Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No more than any other commercialized version of that pose.This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.
I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.
AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.
This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.
I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.
AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.
It means their "offense" is an activity rather than a reaction. In this case in order to be "offended" you have to first contrive a "comparison" personally involving the Marines of the original photo. Since that comparison is not present, you have to plant it there and then go, "oh look what I found".
And it takes a lot of Denialism since the iconic photo has been used as a model for some seventy years.
Okay, maybe using the word "offended" was incorrect on my part. I find the photo in bad taste.
Yeah that's a different thing, but it was the OP who came up with the term "offensive".
What do you think about the various parodies in post 42? Were they also in bad taste when they were originally done? Or were some, not others?
Yeah, I don't really think such an iconic photo should be used to endorse a product either. To me, that photo represents soldiers who died to defend freedom. It's pretty sad that they would use that photo on a beer can or something, to me anyway. It's a free country, so they CAN. I just think it is in bad taste.
They 'can' -- I get it.
That's one level, the beer company pandering. That's the only image I posted that used the actual Rosenthal photo, rather than referring back to it with a parody.
Then there's, say, the political cartoons using the spirit-dynamic to make a point. Or the New York Mets winning their first championship --- representing triumph after years of ridicule. As I suggested, the "verb" of the photo, not the "noun".
Is it appropriate to use a photo of a dead person or people for parody purposes? Let's not forget that the men in that photo could have and probably do have living relatives.
If you have to "walk on eggshells"...you're doing something wrong.DIGITALDRIFTER SAID:
"I find it offensive...'
Of course you do, you're a conservative, where most on the right are easily offended.
And like most on the right you don't get it.
The image actually honors those who fought and died to protect our freedom, including the freedom of gay Americans.
Now that's a laugh, the left wrote the book on being offended. You guys and your constant whining are why the rest of us have to walk on eggshells in this country and be careful of each and every word that is uttered.
As for the picture, yes the Marines fought for all of us, that doesn't mean however that this captured iconic moment should be disrespected. photographers, cartoonists, illustrators, etc, would leave this scene alone.
Maybe gays should create their own illustrated moment, that is unique and explains their struggle.
I said nothing of the sort. The symbology doesn't change. However, one might logically conclude from an authentic photograph that five people took part...the four in the scene and the one that held the camera and claimed he took it. That would mean that five like-minded people created the image. With a contrived image, it takes just one asshole to create a hoax image (a "picture" of something that never really happened)...not unlike the lampshade purported to be a photograph of an alien space craft or the plastic float presented as a photograph of the Loch Ness monster, or a photoshop image of a large crowd cheering for a liberal candidate when in fact there were fewer than ten people at the failed rally.You would never pass muster in law a decent law school.Why do you people keep referring to the OP as a photo? Is it not a photo. It is either a product of Photoshop are a painting by a talented, but imperfect artist. The shadows on the men do not jive with the shadows on the mountains or the rocks.
For the men, the sun is obviously on the right. For the mountains and the boulders, the sun is on the left.
We do not have two suns.
Stop referring to it has a photo or I shall permanently brand you as a dupe.
Who gives a flying fuck whether it's a photo, a retouch, a mimeograph or a cave drawing. The question of this thread is the symbology, not the technique.
I don't even see any shadows, but nor am I looking for them. This ain't the freaking Kennedy assassination.
Okay Einstein Jellyfish, why don't you essplain to the class how the difference between a photoshop and a genuine posed photo suddenly completely changes the symbolic implications.
Or as they say in court: Motion to Kiss My Ass.
I said nothing of the sort. The symbology doesn't change. However, one might logically conclude from an authentic photograph that five people took part...the four in the scene and the one that held the camera and claimed he took it. That would mean that five like-minded people created the image. With a contrived image, it takes just one asshole to create a hoax image (a "picture" of something that never really happened)...not unlike the lampshade purported to be a photograph of an alien space craft or the plastic float presented as a photograph of the Loch Ness monster, or a photoshop image of a large crowd cheering for a liberal candidate when in fact there were fewer than ten people at the failed rally.You would never pass muster in law a decent law school.Why do you people keep referring to the OP as a photo? Is it not a photo. It is either a product of Photoshop are a painting by a talented, but imperfect artist. The shadows on the men do not jive with the shadows on the mountains or the rocks.
For the men, the sun is obviously on the right. For the mountains and the boulders, the sun is on the left.
