 AM #260
Did you know that Derryn Hinch never actually said that?
"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
3rd August 2006, 12:05 PM #261
Originally Posted by silentC
We don't have to know the rules so therefore we are all innocent
-
3rd August 2006, 12:31 PM #262
Originally Posted by silentC
Now what is this with you pushing the witches off me???? :confused:Cliff.
If you find a post of mine that is missing a pic that you'd like to see, let me know & I'll see if I can find a copy.
-
3rd August 2006, 12:44 PM #263
I always thought that Derryn Hinch is the guy from fast forward. Don't blame me, you guys all look the same so how can I tell the difference.
Visit my website at www.myFineWoodWork.com
-
3rd August 2006, 01:00 PM #264
Originally Posted by silentC
- you're a member of the Drafting Committee.
Originally Posted by silentC
Originally Posted by silentC
Originally Posted by echnidna
Driver of the Forums
Lord of the Manor of Upper Legover
-
3rd August 2006, 01:26 PM #265
Originally Posted by Driver
-
6th August 2006, 09:10 AM #266
G'day blokes,
Firstly, what a top thread, chuckles and even a guffaw or two while at work the other day. It occurred to me this weekend ( a domestic one) that there is probably room for some general observations on colours.
Puce, lilac, taup etc are definitely not bloke colours, it is probably not even permissable for a bloke to use these in general conversation. THere are a couple of very borderline ones, pink and beige etc. We all know that timber can be available in pink prime and there are particularly blokey things that are always pink. Beige is pretty borderline, but a necessity to avoid colours like taup, lilac and puce.
Matt
-
6th August 2006, 12:21 PM #267
Originally Posted by macman
Mick"If you need a machine today and don't buy it,
tomorrow you will have paid for it and not have it."
- Henry Ford 1938
-
6th August 2006, 12:31 PM #268
There's a colour called 'taup'? :confused:
Mate (lowers voice and looks over shoulder), I have a vague disquiet about this. It might even be a Code violation to know that there's a colour called taup. :eek: And puce? Isn't that what happens when you've had far too many blokely drinks followed by a kebab?Driver of the Forums
Lord of the Manor of Upper Legover
-
7th August 2006, 09:34 AM #269
It's ok, he didn't spell it right, so he's OK.
OH NO! I've just outed myself. Quick, think of something. How 'bout those Wallabies, eh?"I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
-
7th August 2006, 10:27 AM #270
Originally Posted by silentC
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Bookmarks