Understood, but i couldn't think of anything else to say. Can we just get back to on topic discussion, this is getting boring. Sent from my iPhone
On 5/04/2012, at 11:17 PM, Parks White <[email protected]> wrote: > I didn't start the thread , but thought to contribute in the style as first > written. Resorting to name calling is against the rules too. > > Sent from my iPad > > On 5/04/2012, at 10:31 PM, Daniel Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Far out, you made your point earlier, what a dick you are. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 5/04/2012, at 4:10 PM, Parks White <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Spoiler 2. Not for younger viewers >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I want to clarify that I did not mean to imply that Pug was born by >>> "immaculate conception" between a bartroll and Kalkin as that would bring >>> this discussion into one of cosmology and religion and not allowed under >>> list rules..... >>> >>> And there are young people here as well. >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On 5/04/2012, at 3:50 PM, Parks White <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> SPOILER? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> A bar wench and a tavern girl? Might explain how he got his magical >>>> abilities... No father then I guess?.... Maybe you meant a bar wench or a >>>> tavern girl, fairly synonymous terminology I would think anyway... >>>> Possibly a manifestation/ fathered by Ba-nath/Kalkin, the God of >>>> Pranksters and left in the woods? >>>> >>>> parks3 >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPad >>>> >>>> On 5/04/2012, at 3:35 PM, John Buttimer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Wasn't he told by Macross who they were? Like a bar wench and some tavern >>>>> girl? Oops forgot spoilers spacing. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >
