Re: Back Protectors

ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote:

>Ben Blaney wrote:
>>
>> darsy wrote:
>>
>> >You know, involving Cane?
>>
>> I wondered if it was that, but I hoped not.
>>
>Gimp?

I don't think I should say.

And I mean, no, really.

--
d.

darsy wrote:
>
> ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote:
>
> >Ben Blaney wrote:
> >>
> >> darsy wrote:
> >>
> >> >You know, involving Cane?
> >>
> >> I wondered if it was that, but I hoped not.
> >>
> >Gimp?
>
> I don't think I should say.
>
> And I mean, no, really.
>
Ah. Hmm. New tack. Isn't Phil a bit of a swinger?

--
ogden
gsf1200, chi#0, tppfatuicg#20, botafot#132

"bear baiting - so good it should be illegal"

ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote:

>darsy wrote:
>>
>> ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote:
>>
>> >Ben Blaney wrote:
>> >>
>> >> darsy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >You know, involving Cane?
>> >>
>> >> I wondered if it was that, but I hoped not.
>> >>
>> >Gimp?
>>
>> I don't think I should say.
>>
>> And I mean, no, really.
>>
>Ah. Hmm. New tack. Isn't Phil a bit of a swinger?

I'm not saying anything (else).

--
d.

	#1
darsy	Re: Back Protectors ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote: >Ben Blaney wrote: >> >> darsy wrote: >> >> >You know, involving Cane? >> >> I wondered if it was that, but I hoped not. >> >Gimp? I don't think I should say. And I mean, no, really. -- d.

	#2
ogden	Re: Back Protectors darsy wrote: > > ogden <ogden@pre.org> wrote: > > >Ben Blaney wrote: > >> > >> darsy wrote: > >> > >> >You know, involving Cane? > >> > >> I wondered if it was that, but I hoped not. > >> > >Gimp? > > I don't think I should say. > > And I mean, no, really. > Ah. Hmm. New tack. Isn't Phil a bit of a swinger? -- ogden gsf1200, chi#0, tppfatuicg#20, botafot#132 "bear baiting - so good it should be illegal"