 | | Re: ? —Richard Marchetti
| | | | (...) Undoubtedly, there was an attachment to that email -- right, Tim? Don't be greedy with your lego porn(?), send it also to me! I have never seen one of these offending items -- what can it be? Nekkid people and bionuckles? That always makes my (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | Re: ? —Julie Krenz
| | | | | (...) It had nothing to do with Lego. It involved a child. Julie (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: ? —Richard Marchetti
| | | | | (...) Yikes! The Frog opposes all things involving participants that cannot legally consent. I am sorry if my levity offended anyone, I had no idea of the seriousness of the matter when I last posted on this subject. -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: ? —Tim Courtney
| | | | | | "richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message news:Gruurp.4x7@lugnet.com... (...) Nope, the email did not include an attachment. It didn't even include a complete description of the image, it was so gruesome. No worries on the levity (...) (23 years ago, 20-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: ? —Julie Krenz
| | | | | (...) No offense, I knew where you were coming from on your post. Julie (23 years ago, 21-Feb-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | |
