 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Jim Henderson
Subject: Re: Stephen, Andrew, St., Phil Cook and anyone else...
Date: 14 Apr 2008 13:46:00
Message: <48039858$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:09:57 +0100, Stephen wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2008 10:50:55 -0400, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospam com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 12:52:20 +0100, St. wrote:
>>
>>> but am I really the
>>> only guy in the world that gets a London Cabby that *doesn't* know
>>> where he's going?
>
> You shouldn't have worn your "My sister went to London and all I got was
> this crappy t-shirt" T shirt. :)
>
>>FWIW, I must've had the same cabby in San Francisco a few years ago -
>>asked me how to get to the hotel I was staying at....
>>
>>
> Jim Charter's keeping a low profile :)
Wrong side of the country...But yeah, where has he been?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:21:28 +0200, "Gilles Tran"
<gitran_nospam_@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>message de news: 480387ea@news.povray.org...
>
>> I'll invoke rule 24 of the Internet: Pictures or it didn't happen.
>
>Rule 34 of the internet would have been even more interesting :D
>
In a way rule 34 was ever present. Andrew was there after al,l and Dr
John and those women dressed as school kids :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Stephen, Andrew, St., Phil Cook and anyone else...
Date: 14 Apr 2008 15:19:19
Message: <4803ae37$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran wrote:
> Rule 34 of the internet would have been even more interesting :D
There it is again... What the heck *is* rule 34??
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Nicolas Alvarez
Subject: Re: Stephen, Andrew, St., Phil Cook and anyone else...
Date: 14 Apr 2008 15:29:27
Message: <4803b097$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>
>> Rule 34 of the internet would have been even more interesting :D
>
> There it is again... What the heck *is* rule 34??
http://rules.of-the-internet.com/
Rule 34: If it exists there is porn of it. No exceptions.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:29:19 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez
<nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>
>Rule 34: If it exists there is porn of it. No exceptions.
Except for Rule 34 ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Orchid XP v8
Subject: Re: Stephen, Andrew, St., Phil Cook and anyone else...
Date: 14 Apr 2008 15:40:43
Message: <4803b33b$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> There it is again... What the heck *is* rule 34??
>
> http://rules.of-the-internet.com/
>
> Rule 34: If it exists there is porn of it. No exceptions.
Makes sense to me... but... OMG, *why* did I click that link?! >_<
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Sabrina Kilian
Subject: Re: Stephen, Andrew, St., Phil Cook and anyone else...
Date: 18 Apr 2008 00:15:40
Message: <4808206c$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:29:19 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez
> <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>
>> Rule 34: If it exists there is porn of it. No exceptions.
>
> Except for Rule 34 ;)
Ahh, Rule 35, I see. But, can anyone Rule 34 Rule 35?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:15:40 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at
vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:29:19 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez
>> <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>>
>>> Rule 34: If it exists there is porn of it. No exceptions.
>>
>> Except for Rule 34 ;)
>
>Ahh, Rule 35, I see. But, can anyone Rule 34 Rule 35?
Which "Rule 35"?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule+35
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Sabrina Kilian
Subject: Re: Stephen, Andrew, St., Phil Cook and anyone else...
Date: 18 Apr 2008 06:30:47
Message: <48087857$1@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 00:15:40 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at
> vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:29:19 -0300, Nicolas Alvarez
>>> <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rule 34: If it exists there is porn of it. No exceptions.
>>> Except for Rule 34 ;)
>> Ahh, Rule 35, I see. But, can anyone Rule 34 Rule 35?
>
> Which "Rule 35"?
> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Rule+35
From Nicolas's link:
* Rule 35: The exception to Rule 34 is the citation of Rule 34.
However, can we apply Rule 34 to that Rule 35?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 06:30:47 -0400, Sabrina Kilian <"ykgp at
vtSPAM.edu"> wrote:
>
> From Nicolas's link:
>* Rule 35: The exception to Rule 34 is the citation of Rule 34.
Phew!
>However, can we apply Rule 34 to that Rule 35?
If you want to ;)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
