Re: No, no, *I*'m the toad! *I* get to be the toad! Me! Me! (was Re: For your amusement [Fwd: Your 'Dogma'])

• Next message: Emlyn: "Re: Atheist Propoganda?"
• Previous message: Emlyn: "Re: regarding computers having no souls"
• In reply to: Rick Strongitharm: "RE: No, no, *I*'m the toad! *I* get to be the toad! Me! Me! (was Re: For your amusement [Fwd: Your 'Dogma'])"
• Next in thread: Emlyn: "Re: No, no, *I*'m the toad! *I* get to be the toad! Me! Me! (was Re: For your amusement [Fwd: Your 'Dogma'])"
• Reply: Emlyn: "Re: No, no, *I*'m the toad! *I* get to be the toad! Me! Me! (was Re: For your amusement [Fwd: Your 'Dogma'])"
• Reply: Octavio Rojas Diaz: "Re: No, no, *I*'m the toad! *I* get to be the toad! Me! Me! (was Re: For your amusement [Fwd: Your 'Dogma'])"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

MMB wrote:
> Geeze, sounds like he was *licking* toads...
>
> MMB

to which "Rick Strongitharm" replied:

> "presumably" enjoyable?

Apparently it's not something that even the most drug-friendly of us would
do twice. It's meant to be a really dreadful trip. Have pity on the poor
sole.

Emlyn

• Next message: Emlyn: "Re: Atheist Propoganda?"
• Previous message: Emlyn: "Re: regarding computers having no souls"
• In reply to: Rick Strongitharm: "RE: No, no, *I*'m the toad! *I* get to be the toad! Me! Me! (was Re: For your amusement [Fwd: Your 'Dogma'])"
• Next in thread: Emlyn: "Re: No, no, *I*'m the toad! *I* get to be the toad! Me! Me! (was Re: For your amusement [Fwd: Your 'Dogma'])"
• Reply: Emlyn: "Re: No, no, *I*'m the toad! *I* get to be the toad! Me! Me! (was Re: For your amusement [Fwd: Your 'Dogma'])"
• Reply: Octavio Rojas Diaz: "Re: No, no, *I*'m the toad! *I* get to be the toad! Me! Me! (was Re: For your amusement [Fwd: Your 'Dogma'])"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:01 MDT