| Regarding Jim's sexuality. | |
|
Posted by: |
Lasse86b 09:43 am UTC 12/29/06 |
| It really beats me, that theres so much anxiety about touching this issue, and a lot of people seem to be getting real angry with the curious on the board (esp. you, Pudding). It's slightly contradictory when people at the same time as claiming that they always see a pure Jim, free of sexuality etc. Sort of, the unpolluted Jim. yet still I see people shrieking, when the suspicion arises as to whether Jim is a NYC liberal or not. My point is, a lot of people obviously get offended by our asking (Jim seems to take it with a pinch of salt tho, which is refreshing), but in fact this IS, or should be, a free board, so in essence everyone's entitled to ask. If know one really knows, well then it ends there. Fine by me. But I don't need anyone teaching me what I should be asking and when and when not to get a life. Besides THAT, I sincerely think that Pudding and others who don't wanna know, and for some reason wanna stop us who do dead in our tracks, should participate, but you really shouldn't be so judgmental. We're just curious. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Hell yeah! (re: bat out of hell personnel particulars) - Vin 03:45 pm UTC 12/29/06 |
| Next: | Jim replied to his sexuality question on his blog yesterday... - RatLoaf 01:21 am UTC 12/30/06 |
| Thread: |
|