We do not have two suns.
Stop referring to it has a photo or I shall permanently brand you as a dupe.
Who gives a flying fuck whether it's a photo, a retouch, a mimeograph or a cave drawing. The question of this thread is the symbology, not the technique.
I don't even see any shadows, but nor am I looking for them. This ain't the freaking Kennedy assassination.
Okay Einstein Jellyfish, why don't you essplain to the class how the difference between a photoshop and a genuine posed photo suddenly completely changes the symbolic implications.
Or as they say in court: Motion to Kiss My Ass.
I realize it is difficult for you to grasp certain nuances associated with fakery and the use thereof. That's why you'd have done poorly at a decent law school. You have to call a spade a spade in the legal system. A painting is not a photograph.
photograph
[ ˈfōtəˌgraf ]
NOUN
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
The lilly-livered liberal lied to you...and you took the bait.
Again, you make up stories. Again, you miss the point of being honest. I support gay rights myself. One doesn't have to be gay to support gay rights.I said nothing of the sort. The symbology doesn't change. However, one might logically conclude from an authentic photograph that five people took part...the four in the scene and the one that held the camera and claimed he took it. That would mean that five like-minded people created the image. With a contrived image, it takes just one asshole to create a hoax image (a "picture" of something that never really happened)...not unlike the lampshade purported to be a photograph of an alien space craft or the plastic float presented as a photograph of the Loch Ness monster, or a photoshop image of a large crowd cheering for a liberal candidate when in fact there were fewer than ten people at the failed rally.You would never pass muster in law a decent law school.Why do you people keep referring to the OP as a photo? Is it not a photo. It is either a product of Photoshop are a painting by a talented, but imperfect artist. The shadows on the men do not jive with the shadows on the mountains or the rocks.
For the men, the sun is obviously on the right. For the mountains and the boulders, the sun is on the left.
We do not have two suns.
Stop referring to it has a photo or I shall permanently brand you as a dupe.
Who gives a flying fuck whether it's a photo, a retouch, a mimeograph or a cave drawing. The question of this thread is the symbology, not the technique.
I don't even see any shadows, but nor am I looking for them. This ain't the freaking Kennedy assassination.
Okay Einstein Jellyfish, why don't you essplain to the class how the difference between a photoshop and a genuine posed photo suddenly completely changes the symbolic implications.
Or as they say in court: Motion to Kiss My Ass.
I realize it is difficult for you to grasp certain nuances associated with fakery and the use thereof. That's why you'd have done poorly at a decent law school. You have to call a spade a spade in the legal system. A painting is not a photograph.
photograph
[ ˈfōtəˌgraf ]
NOUN
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
The lilly-livered liberal lied to you...and you took the bait.
So you're actually going to the internet to suggest there could not be five people found to pose for a photograph, let alone five people found to support gay rights.
Astounding.
You still failed to explain what the fuck the difference in symbology is.
Again, you make up stories. Again, you miss the point of being honest. I support gay rights myself. One doesn't have to be gay to support gay rights.I said nothing of the sort. The symbology doesn't change. However, one might logically conclude from an authentic photograph that five people took part...the four in the scene and the one that held the camera and claimed he took it. That would mean that five like-minded people created the image. With a contrived image, it takes just one asshole to create a hoax image (a "picture" of something that never really happened)...not unlike the lampshade purported to be a photograph of an alien space craft or the plastic float presented as a photograph of the Loch Ness monster, or a photoshop image of a large crowd cheering for a liberal candidate when in fact there were fewer than ten people at the failed rally.You would never pass muster in law a decent law school.Who gives a flying fuck whether it's a photo, a retouch, a mimeograph or a cave drawing. The question of this thread is the symbology, not the technique.
I don't even see any shadows, but nor am I looking for them. This ain't the freaking Kennedy assassination.
Okay Einstein Jellyfish, why don't you essplain to the class how the difference between a photoshop and a genuine posed photo suddenly completely changes the symbolic implications.
Or as they say in court: Motion to Kiss My Ass.
I realize it is difficult for you to grasp certain nuances associated with fakery and the use thereof. That's why you'd have done poorly at a decent law school. You have to call a spade a spade in the legal system. A painting is not a photograph.
photograph
[ ˈfōtəˌgraf ]
NOUN
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
The lilly-livered liberal lied to you...and you took the bait.
