not even remotely about sex at all

And yet, see? YouÂ’re still reading this.


I think this somewhat disproves the “got your attention, didn't it” theory? It's just not necessary.


As you were.


Crg

<8>-/====/-----------

As a matter of fact, it was intriguing that someone had nothing better to do than put a message up saying "Not even remotely about sex at all" in hope that someone would look at it so that you can prove a theory wrong. (Breathe in) I was intruiged so much by this that I wondered what this thing was about so I moved my cursor onto the the writing that said not even remotely about sex at all, and that was underlined so that I was able to enter and read that useless thing that you didn't really want anyone to see. The theory, however, is still correct because sex got my attention in the first and you yourself said that you only responded because it said sex and therefore this makes you a hypocrit or something like that and really stuffs up your argument. The reason that I read your message was to see what some crazy lunatic was writing about in the Musical and Opera section about nothing to do with sex, and yadi yadi ya


ARE

YOU

STILL

READING

THIS

BECAUSE

IF

YOU

ARE

YOU

HAVE

NO

LIFE

WHAT

SO

EVER.

HOWEVER

I

AM

THE

ONE

WRITING

THIS

SO

THAT

MEANS

THAT

I

DON'T

REALLY

HAVE

A

LIFE

BUT

YOU

ARE

READING

THIS

BECAUSE

IT

INTUIGED

YOU

DIDN'T

IT???

YOU ARE WRONG MR WILLIAMS












NOW I'M BORED

Well done, Alan! I found your counterargument very sexy.

Goes to show that we all love a good intrigue; and I couldn't help scrolling down to discover that I don't have a life either.

(Whatever happened to watching Rage when I got home at 2am? Just not the same since the internet.)



Cheers,
Craig

<8>-/====/-----------

Damn, had the wrong effect...