Dumb as Dirt

TD Boy2

Perhaps if the hottie from the TD Bank had dropped his green Speedo® maybe poor old “Right as Rain” wouldn’t have been so appalled.

What’s rather amusing about the Right One’s “awful” outrage (amongst other things) is the claim that “the first Google search for Pride 2009 pictures yielded me these shocking examples.” Oh really? Just out of curiosity, I Googled “Pride 2009” (and several variations) yet came up with nothing close to the “shocking” pictures in question. Now, why would some crotchety old windbag go out of her way to dig up pictures of frumpy men with tattoos parading in the buff simply in order to get all indignantly righteous about it? Oh yeah, it’s the Bloggin’ Tories… I forgot — that’s their whole pathetic shtick, isn’t it? Family values (circa 1896) and all that hypocritical rot.

Let’s look at these pictures again! [Must we? — ed.] How can any responsible person take their children to this parade? There is nothing wrong with the naked human body per say [sic], but I don’t won’t [sic] my children to be exposed to a stranger’s naked body.

A cursory examination of the pictures in question however shows no children whatsoever. In fact (something I suspect “Right as Rain” has little acquaintance with), there’s no indication at all that the pictures were even taken on the “Family Pride” days when some children might actually be expected to be present.

It is time to take back our country, if you don’t want filth like the above displayed for all to see during a parade then you had better donate your time or money to a party that will fight to prevent this sort of despicable display, a party that will fight for real honest to god family values.

Um, maybe if one doesn’t want to be exposed to “filth” of that kind, one shouldn’t go actively looking for it and then pruriently display it on one’s blog “for all to see”… Just a thought.

73 Replies to “Dumb as Dirt”

  1. And, we have choices – you don’t want to see it, don’t look and if you don’t want your children to see it, don’t take them.

    That’s what’s called a free Canada.

    I’ve seen worse at the beach.

  2. Another “take back our country” moron — a la ‘Hunter’

    And yes, go to any beach and look at the 300 lb guy in the string bikini. Crime against humanity…

  3. I tested to see if the Google SafeSearch settings had anything to do with the results, but even with SafeSearch off there was nothing explicit in the first page of results. [I normally set the filter to “Moderate” not out of prudishness, but to reduce irrelevant results.] So, yes, “Right as Rain” had to dig to find these images.

  4. Actually, it’s the tattoos that annoy me the most. I’m dreading summer more and more these days, when you can’t see an inch of bared skin without being exposed to some artless scrawl on flabby, pimply flesh. *urrgh* 😉

  5. I love the logic in the statement: “There is nothing wrong with the naked human body per say [sic], but I don’t won’t [sic] my children to be exposed to a stranger’s naked body.”

    So if there’s nothing wrong with the naked human body, what’s your problem? Geez. Why are conservatives always so goddam repressed? Ooops. Was I supposed to say “goddam”?

  6. And, even if you don’t find that picture as hilarious as I do, that James in TO is a card! “Was I supposed to say, “goddam?'” indeed.

    That’s what we in the clown trade call “purh say funnay.”

  7. Ti-Guy I am not convinced that it’s the tatoos that bother you, as much as the exposed “flabby, pimply flesh.” Does the thought of, for example, Angenlina Jolie’s inked flesh cause you “dread”? If it does, it’s per say evidence of … something (and it ain’t good).

    Now, speaking as newly-self-appointed junkyard dog pro tem, I ask you: What was the value of that comment? It puts you in agreement with — what? — 95% of humanity. Say something of value for crying out loud.

  8. You morons have obviously all lost your fucking minds.

    I’m all for acceptance of GBLT culture. But there’s nothing at all unreasonable about drawing the line at indecent exposure.

    Fucking idiots.

  9. The results of that future HR-initiated Google search on “Patrick Ross” are getting more flattering by the day.

  10. Ti, you’re a moron.

    First off, Google certainly didn’t obstruct me in my current state of being obscenely well-employed.

    Secondly, you’re fucking retarded if you think that an employer is going to decline to hire someone for pointing out that indecent exposure is a simple matter of criminal law.

    What, you think they aren’t going to hire me if I decline to show them a cock ring or something?

