@snood,
snood wrote:
You engaged me, chicky - remember? You were trying to get me to qualify what was objectionable and what isn't, remember? You wanna drop it now, fine.
I was (trying to get you to qualify)?
No, I don't remember that. Do you mean when I asked you what you found objectionable about someone dressed as a black person, sans fried chicken and watermelon, when it was the chicken and watermelon that is what would have made it objectionable?
The question that you didn't answer? Which you never did qualify?
Or are you referring to when you asked if I was able to understand why a costume would be objectionable, and I answered? Which I did qualify?
I suppose if according to max that makes make a bitchy little girl, what does it make a man if questions he asked doesn't get addressed?
Bitchy max? You say that as if that were a bad thing. As jcboy put it, I've been called worse by my kitty cat, when giving him a bath.
Snood, you just go on making jokes, which call people homophobic, or misogynistic names. Go on a add things to a costume that aren't even there.
Because we all know it's ok for you to call someone a faggot, or chickie, or make comments not clear to all that they were meant as a joke, but not ok for someone to wear a sombrero.
And to be clear, this isn't being shrill, listen to this in your head in the way I'm thinking it, which is bored at your usual dragging in the fried chicken and watermelon act.
Not angry, not argumentative, not ironic.
In any event, I think it's fine for someone to go in costume as someone from another country. Be it a serape and sombrero, as a geisha or a Swiss yodler, or even dressed as a pygmy, if you're short enough.
Not Nepoleon though.
