Posted: Wed Apr 29, 2015 11:22 pm
I love you, too.GORDON wrote:Good because I have many strong and complicated feelings for you.
RIP Gordon
https://www.dtman.com/forum3/
I love you, too.GORDON wrote:Good because I have many strong and complicated feelings for you.
As someone that has done art work (nothing of grand scale of particularly awesome aesthetic pieces) it's really impossible to gauge how an artist will feel about any particular piece. For all we know, The Last Supper was just another mural for him.TheCatt wrote:Umm... I think you over-corrected, there.Vince wrote:No more than The Last Supper was just another mural for Da Vinci.
I would miss you as well. You're one of the good ones where if I don't let my emotions get the better of me, I can have a good debate and learn where the other side on some issues is coming from.TPRJones wrote:Nah, just busy at work.
You won't run me off, you'll have to ban me out of annoyance and frustration one day. :p
For all we know, The Last Supper was just another mural for him.
Michelangelo didn't want to do the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel because he considered himself a sculptor rather than a painter. When he did finally paint it, he did nothing that they wanted. The Pope was rather pissed off because all the scenes represented where Old Testament.
I saw an article in National Geographic probably 3 decades ago where they were restoring the painting. They had a shot of it from the end of the hallway it's in. It was mind boggling that from that perspective the ceiling of the hallway extended into the painting itself. It was like those weird 3d street paintings they do.Malcolm wrote:Uh, no way. Based on the sheer size of the piece and the pains in the ass he went to in order to work with that particular medium, he obviously invested a great deal of himself into it.For all we know, The Last Supper was just another mural for him.
Well, don't take my positions too seriously as an exemplar. On most issues I am far more likely to agree with you than them. Just not this one.Vince wrote:I would miss you as well. You're one of the good ones where if I don't let my emotions get the better of me, I can have a good debate and learn where the other side on some issues is coming from.
Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney representing Arlene’s Flowers, said in an interview Tuesday that GoFundMe’s decision to drop the page, even though Ms. Stutzman has not been charged with a crime, raises questions as to whether GoFundMe is discriminating on the basis of religion.
Since they are custom rings, it's almost the same as far as the jeweler is concerned. They whole reason for a deposit on a custom job is because if they don't follow through and buy them, they've screwed the jeweler out of money. ESPECIALLY with a set of homosexual rings.TheCatt wrote:Are you sure on point #4? Sounded like the refund decision had been made, but not yet done, and the rings hadn't been kept yet, necessarily.
At any rate, I think the people harassing the jeweler are out of line.
Agreed, poor form on the clients.Vince wrote:Since they are custom rings, it's almost the same as far as the jeweler is concerned. They whole reason for a deposit on a custom job is because if they don't follow through and buy them, they've screwed the jeweler out of money. ESPECIALLY with a set of homosexual rings.TheCatt wrote:Are you sure on point #4? Sounded like the refund decision had been made, but not yet done, and the rings hadn't been kept yet, necessarily.
At any rate, I think the people harassing the jeweler are out of line.
ESPECIALLY with a set of homosexual rings.
I think Vince's point is that homosexuals are about ~2% of the population. As such, they are about 2% of the wedding market. Since they were a PAIR of engagement rings, I'd say that's pretty constraining to the traditional lesbian market.TPRJones wrote:I don't think rings can have a sexual orientation. Or are they tainted because the homos touched them?ESPECIALLY with a set of homosexual rings.