In alt.fan.frank.mccoy "Lurker@The.Threshold" <jamhppKNOT@hotmailKNOT.com>
wrote:
>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.
Yeah, but that would pretty much spoil both the pun *and* the question itself.
;-{
All that would be left would be the innuendo.
(Hey ... That sounds rather obscene itself, doesn't it?)
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
|