    Pile back into the clown car, chuckles. You’ve officially made a parody out of yourself.

  11. I think the issue here is how much rooting around naked images this virtuous Conservative had to do to find these two, Patsy and not how badly you embody the standards of pubic civility and decency, although it is now.

  12. Well, Ti, as it so happened they really aren’t that hard to find.

    If someone were… say… watching a particular slide show of photos from the event… which happens to come up as the top hit on a Google search… they really aren’t that hard to find at all.

    My. Dear. Lord. Ti, you are truly one of the most pointless people to ever draw breath.

  13. Pipe down, loony. I’m waiting for someone to say something funny and your ruining it for me. Go back to your uncommented blog and shriek there.

    Don’t make me call your parents again.

  14. Really, Ti? You’ll call my parents? Really?

    Well, your little buddy Kevron did take it upon himself to cyberstalk my sister. So, no, I really don’t put that past you.

  15. >> my current state of being obscenely well-employed.<<
    What the fuck is "obscenely" well-employed? Are you a fluffer for the Conservatives?

  16. No, Cherni. What I am is awesome.

    I can’t even take you clowns with your sociopathic fantasies of personal destruction seriously.

    You should stick to flinging insults. At least you aren’t embarrassingly bad at that.

    Come on, Cherni. I’m sure if you and Ti brainstorm together long enough you’ll come up with a real zinger.

  17. I can’t even take you clowns with your sociopathic fantasies of personal destruction seriously.

    And yet here you are, unbidden, again…inviting additional (and needless to say, unavoidable) character assassination.

  18. Well, wouldn’t you say so?

    Get this, because I think a rational person would find this to be rather amusing:

    We have an individual who blogs about some cases of clear-cut unlawful indecent exposure at a Gay Pride parade, and the best criticism that certain people can dream up — and see if you figure out who I’m eluding to there — is to complain about the amount of effort they allegedly would have had to go to in order to find out about it, as if there’s nothing at all wrong with a bunch of 40+ year old men hanging their cock rings out on a public street for the whole world to see.

    Then, as it turns out, these photos are much easier to find than certain people would otherwise like to admit. And the best defense that retards like Ti can come up with is… no defense at all, oddly enough.

    So, yes. I’d say certain people woke up on the wrong side of the bed today.

    But at least I’ll give those certain people this — it beats the hell out of the wrong side of the crack cocaine-induced stupour that Ti wakes up on most mornings.

  19. You calling me a clown, Patrick?

    RT, do you really have a category called “conservative hypocrisy”?
    Really, what is it with the left and their adolescent obsession with hypocrisy? Jeez, what bores you all are. It reminds me of that doofus, Palediea … Paledieae … Paledieaia … oh, that aggressively moronic idiotic retard who was hell-bent on given all other doofi a run for their money.

  20. damn, i wish i looked that good in my speedo!

    kudos to TD Bank.

    i see much more nakedness at 3rd beach every day of the summer (and will be there to enjoy more nakedness and sunshine in 1 hour 😉

  21. …as if there’s nothing at all wrong with a bunch of 40+ year old men hanging their cock rings out on a public street for the whole world to see.

    It’s a special event that attacts a million people surrounding a couple of nude men that occurs once a year. You’d never have known about it had some Blogging Tory porn hound drawn your attention to it.

    Get some perspective. You’re making yourself crazier by reacting to it so self-righteously.

    I still haven’t those photos by the way. Can you detail how you found them, exactly?

  22. Patrick,

    It’s KEvron. Capital K, capital E.

    This is very important, because it connotes creativeness and artistry, in addition to wry intelligence.

    KEvron IS A WIt, AN INtellectual, ANd A MAn AMong THe EFfete ELite.

  23. “Can you detail how you found them, exactly?”

    Sure. Google: Ti-Guy flaunts his junk in public again. Gay spectators mistake cock ring for some bizarre clit decoration and tell him the lesbians are down the street a-ways.

    No need to take safe search off. Nothing to see, really.

  24. i checked the photos at RAR. good thing the BTs aren’t dedicated anti-cyclists, or they would be extremely offended by the naked bike rallies. i see more naked people protesting furs or cycling in vancouver than at the gay pride parade. i guess if i was a shut-in who lived in some small town i wouldn’t be exposed to nudity…unless i went looking for it on the internets 😉

  25. “Or severely deluted – as awesome Patsie seems to think…”

    Personally, I got REALLY severly diluted this weekend. Wifey was not amused.

