| Jim replied to his sexuality question on his blog yesterday... | |
|
Posted by: |
RatLoaf 01:21 am UTC 12/30/06 |
| In reply to: | Regarding Jim's sexuality. - Lasse86b 09:43 am UTC 12/29/06 |
| From Jim's blog yesterday: "Vegesexual? Doesnt eat meat?" What does this mean? Isn't it obvious? Jimmy is ASEXUAL. Doesn't that comment spell it for us? So let's lay off him now (no pun intended)...It's obvious he doesn't do it with anyone...let's leave it at that...Besides, it gives him more time to concentrate on his music, and that can only be a good thing for us fans! > 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: | Regarding Jim's sexuality. - Lasse86b 09:43 am UTC 12/29/06 |
| Next: | re: Regarding Jim's sexuality. - Daphne24 12:37 pm UTC 12/29/06 |
| Thread: | |