What I DON'T want to do
Hello to you wonderful readers old and new.
I don't have much of a working backlog of permissions at the moment. I found quite a few nifty shots I want to show -- but no one has responded in the past week. I've just fired off a few more requests -- but I'm saving Doug's other shot for tomorrow, just in case.
These damned droughts come and go -- though, I suspect, losing dozens of "old reliables" to Flickr censorship probably is the direct reason. And I suppose a lot of others simply don't like the uncertainty that Flickr has imposed.
Want to see just how stupid it can get? This shot is restricted, believe it or not --
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricarda303/4407758879/in/set-72157622080748703/
Speaking of URLs, something I DON'T want to do is just refer you to particularly hot photos, like this one --
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37369102@N08/5071339444/in/photostream/
Elizabeth's work is pretty terrific, I agree -- but it's not fun to separate a shot from my irreverent (but loving) scribbles.
PW 10 (I've not given "panty wetness" ratings to URLS before, and I'm not planning to have them as the focus here -- but, effective now, I hereby decree that the scale for them shall be 1-10. Everybody understand the distinction??)
I don't have much of a working backlog of permissions at the moment. I found quite a few nifty shots I want to show -- but no one has responded in the past week. I've just fired off a few more requests -- but I'm saving Doug's other shot for tomorrow, just in case.
These damned droughts come and go -- though, I suspect, losing dozens of "old reliables" to Flickr censorship probably is the direct reason. And I suppose a lot of others simply don't like the uncertainty that Flickr has imposed.
Want to see just how stupid it can get? This shot is restricted, believe it or not --
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ricarda303/4407758879/in/set-72157622080748703/
Speaking of URLs, something I DON'T want to do is just refer you to particularly hot photos, like this one --
http://www.flickr.com/photos/37369102@N08/5071339444/in/photostream/
Elizabeth's work is pretty terrific, I agree -- but it's not fun to separate a shot from my irreverent (but loving) scribbles.
PW 10 (I've not given "panty wetness" ratings to URLS before, and I'm not planning to have them as the focus here -- but, effective now, I hereby decree that the scale for them shall be 1-10. Everybody understand the distinction??)