Those clouds are gorgeous.

Which reminds me that I need to check with Emmett about a couple of pictures he took when we were in Reno the other weekend -- on Saturday evening we walked out of the parking garage to an utterly bizarre combination of evening high-altitude desert light, funky casino architecture, and thickly piled cloud formations that made you absolutely, utterly swear that the sky was a gorgeously painted backdrop. If you turned and looked the other way, it was obviously real sky; you turned back to the casino roof sculpture and the clouds behind it, and your brain insisted, "Backdrop. Beautiful, unearthly, completely unnatural backdrop." Emmett took a couple of pictures with his ipad camera; I dearly hope they captured the total unreality of those real clouds.

Stupid browser ate my post. And auto correct tried to imply cunnilingus on behalf of Opera.

Anyway, where was I? Right. My sister's rebuttal was posted in the paper. The comments so far seem to be more than typically stupid, but I'm out of the habit parsing comments since Gawker got its new software. Even more ludicrous is this: [link] -- what does that even mean? Whose point of view is that? Homophobes who don't wasn't to be seem as the bad guys anymore? I had no idea the facts were even up for debate.

Homophobes who don't wasn't to be seem as the bad guys anymore? I had no idea the facts were even up for debate.

Oh, it's a whole thing lately -- I'm utterly against homosexuality, but I'm not mean or hateful about it, I just don't want to see or hear about it ever, so I'm not a horrible homophobe. Those people are mean and hateful, which is not me. So I am not that. Still, no homos, though.

It breaks my brain to think about, too.

This sounds like something that could be in The Wire.

I don't see how a country who clearly counts this: [link] one of its cultural exports can act even slightly coy and claim that displays of het sexuality are taboo...I'd be embarrassed, honestly,to be caught out in such an obvious lie. Now, the author might not approve of such flaunting, but that's not the point. The ship has sailed. "We" do that.

I'm pretty sure the author there said "kissing and caressing" or something, neither of which I see in your last link!

It is true that simulated sex acts require neither kissing nor caressing, and that is what the young lady wad presenting for. Consider me appropriately chastened.

That young lady was just demonstrating her flexibility! (even with bouncing and music...) Sheesh.

Oh, it's a whole thing lately -- I'm utterly against homosexuality, but I'm not mean or hateful about it, I just don't want to see or hear about it ever, so I'm not a horrible homophobe. Those people are mean and hateful, which is not me. So I am not that. Still, no homos, though.

On another message board I frequent one of the posters put up a long screed about how Anderson Cooper damaged his credibility and impartiality by coming out publicly, and is now desperately flailing about for a legitimate reason that gay people should remain silent about their personal lives unlike their straight counterparts that other posters can't immediately shoot down as a hypocritical double standard. It's almost entertaining to watch.

I'm not used to reading Jamaican comments, so I wonder if I'm missing some shorthand. I'm also not well versed (har har) in religious comments, so that's no doubt contributing to my confusion. But the comments on my sister's rebuttal by and large make no sense. They seem to depend on you already knowing what side they're on, what side you're on, and anything else they could have to say.

I pointed out that one of the criticisms of her argument was a straw man argument, and she suggested I make it there on the piece itself, and hells no. Not to abandon you, baby sis, but I'm askeered af those there waters. I don't know the rules and I don't know the terrain. I wouldn't know where to start in order to shore up my position.