Re: Question to JMH!

From: Shad Devil <Shad_Devil_at_gmx.de> <Shad_Devil_at_gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 13:44:49 -0000

> First off, you assume that excited = shagging the daylights out of
> them...
>
> Someone can be excited by someone else, but have the common good
> sense not to tread on vipers...
>
> Or, my explanation... Annoyance... As much annoyance as he's
copped
> off those three, I can see it damping anyone's libido...


Umm...Foxiekins, YOU are the one assuming that excited=sex. All 'I'
was referring to, was the normal, 'growing-reaction' of a male.
As much would have been clear if you had followed the rest of the
thread before answering.

This is, btw, an advice I would like to everyone. Always make sure
you have read all posts in a thread before putting your own 2 cents
in it. It prevents posts with exactly the same content (for example,
Jim practically answered the same Question thrice last time he made a
answer-spree because it was asked by three different persons)and
makes sure you have understood the actual content.

I am not bashing on you, Foxiekins, I just thought that your post was
perfect for distributing this proposition. ^.^

-Shad "No Panthers or Foxes were harmed in the construction of this
post" Devil
Received on Wed Feb 05 2003 - 05:58:01 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sat Nov 30 2019 - 17:51:43 CST