On 20 Nov 2013, at 21:41, Igor Roshchin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Bob: > > But why? > Your high-school sweetheart left you for a guy wearing such pants? > ;-)
Certainly not! They would have, perhaps, but such vile things (the pants, not the sweethearts) weren't invented then. > > I would understand if you are talking about such pants when there are > some other pants under them, but what's wrong with them being just > by themselves, as shorts? They are not just shorts though, are they? It's the semiotics of the things that I object to. B > > Cotty: > So, if I need to figure out what's in today's weather forecast, I should > look at a cameraman? > > Igor > > > Wed Nov 20 14:53:37 EST 2013 > Bob W wrote: > > I think the penalty for wearing zip-off trouser legs should be to have your > legs made zip-off, without anaesthetic. In fact, not even for wearing them, > just for thinking about getting some, that should be the penalty. > > I'd also like the penalty to include zip-off arms, but obviously that could > only work for one of them. > > B > >> On 20 Nov 2013, at 19:18, "Steve Cottrell" <cotty at seeingeye.tv> wrote: >> >> 4 mins video podcast re attire. >> >> Tickled me >> >> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3tz6QSk3iI&sns> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
