On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:


>> > wrote:
>> >On Jun 9, 1:02*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:40:11 GMT, blake murphy
>>
>> >> I worked in a building that had a few thousand people working in it.
>> >> There were 6 ea. mens and womens multi-stall bathrooms. *They had a
>> >> porter and matron on duty all day. *The porter spent over 75% of his
>> >> day doing things other than keeping up with his bathrooms. *The matron
>> >> spent almost all her day cleaning hers. *
>>
>> >> Lou *- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >I wonder why it's the opposite in private homes. *If nothing but
>> >females used my bathrooms, the most I'd have to do to the toilet is
>> >dust it now and then. *Males? Completely opposite.
>>
>> >N.
>>
>> it seems many women refuse to completely (or even mostly) sit down on
>> public johns, for they are delicate creatures.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>That is true. I suppose that's the main reason why women's public
>restrooms are messier (if they are). We should all carry around those
>little purse-packs of toilet seat disposable covers.

The building I spoke of had those. Made no difference. If anything
it made it worse as they ended up on the floor too.

Lou

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:59:07 -0500, Lou Decruss >
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 11:31:27 -0700 (PDT), Nancy2
> wrote:
>
>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >On Jun 9, 1:02*pm, Lou Decruss > wrote:
>>> >> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 14:40:11 GMT, blake murphy
>>>
>>> >> I worked in a building that had a few thousand people working in it.
>>> >> There were 6 ea. mens and womens multi-stall bathrooms. *They had a
>>> >> porter and matron on duty all day. *The porter spent over 75% of his
>>> >> day doing things other than keeping up with his bathrooms. *The matron
>>> >> spent almost all her day cleaning hers. *
>>>
>>> >> Lou *- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> >I wonder why it's the opposite in private homes. *If nothing but
>>> >females used my bathrooms, the most I'd have to do to the toilet is
>>> >dust it now and then. *Males? Completely opposite.
>>>
>>> >N.
>>>
>>> it seems many women refuse to completely (or even mostly) sit down on
>>> public johns, for they are delicate creatures.
>>>
>>> your pal,
>>> blake- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>That is true. I suppose that's the main reason why women's public
>>restrooms are messier (if they are). We should all carry around those
>>little purse-packs of toilet seat disposable covers.
>
>The building I spoke of had those. Made no difference. If anything
>it made it worse as they ended up on the floor too.
>
>Lou

god have mercy.

your pal,
blake

"blake murphy" > wrote:
>>
>>The building I spoke of had those. Made no difference. If anything
>>it made it worse as they ended up on the floor too.
>>
>>Lou
>
> god have mercy.
>

Careful, dahling. Everyone knows that men who obsess on how "dirty"
women are tend to be 1. really lousy in bed and 2. practicing or potential
homosexuals.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:58:48 -0400, "cybercat" >
wrote:

>
>"blake murphy" > wrote:
>>>
>>>The building I spoke of had those. Made no difference. If anything
>>>it made it worse as they ended up on the floor too.
>>>
>>>Lou
>>
>> god have mercy.
>>
>
>Careful, dahling. Everyone knows that men who obsess on how "dirty"
>women are tend to be 1. really lousy in bed and 2. practicing or potential
>homosexuals.
>

why the **** should i care if women **** on the floor just like men
do? i'm not the janitor.

your pal,
blake