So you're actually going to the internet to suggest there could not be five people found to pose for a photograph, let alone five people found to support gay rights.
Astounding.
You still failed to explain what the fuck the difference in symbology is.
Again, I never said anything about a difference in symbology. Please take a course in reading comprehension before replying to my posts again.
Okay, maybe using the word "offended" was incorrect on my part. I find the photo in bad taste.
Yeah that's a different thing, but it was the OP who came up with the term "offensive".
What do you think about the various parodies in post 42? Were they also in bad taste when they were originally done? Or were some, not others?
Yeah, I don't really think such an iconic photo should be used to endorse a product either. To me, that photo represents soldiers who died to defend freedom. It's pretty sad that they would use that photo on a beer can or something, to me anyway. It's a free country, so they CAN. I just think it is in bad taste.
They 'can' -- I get it.
That's one level, the beer company pandering. That's the only image I posted that used the actual Rosenthal photo, rather than referring back to it with a parody.
Then there's, say, the political cartoons using the spirit-dynamic to make a point. Or the New York Mets winning their first championship --- representing triumph after years of ridicule. As I suggested, the "verb" of the photo, not the "noun".
Is it appropriate to use a photo of a dead person or people for parody purposes? Let's not forget that the men in that photo could have and probably do have living relatives.
Yeah that would apply to the beer can. It's the only image posted that actually features the Marines. Although none of them are done "for parody purposes" --- they simply are parodies, for their various purposes of making a point, or in the case of "Ol' Glory", for selling beer. But the parody is the tool to make the point -- not the point itself. I wonder if that distinction is lost on those who claim to be offended.
What do you think of the photo in post 43? Those men also have living relatives...
I did. It's a simple question that misrepresents its own object. A learned person would not reply to it as if they believed it was a photograph taken ten years ago as described by the less than truthful originator.Again, you make up stories. Again, you miss the point of being honest. I support gay rights myself. One doesn't have to be gay to support gay rights.I said nothing of the sort. The symbology doesn't change. However, one might logically conclude from an authentic photograph that five people took part...the four in the scene and the one that held the camera and claimed he took it. That would mean that five like-minded people created the image. With a contrived image, it takes just one asshole to create a hoax image (a "picture" of something that never really happened)...not unlike the lampshade purported to be a photograph of an alien space craft or the plastic float presented as a photograph of the Loch Ness monster, or a photoshop image of a large crowd cheering for a liberal candidate when in fact there were fewer than ten people at the failed rally.You would never pass muster in law a decent law school.
Okay Einstein Jellyfish, why don't you essplain to the class how the difference between a photoshop and a genuine posed photo suddenly completely changes the symbolic implications.
Or as they say in court: Motion to Kiss My Ass.
I realize it is difficult for you to grasp certain nuances associated with fakery and the use thereof. That's why you'd have done poorly at a decent law school. You have to call a spade a spade in the legal system. A painting is not a photograph.
photograph
[ ˈfōtəˌgraf ]
NOUN
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
The lilly-livered liberal lied to you...and you took the bait.
So you're actually going to the internet to suggest there could not be five people found to pose for a photograph, let alone five people found to support gay rights.
Astounding.
You still failed to explain what the fuck the difference in symbology is.
Again, I never said anything about a difference in symbology. Please take a course in reading comprehension before replying to my posts again.
Check the thread title there, Evelyn Wood.
Duh.
I did. It's a simple question that misrepresents its own object. A learned person would not reply to it as if they believed it was a photograph taken ten years ago as described by the less than truthful originator.Again, you make up stories. Again, you miss the point of being honest. I support gay rights myself. One doesn't have to be gay to support gay rights.I said nothing of the sort. The symbology doesn't change. However, one might logically conclude from an authentic photograph that five people took part...the four in the scene and the one that held the camera and claimed he took it. That would mean that five like-minded people created the image. With a contrived image, it takes just one asshole to create a hoax image (a "picture" of something that never really happened)...not unlike the lampshade purported to be a photograph of an alien space craft or the plastic float presented as a photograph of the Loch Ness monster, or a photoshop image of a large crowd cheering for a liberal candidate when in fact there were fewer than ten people at the failed rally.Okay Einstein Jellyfish, why don't you essplain to the class how the difference between a photoshop and a genuine posed photo suddenly completely changes the symbolic implications.
