Jan
28
28
That’s a bad Sadly, No! Very bad!
Amber responds to our refusal to provide her with a picture of the Sadly, No! staff:
No picture? :_-(
(8) Don’t cry for us Amber Pawlik (8)
In other news, we failed to congratulate someone earlier this week for being the 100,000th visitor to S,N! So belated congratulations to, well, someone. Informed of the milestone, a friend of S,N! replied by email:
How many of those are Amber Pawlik?
Jerks of a feather flame together we guess.
grandmasterflash said,
January 28, 2004 at 11:02
I am trying to think of a joke about jerking one’s feather.
s.z. said,
January 28, 2004 at 16:05
Hey, congrats on the 100,000 visiters! It clearly means that Sadly,No!is a force to be reckoned with, and that no one again will dare doubt your power. And it shows why Amber is making a play for you. But just say no! She has held hands with too many men, and you know what THAT means. Yup, lesbian hands.
Frederick said,
January 28, 2004 at 21:53
Yup, lesbian hands.
That reminds me of the old joke:
Q. What do you call a lesbian with long fingers?
A. Well-hung.
Frederick said,
January 28, 2004 at 22:26
Why didn’t you refer Amber to the pictures of you posted here? I’m sure Amber would enjoy them a lot. Gail probably would too, and perhaps s.z. You are Arnold Schwarzenegger, right?
s.z. said,
January 29, 2004 at 7:40
Whoa, Frederick! What if Kathryn Lopez had seen that photo you directed us to, featuring um, male naughty bits? A long hospitalization would have been in order, at a minimum.
Frederick said,
January 29, 2004 at 7:47
What if Kathryn Lopez had seen that photo you directed us to, featuring um, male naughty bits? A long hospitalization would have been in order, at a minimum.
Putting K-Lo out of commission for a while is certainly desirable. Do you suppose Ann “Thrax,” Peggy Nooners, and Kathleen Parker would have equally violent reactions?