  26. It’s a special event that attacts a million people surrounding a couple of nude men that occurs once a year. You’d never have known about it had some Blogging Tory porn hound drawn your attention to it.

    Speaking as an Edmonton Pride attendee, I can tell you that you’re officially retarded, Ti.

    But, then again we knew that already, didn’t we?

    By the way, Rain Man, look at the top Google web result. It’s a slide show, you fucking feeb.

  27. Speaking as an Edmonton Pride attendee, I can tell you that you’re officially retarded, Ti.

    And you demonstrates that by providing a link to a clip of Chasing Amy? Or did you expect me to actually read your post? Surely not.

    Go tag your sister (Beth-Anne, age 8) and get her to relieve you. She can’t possibly do any worse.

  28. Geez RT – you got the kids fighting here. Patrick Ross showing off all the swear words and name calling he knows.

    Patrick Ross – if you were such a with it guy you’d know the word retard hasn’t been used for many, many years – mentally challenged is the phrase of the day. The word retard is offensive, very offensive to those who have challenged children.

  29. Everyone’s using “retard” these days. We all gave up.

    Besides, my kids use “mentally challenged” as an insult, so really, you can’t win by policing language.

  30. Just to clarify in case anyone is still interested. The search string used by “Right as Rain” was apparently “toronto pride pictures 2009” (no quotation marks) which reveals (so to speak) the BlogTO website as the second ranking result. On that site, there are photos and a slideshow from Flikr of the Pride parade. The pictures in question are culled from that — and almost at the very end of it, btw (you have to page through quite a number before the ones in question appear).

  31. Good Gawd, what a liar. I followed Dumb as Dirt’s instructions and didn’t bother looking past the second or third picture of a boa-festooned partier. Dumbo really knows where to find the cock…

  32. Ya know RT, a more suspicious person might think that you used ole “Right as Rain”‘s post just to post that TD Bank picture. 😉

  33. Jesus, that was a long friggin’ slide show. There were more pictures of cops than cock. Even a picture of the Conn Smythe trophy. Personally, I’m going to vote for a party that protects the Conn Smythe trophy from men wearing rainbow beads.

  34. What it really is, is about choice.

    I have to say, clicking forward on my browser and encountering a very tight, bright green speedo in my face is not something I particularly appreciated this morning. But it was my choice to come here, following a link on Google. I’m not a regular reader, but I have enjoyed the posts here in the past, so I knew what I was getting into when I made the click.

    Likewise, it was RT’s choice to click over to Right of Rain and encounter a post that he couldn’t help but react to. And, more to the point, it was Right of Rain’s choice to go out onto Google and do a series of search terms to find the pictures she so strongly objected to.

    If any one of us had chosen differently, I wouldn’t have had a giant green speedo shoved in my face, but it was Right of Rain who chose to go out looking for the pictures that would offend her. She was the one who chose to be offended, and then sought to spread that offense as far as she could.

    In other words, Right of Rain is contributing to the very moral decay that she is railing against.

  35. Could someone turn the Patrick Ross bot on again? That thing is getting really good, even if the ego is turned up a bit high, but I guess that is what makes it seem human. And funny. Whoever wrote it should consider competing for the Loebner Prize.

  36. if you were such a with it guy you’d know the word retard hasn’t been used for many, many years – mentally challenged is the phrase of the day. The word retard is offensive, very offensive to those who have challenged children.

    I guess you’re right, Sandi. I wouldn’t want to offend Ti’s parents.

  37. What it really is, is about choice.

    I have to say, clicking forward on my browser and encountering a very tight, bright green speedo in my face is not something I particularly appreciated this morning. But it was my choice to come here, following a link on Google. I’m not a regular reader, but I have enjoyed the posts here in the past, so I knew what I was getting into when I made the click.

    Likewise, it was RT’s choice to click over to Right of Rain and encounter a post that he couldn’t help but react to. And, more to the point, it was Right of Rain’s choice to go out onto Google and do a series of search terms to find the pictures she so strongly objected to.

