Filed By Alex Blaze | January 08, 2009 7:15 AM | comments
Filed in: Site News
Tags: blog joke, boy pics, lesbian porn, rachel maddow, votes, weblog awards
Click to enlarge and to get rid of those censor boxes.
h/t to Joe and Andy. I did the racially- and gender-inclusive version of the meme, of course, because I can't do anything without a smug sense of liberal superiority.
We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.
The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.
Andy did the right thing by providing a resource for the number one LGBT issue, Prop 8 protests, times, cities, ect. Thousands went there for information. The popularity is paying off.
Charles, must you turn every little joke and game into a chance to be snide and insult others? Whatever made you so bitter?
And if you hate us as much as you contend you do, what makes you stick around? It certainly can't be all the Rachel Maddow pics. :)
For the record, I clicked on Rachel Maddow first. I can't help it. I think she's adorable.:)
She's totally hot!
You guys ARE the best, the smartest, the most readable -- I don't care what the stupid poll says.
Why didn't you use Prince William's penis picture for this post?
I take a look at that gem every time I comment.
LOL - I just want to know what I have to do to see the rest of #4. I've voted every day dammit. Don't I get a reward for that? :)
Actually, that one had a swimsuit. There is no nude version.
That's how devious I am. I don't even put up real naked pictures. :)
I'm pretty sure that #3 is also wearing underwear. (Just guessing.) What about #1?
Man, when I do a sex post, I do it right. LMAO
#1 and #4 had underwear, and #3 was covering himself but didn't have any.
But I don't know if #2 had any underwear.
Frankly I think that like almost all kinds of "Vote for the Best This or That" things, whether on the Internet or otherwise, really should be labeled "Let's See Who Can Be The Most Innovative and Effective In Getting People to Click On Their Spot and Not The Other Person's"
"Best" is a measure of quality. Bilerico has it in spades, hearts, clubs, diamonds, not to mention consistent high quality writing and commentary. Period.
Just like 50.1% of the electorate can't take away fundamental rights, not ending up at the top of the "overclicing finger" heap would have absolutely no relevance to the inherent worthiness of this site and its hard-working leaders.
(Now do I get a raise?)
LOL. I'll talk to him about one of those 100% raises he gives out sometimes. ;)
Okay, I admit that I am torn as to which person in the pics I would want to met.
I would want to met any of the boys for obvious reasons, but Rachel is RACHEL.
What the HECK was the Rachel Maddow one supposed to be covering? A trach scar?
I think there is a song called: "Nuthin' from nothin' leaves nothin' ". Multiplying by zero produces the same results. Divide by zero, though, and the shit really flies. Maybe that technique would be more effective than fraudulent use of black rectangles. There's probably a law.
And if there isn't one, there ought to be one.
I wonder what it says about me that I actually know "Nothing from Nothing"....
The song apparently postdates an older saying. The song was written in 1974 by Billy Preston. What I looked up started writing it one night in the dressing room of an Atlanta nightclub where he was performing. He wanted to write a song based on the saying, "Nothing from nothing leaves nothing."
Bruce Fisher, who was Preston's songwriting partner (he co-wrote his previous American chart topper, "Will It Go Round in Circles"), added a second verse.
The B-side of the single was another song Preston wrote with Fisher: "You Are So Beautiful," which was later a hit for Joe Cocker.
They decided to market it as "Best Song of 1974", but they needed a marketing tool. So they put up pictures of naked and semi-naked men and women with little black rectangles hiding parts that in 1974 were perhaps a little more tolerated than James Dobson would think proper, and then when people got curious they saw it was really an Amway promotion. It was immoral then, and in a immutable theology it is immoral now.
Sorry to be a detractor, and an unpaid one at that, but since the comments on this thread otherwise seem to be going in a non-substantive direction, who am I to stand in the way of progress?
Actually I did click on Rachel's pic and come here for the lesbian writers who so far are better than you arrogant gay guys from Indiana. Although Lane and Matt Comer are great. I think she is great as I was interviewed on the Rachel Maddow Radio show last month. I wasn't attacking your "joke" which seemed like sour grapes to me, but the layout of Towleroad and JoeMyGod is a good example for blogs to follow. The graphics are great, and the black backgrounds of both Joe and Towleroad show up the ads much better than on a white background. This, according to the late Jack Nichols, a friend of mine who produced GayToday for badpuppy.com.
I thought it was pretty obviously a joke with the Rachel Maddow pic up there. That was probably too much nuance for a certain segment of our readership, I know, but I thought that most people would get it.
Oh Charles, why can't you just admit the *ahem* real reason you come around here? All your excuses fall apart - Lane (Hudson, I'm assuming) doesn't blog here. Matt Comer's great, but he writes more on other websites, so you can't be visiting us just for him.
It's gotta be the Hoosier styles.
Real reason ? I know Patricia Nell Warren and enjoy her articles. She is a great writer.
As usual, Alex, you're ahead of the curve on all of us!!!
Just as long as he doesn't go out and straighten the curve for us.