New Zealand. Buy your tickets now.
You forgot the parental warning: uses "gay," loudly and repeatedly, in a pejorative fashion. Have we so soon forgotten the Waldorf / irony thread?
A. I think your post should actually read
NSFW due to AUDIO!
I clicked that link with PK in the room, thinking it would just be pictures he couldn't see, and B was all B'ing at me to turn it off and faster than I could, (my computer reacts very very slowly to volume-down commands).
I don't hold truck with the Waldorfians and their gnomery. Irony is teh best! Also (as is apparent by the end), it's no more pejorative than it is when used here.
I realize, but I'm not sure that PK would get that. And if he gets the idea that girly is bad, he isn't going to wear this fucking sweater when I'm done with it.
Say what you will about small-town Minnesota, but the local newspaper editor lets her son wear a pink sweater and brags about it. The rainbow is everywhere, it seems.
This one has a big heart on the front (PK loves hearts). In a really nice berry color, b/c the shop didn't have good cotton yarn in red.
My mother used to knit me sweaters which, while they didn't have hearts on them, were probably too beautiful for a young boy to be wearing, even one as beautiful as I was. The result wasn't to turn me into a priss, but, perhaps worse, to make me excessively concerned with not being a priss. Something to think about.
Bitch, Have you ever seen the book "Stories for Free Children," published by Ms. magazine?
OT: Is blogger incredibly slow just now?
Yeah, I'm having trouble getting onto some of the blogger sites. Yesterday was pretty bad too.
Those are cocks, Michael.
What's with all those weird nipples?
You mean these? (NSFW)
I want to know if PETA ever thought that commercial had a chance of getting shown, or if they just wanted it banned so they could be like "look! see!"
It's pretty gross.
I can't imagine they ever thought it would be aired. And it certainly is gross, which I guess was their point. But, as per usual for PETA, they manage to completely obscure any legitimate message they have.
Those are cocks, Michael.
But they were so small.
But, as per usual for PETA, they manage to completely obscure any legitimate message they have.
I'm having a bit of troubling decoding that. Maybe I need to upgrade my decoder ring.
Are you saying that they may have a "legitimate" message, but somehow what they chose to say obscured what they should (legitmately?) have said? I can see saying that their chosen words/images undermined their ostensible message, but I don't see what legitimacy has to do with anything.
Well, I didn't spend much time choosing my words. I think it's pretty plain that I don't agree with PETA as it comes to animal products; I'm Señor Bacon, after all.
So yeah, ostensible is probably a more accurate word than legitimate.
Do I get to make Beggin Strips jokes about you in the office now, Seņor?
Sure. This would be a good place to start.
I've said it before: it's like we have one mind.
21: thank you for the clarification. I am unsure one way or the other how I feel about PETA, but I do tend to be a free speech absolutist. I didn't want to go all 1st amendment nuclear if wasn't really at issue.
I do tend to be a free speech absolutist.
Me too.
Shhhh! Don't say that so loud. The NSA is listening.