    If any one of us had chosen differently, I wouldn’t have had a giant green speedo shoved in my face, but it was Right of Rain who chose to go out looking for the pictures that would offend her. She was the one who chose to be offended, and then sought to spread that offense as far as she could.

    In other words, Right of Rain is contributing to the very moral decay that she is railing against.

    You’re right, James, it is about choice.

    It’s about the choice to actually restrict your pride day celebrations within the confines of criminal law. And it’s about the choice to not pretend that anyone in Canada is above the law.

    This entire conversation has been so incredibly stupid that one shudders at the arduous task of deciding where to begin.

    First off, you seem to be willfully overlooking the tone of RaR’s post on the matter — extremely permissive on the topic of the homosexuality itself, but instead merely objecting to the nudity.

    Unless your goal here is to suggest that one cannot object to the nudity of these paraders without also objecting to their homosexuality. Interestingly, I wouldn’t tolerate that out of a heterosexual, and I doubt RaR would either.

    But let’s talk about choice, James, and see if we can squeeze a little honesty out of your disingenuity.

    Would you not agree that parents taking their children to a Gay Pride parade — and many do, by the way — not expecting them to be exposed to naked middle aged men with prince alberts would have the right to be offended by that conduct?

    And when someone happens upon those pictures, your problem is whatever amount of effort you think they must have had to go to in order to find them?

    Not to mention the fact that both James and Red are wrong. If something is the second hit on a Google search, it isn’t all that hard to find.

  38. “It’s about the choice to actually restrict your pride day celebrations within the confines of criminal law. And it’s about the choice to not pretend that anyone in Canada is above the law.”

    It’s interesting that you should mention criminal law, because the attire shown in the photograph above violates no law in Ontario. Further, I know that it is not illegal to go topless in Ontario. Gwen Jacobs proved that. Bottomless is another matter, but in previous court tests on the topless law (and the reason why there is law exists today) the courts tended to base their decisions onwhether the attire (or lack thereof) met “community standards”. And, of course, community standards vary with the community. A person streaking down Spadina Avenue at New Year’s comes up against different standards (and temperatures) than would typically be seen during, for instance, at Mardi Gras celebrations in New Orleans or Rio de Jeniero or, for that matter, the gay village, particularly during Pride Week. So, it’s an open question over whether the activities you or Right as Rain have claimed to have been subjected to are actually as criminal as you insinuate.

    However, this is beside the point that RT is arguing. I’ve not seen the pictures that has Right as Rain so offended and, frankly, I’ve no desire to. And of the chain that I described above — my coming to RT’s web site, RT going to Right as Rain’s web site, and Right as Rain performing a Google search — Right as Rain is the only one of the three who actively sought out images that she knew would offend her. And in that respect, Right as Rain really has no one to blame but herself for finding the photographs she set out to look for.

    And it’s ironic. Because I chose not to be offended by the festivities of Pride Week, as did RT, I think. And it still is more likely that I would not have seen these ‘offensive’ pictures if Right as Rain had not herself chosen to be offended, searched for the things that she was offended by and then broadcasted what she offended at on her web site. So, clearly, by her standards, she is contributing to the very moral decay that she is decrying.

  39. You’re a man of infinite patience, James.

    I wasn’t going to get into the whole matter of whether the nudity in question is strictly “illegal” as Patrick assumes. Basically, because he just argues for the sake of it and I didn’t want to feed his need for attention.

    However, now that you’ve raised the point, it seems evident that the police in attendance (and actually in the parade) weren’t offended by it and elected not to enforce the law (presuming it was even applicable) in this instance, quite possibly for the reason(s) you cite regarding so-called community standards.

    I’m always somewhat puzzled by “conservatives” that want to impose their standards of “decency” on others without any reasonable sense of discretion as to the circumstances involved.

  40. So, clearly, by her standards, she is contributing to the very moral decay that she is decrying.

    Particularly since she posted those images on a blog one would normally assume wouldn’t feature such content and for which no warning, such as NSFW, was provided.

  41. “Kevron did take it upon himself to cyberstalk my sister”

    careful, twatrick: my identity has been exposed, making your bogus charges a liability for you.

    and your sister’s a whore. just sayin’.

