Does every advertisement have to be for the queer beers?

Victor

We love you still Joe.*

McClane wrote:

All i want is NOT to have to see them being intimate. What is wrong with that ???

Just who is being intimate in that banner ad? Its the same guy, mirrored. Is he being intimate with himself? No.

* not that kind.

nesf

LiouVille wrote:

I haven't felt this upset reading a Thread since I last visited stormfront.

I find I can only laugh. In order to be upset by someone's opinion, I need to respect them first.


There will always be closeminded muppets online. It's the nature of the beast.

oscarBravo

RuggieBear wrote:

But those girls are [glow=4]cool[/glow]

...and yet, in defiance of the laws of physics, simultaneously [glow=3]hot[/glow]

RuggieBear

oscarBravo wrote:

...and yet, in defiance of the laws of physics, simultaneously [glow=3]hot[/glow]

[glow=1]hot[/glow]/ [glow=1]cool[/glow]

such a pity the effect doesn't work in firefox

nesf

oscarBravo wrote:

...and yet, in defiance of the laws of physics, simultaneously [glow=3]hot[/glow]

The laws of physics, in specific thermodynamics, don't apply to Lesbian kisses.

Einsteins less talked about law or sth.

Amz

Must ... Control ... Fist ... Of death ...

RuggieBear

Amz wrote:

Must ... Control ... Fist ... Of death ...

Victor

nesf wrote:

The laws of physics, in specific thermodynamics, don't apply to Lesbian kisses. Einsteins less talked about law or sth.

Is all relativity, tbh.

Unless comparing with something at 0K everything is hot or cool relative to something else (unless its the same temperature).

nesf

Victor wrote:

Is all relativity, tbh.

Unless comparing with something at 0K everything is hot or cool relative to something else (unless its the same temperature).

There is no spoon. Therefore it cannot be hot or cool.

Etc.

Talliesin

nesf wrote:

The laws of physics, in specific thermodynamics, don't apply to Lesbian kisses.

Einsteins less talked about law or sth.

It's all quite simple. Coolness (C) within the range of young female humans is proportional to Lesbianism (λ) multiplied by propensity for being photographed by Tanya Chalkin (Φ) divided by over-exposure of some of Chalkin's work* (X).

Hotness (H) is merely proportional to the propensity for being photographed by Tanya Chalkin (Φ) divided by over-exposure of some of Chalkin's work (X).

Now. Since H ∝ Φ/X and C ∝ λΦ/X. Obviously C = λHk for some constant k.

Ergo.

1. All the cool girls are lesbians.
2. All the cool lesbians are hot.
3. All the hot lesbians are cool.
4. Some hot girls are cool - because they are also lesbians. Some are merely hot.

This is all to the great benefit of young lesbians. Those of us who are male and either straight or bi can seek solace because:

1. When we're young enough to be attracted to girls hormones are a-raging and we're focusing on hotness (H).
   
2. Bi girls get to be cool too.
   
3. When we're a older and interested in women rather than girls the formula has changed. While all the cool girls are lesbian, the cool women are from the entire range of sexual orientations. (See, Amz can be too cool for school as well as not a lesbian - as long as she's too old for school too - and need not find offense in LiouVille's advert. Otherwise she would have to be satisfied with being hot).

*As in you see that poster everywhere, not as in darkroom mishaps†.

†No, not the kind of darkroom mishaps that, for example, lead to three people being barred from the photography club back in my schooldays, besides if memory serves that was one girl and two guys‡.

‡No, I wasn't one of them.

flowerpotfrog

Talliesin wrote:

It's all quite simple. Coolness (C) within the range of young female humans is proportional to Lesbianism (λ) multiplied by propensity for being photographed by Tanya Chalkin (Φ) divided by over-exposure of some of Chalkin's work* (X).

Hotness (H) is merely proportional to the propensity for being photographed by Tanya Chalkin (Φ) divided by over-exposure of some of Chalkin's work (X).

Now. Since H ∝ Φ/X and C ∝ λΦ/X. Obviously C = λHk for some constant k.

Ergo.

1. All the cool girls are lesbians.
2. All the cool lesbians are hot.
3. All the hot lesbians are cool.
4. Some hot girls are cool - because they are also lesbians. Some are merely hot.

This is all to the great benefit of young lesbians. Those of us who are male and either straight or bi can seek solace because:

1. When we're young enough to be attracted to girls hormones are a-raging and we're focusing on hotness (H).
   
2. Bi girls get to be cool too.
   
3. When we're a older and interested in women rather than girls the formula has changed. While all the cool girls are lesbian, the cool women are from the entire range of sexual orientations. (See, Amz can be too cool for school as well as not a lesbian - as long as she's too old for school too - and need not find offense in LiouVille's advert. Otherwise she would have to be satisfied with being hot).

