October 23, 2006
no damit thats not waht i meaent!!
u knwo waht rely pises me off abuout gogal?
if you serch for "uxorious triceratops" (with teh quotmarks — wifthout em u get some very distrubign results indeed) thers no hits. so than it asks you...
Did you mean: "amorous triceratops"
no damit u dumbass! waht knida sick freak would srearch for that?
'amarous' indeed. pfff.
uupdape!
loyel reder iven ust observd taht "amorous triceratops" coms up in glogle with no maches! which reminds me. that was the entire point of this stupad post!! but it kinda sipled thruough the cracks.
Comments:
Um... me?
Love the way it suggests the phrase and then tells you that nothing matches it. Google's just a big tease, if you ask me.
Love the way it suggests the phrase and then tells you that nothing matches it. Google's just a big tease, if you ask me.
So it's safe to assume that triceratopses were not too keen on their wives. And who can blame them?
On the other hand, they were extremely horny.
On the other hand, they were extremely horny.
# posted by 
: 10/24/2006 12:09:00 PM
: 10/24/2006 12:09:00 PM
If you had a pet triceratops, 'Topsy' would be a good name for her, if it were a she.
# posted by : 10/25/2006 11:06:00 AM
: 10/25/2006 11:06:00 AM
So this turned out to be a self-defeating post. Oh wait, this is a blog. Make that a meta-self-defeating post. Oh, but this is actually a comment on a post on a blog...
Post a Comment
<< Home
