We don't seem to have stopped since getting home from Zoe's Blogmeet last Saturday. On Sunday morning we were on the road at 9a.m. and drove across to the midlands to spend a couple of days with my brother (who blogs as Crowbard) and his wife Judy. Spent the next couple of days generally nattering, meeting up with four generations of Carl and Judy's family (yes it was four generations, Crowbard - Olive, Carl and Judy, Jess and Paul, and their daughter Lottie) catching up with family news and generally putting the world to rights. I do hope the world feels some benefit from our efforts. On Tuesday morning, after breakfast, we motored home, and spent the rest of that day preparing for the Long Melford Antique Fair on Wednesday. Loaded the car and was on the road by seven ack emma. It was a good fair - didn't buy anything, though. Still, sold a good deal of stock, so must now start trying to find more goodies. Got two good Auctions coming up, one local (which we viewed this afternoon - some promising lots) and one Sotheby's so should find some decent goodies before the next Long Melford Fair. Hope so anyway.
Regards to all readers.
10 comments:
All that and you have time to cultivate superb roses ~ and take jolly good photos of 'em too!
It may come as a surprise, but I've been able to count up to four for quite some time now, Mike ~ and yes, generations are complicated arrangements of people, but whom do you reckon to be the family genealogist? ~ even if I am becoming a shambling old bumble-brain! Not every family tree has reference to Babylonian cuneiform records with early Hebrew, Greek and Latin influences.
Thank you both so much for the very great pleasure of your company, Jude and I had a whale of a time (even if the excitement did overwhelm me occasionally). We appreciate the effort you both make to get over here, but are selfish enough to hope that you will come again soon. Please.
You two are always busy! I think we have the same yellow rose that is in your top photo. We have no idea how it got in our garden....did you send it?
Hello Lori. Just been out to look at the rose. There's no name on it, but it's a lovely gold/yellow rose with a good scent to it. As I have no memory of sending you a rose bush, I can only think it got there by the Trade Winds.......???????
Hello Crowbard. Thank you for your note, and for a lovely couple of days away. You, of course, are the family genealogist; I am but a poor, hard working, antiquarian Horologist. We will try and get over again before too long.
Love, Mike and Ann.
Hi Mike, While all of what we have writ herein is verifiable and politish, I am deeply concerned. I simply cannot find your usual obscure but pointed crushing rejoinder, nor any sub-text hinting thereof.
Alpha-male Horners do not roll over and lick hands, whimpering the while, without taking a precise alignment upon the jugular vein (or possibly carotid artery if they are in a hurry) of their protagonist (victim). I now have a stiff neck having spent the last three days looking over my shoulder.
Esteemed and noble (though poor from a life of charitable works and weary from same selfless efforts) maestro-mirabili, resurrector of defunct temporal quantifiers and beloved pack-leader, I beseech you to strike swiftly, or are you perhaps a little unwell? I do hope you recover soon if the latter be the case.
Dear younger (though now septuagenarian) sibling. I am perhaps slowing up a little (but don't bank on it), and I do not fully understand your immediately previous but slightly obtuse communication. To cut the matter down to absolute basics and thus avoid any verbal confustification, 'crushing rejoinder' to WHAT?
I await any enlightenment with interest - or rather with some curiosity.
Senior sibling regards - Mike.
P.s. Although I do sometimes think that the correct reaction to any communication that might be the in the slightest degree intensionally offensive, is to ignore it totally, so that the offender has to try harder and make his intentions obviously offensive. Perhaps you are being toooo subtle for me ????????
P.s. Correction:-
intentionally (X 100).
Aaaahh! I see, for this relief much thanks. Certainly no offense intended on my part.
The WHAT to which I referred was my 'whom do you reckon to be the family genealogist?'
your reply 'You, of course, are the family genealogist;' appeared to be a complete acceptance of the fact and thereby honoured me as a genealogists. I fear your computer failed to print the sneer with which you uttered the word, which would have fulfilled my expectations of a crushing response.
By family genealogist I mean a keen far-sighted and dedicated researcher of obscure historic facts who applies his unbending logic and dogged will power with integrity to his discoveries and retrieves long forgotten relatives from obscure documentation, synthesising therefrom an unshakable lineage of over 6000 years. I entirely misread your sense of family genealogist which probably means 'a daft old codger who knits together odds and ends of old folk lore, fiddling and jiggling till it hangs together more or less on a whim and a prayer'.
Fooled me again Mike, I presumed for an unguarded moment that we had a commonality of respect for the word. Glad I find you well.
Really Crowbard! No sneer intended. I know nothing of genealogy, you asked a rhetorical (?) question, and my answer was honest and open. I think your use of Usser's dates most ingenious.
The fashion in Anglican circles these days is to sneer at Bishop Ussher's dates, but, when used sensibly I find them useful. I had to read a lesson some weeks ago regarding the proposed sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, and using those dates made it clear that the incident must have been set in the bronze age, which helped to explain the fact that Abraham carried fire (rather than a flint and steel, which would have been impossible at that date, although infinitely more convenient later on).
Post a Comment