*As in you see that poster everywhere, not as in darkroom mishaps†.

†No, not the kind of darkroom mishaps that, for example, lead to three people being barred from the photography club back in my schooldays, besides if memory serves that was one girl and two guys‡.

‡No, I wasn't one of them.

Wow you must know a lot about lesbians.

Talliesin

flowerpotfrog wrote:

Wow you must know a lot about lesbians.

You can appear knowledgable on any topic with the use of enough Greek letters.

Zaph

I'd just like to say that I'm appalled by the ads. Bloody big paintball ads where there used to be tasteful ads for pints. Down with this sort of thing, I say!

CuLT

zaph wrote:

I'd just like to say that I'm appalled by the ads. Bloody big paintball ads where there used to be tasteful ads for pints. Down with this sort of thing, I say!

here here, man manlove, not war!

nesf

Talliesin wrote:

It's all quite simple. Coolness (C) within the range of young female humans is proportional to Lesbianism (λ) multiplied by propensity for being photographed by Tanya Chalkin (Φ) divided by over-exposure of some of Chalkin's work* (X).

Hotness (H) is merely proportional to the propensity for being photographed by Tanya Chalkin (Φ) divided by over-exposure of some of Chalkin's work (X).

Now. Since H ∝ Φ/X and C ∝ λΦ/X. Obviously C = λHk for some constant k.

Ergo.

1. All the cool girls are lesbians.
2. All the cool lesbians are hot.
3. All the hot lesbians are cool.
4. Some hot girls are cool - because they are also lesbians. Some are merely hot.

This is all to the great benefit of young lesbians. Those of us who are male and either straight or bi can seek solace because:

1. When we're young enough to be attracted to girls hormones are a-raging and we're focusing on hotness (H).
   
2. Bi girls get to be cool too.
   
3. When we're a older and interested in women rather than girls the formula has changed. While all the cool girls are lesbian, the cool women are from the entire range of sexual orientations. (See, Amz can be too cool for school as well as not a lesbian - as long as she's too old for school too - and need not find offense in LiouVille's advert. Otherwise she would have to be satisfied with being hot).

*As in you see that poster everywhere, not as in darkroom mishaps†.

†No, not the kind of darkroom mishaps that, for example, lead to three people being barred from the photography club back in my schooldays, besides if memory serves that was one girl and two guys‡.

‡No, I wasn't one of them.

WizZard

Talliesin wrote:

It's all quite simple. Coolness (C) within the range of young female humans is proportional to Lesbianism (λ) multiplied by propensity for being photographed by Tanya Chalkin (Φ) divided by over-exposure of some of Chalkin's work* (X).

Hotness (H) is merely proportional to the propensity for being photographed by Tanya Chalkin (Φ) divided by over-exposure of some of Chalkin's work (X).

Now. Since H ∝ Φ/X and C ∝ λΦ/X. Obviously C = λHk for some constant k.

Ergo.

1. All the cool girls are lesbians.
2. All the cool lesbians are hot.
3. All the hot lesbians are cool.
4. Some hot girls are cool - because they are also lesbians. Some are merely hot.

This is all to the great benefit of young lesbians. Those of us who are male and either straight or bi can seek solace because:

1. When we're young enough to be attracted to girls hormones are a-raging and we're focusing on hotness (H).
   
2. Bi girls get to be cool too.
   
3. When we're a older and interested in women rather than girls the formula has changed. While all the cool girls are lesbian, the cool women are from the entire range of sexual orientations. (See, Amz can be too cool for school as well as not a lesbian - as long as she's too old for school too - and need not find offense in LiouVille's advert. Otherwise she would have to be satisfied with being hot).

*As in you see that poster everywhere, not as in darkroom mishaps†.

†No, not the kind of darkroom mishaps that, for example, lead to three people being barred from the photography club back in my schooldays, besides if memory serves that was one girl and two guys‡.

‡No, I wasn't one of them.

Legendary post Talliesin

Beruthiel

McClane wrote:

Am i anti-gay ? No.

Do i think its unnatural ? Yes i do

How do you not get the fact that your second comment negates your first

RE*AC*TOR

I think ice-cream is unnatural - but I am not anti-ice-cream. Oh no sir.

McClane

How do you not get the fact that your second comment negates your first

I personally think its not natural, i don't think people are wrong to do it, i don't think they should be seen as any less people to do it, i don't have anything against anyone doing it. I don't see the two views conflicting.

Its my own personal opinion and i'm sorry if you do't agree with me. Maybe i simply don't care enough about it to try and learn any different but at the moment thats my view.

I'm sorry if that offends anyone.

McClane

I haven't felt this upset reading a Thread since I last visited stormfront. I just can't put into words how I feel at this moment. All i'm trying to do is organise a night out, maybe help some people who arn't comfortable with the scene meet like minded people.

