It's five or six miles to the station, starting with 350yards of potholed muddy second-gear drive, and coming back is the same the other way round.
I've just taken a 21-y-old granddaughter to the station. On the way back her phone, which she had abandoned in the car, rang but I didn't answer. When I got home though Herself said she reallyreallyreally needed the phone and made me speak to the evil child. The evil child said she reallyreallyreallyreally had to have the phone and I reluctantly agreed to go back to the station with it.
Herself said I had been 'saintly', and I could only agree. The evil child said as she took the phone that she was reallyreallyreally going to get me a special presentation bottle of the classiest available vodka. Having got late and being flustered I made the poor jalopy rev reallyreallyreally high overtaking one of those white vans that turn out to be going a bit faster than you think. Don't think it redlined quite but somewhere near. Didn't sound bad at all either, reallyreallyreally. Quite healthy indeed since it usually murmurs around at under 2 and a half thousand revs. Reallyreallyreally...
|
If the vodka shows up then she's reallyreallyreally just a scatty little darling...
If not...
|
I just think you're reallyreallyreally lovely!
Pat
|
|
You are an old softie and you can give grandbrats back. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Mon 15 Feb 16 at 16:24
|
|
It's bad training though. If she's getting into the habit of leaving things around and expecting other people to run around after her she'll turn into a spoilt and selfish middle-aged mum herself one day. :)
|
AC has carefully omitted to say that he agreed to hand over the phone only on condition that a reallyreallyreally nice bottle of vodka was forthcoming.
"Saintly"?
Tcha...
|
|
One has to be careful with anyone born since the invention of the mobile phone and even some older people. Separation from said device of the devil can cause clinical shock and mental meltdown.
|
I confess that I have unintentionally gone out of the door without my phone, been dropped at the station by the boss, and summoned her back with the phone. I was going to London for the day and knew I would be having a couple of drinks before I came home.
We are also 6 miles from the station, so by time she had picked me up she had done 36 miles and about an hour and half's driving.
She's a reallyreallyreally good egg too.
|
I went on a two day business trip ( inadvertently) without my phone. It was very cathartic while it lasted. Nightmare when I got back of course. Squillions of voicemails and unanswered emails, or so it seemed. The later ones were cross in the main from people who hadn't been answered in what they regarded as good time.
It's just not acceptable to be out of touch nowadays.
I'm old enough to be able to remember going away on business trips for weeks on end without having, or feeling I needed, any contact with my head office or other matters. Now you can't be out of range for more than a day without someone getting antsy.
What puzzles me though is that while I might get 50 or more emails a day, I can never recall getting that many letters...
It strikes me that modern work involves a whole lot of useless communication as well as the useful stuff.
I blame spreadsheets, seems like everyone needs to look busy by filling in those cursed little boxes rather than doing any real work.
There, I'm better now thank you...
;-)
|
>> It's just not acceptable to be out of touch nowadays.
>>
>> What puzzles me though is that while I might get 50 or more emails a
>> day, I can never recall getting that many letters...
>>
>> It strikes me that modern work involves a whole lot of useless communication as well
>> as the useful stuff.
>>
I blame the developers of email systems for making it very easy to send to more than one recipient at a time. If you had to type in each name and then press send once for each recipient I bet we'd all get less emails :-)
And the reply to all button is even worse
And I have been saying both things since I first came across electronic mail in the very early eighties
|
Yeah, and don't you just hate it when some control freak desk jockey with nothing better to do than cross reference and file the ruddy things tells you petulantly that "you were in copy" on this thread a year and a half ago...
Well indeed I might have been, but I may have decided at the time that I was a bit too damn busy to read it as well as doing what was actually important that day !
|
There's a huge puddle on the inside of a left-hander on the way to the station. With due caution one can go round it, but I have acquired the habit of charging through it. That swamps the windscreen with surprisingly clean water, couple of sweeps of the wipers and bob's your uncle...
I do this because I haven't refilled the windscreen washer reservoir for ages. Water and a tiny drop of washing up liquid are what it's crying out for. I operate the control, the pump buzzes and nothing comes out of the nozzles, then I swear a bit. Bores the hell out of me, going through these compulsive repetitive motions. I tell myself to brace up, then I don't brace up.
Don't really need to as long as the puddle is there of course. But it won't always be there, and then where will I be?
|
|
You really cosset that car don't you AC?
|
>> tells you petulantly that "you were in copy" on this thread a year and a half ago...
I never, and I mean absolutely never, read anything unless my name is in the "To:" field. "Cc:" is only ever used by a*** coverers.
it is, to my mind, an acceptable response to maintain that you have no knowledge of any conversation whatsoever that you were only Cc'd on.
|
>> I never, and I mean absolutely never, read anything unless my name is in the "To:" field.
And when you do read it, you wonder why anyone bothered to write it and why you have bothered to read it. Anyway that's my usual experience with corporate communications.
However, one does bother to read stuff if only out of hopeless, misplaced curiosity.
>> "Cc:" is only ever used by a*** coverers.
A basic and fundamental corporate activity surely, nyash covering? It was in my day in a lighthearted sort of spirit.
In more recent literary guise I've sent many a cc. People need to know what's going on. If they don't they have no choice but to be stupid.
|
>> I never, and I mean absolutely never, read anything unless my name is in the
>> "To:" field. "Cc:" is only ever used by a*** coverers.
>>
I have a rule set up in outlook to move any email that I'm not in the 'to' field in to trash...
|
Scatty little darling or spoiled brat? - smokie
