I remember that discussion. I've been around since the beginning, but didn't contribute much.
I'm not bothered by it, Ellen. I get the impression you read things way too literally. I'm just surprised you'd go down that path of re- replying again, knowing the slings and arrows lobbed Ellenwards the first time... THOUGH... Perhaps you secretly liked the abuse, you kinky lil' baby doll. I see through your sheer nightgown and the 100% polyester granny panties I'm imagining you'd otherwise lob at Gene. You WANT the anger...gets you all hot and bothered and makes you just melt like a Dreamcicle left on the dashboard of your 1988 faded yellow Honda Accord, getting all sticky in your happy parts. I'm guessing you got one hell of a thrill out of that, you naughty, naughty girl...just praying that James or Aero or even Max would come up to Boston and knock the rust out of your crank, didn't ya????? Oh yeah...I know you, Ellen. I know women. I know what the ladies like. Oh yeah. - RB --- In [email protected], "Ellen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > oh there was a very long discussion previously about the horrors of > resplying to your own posts, mostly directed at me. You may not have > been around then. Apparently it really bothers some people including > you, obviously. I don't think I'm replying to my own posts. I am > clarifying them, elaborating on them, etc. I wasn't answering my own > questions or contradicting myself or anything like that. I don't > know what the big deal is, but whatever. > > I mean, of course you (or anyon else) can make up anything. But to > truly channel Gene in this case you would kinda have to "not be > making it up" as the great Dave Barry would say. That was the beauty > of it--he was giving a play by play of what happened. I would say > you were more "inspired" by Gene, like Dreamgirls was "inpired" by > Diana Ross and the Supremes. Not that that's a bad thing. > > >
