My comments on London shocked many Brits’fans, including Kevin W. who is after all nothing else but an old British lady trapped in an American body (starting from now I’ll call him Miss Marple) and led Kevin D. (who does not even know there is any other country than the US besides Vietnam and Iraq) to snap at my other reader. After yesterday’s entry, I tried successively the Intercon, Sofitel, Saint James Club, all the Radissons, Marriott, Charlotte’s, etc… and none had a room for Monday and Tuesday night. After my obnoxious agent finally offered me the Holiday Inn for 207 p/night and LL suggested the Capital Hotel for 300 p/nigh, I called a French friend who will kindly let me crash her place in Islington. It might get in the way of my plan to bring back some local paupers, Prince William or perhaps indie boys (I hear they still have punks too) for experimentation but it seems to be the only version. I read pretty recently that Brits are just French without sex appeal and souls...while my father once told me, on the joyful occasion of my coming out, that “90% of [them] have an homosexual phase and I’d like to check if that’s true.
My visit to the unnamed destination will finish on Sunday morning after a few events and probably an additional 50 bucks spent on various useless items hunted on e-bay. My take on this is that it’s better than bringing back souvenirs to complete my “museum of horrors”. I shared some of my most recent acquisitions with LL on the phone yesterday – a few original family pictures of Che Guevara - and he seemed a little unsettled…what about this one l, isn’t freckles the cutest?. I will still have to spend some desperate hours waiting for my plane to London in some hub on Sunday and hopefully complete some more e-bay “incredible deals”.
That's really cute F! It matches the other photo we have of RFK in les montagnes, as we like to say in Strasbourg.
Posted by: LL | Friday, June 23, 2006 at 10:49 AM
yes, fhc, it would seem that i lashed out at one of your most loyal readers from the british peanut gallery. but fhc's readership, and i daresay fhc himself, will be relieved to hear that max and i have settled our grievances with eachother. after exchanging a few heart-felt message posts on our myspace accounts we have decided that the noble thing to do is look beyond our differences and strive for a more humane coexistence. we're even planning a holiday together in the azores sometime in august. if anyone would kindly forward us some information on nude resorts there, that would be fabulous.
i know you're probably thinking this relationship seems to be moving pretty fast. i'm not gonna lie--it is. but often love is an accelerant which burns even more hotly than jet fuel. no? the only kink we have left to work out is how to enrich the sex lives of two hopeless bottoms. would anyone like to lend a helping hand? or any other body part?
thanks for your concern,
kevin d.
Posted by: kevin d. | Friday, June 23, 2006 at 11:07 AM
It's hard to know how to remain polite when a private conversation is turned into a public debate by one of the parties. I suppose this is the risk one takes when entering into conversation with people who were raised in the colonies.
After some consultation, I'm led to understand that, once the decision is taken to move debate into the public realm, it's churlish to continue a side conversation in private.
So, here we go...
Kevin, given the conclusions you seem to have drawn from my e-mail, I can only surmise that you have as much difficulty reading English as you do writing it. We are not going to the Azores, for two reasons. Principally, because having only just returned from a week in Madeira, I've exceeded my Atlantic isles quota for the year. Secondary to the quota issue is my inability to vacation with someone who, despite my best efforts, still doesn't grasp the beauty of upper-case letters.
LL, how are you? Well, I trust. I grant you that "emabrking" is not the most appropriate verb to use in connection with "prophecy". Apologies. However, before one starts to pick holes in grammar, one must first clarify context.
Do have a splendid weekend.
Max.
Posted by: Max | Friday, June 23, 2006 at 02:11 PM
"Less criticism of London if you please."
sentence fragment.
:)
and if atlantic islands are no longer in vogue this season, perhaps we should consider cypress. fhc knows of several good nude beaches there.
Posted by: | Friday, June 23, 2006 at 03:37 PM
Do you mean Cyprus? If so, then that's not an option for Kevin and I - my parents spend most of their year between there and Beiruit - a "Max naked on Limassol beach" headline would trigger a stroke for Mother Max.
I'm afraid that Max can only frolic on the most respectable of beaches when on Aphrodite's isle.
Posted by: Max | Friday, June 23, 2006 at 03:46 PM
in the latest of max's charming retorts, he began a sentece "If so, then that's not an option for Kevin and I [sic]..."
in this sentence our dearest max used "Kevin" and "I" as objects of the prepositon "for." objects of prepositions must take the objective case. "I" is a pronoun in the nominative case. the proper construction of this prepositional phrase would read "for Kevin and me..." as "me" is the appropriate singular first person pronoun in the objective case to use in this instance.
this is meant to be a constructive criticism. max has so kindly offered us so many pointers for communicating in standard English, i felt i could only return the favoUr.
so much love,
kevin d.
Posted by: kevin d. | Friday, June 23, 2006 at 11:09 PM
I really wish you people weren't that cool !
Posted by: Tristan | Saturday, June 24, 2006 at 07:09 AM