> Well, there's "caring" and then there's "curiousity."
>
> I'm curious about plenty of things about which I don't
> really care. In the case of Jim's sexuality, neither
> applies. I don't care and I'm not even curious.
>
> But, my point is I can see why someone might want to know,
> as one who is interested in all things Steinman, out of
> simple curiousity, and not so much out of "caring," or
> having any vested interest in the answer.
>
> The lack of tact to actually come out and ask the man,
> though, is a different story...
I agree...I really don't care either.
But he did give all of those who are curious a bit of an answer...well.. of his likes back in 1967-ish anyway...
Don't blame him either Jane was quite atractive...
|
