mmm I'd hit that

Amazing style!

cracky said:
mmm I'd hit that

Why would you hit her? Are you some kinda woman hater?

Wanted as in I want her.

[WANTED]
Reason: Apple Jacking your horse.

pingpong101 said:
Why would you hit her? Are you some kinda woman hater?

It mean hit as in I'd do her.... not actual hitting :P

cracky said:
It mean hit as in I'd do her.... not actual hitting :P

What do you mean you would "do her"? As in, do her a favor? Do you mean you would help her escape from the law or something?

pingpong101 said:
What do you mean you would "do her"? As in, do her a favor? Do you mean you would help her escape from the law or something?

.....-_- I WOULD DO HER: USE YOUR MIND AND WONDER ON WHAT DO MIGHT MEAN

cracky said:
.....-_- I WOULD DO HER: USE YOUR MIND AND WONDER ON WHAT DO MIGHT MEAN

Ah, how silly of me. You clearly are a beacon of law and order, and as such, you mean to do her in by having her arrested then hung like the criminal she is. I am sorry I was not getting what you were saying until now.

pingpong101 said:
Ah, how silly of me. You clearly are a beacon of law and order, and as such, you mean to do her in by having her arrested then hung like the criminal she is. I am sorry I was not getting what you were saying until now.

yea what ever ya say

pingpong101 said:
Why would you hit her? Are you some kinda woman hater?

pingpong101 said:
What do you mean you would "do her"? As in, do her a favor? Do you mean you would help her escape from the law or something?

pingpong101 said:
Ah, how silly of me. You clearly are a beacon of law and order, and as such, you mean to do her in by having her arrested then hung like the criminal she is. I am sorry I was not getting what you were saying until now.

Obvious troll is obvious.

VanAshkevron said:
Obvious troll is obvious.

Well, to be fair, nobody gives a termite's crack what cracky will or won't hit. And not only did cracky not "get it", but he then insisted on clarifying that his comments were brrbrrdrrs in nature.

I agree with pingpong101's assessment (inferred though it may be) that such commentary isn't really necessary here, on a piece of artwork which, while containing an attractive female, doesn't actually have any nudity or sexual provocation beyond a little cleavage and midriff. To wit, I feel post #173446 and post #134376 are both more sexually provocative. They, too, are rated "Safe". And of course post #133091 is moreso than all of the above, but at least rates as "Questionable".

so much yes