Whatever happened to...?

by **MrMustang1965** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:16 pm

These ponyfans:

Letterman & Mister T

They're missed. Always good for a laugh.

by **PlanoStang** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:36 pm

Yup, but I even miss having Copeland to blame everything on. :roll:

by **smupony94** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:44 pm

Where is Lamont Cranston?

by **MrMustang1965** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:54 pm

smupony94 wrote:Where is Lamont Cranston?

He's The Shadow of his former self.

by **smupony94** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:06 pm

I am glad you don't pretend to be him anymore

by **MrMustang1965** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:14 pm

smupony94 wrote:I am glad you don't pretend to be him anymore

Who's pretending? I'm not him.

by **smupony94** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 9:21 pm

Try as you might you are him

by **MrMustang1965** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:06 pm

smupony94 wrote:Try as you might you are him

All right, let's have a little fun with this then.

I say I am not the poster known as Lamont Cranston. You say that I am. Let's open this up to the pf.com court for trial.

Prove to the court - beyond a reasonable doubt - that I am Lamont Cranston.

The court awaits your opening statement.

by **jtstang** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:08 pm

MrMustang1965 wrote:
smupony94 wrote:Try as you might you are him
All right, let's have a little fun with this then.

I say I am not the poster known as Lamont Cranston. You say that I am. Let's open this up to the pf.com court for trial.

Prove to the court - beyond a reasonable doubt - that I am Lamont Cranston.

The court awaits your opening statement.

I am holding you in contempt.

by **RGV Pony** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:09 pm

MrMustang1965 wrote:
smupony94 wrote:Try as you might you are him
All right, let's have a little fun with this then.

I say I am not the poster known as Lamont Cranston. You say that I am. Let's open this up to the pf.com court for trial.

Prove to the court - beyond a reasonable doubt - that I am Lamont Cranston.

The court awaits your opening statement.

Since it's not criminal, it should only be preponderance of evidence. So, is it more likely than not that you are? Or are not...

by **gostangs** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:13 pm

Great ......lawyers in love....with themselves

by **MrMustang1965** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:15 pm

The burden of proof lies with the accuser (smupony94).

by **FordtoTolbert** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:25 pm

...like I said, ding dong paradise, with MM1961 as the main occupant.

by **RGV Pony** » Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:28 pm

gostangs wrote:Great ......lawyers in love....with themselves

disclaimer: RGV Pony=not an attorney.

by **PlanoStang** » Thu Oct 19, 2006 6:20 pm

FordtoTolbert wrote:...like I said, ding dong paradise, with MM1961 as the main occupant.

My old neighbor Pyschiatrist once told me as a kid that there was a lot of
truth in the old saying "It takes one to know one!". I remember his kid
had called me something.

Anyway, being an SMU fan from the early 60's (pre DP days) to the
present will do that to you. Me included. :roll:

Whatever happened to...?

Whatever happened to...?

Who is online