Jimmy Buffett discussion
http://www.buffettnews.com/forum/
I like Bob... why would I do that?rednekkPH wrote:Does that mean you didn't beat up Bob and steal his pot?Key Lime Lee wrote:Even in unconventional businesses' one has to follow conventional rules to survive.
live2ski wrote:No. I think it means he would beat up Bob to steal his pot if there was an immediate maket for said pot.rednekkPH wrote:Does that mean you didn't beat up Bob and steal his pot?Key Lime Lee wrote:Even in unconventional businesses' one has to follow conventional rules to survive.
To get his pot. I thought we already established this.Key Lime Lee wrote:I like Bob... why would I do that?rednekkPH wrote:Does that mean you didn't beat up Bob and steal his pot?Key Lime Lee wrote:Even in unconventional businesses' one has to follow conventional rules to survive.
Oh. Well I wouldn't steal his pot. I'm not the lawless one around here - just the godless one.rednekkPH wrote:To get his pot. I thought we already established this.Key Lime Lee wrote:
I like Bob... why would I do that?
Then you're just not trying hard enough.Key Lime Lee wrote:Oh. Well I wouldn't steal his pot. I'm not the lawless one around here - just the godless one.rednekkPH wrote:To get his pot. I thought we already established this.Key Lime Lee wrote:
I like Bob... why would I do that?
Sorryph4ever wrote:so obviously there is no pot left in this thread????
BOGARTS
Just the pot on my head that I'm wearing like a helmet!ph4ever wrote:so obviously there is no pot left in this thread????
BOGARTS
Well, apparently some guy named Bob had some. Then Wayne and Lee both got the munchies. I think we can draw our own conclusions.ph4ever wrote:so obviously there is no pot left in this thread????
rednekkPH wrote:Well, apparently some guy named Bob had some. Then Wayne and Lee both got the munchies. I think we can draw our own conclusions.ph4ever wrote:so obviously there is no pot left in this thread????
, I really don't care, the thread still has the potential to serve its [original ] purpose. It was Bob.Parrot Monkey wrote:Who's the hijacker responsible?!
I mean He is a dope headrednekkPH wrote:It was Bob.Parrot Monkey wrote:Who's the hijacker responsible?!
Talk about the pot and kettle, Mr. Milkshake...ragtopW wrote:I mean He is a dope headrednekkPH wrote:It was Bob.Parrot Monkey wrote:Who's the hijacker responsible?!
SPEWrednekkPH wrote:Talk about the pot and kettle, Mr. Milkshake...ragtopW wrote:I mean He is a dope headrednekkPH wrote:It was Bob.Parrot Monkey wrote:Who's the hijacker responsible?!
...so returning to the topic of John Lennon's killer, or something somewhat related.....Parrot Monkey wrote:Let's see. I just got home and saw the thread was at 7 pages. I knew right there that there was no way it was 7 pages of on-topic disscussion. I was right.
Who's the hijacker responsible?!
j/k
I THINK THE BEATLES SUKKEDphjrsaunt wrote:...so returning to the topic of John Lennon's killer, or something somewhat related.....Parrot Monkey wrote:Let's see. I just got home and saw the thread was at 7 pages. I knew right there that there was no way it was 7 pages of on-topic disscussion. I was right.
Who's the hijacker responsible?!
j/k