    KEvron

  42. “my current state of being obscenely well-employed.” yeah, and my name’s “raphael alexander”….

    Zing!

    Funny, but I was led to believe that Mr. Ross had sacrificed potentially better forms of employment (presumably less “obscene”) for the sake of cancer research or some such vaguely altruistic endeavour.

    I guess it must be hard to keep one’s stories straight when serial prevarication and self-infatuated hyperbole is the order of the day.

  43. “I guess it must be hard to keep one’s stories straight when serial prevarication and self-infatuated hyperbole is the order of the day.”

    that, and the fact that he’s certifiable.

    KEvron

  44. that, and the fact that he’s certifiable.

    For all “intensive purposes,” yes.

    My attention to his blog is only captured when I see comments there. I usually regret it. Eight-sided triangles, over and over and over again…

  45. Quite possibly. Not that I should talk… 😉

    It’s probably not a good idea to speculate on the mental state of others. In the case of “The Diamond Kid aka Kid Cash aka Thunderbolt Ross aka Tha Flamethrower aka The Mindbender aka…” I’d suggest that, if not a foregone conclusion, it’s likely a waste of time.

  46. Can we drop that, please?

    I don’t know; it has a certain “…and he knocked up my sister!” element of white-trash humour to it that’s a guilty pleasure of mine.

  47. Just to drop in for sec….my family has attended Pride for many years usually to watch my sister-in-law on her float, and we, like everyone in Toronto are completely well aware that there will be nude and semi-nude people. It’s not like it’s some big surprise!

    Some years we have brought the kids, other years when it was too crowded or hot, we didn’t. Kids who grow up in Toronto really don’t blink at this stuff. To them, it’s just another parade.

    Well that’s not true—they were totally impressed with the TD guy on stilts! Kinda made up for the lack of Santa Claus at the end.

  48. Ti-Guy

    For all “intensive purposes,” yes.

    That must have been painful for you to re-type TG.

  49. @Patrick Ross

    “Secondly, you’re fucking retarded if you think that an employer is going to decline to hire someone for pointing out that indecent exposure is a simple matter of criminal law.”

    Actually, it isn’t. Simply being topless adn bottomless in public isn’t against the law. See here:

    http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/06/29/what-is-the-purpose-of-a-gay-pride-parade/#comment-11575

    for a discussion.

    So an employer might not object to you making that point, but he might object to you shooting off your mouth without checking the facts.

  50. Peter — I was following the discussion over there with some interest. It seems that the objections of Patrick, Werner, “Raphael” and others were not only indefensible from a logical standpoint, but baseless in law… How surprising!

    Bottom line is that they just didn’t like it because the notion of public nudity offended their delicate sensibilities for whatever reason. And, as Sandi stated right at the outset, if you don’t like those kinds of displays, then don’t look and/or don’t take your kids if you feel that it’s inappropriate for them to see.

    Rather simple really.

  51. don’t take your kids if you feel that it’s inappropriate for them to see
    These are the same assmonkeys that complain about the nanny state dictating their kids educhation(sic)….. you’d expect them to be more pro-active…

  52. They’re “libertarians of convenience” it seems; that is to say, only when it suits their own narcissistic pleasure or greedy self-interest. I’ve never quite understood how they can be so blind to the contradiction between their perfectly legitimate objection to the oppressive excesses of the “nanny state” while simultaneously wanting it to crack down with the full force of the law on people’s liberties or to restrict human rights or circumscribe various forms of self-expression whenever that happens to conflict with their own particular sense of “morality,” narrow-minded construct of “decency,” or *cough* so-called “values”…

  53. “It seems that the objections of Patrick, Werner, “Raphael” and others were not only indefensible from a logical standpoint, but baseless in law”

    Some mind-numbing stupidity going on there…

    Raph still insists that a circular, pinkish object with a hole in the middle can be considered “phallic”. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about his eyesight and/or orientation…

  54. Yeah, I saw that pic. Quite obvious it was a red lei (like the one her husband was wearing). If the “Raphster” thinks that looks like a penis, well… Nahhhh. Best not to go there. Save to say these dimwits have a difficult time identifying objects and shapes…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s