B - How many dogs, hogs, logs, could I fuck? It depends on the preconditions of the enacting act.

C - That is to say, in deciding to engage in the act of fucking, I am opting to interact with a linguistic topological context surrounding the act of the fuck.

D - Let us take the specific case of fucking a hog, instantiated for sake of this analysis in the form of a New Year's Eve shindig inside my tenement house.

E - When the intercourse initiates with the hog, am I myself the intercoursing actor or is the hog the intercoursing actor and I am merely the second-order consequence of the hog's initiating act?

F - The perspective on the scenario established in E will vary depending on the perspective of the observer to the act of the person-hog fucking, including such considerations as their philosophical priors, ethical belief systems, and methods of information receipt and exchange.

G - Now, suppose that the act of person-hog fucking were to occur in an extended series carrying forward into an infinite number of intercoursing experiences over a non-defined but progressive period of time such that the interactive relationship between the pair would be characterized as a permanent person-hog fuck.

H - In so doing, the pairing itself becomes a realized instance of a permanent set point within the linguistic heuristic for the concept of person-hog interaction, itself capable of being referred back to by any user of the language for the purpose of either creating the permanent set point or forming a referent to the set point for another contextual series.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5472351&forum_id=2#47261743)

Perfect "crime" if you're still parochial enough to call it that

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5472351&forum_id=2#47261750)