Is this the evidence of the crocodile and man tussle over jeans?Of course the next question is...
Are vulnerability sized pants exclusive to those with no shame?
**I'll see myself out...**
Answer With A Question! (Part 7)
- Thread starter hush
- Start date
Of course the next question is...
Are vulnerability sized pants exclusive to those with no shame?
**I'll see myself out...**
... cheeky assessment...Do shameless pants provide immunity from sunburned seats?
(ooph, lol)
What insurance provider would you recommend in case that it is not?
would the donning of such perilous pants increase the hazard points in the overall risk assessment ultimately reducing the insurability factor of the wearer>?
Who is shamefully immune to panting at the vulnerable?
Now, isn't that a more reasonable risk assessment toward insurability for the already declared immunity?
(I am still rolling at this one. HAHAHAHA)
@Milktoast Bandit
Cheekiness is as cheekiness does?
@Stu
an actual actualized actuary or an enacted amalgamation ?
Would Doc Savage insure the possible deviant behavior of the actuary while the analysis is taking place regarding @Stu's request for unity and integration?
Wait, how did the actuary go deviant?
Does it not state "the possible deviant behavior"
How can we insure an objective analysis??Is it possible that @Sandie33 has put the deviant stink on our actuary for devious reasons?
Stink? How good is Sandie33's sense of smelling?
Wait. Are we assuming "deviant behaviour" as defined by the past or the present?
Is it possible that @Sandie is merely being mischievous not stinky when it comes to predicting current deviant behaviors?
(I'm dying over here)
(I'm dying over here
)
Can we not use cheeky and stinky in the same sentence please.