graycat (user) - rated (beautiful feet)2014-10-28 18:40:14
what they only do the very next moment is, to wrongly report it as 'no feet showing' or rate it as bad/ugly feet...
And of course, they never make an "I like this image" post. Nor they upload anything themselves, I'm sure.
They're clueless (to the site rules) and annoying.
Just wanted to point this out.
Yes, BackInBlack60: there are some members that, whenever a new image is uploaded,
Templar97 (user)2014-10-28 18:48:05
@graycat- I agree on all points and am disgusted by this as well. :^|
Mr Hate (guild knight)
- rated (ugly feet)2014-10-28 19:02:25
Well Angus, graycat, Templar97, I fail to see where this picture #1496266 is a arch pic.
BackInBlack60 (user)2014-10-28 19:31:42
And I'd go down in a blaze of glory for *69* with Gemma.
(Think about it for a minute...)
@Hate- The one I called out (#1496268) *definitely* plenty of arch (at least as much as the good Lord gave her). The other three (61, 64, 66) not arch pics, I reported one NFS myself, wouldn't argue if the other two were. I'll go down swinging for 68 with Gemma.
graycat (user) - rated (beautiful feet)2014-10-28 22:13:09
Hate: it's just toe cleavage, but I think it's equally nice as the other three pics of the set(61,64,68).
BackInBlack60 (user)2014-10-28 23:11:42
I'm thinking on *this* site you're fighting an uphill battle regarding 'toe cleavage' and if that's your thing, go here:
@graycat- See the discussion by @A-Rex & @BiB60 regarding whether 'toe cleavage' even counts (without arches):
graycat (user) - rated (beautiful feet)2014-10-29 16:16:08
Thank you for your post, BackInBlack60 :)