Um, didn't think it was - I assumed drunk because of:
"I need to you to"
As in the double "to", which I, mistakenly, took for a drunken slur, which led me to assume beer. I assumed chap, because I assumed beer, and most beer drinkers I know are chaps.
Anyway - there's the clarification. So why did this person want you to get into some guys trousers?
Former ad executive, teacher, now photographer (and sometime screenwriter). Wearer of many hats in my life; husband, brother, son, friend. Still hoping to save the world. Not earning as much, but infinitely happier with life in general.
Which doesn't explain the angry blog.
5 Comments:
At 5:47 PM, September 07, 2004, Neil said…
It's amazing what beer, slurring, and drunken-ness can get a chap to say
At 6:52 PM, September 07, 2004, Terz said…
Uh, dude. That wasn't you. And none of the parties involved were drunk then...
At 11:58 PM, September 07, 2004, Anonymous said…
Wassup dude !!!!!!
At 2:53 PM, September 08, 2004, Neil said…
Um, didn't think it was - I assumed drunk because of:
"I need to you to"
As in the double "to", which I, mistakenly, took for a drunken slur, which led me to assume beer. I assumed chap, because I assumed beer, and most beer drinkers I know are chaps.
Anyway - there's the clarification. So why did this person want you to get into some guys trousers?
At 11:12 AM, September 09, 2004, Terz said…
I had proper shoes. They needed a four-second shot of pairs of feet walking towards a piano. So I had to get into the pants of 'guy on right'.
Continuity.
Post a Comment
<< Home