| Re: Fallen nuts [message #250320] |
Di, 04 April 2006 13:05 |
|
BriD(bethbriuk [at] yahoo.co.uk) <bethbriuk [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Stacie Hanes wrote:
> > Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > Sorry, Stacie.
> >
> > <stifled yowls of outrage>
> >
> > Say! Daibh! You're going to the Con, yes? Can't wait to meet you! Haha!!
> > Purely for hugging purposes! No ulterior motives at all!!!
> >
> At least he didn't suggest Animal! Not that I am, you understand, just
> an innocent remark in defence of Daibh.
It could be worse.
Sweetums?
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Fallen nuts [message #250424 ] |
Di, 04 April 2006 22:44 |
|
aqusenet [at] mailinator.com (Aquarion) wrote:
> BriD(bethbriuk [at] yahoo.co.uk) <bethbriuk [at] yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Stacie Hanes wrote:
> > > Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > > > Sorry, Stacie.
> > >
> > > <stifled yowls of outrage>
> > >
> > > Say! Daibh! You're going to the Con, yes? Can't wait to meet you! Haha!!
> > > Purely for hugging purposes! No ulterior motives at all!!!
> > >
> > At least he didn't suggest Animal! Not that I am, you understand, just
> > an innocent remark in defence of Daibh.
>
> It could be worse.
>
> Sweetums?
It was nice to have known you, Aq.
Richard
|
|
|