Page 3 of 5

Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 12:18 pm
by sport!
Spoonbill wrote:
There were also two twins called Cressall who famously hated each other. Eventually they beat each other to death with cricket bats.
Cresswell? played tennis?

Also Chris and Julian Anniss (mid/late 70s).

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 9:58 am
by Spoonbill
englishangel wrote:Hey spoonbill, long time no see, have you been away?
Naah. Me palate got a bit jaded with this forum, that's all. So no good news for Amersham to do with me expiring or exploding or being hospitalised for long-term liposuction, I'm afraid.

As for tennis-playing Cresswells, that don't ring a bell. The Cressalls I knew of were a pair of venom-spitting gargoyles whose only sporting speciality was whacking each other on the noggins with cricket bats.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:13 am
by Rory
There were also two twins called Cressall who famously hated each other. Eventually they beat each other to death with cricket bats.
were they buried or cremated? Cresswell / Cressall - there were two that looked a bit like rabbits - but if youre only 3 years old I dont think you were around then.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:12 am
by DavebytheSea
englishangel wrote:
At the parties (see spooky) I may have been a little more uninhibited with b-in-law than with another man (e.g. adjusting bra ) but I could still tell them apart.
Now, I am just a little confused here! Which brother-in-law was it that wore the bra? ..... and, surely, they are easy to tell apart - one is attached to the right side of the body and the other to the left. This is true whether you are examining your own or studying those on a person of the opposing .... er .... gender.

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 11:35 am
by englishangel
DavebytheSea wrote:
englishangel wrote:
At the parties (see spooky) I may have been a little more uninhibited with b-in-law than with another man (e.g. adjusting bra ) but I could still tell them apart.
Now, I am just a little confused here! Which brother-in-law was it that wore the bra? ..... and, surely, they are easy to tell apart - one is attached to the right side of the body and the other to the left. This is true whether you are examining your own or studying those on a person of the opposing .... er .... gender.
I was adjusting MY bra you fool :lol: :lol: :lol:

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:03 pm
by Vonny
DavebytheSea wrote:
englishangel wrote:
At the parties (see spooky) I may have been a little more uninhibited with b-in-law than with another man (e.g. adjusting bra ) but I could still tell them apart.
Now, I am just a little confused here! Which brother-in-law was it that wore the bra? ..... and, surely, they are easy to tell apart - one is attached to the right side of the body and the other to the left. This is true whether you are examining your own or studying those on a person of the opposing .... er .... gender.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 7:06 pm
by DavebytheSea
englishangel wrote:
DavebytheSea wrote:
englishangel wrote:
At the parties (see spooky) I may have been a little more uninhibited with b-in-law than with another man (e.g. adjusting bra ) but I could still tell them apart.
Now, I am just a little confused here! Which brother-in-law was it that wore the bra? ..... and, surely, they are easy to tell apart - one is attached to the right side of the body and the other to the left. This is true whether you are examining your own or studying those on a person of the opposing .... er .... gender.
I was adjusting MY bra you fool :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ah! Well that does make a difference (very kind of you to clear that one up, Angel).

But surely you do not have to be uninhibited to make these minor adjustments to one's own intimate apparel. I mean, when my knickers slip a bit, I just yoick them up a little. And if you were tweaking your own bra, what had the brother in law got to do with it? Was it perhaps that you were inviting him to lend a hand and that you were merely showing him what was required?

I am sure I could learn that too, Angel, if you were prepared to teach me - I am a fast learner and I see that you are less inhibited with other men than with your own brother in law. Well done!

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:30 pm
by midget
The only twins I remember at Hertford were the Llewellyn-Smiths, and as Cath is on the FRU list she may well be here as well. Are you out there Cath?

Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 8:38 pm
by huntertitus
midget wrote:The only twins I remember at Hertford were the Llewellyn-Smiths, and as Cath is on the FRU list she may well be here as well. Are you out there Cath?
Are they relatrd to the Llewellyn Jones' ?

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:06 am
by Andy Friend
Great Plum wrote:There were 2 sets of twins on my years - Paul and Katherine Stevenson
And Hope and Catriona Murdoch (left at the end of their 3rd form mores the pity... they were gorgeous!)
What about Catherine and Louise Buchanan?

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:11 am
by Great Plum
Andy Friend wrote:
Great Plum wrote:There were 2 sets of twins on my years - Paul and Katherine Stevenson
And Hope and Catriona Murdoch (left at the end of their 3rd form mores the pity... they were gorgeous!)
What about Catherine and Louise Buchanan?
Oops, so there were - memory like a goldfish!

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:19 am
by Rory
I read that someone was trying to ban goldfish bowls on grounds of fish cruelty - but does it really matter. Theyre just lucky we dont eat them.

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:29 am
by Richard Ruck
What, the bowls??

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:31 am
by Rory
Good point - I stand corrected.

Posted: Fri Nov 11, 2005 9:32 am
by DavebytheSea
kiff bowls?