"Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message news:<bvd0p6$jcp$2@news.onet.pl>...
> Uzytkownik "Allisson" <allisson@panix.com> napisal w wiadomosci
> news:34ac1d46.0401261234.1da812ef@posting.google.com...
> > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<buui40$jse$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > > "la n." <nilita2004nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:buudhp$lg23b$1@ID-138339.news.uni-berlin.de...
[snip]
> > Since what I wrote was in soc.singles, I have added it back. Besides,
> > I am replying to you not your 'social secretary' Nilo.
>
> I don't see why that is a good reason to add back in a group I don't read.
It's not just about you.
> If I read it, I could understand the logic. As it is, it looks like you're
> playing to the gallery. I expect it's that Cranston boy you're trying to
> impress.
If I took that bet, you would have lost. I can think of one person
who cannot read by the web/Google and whose newsserver does not get this
or any/most alt groups, unless they're at home and that time is not spent
on Usenet. They are part of the audience. As a wise friend once said,
"your *real* audience is greater than *just* the person to whom you reply."
If there were no audience or gallery, why post to Usenet at all?
> Anyway, I've taken it out again.
I've added it back because that is where I read.
[inner/outer beauty]
> Well, funny you should say that, but in point of fact the person who termed
> you as having 'inner beauty' wasn't me at all, can you remember who it was?
Jack wrote and said a lot of things, so? I was writing about your usage
of the terms. There are times that I think Dan is right, he knew that
his so-called anonymous nature was jeopardized by getting to know me; I,
also, think he expected a more lamblike sheep for the shearing than the
person that I am.
[snip]
> > I'll send you a .jpg of the twins after they're born.
>
> You pregnant? Congratulations.
Thanks, if it were one they'd be due mid-May, as it is the goal is to get
us to mid-April.
>Congratulations to John too, hopefully.
What a wierd comment. The one thing we do know is who *both* parents
are.
> Having two at once will help you catch up for lost time, so to speak.
There was 10% chance of twins and boy did it surprise the MD.
[big snip]
> > That is good. I hope that your daughters and son are doing well. Love
> > is a wonderful thing. I'm approaching our second wedding anniversary in
> > a week and in a few months the birth of our daughters, I would marry him
> > all over again and I cannot wait to meet the small people elbowing,
> kicking,
> > cartwheeling inside me.
> >
>
> You're very fortunate to be a woman. This is something we never get to
> experience. I was over in the transgendered people's group the other day
> asking a few questions about what it's like to do what they do (not that I
> wanna do it myself, but the topic is an interesting one from a point of view
> of pure human curiosity, I can't deny it) and they were saying that they can
> become women in almost all points so that a man can't tell he's not with a
> woman. The only thing they cannot do, they said regretfully, is bear
> children. That and change their birth certificates and certain other parts
> of their documentary history, like the fact of a name change, etc.
>
> Are they identical twins or are they from separate ova?
Fraternal/sororial.
More later, I have appointments to keep.
Allisson
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
|