When I was at Preston Lodge Senior Secondary it was dinned into me that to compare vulgar fractions you had to reduce trhem to their lowest common denominator. Leaving aside whether Clinton was ever a vulgar fraction (quiet please!) I very much doubt he’s a Jambo (his loss!) or an admirer of Alex Salmond. His name is not among those supporting Scottish Review. I am obviously not at liberty to ask QJ the Lewinski question. While not having a lowest common denominator is almost certainly a winning factor in Clinton and the women, it doesn’t make QJ any more popular to those of the Easter Road persuasion. The question is therefore unanswerable.
sorry if i was obscure. The idea was to attempt something witty (and a right lead balloon that turned out to be) on the thene of comparison by talking about vulgar fractions and such like
CertainlyNOT better! Maybe a day or so older.
Certainly doesn’t look BETTER but a couple o days younger!
Is that at all tactful??
No, but it’s accurate.
When I was at Preston Lodge Senior Secondary it was dinned into me that to compare vulgar fractions you had to reduce trhem to their lowest common denominator. Leaving aside whether Clinton was ever a vulgar fraction (quiet please!) I very much doubt he’s a Jambo (his loss!) or an admirer of Alex Salmond. His name is not among those supporting Scottish Review. I am obviously not at liberty to ask QJ the Lewinski question. While not having a lowest common denominator is almost certainly a winning factor in Clinton and the women, it doesn’t make QJ any more popular to those of the Easter Road persuasion. The question is therefore unanswerable.
I resisted the strong temptation to trash this, in the hope that someone might tell me WTF Donald is talking about.
sorry if i was obscure. The idea was to attempt something witty (and a right lead balloon that turned out to be) on the thene of comparison by talking about vulgar fractions and such like
Ah. I see.