 | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Eric Brok
|
| | | Mike Stanley wrote in message ... (...) Isn't that a prejudice against bust-challenged women? (Besides, I agree with what your wife appearantly doesn't like about the fig) Eric (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) Whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you trying to say that what Mike's wife said (in the quotes above, for those of you following at home) unfairly implies that women with small breasts can't be whores, or are you trying to say that the statement is (...) (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Eric Brok
|
| | | | | | | Lorbaat wrote in message ... (...) women (...) statement (...) I meant the latter, but this argument is heading way off topic... Eric (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | (...) That's why I moved it to off-topic.fun. Cheesy joke about why .fun over .debate snipped for everyone's sanity. eric (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) I know for SURE that can't be the case... and please don't ask me why. (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | (...) Exactly. A logical fallacy! You saw my point. Now, about this evidence you have- I think you should share with everyone so we can have a proof for our theory. Please, elucidate us! eric (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | | (...) I can back Larry up on this one. I have no idea what evidence he has, I've got my own. (...) That goes double for me. Steve (25 years ago, 3-Nov-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Mike Stanley
|
| | | | | (...) What, noting that a woman is busty is prejudical against small-busted women? Or thinking that one particular busty woman looks like a whore is prejudicial against small-busted women? :) (...) Didn't say she didn't like it. Just reported her (...) (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh sure. The first thing people notice is the breasts, but as soon as they get pressured, it's "No, no, I love the face, really!". <grin, duck & run> James (URL) slightly irreverant today (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Damian Garcia
|
| | | | Eric Brok wrote in message ... (...) There is clearly a punctuation mark between "say" and "she" so obviously these are two totally separate statements. Busty and bustless (for lack of a better word) women can all be whores harmoniously. Bust size (...) (25 years ago, 2-Nov-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Eric Brok
|
| | | | D Garcia wrote in message ... (...) Ok, so she meant: 'She's a little busty, wouldn't you say? And she looks like a whore.' :-) Eric (25 years ago, 3-Nov-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Castle returns for 2000! —Damian Garcia
|
| | | | Eric Brok wrote in message ... (...) "And" would only apply in one statement. "She's a little busty, and looks like a whore." The two statements are separated because one of them is a question. A sentence should never start with "and". Should all (...) (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
