On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:35:08 -0500, Frank McCoy <mccoyf@millcomm.com>
wrote:
>In alt.fan.frank.mccoy Laurence Taylor <see-headers@nospam.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>Frank McCoy wrote:
>>> Well, it shouldn't be. It should be art.
>>> Hell, with the proper lawyer, likely you could get it ruled that way.
>>> Not me. They'd assume "prurient interest". ;-{
>>>
>>> But if I could, I'd find a cute little girl, get parental permission, and take a
>>> picture of her sitting and/or standing naked, holding a kitten (preferably cute
>>> too) with her cunny showing ... not obscenely or sexily, but definitely and
>>> clearly visible.
>>>
>>> And then ... (Wait for it.)
>>
>>> .
>>>
>>> I'd post it to the appropriate newsgroups with the caption:
>>> "Now ain't that the cutest little pussy you ever saw?
>>
>>I probably wouldn't even notice the girl, but I love pussy-cats.
>
>So do I. I love them both ... But you're missing the whole point!
>It isn't the girl *OR* the kitten. It's the pun man, the PUN!
>Gesh. Some people have no priorities.
Actually, one that MIGHT get by the puritans, would be to have her
seated with her legs spread, OBVIOUSLY nude (at least froom the waist
down) but with the kitten sitting between her legs hiding the
"naughty" bits.
|
|