Sorry for the delay, Peter: I signed off and went home immediately after my posting above; back at "work" now (sitting in my office, at least: not sure that Mudcat really qualifies as work) whilst waiting to chauffeur my daughter home from a party. It's just gone 9pm here now.

When I look back at what I said then I do question my own judgement in having posted what looks like a querulous and ungracious sentence. Please put it down to 6.30pm on Friday evening after a long week. Nevertheless, although I may have made a mistake in actually posting, the posted sentiments are mine and (rereading after a day) are still mine. You seek clarification (that cool, dry "In what way?" was delightful) but I can't believe it's not obvious (am I missing an in joke or something?).

OK: we have a lady making comparisons between making love and commanding an army. Let's look at them one at a time.

The lady is notorious for her infidelity and the number of her couplings. It is evident that she knows nothing of love, but only of sex for which she uses the euphemism "making love". And, from the number of her different partners, she evidently finds it easy to "make love"... not much intelligence required there.

What does she know of commanding armies? I guess that some of her couplings were with Generals (is that a rank in the French army?), and I suggest that she has drawn the general (no pun intended) conclusion from the pillow-talk of infatuated rutting soldiers and the ingratiating small-talk of would-be rutting soldiers, all probably well lubricated with wine, that all commanders of armies are idiots. But, of course, what a man says as he pursues a sexual prize and, later, in coitus, is no predictor of how he will command an army.

When I read what I've just written, I realise that I sound pompous (but then, I'm afraid I am a bit pompous). To precis my argument less pompously, she is talking tripe about subjects she knows nothing about. Will that do?

By the way...um...is that the way you spell hundred where you come from? *BG*