>Oh, like I guess you walk around with bandy legs going, "Aaaright. Mad for it"

Not with bandy legs. Where do you get that from?

>>Nope. I would say Charles is a lot clearer than a Scouser.
>Maybe so - but not me.

Posh Scouser, 'eh?

>Don't. But I'm flattered that you follow my threds so avidly.

I follow your "threads" when I have a moment; just to keep tabs on you ;)

>It's at the end of the message and so has no bearing on the sense of the message.

True, but it could leave the reader wondering whether you signed off with a typo.

>I put in "'" in place of the "a" so it saves me nothing. It's short for "I would appreciate it" and is intended to sound like natural speech, like "'anks"

Maybe to you, but not to a "non-anglophone".

>No, of course not, but I've heard them speak enough. "One was distracted at the time" can only mean "I ..."

In your world, maybe.

>Like how did "we" dismiss this?

I did it on your behalf.

>If you think I'm good fun why make an enemy of me?

It doesn't take much. You are a very touchy guy. Odd?

>I only react to your snide little Mank jibes.

Oooh. We are sensitive, aren't we?

>Never a word of encouragement, agreement - only contention with what I say.

That's it! I just realised why you get involved in just about every thread. You like being stroked.

>Yes but that one message is negative like all the others.

Well, I don't think my original message was negative; I merely made reference to your use of Queen's English for Queen's Sake. Take it or leave it.

>>>Now EFF OFF!
>>I wish you would.
>Well stop writing to me then, gobshite.

You are quite a nasty piece of work when riled, aren't you? If you are ever up this neck of the woods, feel free to look me up. I would be interested in you choice of words when you are not hiding behind your firewall ;)