Fraternity Sues To Keep Out Gays

[ZeroDude]

^
I don't know whether to laugh or cry here

 

[melon]

U2 have always taken the hard line when it comes to gays, so what's wrong with fraternities suing to keep out gays? U2 have managed to keep gays out of the band for the last 25 years and they are all still the same 4 straight men.

Cheers,

J

Go back to trolling EYKIW. It suits you better.

Melon

 

[BAW]

U2 have always taken the hard line when it comes to gays, so what's wrong with fraternities suing to keep out gays? U2 have managed to keep gays out of the band for the last 25 years and they are all still the same 4 straight men.

Cheers,

J

I don't think anyone here is going to take your bait so please, just go away and do your trolling somewhere else.

 

[neutral]

U2 have always taken the hard line when it comes to gays, so what's wrong with fraternities suing to keep out gays? U2 have managed to keep gays out of the band for the last 25 years and they are all still the same 4 straight men.

Cheers,

J

This can end here. Bringing the band's sexuality into this or any other topic is not allowed.

Posting about the bands' private life, questioning their marriages or sexuality is not allowed.

 

[jick]

This can end here. Bringing the band's sexuality into this or any other topic is not allowed.

End here it does. Thanks for setting me straight. I missed that rule. I would have had data to back my assertions but that is another story for another time. Thanks a lot again for setting me straight neutral.

But while I may not question or discuss the band's sexuality, it is acceptable to discuss perhaps in a new thread the band's overt/external actions that indicate their stance towards sexuality? I won't be discussing their sexual preference but their stance on sexuality which is just like any other issue as abortion, contraception, etc etc. Let me know. Thanks.

Cheers,

J

 

[starsgoblue]

Anyways... let's get back on topic....

 

[nbcrusader]

But while I may not question or discuss the band's sexuality, it is acceptable to discuss perhaps in a new thread the band's overt/external actions that indicate their stance towards sexuality? I won't be discussing their sexual preference but their stance on sexuality which is just like any other issue as abortion, contraception, etc etc. Let me know. Thanks.

To what end?

If you choose this path, please make sure you have readily identifiable sources with direct quotes. There is no benefit from developing or inferring a "stance" based on "overt/external actions".

I would suggest reading some of the threads in FYM to get a flavor for the tone and respect used in the discussions.

 

[Irvine511]

U2 doesn't receive federal funding.

i don't think.

 

[jick]

To what end?

If you choose this path, please make sure you have readily identifiable sources with direct quotes. There is no benefit from developing or inferring a "stance" based on "overt/external actions".

I would suggest reading some of the threads in FYM to get a flavor for the tone and respect used in the discussions.

Thanks for the advice. I will research on the FYM threads since I am just a newbie to this "undiscovered" area of Interference for me. I appreciate it.

Cheers,

J

 

[melon]

Nevermind.

 

[joyfulgirl]

 

[starsgoblue]

But while I may not question or discuss the band's sexuality, it is acceptable to discuss perhaps in a new thread the band's overt/external actions that indicate their stance towards sexuality? I won't be discussing their sexual preference but their stance on sexuality which is just like any other issue as abortion, contraception, etc etc. Let me know. Thanks.

I thought main discussion of the band went in the place you usually troll, EYKIW.