On Aug 19, 3:05*pm, Peter Lucas > wrote:
> Why does men like to see two womens kissing each other?
> Two less womens mouths that are not talking!
> :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> --
> Peter Lucas
> Brisbane
> Australia
> X/No/Achieve; yes
>
> Help reign in capitalism"s rampage; Votehttp://greens.org.au
==

That should have read..."two fewer women whose mouths weren't engaged
in talking"...or something similar.

==

On Aug 19, 2:17*pm, Roy > wrote:
> On Aug 19, 3:05*pm, Peter Lucas > wrote:> Why does men like to see two womens kissing each other?
> > Two less womens mouths that are not talking!
> > :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> > --
> > Peter Lucas
> > Brisbane
> > Australia
> > X/No/Achieve; yes
>
> > Help reign in capitalism"s rampage; Votehttp://greens.org.au
>
> ==
>
> That should have read..."two fewer women whose mouths weren't engaged
> in talking"...or something similar.
>
> ==

Ever since sf pointed me to the killfile that works for googlegroups
users, I've been manlymail free.

On Aug 19, 9:26*pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2:17*pm, Roy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 3:05*pm, Peter Lucas > wrote:> Why does men like to see two womens kissing each other?
> > > Two less womens mouths that are not talking!
> > > :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
> > > --
> > > Peter Lucas
> > > Brisbane
> > > Australia
> > > X/No/Achieve; yes
>
> > > Help reign in capitalism"s rampage; Votehttp://greens.org.au
>
> > ==
>
> > That should have read..."two fewer women whose mouths weren't engaged
> > in talking"...or something similar.
>
> > ==
>
> Ever since sf pointed me to the killfile that works for googlegroups
> users, I've been manlymail free.

==
I didn't know if it worked or was worthwhile...maybe I'll give it a
try when I get some spare time.
==

Marty wrote:

> So are most of the rest of us, as long as people don't reply to it. The
> influx of downstream garbage is far mor irritating that the killfiled
> original message. If you tell everyone you've blocked a message while
> reposting it in the process, you're now the new defacto troll perp.
> Replying just puts out another layer of troll bait for the clueless
> responders in the crossposted groups, IOW, you are now participating to
> help the manlymail troll achieve its purpose once you respond.
>
> Just sayin'.

I'd rather read the manlymail troll than the "real" Captain Peter Swallows.

Bob

In article >,
"Bob Terwilliger" > wrote:

> Marty wrote:

> > Replying just puts out another layer of troll bait for the clueless
> > responders in the crossposted groups, IOW, you are now participating to
> > help the manlymail troll achieve its purpose once you respond.
> >
> > Just sayin'.
>
> I'd rather read the manlymail troll than the "real" Captain Peter Swallows.

It's not an either/or choice, you know.

:-)

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

Dan wrote:

>> I'd rather read the manlymail troll than the "real" Captain Peter
>> Swallows.
>
> It's not an either/or choice, you know.
>
> :-)

True, I was just disclosing their rankings relative to each other.

Bob

On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:50:11 -0700, Bob Terwilliger wrote:

> Dan wrote:
>
>>> I'd rather read the manlymail troll than the "real" Captain Peter
>>> Swallows.
>>
>> It's not an either/or choice, you know.
>>
>> :-)
>
> True, I was just disclosing their rankings relative to each other.
>
> Bob

**** the both of 'em.

your pal,
blake

Captain Peter Swallows blathered:

> Ya see, that's just Boobie crying out to be loved
<snip even greater ignorance>

Say, anybody wonder why Swallows never made any comment about its recent
dinner party, the one for which he had aged curries for a week?

Also note his complete absence from the recent discussion about pan-frying
steaks, when steaks comprise such a large portion of his alleged diet.

I wonder why he was so silent. Must have been a shitty party with shitty
food, and he's afraid to stand up and actually discuss cooking.

Bob