From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

One of the Youngbridgeans was talking to - Ruth, I think - and referred
to "George's Amber" (the actual reference was something like "and with
George's Amber about to pop").

I didn't find it objectionable, implying possession or anything like
that - just a convenient way of saying which Amber, if there would be
any confusion. Did anyone?

(Though it seems to me moderately unlikely that there _would_ be two
Ambers in a place the size of Ambridge. but I'm unfamiliar with modern
name fashions - maybe there would. If not, just saying Amber would be sufficient.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"You _are_ Zaphod Beeblebrox? _The_ Zaphod Beeblebrox?"
"No, just _a_ Zaphod Beeblebrox. I come in six-packs."
(from the link episode)

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

On 20/09/2026 21:07, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

One of the Youngbridgeans was talking to - Ruth, I think - and referred
to "George's Amber" (the actual reference was something like "and with George's Amber about to pop").

I didn't find it objectionable, implying possession or anything like
that - just a convenient way of saying which Amber, if there would be
any confusion. Did anyone?

(Though it seems to me moderately unlikely that there_would_ be two
Ambers in a place the size of Ambridge. but I'm unfamiliar with modern
name fashions - maybe there would. If not, just saying Amber would be sufficient.)

I've no idea what the relationships/friendships are in Ambridge, but I
think it very much depends on how well all the various parties know each other. If Ruth knows George quite well but knows little or nothing of
Amber and the Youngbridgean concerned is aware of that I think it very
likely they would, as it were, centre the remark around George.
--
Jenny M Benson
Wrexham, UK
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.media.radio.archers

Mrs Nemo <shopping@cedarbank.me.uk> wrote:

On 20/09/2026 21:07, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

One of the Youngbridgeans was talking to - Ruth, I think - and referred
to "George's Amber" (the actual reference was something like "and with
George's Amber about to pop").

I didn't find it objectionable, implying possession or anything like
that - just a convenient way of saying which Amber, if there would be
any confusion. Did anyone?

(Though it seems to me moderately unlikely that there_would_ be two
Ambers in a place the size of Ambridge. but I'm unfamiliar with modern
name fashions - maybe there would. If not, just saying Amber would be
sufficient.)

I've no idea what the relationships/friendships are in Ambridge, but I
think it very much depends on how well all the various parties know each other. If Ruth knows George quite well but knows little or nothing of
Amber and the Youngbridgean concerned is aware of that I think it very likely they would, as it were, centre the remark around George.

It's George Grundy - no one need say anything else. There is only one
Amber. But people like her mum and dad who may or may not become more
central to the plot as we have less and less Archers of Ambridge, we need
more surnames unless they're often heard at a mic.

Best Chris


--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2