Clive George ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Adrian - I think he has already withdrawn the calculation that got
it to 5.5K, and we are now working on a revised calculation of about
3.3K.

Yes, and I've already called him on the mis-assumption that he made
to get there - and, IIRC, John also denied £3k.

Yes, he did deny spending 3K on a bike.

Right. So he apparently paid the tax applicable to a £3k purchase, but
didn't spend £3k. Whatever.

But that was not a lie.

Whatever.
At best, it was childish semantic nitpicking - "I didn't spend £3,000, I
spent £3,146.72. So ner to you"

"Adrian" wrote in message
. 244.170...
Clive George ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

Adrian - I think he has already withdrawn the calculation that got
it to 5.5K, and we are now working on a revised calculation of about
3.3K.

Yes, and I've already called him on the mis-assumption that he made
to get there - and, IIRC, John also denied £3k.

Yes, he did deny spending 3K on a bike.

Right. So he apparently paid the tax applicable to a £3k purchase, but
didn't spend £3k. Whatever.

Nope. You're on entirely the wrong track.

But that was not a lie.

Whatever.
At best, it was childish semantic nitpicking - "I didn't spend £3,000, I
spent £3,146.72. So ner to you"

Well, there may be a certain amount of nitpickery going on, but it's not in
the area you think it is, and it is funny watching you get all het up about
it :-)

cheers,
clive