Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Toast
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Mick Fanner
Jan 20, 2012, 6:20:32 PM1/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:14:44 +0000, Sn!pe wrote:
> Anyone for toast?
Yep. Here's to the queen. Gawd blesser and all hoo sale in inner
--
Mick.
> Anyone for toast?
Yep. Here's to the queen. Gawd blesser and all hoo sale in inner
--
Mick.
Message has been deleted
Mick Fanner
Jan 20, 2012, 7:00:31 PM1/20/12
to
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 23:25:44 +0000, Sn!pe wrote:
> Is she well buttered? I can't be doing with queens who aren't well
> buttered.
Last time I looked, she was.
--
Mick.
> buttered.
Last time I looked, she was.
--
Mick.
Mudge
Jan 21, 2012, 3:15:54 PM1/21/12
to
On 2012-01-20 16:14:44 -0700, Sn!pe said:
> Anyone for toast?
With Ginger marmy ?
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in Calgary)
Remove noxious CO2 - plant many trees
> Anyone for toast?
With Ginger marmy ?
--
The Canadian Curmudgeon (in Calgary)
Remove noxious CO2 - plant many trees
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Mick Fanner
Jan 22, 2012, 12:07:02 PM1/22/12
to
Especially the ones who did it last.
Took me a while, but I got there.
I read recently that LTIP is an excellent fillum that has a bad
reputation due to *one* scene. I wonder which scene that would be.
--
Mick.
Message has been deleted
Mick Fanner
Jan 22, 2012, 4:07:46 PM1/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:36:49 +0000, Sn!pe wrote:
> Mick Fanner <mick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:48:57 +0000, Sn!pe wrote:
>>
>> > Mick Fanner <mick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> > Anyone for toast?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yep. Here's to the queen. Gawd blesser and all hoo sale in inner
>> >> >
>> >> > Is she well buttered? I can't be doing with queens who aren't well
>> >> > buttered.
>> >>
>> >> Last time I looked, she was.
>> >
>> > Those parisian tango dancers, louche as you like.
>>
>> Especially the ones who did it last.
>>
>> Took me a while, but I got there.
>
> Do keep up at the back! (joak)
> Mick Fanner <mick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:48:57 +0000, Sn!pe wrote:
>>
>> > Mick Fanner <mick....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >> > Anyone for toast?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yep. Here's to the queen. Gawd blesser and all hoo sale in inner
>> >> >
>> >> > Is she well buttered? I can't be doing with queens who aren't well
>> >> > buttered.
>> >>
>> >> Last time I looked, she was.
>> >
>> > Those parisian tango dancers, louche as you like.
>>
>> Especially the ones who did it last.
>>
>> Took me a while, but I got there.
>
>
>> I read recently that LTIP is an excellent fillum that has a bad
>> reputation due to *one* scene. I wonder which scene that would be.
>
> <innocent>
>> I read recently that LTIP is an excellent fillum that has a bad
>> reputation due to *one* scene. I wonder which scene that would be.
>
>
> I can't imagine what you mean there, Mick, I suspect that's a comment
> worthy of Dodgy.
>
> <still innocent>
I can't answer your question old son. When I read that it was good film,
I tried to rent it from Blockbusters and the look I got from the lady
behind the counter would have curdled milk.
So I put it back on the shelf.
Maybe I'll try 'LoveFilm'. On Amazon, no-one can hear you breathe
heavily.
--
Mick.
Message has been deleted
Mick Fanner
Jan 22, 2012, 6:30:33 PM1/22/12
to
On Sun, 22 Jan 2012 21:24:52 +0000, Sn!pe wrote:
> Its undeserved reputation precedes it; it was on mainstream haunted
> fishtank a while back, so it can't be that bad. That's where I saw it
> myself and I wasn't scandalised. Faintly titillated maybe, but
> definitely not scandalised.
Indeed. All of the preceding is tosh cos I saw it when it came out at the
pictures. Can't remember very much about it, to be honest, although I
have an idea that I was disappointed with 'it'.
I think, for the time, it was pretty scandalous. Not these days.
I *am* tempted to rent it though. It does sound a better movie than I
recall, maybe cos I went to see it for the wrong reasons.
--
Mick.
> Its undeserved reputation precedes it; it was on mainstream haunted
> fishtank a while back, so it can't be that bad. That's where I saw it
> myself and I wasn't scandalised. Faintly titillated maybe, but
> definitely not scandalised.
Indeed. All of the preceding is tosh cos I saw it when it came out at the
pictures. Can't remember very much about it, to be honest, although I
have an idea that I was disappointed with 'it'.
I think, for the time, it was pretty scandalous. Not these days.
I *am* tempted to rent it though. It does sound a better movie than I
recall, maybe cos I went to see it for the wrong reasons.
--
Mick.
0 new messages