🚀 go-pugleaf

Paul Bennington wrote in message <79hujf$j4e$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>The answer to this has generated another puzzle for me. Can anyone explain
>why I can only see part of Mark's answer (as quoted below) when other
>posters to this thread can see it all?


I'm puzzled too as I can only see part of it, yet here (from my "Sent items"
folder) is the whole post:

Paul Bennington wrote in message <79ho28$s75$1@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>Give a sentence which makes grammatical sense in which the word 'and' is
>repeated 5 times without any other words in between
>
>
SPOILER
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.

..
.
The version I know has the scenario of a publican ordering a new sign for
the Dog and duck pub which arrives looking like "Dogandduck".  The publican
sends the sign back with a note which reads; "This is unacceptable because
the gaps between "Dog" and "and" and "and" and "duck" are too small."
Not sure if the quotation marks rule this out as an answer.
[Then of course the signwriter is a tad miffed and writes back that he isn't
the only one to have spacing problems because .. "in your note parts of it
were difficult to read because the gaps between the words "dog" and "and"
and "and" and "and" and "and" ....etc.... and "duck" were too small".  But
this starts to get somewhat unbelieveable, especially when the publican
writes back again to say ... ]

Mark