Nick Gohrt's wedding

Nick Gohrt's weddingBy David R. Kennedy /OTT312/ 1954/59 ? on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 07:05 pm: Let's see if this works. If so more to follow. By David R. Kennedy. on Friday, February 09, 2001 - 07:12 pm: This is Nick Gohrt's wedding. Sorry Nick...will try to find the right photo..I know it's here somewhere!!. By Parsons OT 412 circa 56 on Sunday, February 11, 2001 - 02:26 am: David, great pic Nick's wedding.Awaiting school pics from 56/57 By Malcolm McDougall, OT581, 59 - 64 East/Tulc on Saturday, February 10, 2001 - 09:08 am: Well, David, though I agree with you that our name tags said "OTT", we have agreed that the original numbers are "OT", and the re-numbers are "OTT", so if you left in '59, you are an "OT". Interesting to see Nick's photo of his wedding. Have you an up to date one, Nick? The first one you have posted has not come up. By David R. Kennedy/OT312/East/54-59 on Monday, February 12, 2001 - 07:07 pm: OK Malcolm if you insist. For the last 47 years I have been OTT312 and now you ask me to remove a "T" from my memory banks!Does that make it "Otershaw"? Why didn't the powers that were decide to make "The New Batch" OT?But, rolling with the flow, I am yours sincerely, David R. Kennedy/East House/OT312(ouch!) By Trevor Olney, OTT365, 1972 - 1976 on Thursday, March 08, 2001 - 12:25 am: Just to add a little youthfull (it's all relative now!) fuel to the fire, my good friend and fellow West House and Tom Weston pupil, Ian Graham is OTT312. I am a Committee Member representing those OTTs who are members of, and, with a high level of optimism, those "Old Boys" who have yet to join the OSOBS! Please email me. Trevor By Parsons 412 circa 56 on Sunday, April 01, 2001 - 04:07 pm: David Have perused every pixel of Nick's wedding pic but cannot find any hint of school pics as promised:-) On the school number issue, the small tag sewn into my underwear assures me that I am, always was and indeed always will be OTT412. Any young pretender laying claim to the aformentioned title had better be big and robust or I will not even discuss compensation with him.Whatever next? We'll probably discover there was a South house, full of women, that nobody told us about. By David Kennedy. OTT 312/East/1958 ish. on Tuesday, April 03, 2001 - 09:50 pm: Snips: Let's fight to the end to keep our "T". Sorry about the school photo's. I have them scanned but too many something or others and they will not transfer to this website.Went to visit Nick Gohrt last week in Australia. Will send a photo of this reunion if he doesn't beat me to it.Dave Kennedy. By Nick Gohrt OTT369 55-59 on Friday, April 13, 2001 - 06:11 am: You mean you never knew about the Girls' House Snips? Full of the St. Mary's from Chertsey weekenders.... Was the main reason some of us never went home for weekends. Some may say it was the suspensions we always seemed to get, but a few of us knew better...! By Nick Gohrt OT398 55 - 59 on Friday, April 13, 2001 - 06:15 am: I am reverting back to my old number...OT398. Too many names popping up here from way after my time, and they all have the OTT prefix to numbers that were from guys I knew when I was at school. Somebody has this thing all wrong! By Parsons OTt412 circa 56 on Monday, April 16, 2001 - 12:39 am: Of course I knew about St. Mary's but I was in north house and not allowed to go there. Rules were rules even then. As to the OTT vs OT issue. If the committee thinks I'm going through my wardrobe and picking off little red "t's" they can vote again. There will only ever be one Parsons412. Will the pretender to 412 please stand and be counted. By David Kennedy OTT312 /East/1959 on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 12:01 am: Just a thought: Are there more original OTT's than the "new boys"?. If so I say, from now on, majority rules, and all original OTT's should keep their original nomenclature and the rest can call themselves what they want! By Parsons OTT412 circa 57 on Friday, April 20, 2001 - 11:48 pm: Good point David. I took an anonymous poll of the old boys in my area and they all agreed to fight to keep the T. We are obviously the majority, proved by the fact that if we were not the new boys would have lost a T to the new new boys and we would have become 0 412 etc.While I expect that a few of Nick's friends at St. Marys uttered those words with varied emphasis and appropriate numbers,that was then, now we deserve to retain our identity unchallenged. I noticed that Nick is about to capitulate, says he is getting confused ???.....:-) By D. R. Kennedy.OTT312/59. on Saturday, April 21, 2001 - 03:26 pm: I can confirm that Nick is confused (amongst other things). While we are on the subject of confusion, are you sure it was St Mary's and not Sir William Perkins school for girls? By Nick Gohrt OT398 55-59 on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 02:10 pm: Of course you are right Dave... Sir William Perkins was the husband of St. Mary..... silly! So the girls actually did come from SWP, but also their mother...SM as well. You are also right about that White port we bought... does confuse things...;-) But I am sure you and Snips are wrong about the numbers.... always was, always will be OT398... I think....! By Parsons 412 c56 on Thursday, May 10, 2001 - 11:58 pm: Nick As a young man (the time I remember) you were always a man of action as opposed to a thinker :-) but I beg you to raid the old memory banks and correct the error referred to above before you get set in your beliefs. White port indeed-whatever next. By Jeffrey Parsons OTT 544 64 on Wednesday, February 18, 2004 - 08:29 pm: I note that it is nearly three years since this issue was last raised in this forum, yet I feel duty bound to come to the support of my brother on the issue of one or two t's. As "Snips" referred to his underware, I can confirm with sad sincerety that his underware does indeed contain a little red label with OTT 412 embroidered thereon. I know, because I have matching sets with OTT 544 on them. And - such was the dressing panic in our three brothered house - that we often shared OTT412 with OTT544 with OTT771