I continue to struggle over what you mean by 'eligible' ramblings (or which epithet you intended). I certainly conjectured on 'indelicate' ramblings but thought you might be unprepared to admit your tendency to solecisms. They cannot be 'illegible' since we can read them, given that they are typed. Yes, I do admit we struggle at times. In the end I suppose my conclusion would be that you were seeking after 'unintelligible'. But as always, I could be lying.
And talking about lying, I was wandering through ASDA last evening and realised one cheese apart from Cheddar which I do approve of (whoops, make that read 'of which I do approve'), for sandwiches is Double Gloucester. But there is an element of convenience thing about it. What I buy is Double Gloucester cheese slices with onions and chives. Fit neatly into Warburtons' sandwich thins - the seeded variety of course.
I only realised recently that there is a Single Gloucester cheese.
Back to: :hungry: :hungry: :hungry:
Yee gads man.
I did mean illegible, I edited it when I got up this morning and noticed my grammar. Hold on I'm just Googling solecisms ! I'll be back.