Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DiogenesLamp

NO! For the THOUSANDTH TIME NO! It is NOT strange that there are no pregnant pictures of Stanley Ann. My Mother had 5 children, and there are NO pictures of her pregnant. My Sister had two, there are NO pictures of her Pregnant. Another sister had three. There are NO pictures of her pregnant. My other sister had two. There are NO pictures of her pregnant. *I* have four children. THERE ARE NO PICTURES OF MY WIFE PREGNANT.

Stop! Just Stop reading significance into this trivial piece of information. There yet remain pictures from the Dunham family that have not been seen by the public. For all we know they may contain a picture of a pregnant Stanley Ann, but it makes not a D@mn bit of difference if they do or if they don’t. The fact is NOT SIGNIFICANT!!!!!!


Your ranting about no preg photos of SAD being completely insignificant is - odd.


132 posted on 07/07/2012 2:17:12 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies ]


To: little jeremiah

I agree, lj. Oh, and where are all the baby pictures of zer0? You know, the ones of her bringing him home from the hospital or with granny holding the precious bundle (blech) or someone, anyone giving him a bottle, etc, etc? I don’t think the dunham family has ANY of those pictures.


154 posted on 07/07/2012 4:30:23 PM PDT by azishot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]

To: little jeremiah
Your ranting about no preg photos of SAD being completely insignificant is - odd.

I am just tired of hearing looney-toon idiot theories.

223 posted on 07/08/2012 9:12:57 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp (Partus Sequitur Patrem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson