View Single Post
Old 2009-12-27, 08:48   #9
davieddy's Avatar
Dec 2006

2×3×13×83 Posts

Originally Posted by __HRB__ View Post
No he doesn't; he means 'i.e', i.e. 'that is' and not something else like e.g. 'e.g.', i.e. 'for example', you functionally illiterate sandals-with-socks-wearing-tourist. Or am I pulling a 10metreh here for believing that the Bowdlerized/bush wordplay is so bottom drawer that it must certainly be unintended?
I realize that an expensive (Non NHS) US lawman might
try to argue the toss about i.e. being justified in this particular case.
I just knew instinctively that he meant e.g. and couldn't resist
pulling his leg about it.
BTW George's censorship of my post is priceless
PS I now see Paul has trumped it!

Last fiddled with by davieddy on 2009-12-27 at 08:54
davieddy is offline