Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Doc <>
Newsgroups: alt.pantyhose
Subject: Re: anyone have pantyhose mpegs?
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:03:46 -0400
Reply-To: the group
Message-ID: <knv283ppjkcvulfp99ddq8r6q05qnj5e4o@4ax.com>
References: <1625-467D8E94-244@storefull-3253.bay.webtv.net> <Cvjfi.295847$d22.223254@fe03.news.easynews.com> <467E7624.20193F1@a.com> <Ydwfi.146692$AX2.15469@fe04.news.easynews.com> <467EF1D2.2E720F89@a.com> <po3u73dgaskffhab1klscgk8jbeugr1hul@4ax.com> <467F71B1.7339E73B@a.com> <vOYfi.337910$dg3.243125@fe10.news.easynews.com> <4680C4D9.4491FC74@a.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 84
Organization: newsgroupdirect.com
X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsgroupdirect.com
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.pantyhose:3135
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 08:48:41 +0100, ac <a@a.com> wrote:
>Gandalf wrote:
>
>> ac wrote:
>>
>> > is she wearing pantyhose ... or nylons?
>> >
>> > simple question ... one of two words will answer it
>> >
>> > I notice gandalf couldn't figure out which one ...
>> >
>>
>> > ac
>>
>> Since I was never asked, nor did I ever offer my opinion, your
>> conclusion that I "couldn't figure out which one" is obviously coming
>> out of your ass like everything else you spew.
>>
>> It's apparent to anyone that's ever seen non-sheer pantyhose [and that
>> know the difference between them and thigh-highs] that the model is
>> wearing pantyhose.
>>
>> But you, having never seen a pair of pantyhose on anyone but yourself,
>> wouldn't know that.
>>
>> Gee. That sounds like one of your conclusions.
>>
>> You're really not worth this.
>>
>> --
>> -Gandalf
>>
>> Never meddle in the affairs of a dragon for you are crunchy and taste
>> good with ketchup!
>
>but g
>you did offer your opinion on this thread!
>
>what about your reaction to the movies? ...
>>>It has nothing to do with what I do or do not allow to be posted.
>>>There is a multimedia group expressly for this purpose.
>>>But, as you've consistently shown, you have this fanatical disdain for
>>>established protocol
>
>yet a quick look at what's on my isp's server shows your chum doc has
>posted these and others
>Subject: Improved Pump Dangling P-Hose Toe Suck VIDeo - Erin03ph01-08.mpg
>(62/62)
>Subject: Tyler Getaway Flick (PH, Ped Pumpin) ViD-sample -
>TyGet1away01-05-06-07.mpg (59/59)
>Subject: One Pump Lost - R-Toe P hose video - RTph2Lost60.mpg (53/53)
>Subject: Flip-Flop P-hose Feet video - EPHFlipTrend01-05.mpg (45/45)
>
>>>>Gee. That sounds like one of your conclusions.
>all of which you didn't see or overlooked ?
>so when doc posts 'em - you say nothing ......
>conveniently you just happened to notice my efforts
>a case of more faces than a townhall clock?
>shows that your opinion's aren't worth as much as you think
>[Image]
>
>Look closely - since when did pantyhose show indentations and have thick
>patterning
>like this? sheer or not ... no way are these pantyhose
>
>if they are pantyhose ... I'd guess doc wouldn't stop here in his shoot
>... how about a post showing for certain I'm wrong?
>just another 6" or so would show me up good!
>I somehow guess that that won't be happening
>if they were doc would have added the denial and used the opportunity to
>post more advertising in one or other of his tirades
>
>... instead he has "ignored" or "forgotten" or "misunderstood"
>but never denied
>
>gandalf ... where doc is concerned at least you have no judgement - and no
>integrity
>
>
>ac
Ac the retard going off on another person. LOL
--
The Source For Premium Newsgroup Access
Great Speed, Great Retention
1 GB/Day for only $8.95
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
|