04-26-2011, 06:19 AM
i see, so the fact i read your poetry, seen your face and heard your voice doesn't hint at you sexuality? fair enough. and even if you never said it in a poem, after listening to your voice and seeing you speak i knew/ would have known. the same way i know thousands of people are gay that i see and never speak to. if i never saw one of your poems i'd know you were gay (within a certain degree of accuracy) and sorry but to say, you only know because you read a poem i wrote is ludicrous. we all give off signals all of us. and the signals you give are not hetero.
and sorry jack but what borders on lying? i feel you think mj isn't guilty?
who takes art seriously. in truth it's art that isn't and shouldn't be taken seriously, it should be taken as creative expression. while i may take what an artist does as serious, i don't take the content as something serious enough to believe. i only have to look at the alcoholic bukowski, the incestuous child molester sexton and the insane dali to know that what they did was create art through their torture. they aren't telling people that what they say you should do is really what you should do.
you are steadfastly saying a major film is light entrainment and dismissing a series world renowned in the light entertainment industry as being anything but. you sat playing a glitter song will influence young minds. how will it do that jack, take the mj in this thread out of the equation and tell me ho playing a glitter song will or can influence influence young minds. sorry bit while the it will give him cash argument is valid the 'it can influence a growing attitude among young people.' doesn't not in the context of nexgative influence which i assume is what you're implying?
so my question is this
how will playing a glitter song have a neg influence on the young. remembering that you a still likes to hear his music by your own words.
when you started the thread the crux of your anguish was that it would help glitter pay his defense costs should he diddle another kid, now playing the song will
and sorry jack but what borders on lying? i feel you think mj isn't guilty?
who takes art seriously. in truth it's art that isn't and shouldn't be taken seriously, it should be taken as creative expression. while i may take what an artist does as serious, i don't take the content as something serious enough to believe. i only have to look at the alcoholic bukowski, the incestuous child molester sexton and the insane dali to know that what they did was create art through their torture. they aren't telling people that what they say you should do is really what you should do.
you are steadfastly saying a major film is light entrainment and dismissing a series world renowned in the light entertainment industry as being anything but. you sat playing a glitter song will influence young minds. how will it do that jack, take the mj in this thread out of the equation and tell me ho playing a glitter song will or can influence influence young minds. sorry bit while the it will give him cash argument is valid the 'it can influence a growing attitude among young people.' doesn't not in the context of nexgative influence which i assume is what you're implying?
so my question is this
how will playing a glitter song have a neg influence on the young. remembering that you a still likes to hear his music by your own words.
when you started the thread the crux of your anguish was that it would help glitter pay his defense costs should he diddle another kid, now playing the song will