Message: "Re: Warning: sedative possibly needed to read this :-p"

Re: Warning: sedative possibly needed to read this :-p

by Chrisell

4/2/2006, 4:35 AM

Yes it does - there's more of them down low on the list than up high, though. There's Natalie & Nathan at 20, Jada & Jaden at 57, Emily & Matthew at 85, Emma & Jacob at 86, Zachary & Zoe at 95 and Emily & Ethan at 99.

I guess that parents of b/g twins are less likely to hit on the *same* tacky combination as other parents!

♦ Chrisell ♦

All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us. - J.R.R. Tolkien.

Kyla? · as · 4/1/2006, 3:55 PM

•Re: Kyla? · Julia · 4/2/2006, 11:32 AM

•Re: Kyla? · Isla · 4/2/2006, 9:42 AM

•Re: Kyla? · Miranda · 4/2/2006, 4:15 AM

•Re: Kyla? · Sophie · 4/2/2006, 12:17 AM

•Question, Sophie · Lillian · 4/2/2006, 3:53 AM

•Re: Question, Sophie · Ora · 4/2/2006, 6:55 PM

•Re: Kyla? · *Brogan* · 4/1/2006, 6:44 PM

•Re: Kyla? · Diamante04 · 4/1/2006, 6:38 PM

•Re: Kyla? · lawruh · 4/1/2006, 6:25 PM

•Re: Kyla? · April · 4/1/2006, 5:57 PM

•Re: Kyla? · Ora · 4/1/2006, 5:36 PM

•Re: Kyla? · 1st_Timothy_4.12 · 4/1/2006, 5:23 PM

•Twins Kyla and Kayla? Ack! :P nt · Lillian · 4/2/2006, 3:54 AM

•Re: Warning: sedative possibly needed to read this :-p · Chrisell · 4/2/2006, 4:35 AM

•D'oh! · Miranda · 4/2/2006, 5:01 AM

•Re: D'oh! · Isla · 4/2/2006, 9:39 AM

•Re: Kyla? · Elemmennope · 4/1/2006, 5:04 PM

•Re: Kyla? · ecomama7 · 4/1/2006, 5:04 PM

•ditto nt · Lillian · 4/2/2006, 3:54 AM

•Re: Kyla? · Jae · 4/1/2006, 4:38 PM

•Re: Kyla? · Lakota · 4/1/2006, 4:03 PM

View Message