I just saw "Brokeback Mountain". Was the cumshot really necessary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sArA

manker....oh you can be sooooo tiresome :dry: bored again huh? Go and do some number crunching or suduko or somat....rod rod rod.....don't you get weary sometimes?

Obviously, I was refering to the lack titilation for the homosexual or (curious) masses (such as yourself). I think there are sufficient numbers of people with such proclivities to be considered en masse so to speak. Besides, as it has been marketed as 'explicit' (yeah right) then considering its success in attracting large audiences, one can (rightly or wrongly yeah yeah manker) assume that one of the reasons for high attendance was a possiblility of a bit o gay pron thinly disguised as a mass audience mainstream film. This turns out to be completely unfounded thus lacking in titilation for the masses.......phew....rising to manker's rodding is such an exercise in precision writing it makes me wonder if he is one of those wannabe Drill Sergeant types......

As the movie here is rated 15, perhaps this is why there was no cum shot. I will await the directors cut.

---

'The masses' traditionally refers to the common people - all of them, like.

What you wrote was pish, but don't let that stop you taking pride in it.


:dabs:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sArA

I will await the directors cut.

---

PM muchpl3.

He'll shoot it right to ya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sArA

manker....oh you can be sooooo tiresome :dry: bored again huh? Go and do some number crunching or suduko or somat....rod rod rod.....don't you get weary sometimes?

Obviously, I was refering to the lack titilation for the homosexual or (curious) masses (such as yourself). I think there are sufficient numbers of people with such proclivities to be considered en masse so to speak. Besides, as it has been marketed as 'explicit' (yeah right) then considering its success in attracting large audiences, one can (rightly or wrongly yeah yeah manker) assume that one of the reasons for high attendance was a possiblility of a bit o gay pron thinly disguised as a mass audience mainstream film. This turns out to be completely unfounded thus lacking in titilation for the masses.......phew....rising to manker's rodding is such an exercise in precision writing it makes me wonder if he is one of those wannabe Drill Sergeant types......

As the movie here is rated 15, perhaps this is why there was no cum shot. I will await the directors cut.

---

'The masses' traditionally refers to the common people - all of them, like.

What you wrote was pish, but don't let that stop you taking pride in it.


:dabs:

---

teh bollocks dear...


feckin manker :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sArA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

'The masses' traditionally refers to the common people - all of them, like.

What you wrote was pish, but don't let that stop you taking pride in it.


:dabs:

---

teh bollocks dear...


feckin manker :dry:

---

Then Google it. I just did to make sure that what I wrote was correct.

If you choose to do likewise, then you'll find that it isn't bollocks, but quite correct.

I wasn't rodding, just passing a comment, you wanna make yourself look like an arse by continuing to insist that what I wrote is bollocks, please don't let me stop you - for I don't mind in the slightest :)

:handbags:

:schnauz:

have you done a dave again today, or has postage been achieved?:unsure:

shut up you bored accountant....

Googling is for the masses....ffs.

I never look an arse because I maintain my dignity.....:snooty:

Besides, I am in the fortunate position of being able to re-interpret anything I like provided that I can justify my re-usage of a concept....My innovative and original use of Denzin's Interpretive Interactionism in research analysis is a case in point. In this case, to take a technique and to re-interpret and re-position its original stance in order to utilise some of its methods whilst rejecting others, was seen as a significant contribution to research methodological theory.....

Therefore, if I want to re-interpret the meaning of 'masses' for the purposes of maintaining my original stance and without having to back down I will do....ner ner ne ner ner :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sArA

shut up you bored accountant....

Googling is for the masses....ffs.

I never look an arse because I maintain my dignity.....:snooty:

Besides, I am in the fortunate position of being able to re-interpret anything I like provided that I can justify my re-usage of a concept....My innovative and original use of Denzin's Interpretive Interactionism in research analysis is a case in point. In this case, to take a technique and to re-interpret and re-position its original stance in order to utilise some of its methods whilst rejecting others, was seen as a significant contribution to research methodological theory.....

Therefore, if I want to re-interpret the meaning of 'masses' for the purposes of maintaining my original stance and without having to back down I will do....ner ner ne ner ner :lol:

---

:lol:

I shall maintain my original ':schnauz:' position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proper Bo

have you done a dave again today, or has postage been achieved?:unsure:

---

It's in the postage tray ftw :01: