> Look, it's about time you realised that "your" Jim is
> either A) a complete figment of your impressively large
> imagination, or B) some guy who once made the mistake of
> pretending to be Jim in order to get inside your pants,
> and has been regretting it ever since. "Your" Jim may not
> wear jewelry, but THE Jim does. "Your" Jim may well talk
> to you on the phone, and perhaps you did pop his cherry,
> but the real Jim is probably as fed up as the rest of us
> with you stalking him. Poor bastard.
>
> Dave
The "real" Jim, in your scenario, would this be the one that was born with the name? In this case, I have not seen him since we were children. Maybe we're still the children we were then, but he is not "my" Jim; he is a cousin.
|