I'm sorry for the rantings, just a combination of a bad day at work and i honestly thought the ad in question cold be toned down.

I won't post again about it Louiville, i never meant to attack what your organising, just got carried away with some people.

DeVore

McClane wrote:

Yeah fair enough i suppose.

You try and talk reasonably to people and your accused of being a bigot and someone else posts a site supporting pedophilia and yet its ok ?

Doesn't say much for the Admins on Boards.

Sorry, but.... what?!


I kinda hope you cant back that up. If you can I'm worried and if you can't I'm annoyed.

Please explain this comment.

DeV.

Esel

I think one of McClane's problems is that he doesn't know the difference between a post, a link, a site and a cite. Whatever, at least his employer now knows he is not gay, but is a homophobe (look that word up, Mc).

Oh, and 'McClane' is not a gay handle? Lethal Weapon was so teh ghey.

Computers are not natural. Modern medicine is not natural. Clothes are not natural. Sheesh.

Aposite joke: Why do Baptists not make love standing up? They wouldn't like people to think they were dancing!

rsynnott

DeVore wrote:

Sorry, but.... what?!


I kinda hope you cant back that up. If you can I'm worried and if you can't I'm annoyed.

Please explain this comment.

DeV.

Someone posted a link to a freedictionary (or similar) definition for bigotry. One of the 100 or so definitions included the word 'paedophile'. Obviously, this meant that that person was justifying paedophila.

Computers are not natural. Modern medicine is not natural. Clothes are not natural. Sheesh.

Homosexuality IS, though. Otherwise, people would not do it...

McClane wrote:

I personally think its not natural,

Why do you believe this? You can't just make statements like this with absolutely no references or explaination.

logic1

rsynnott wrote:

Why do you believe this? You can't just make statements like this with absolutely no references or explaination.

Yes he can. It's his opinion he can post any opinion he wants without references or explanation.

Personally I could do without the bender banners but c'est la vie.

.logic.

rsynnott

logic1 wrote:

Yes he can. It's his opinion he can post any opinion he wants without references or explanation.

Personally I could do without the bender banners but c'est la vie.

.logic.

Well, I suppose technically he can. What I meant to say is that he can't do it without looking silly.

And are you trying to be deliberately offensive with "bender banners", or are you just a bit clueless?

logic1

rsynnott wrote:

And are you trying to be deliberately offensive with "bender banners", or are you just a bit clueless?

Oh wait, so if I'm gay I can call other gays "Queer" and advertise a "Queer Beers" but if I'm not gay I have to be absolutely political correct?

Are you actually a bigot or just a bit clueless?

.logic.

rsynnott

logic1 wrote:

Oh wait, so if I'm gay I can call other gays "Queer" and advertise a "Queer Beers" but if I'm not gay I have to be absolutely political correct?

Are you actually a bigot or just a bit clueless?

.logic.

First, "queer" is an example of word reclaimation, to an extent. "Bender" is not. Secondly, "Queer Beers" is meant in a joking context. Was what you said?

logic1

rsynnott wrote:

First, "queer" is an example of word reclaimation, to an extent. "Bender" is not.

Ah of course the word reclamation argument. You sisters taking control eh! And who defines what word get reclaimed? I'm sure "****" is akin to "******" and the latter has been reclaimed. Why can't I start a reclamation and begin calling it "**** Beers" or "**** Banners". Of course you couldn't take that as deliberately offensive. It's word reclamation meant in a joking context!

Secondly, "Queer Beers" is meant in a joking context. Was what you said?

The point I'm making is regardless of my context you immediately construed a comment made by one of the non-homosexual parade to be offensive and retorted with an attempt at a snide insult when infact you're sticking up banners everywhere with similar comments flashing on them and of course it's all in good fun, not a second thought given because they're made by yourselves.

Maybe they should advertise the next boards beer as "STRAIGHT BEERS!!!!"

meant in a joking context of course.

One thing I've always found with the majority of people in minority groups is they're the first to accuse others of being intolerable, racist or bigoted when infact they should take a closer look at themselves.

However this is all off-topic.

.logic.

rsynnott

logic1 wrote:

The point I'm making is regardless of my context you immediately construed a comment made by one of the non-homosexual parade to be offensive and retorted with an attempt at a snide insult when infact you're sticking up banners everywhere with similar comments flashing on them and of course it's all in good fun, not a second thought given because they're made by yourselves.
.

No, I took it as someone TRYING to be offensive, which I find a little irritating. If you meant it as a joke, then I apologise, but there really was some ambiguity. And I'm sticking up banners nowhere

logic1

rsynnott wrote:

No, I took it as someone TRYING to be offensive, which I find a little irritating.

Believe me you'd know if I was trying to be offensive.

.logic.