--- In SkunkworksAMA_at_yahoogroups.com, "Shad Devil" wrote:
> > 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.
>
Please be less ambiguous, then...
>
> 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.
>
And if Jim already answered the same question, as you say, why was it
asked again...?
>
> 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
>
Plus, I rather think I *would* have read the other posts in the
thread, if they had existed at the time I made my reply... At the
time I replied, they did not exist as of yet... My post, however,
probably *was* the best place for you to put this...
Ciao...
Received on Thu Feb 06 2003 - 12:11:57 CST