Tuesday, January 31, 2006
better luck next time
having been away for 5 days, i am panicing at the pile of work that is on my desk, and the number of calls that need to be returned. i really should be tending to that, but blogging is just way more fun.
the trip to the t of oronto was good, ladies, but i missed you all (all 3 of yous who formerly lived there and the one that currently does, but was on her own vacation! my luck!) just to let you know, nothing has changed. there's still too much traffic, and the pad thai at the queen mother is still delish. and my friends that i stayed with that have a baby? well it really makes me want to have one of my own. especially one you can bundle in a puffy pink snowsuit and pink baby uggs, oh man, you can die with cuteness.
but i digress... what i really wanted to tell you about was my comical reunion with the c. i was excited to see him, as i am every day when he comes home from work, but last night, well, it had been 5 days and 4 lonely nights without my c! i totally was ready to get it on! of course, so was he. (he always is, please refer to hick's post "the score" for other instances.) we were also hungry. so we made a plan: we would order dinner, and while we waited for the delivery we would take care of business. sparing you the details, i will relate this: no sooner was the phone hung up, we were rolling around happily (on my bed! i heart my bed! there is nothing like my bed!) (i believe i posted about that once also...)
the reunion was going swimingly! oh what snuggly fun! when... the phone rings. i made the c answer it thinking it way be the restaurant. it wasn't. it was a client, and instead of politely and quickly telling the client to call back later, the c passed me the phone. many minutes later, i was back with the c, but unfortunately the man needed a little fluffing. (refer to ms ms's post on that subject.) at last we were back in the saddle again. phew, that was a close one. interuptions of the cliental sort are not so good for the "mood", iykwim! so there we were, rocking and rolling, when from outside i hear: slam, crunch, crunch, crunch, ding dong! (apparently the call had cut a significant chunk out of the "between the order and delivery" time!)
there was a mad dash on the part of the c to pull on some flannel bottoms and a t-shirt! ding dong, the door went again, as the c sped out of the room and down the stairs, all the while worrying that certain things were, um, "protruding". he needn't have worried about such techincalities, as when i joined him downstairs i saw my loveable husband standing there with his shirt on backwards and his pants backwards and insideout! (the label of the pants concealing the lifting action there beneath...)
this morning it was commented: "well tonight i hope we have better luck..." one of the girls ¶ 8:58 AM
the trip to the t of oronto was good, ladies, but i missed you all (all 3 of yous who formerly lived there and the one that currently does, but was on her own vacation! my luck!) just to let you know, nothing has changed. there's still too much traffic, and the pad thai at the queen mother is still delish. and my friends that i stayed with that have a baby? well it really makes me want to have one of my own. especially one you can bundle in a puffy pink snowsuit and pink baby uggs, oh man, you can die with cuteness.
but i digress... what i really wanted to tell you about was my comical reunion with the c. i was excited to see him, as i am every day when he comes home from work, but last night, well, it had been 5 days and 4 lonely nights without my c! i totally was ready to get it on! of course, so was he. (he always is, please refer to hick's post "the score" for other instances.) we were also hungry. so we made a plan: we would order dinner, and while we waited for the delivery we would take care of business. sparing you the details, i will relate this: no sooner was the phone hung up, we were rolling around happily (on my bed! i heart my bed! there is nothing like my bed!) (i believe i posted about that once also...)
the reunion was going swimingly! oh what snuggly fun! when... the phone rings. i made the c answer it thinking it way be the restaurant. it wasn't. it was a client, and instead of politely and quickly telling the client to call back later, the c passed me the phone. many minutes later, i was back with the c, but unfortunately the man needed a little fluffing. (refer to ms ms's post on that subject.) at last we were back in the saddle again. phew, that was a close one. interuptions of the cliental sort are not so good for the "mood", iykwim! so there we were, rocking and rolling, when from outside i hear: slam, crunch, crunch, crunch, ding dong! (apparently the call had cut a significant chunk out of the "between the order and delivery" time!)
there was a mad dash on the part of the c to pull on some flannel bottoms and a t-shirt! ding dong, the door went again, as the c sped out of the room and down the stairs, all the while worrying that certain things were, um, "protruding". he needn't have worried about such techincalities, as when i joined him downstairs i saw my loveable husband standing there with his shirt on backwards and his pants backwards and insideout! (the label of the pants concealing the lifting action there beneath...)
this morning it was commented: "well tonight i hope we have better luck..." one of the girls ¶ 8:58 AM
Comments:
<< Home
OMG so funny - but how is it possible, my little OOTG that a small pant-tag can "conceal the lifting action" of such a ginormous protrudant as the C's? You have told us on MANY occaision of the gerth of his manlitude, and now - oh contradiction! - it is cover-uppable by a mere tag of pyjama bottom.
Was this tag the largest tag anyone has ever seen? Were there washing instructions in more than 5 languages on it? and more importantly - were the pj's dry-clean only?!?
Was this tag the largest tag anyone has ever seen? Were there washing instructions in more than 5 languages on it? and more importantly - were the pj's dry-clean only?!?
ahahah!
indeed it is the largest tag ever to made in the history of tag making in clothing by mankind!
(actually it concealed NOTHING. the tag-so-small was lifted into the air and thus the backwards-inside-outedness of the whole situation was therefore accentuated.)
indeed it is the largest tag ever to made in the history of tag making in clothing by mankind!
(actually it concealed NOTHING. the tag-so-small was lifted into the air and thus the backwards-inside-outedness of the whole situation was therefore accentuated.)
So in your original blog, you were lying, is that what you are saying?
And I quote : "the label of the pants concealing the lifting action there beneath..."
Anything to say for yourself?
And I quote : "the label of the pants concealing the lifting action there beneath..."
Anything to say for yourself?
i was lying.
i didn't want to make a big deal out of what has now been made a big about.
my entry should have read: "the label of the pants was right on top of his throbbing, massive cock. it was obvious to the delivery man that the guy who opened the door and handed him money was mid-fuck when the doorbell sounded. because the look on the c's face, the smell in the house, and the wettness spreading on the c's pants, the delivery man decided to forgo his tip and run quickly from the abode."
is that better?
jeez.
i didn't want to make a big deal out of what has now been made a big about.
my entry should have read: "the label of the pants was right on top of his throbbing, massive cock. it was obvious to the delivery man that the guy who opened the door and handed him money was mid-fuck when the doorbell sounded. because the look on the c's face, the smell in the house, and the wettness spreading on the c's pants, the delivery man decided to forgo his tip and run quickly from the abode."
is that better?
jeez.
"The wetness spreading on The C's Pants"
Was that really necessary?
also, are you sure it was not the backwards shirt-and-pants style and the generally unkempt and unhygenic-ness of the C that led the delivery man to think " does he really like Kriss-Kross??" that made him run, screaming? and not the semi-deflated, tag covered withering balloon?
Post a Comment
Was that really necessary?
also, are you sure it was not the backwards shirt-and-pants style and the generally unkempt and unhygenic-ness of the C that led the delivery man to think " does he really like Kriss-Kross??" that made him run, screaming? and not the semi-deflated, tag covered withering balloon?
<< Home
