Difference between revisions of "Talk:Virginia is for Virgins"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
: Chris uses two forms of the phrase. The longer version is "Virginia is for Virgins; not Lovers," so the reference he's making is so obvious that even he probably doesn't think he needs to explain it. --[[User:MachPunch|MachPunch]] 00:39, 12 March 2009 (CET) | : Chris uses two forms of the phrase. The longer version is "Virginia is for Virgins; not Lovers," so the reference he's making is so obvious that even he probably doesn't think he needs to explain it. --[[User:MachPunch|MachPunch]] 00:39, 12 March 2009 (CET) | ||
: Isn't the unidentified individual Bagget? It really can't be anyone else. [[User:FalseSwipe|FalseSwipe]] 04:04, 30 May 2009 (CEST) | |||
Revision as of 22:04, 29 May 2009
To do
- add Chris's fake ad for "Virginia is for Virgins"
- I believe Chris commented somewhere how he get the idea from the "Virginia is for Lovers" campaign (well, it's obvious the inspiration, but it's amusing that he explains it). I believe it was in a MySpace entry, maybe it's in Other, I need to check or someone else can. --Champthom 14:37, 11 March 2009 (CET)
- Chris uses two forms of the phrase. The longer version is "Virginia is for Virgins; not Lovers," so the reference he's making is so obvious that even he probably doesn't think he needs to explain it. --MachPunch 00:39, 12 March 2009 (CET)
- Isn't the unidentified individual Bagget? It really can't be anyone else. FalseSwipe 04:04, 30 May 2009 (CEST)