Or as they say in court: Motion to Kiss My Ass.
I realize it is difficult for you to grasp certain nuances associated with fakery and the use thereof. That's why you'd have done poorly at a decent law school. You have to call a spade a spade in the legal system. A painting is not a photograph.
photograph
[ ˈfōtəˌgraf ]
NOUN
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
The lilly-livered liberal lied to you...and you took the bait.
So you're actually going to the internet to suggest there could not be five people found to pose for a photograph, let alone five people found to support gay rights.
Astounding.
You still failed to explain what the fuck the difference in symbology is.
Again, I never said anything about a difference in symbology. Please take a course in reading comprehension before replying to my posts again.
Check the thread title there, Evelyn Wood.
Duh.
Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.I did. It's a simple question that misrepresents its own object. A learned person would not reply to it as if they believed it was a photograph taken ten years ago as described by the less than truthful originator.Again, you make up stories. Again, you miss the point of being honest. I support gay rights myself. One doesn't have to be gay to support gay rights.I said nothing of the sort. The symbology doesn't change. However, one might logically conclude from an authentic photograph that five people took part...the four in the scene and the one that held the camera and claimed he took it. That would mean that five like-minded people created the image. With a contrived image, it takes just one asshole to create a hoax image (a "picture" of something that never really happened)...not unlike the lampshade purported to be a photograph of an alien space craft or the plastic float presented as a photograph of the Loch Ness monster, or a photoshop image of a large crowd cheering for a liberal candidate when in fact there were fewer than ten people at the failed rally.
I realize it is difficult for you to grasp certain nuances associated with fakery and the use thereof. That's why you'd have done poorly at a decent law school. You have to call a spade a spade in the legal system. A painting is not a photograph.
photograph
[ ˈfōtəˌgraf ]
NOUN
a picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused onto film or other light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
The lilly-livered liberal lied to you...and you took the bait.
So you're actually going to the internet to suggest there could not be five people found to pose for a photograph, let alone five people found to support gay rights.
Astounding.
You still failed to explain what the fuck the difference in symbology is.
Again, I never said anything about a difference in symbology. Please take a course in reading comprehension before replying to my posts again.
Check the thread title there, Evelyn Wood.
Duh.
Jesus Christ on a Cracker, get lost in shiny objects much??
Congratulations on persistently missing the entire point here. Nobody gives a flying FUCK how it was created. This ain't the freaking Kennedy Assassination, and neither is it a fucking Photoshop class.
Freeman produced his own photo-shopped image for the Los Angeles-based Frontiers gay magazine for men 15 years ago, and claims this is the first time he has had a complaint.
The image is a composition of several images from the Sierra Nevada mountains serving as a background to the four models, who are standing on rocks at Joshua Tree National Park.
He took the photograph in his Los Angeles studio with the men holding a PVC pipe before he meshed in a Pride flag in post-production. -- DailyMail
Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.I did. It's a simple question that misrepresents its own object. A learned person would not reply to it as if they believed it was a photograph taken ten years ago as described by the less than truthful originator.Again, you make up stories. Again, you miss the point of being honest. I support gay rights myself. One doesn't have to be gay to support gay rights.So you're actually going to the internet to suggest there could not be five people found to pose for a photograph, let alone five people found to support gay rights.
Astounding.
You still failed to explain what the fuck the difference in symbology is.
Again, I never said anything about a difference in symbology. Please take a course in reading comprehension before replying to my posts again.
Check the thread title there, Evelyn Wood.
Duh.
Jesus Christ on a Cracker, get lost in shiny objects much??
Congratulations on persistently missing the entire point here. Nobody gives a flying FUCK how it was created. This ain't the freaking Kennedy Assassination, and neither is it a fucking Photoshop class.
Freeman produced his own photo-shopped image for the Los Angeles-based Frontiers gay magazine for men 15 years ago, and claims this is the first time he has had a complaint.
The image is a composition of several images from the Sierra Nevada mountains serving as a background to the four models, who are standing on rocks at Joshua Tree National Park.
He took the photograph in his Los Angeles studio with the men holding a PVC pipe before he meshed in a Pride flag in post-production. -- DailyMail
It is the equivalent of one asking a Christian if the image below offends them.
Now a Muslim wouldn't be offended by that it. A Muslim is offended only when you disrespect HIS religion by drawing an image of his demented, pedophile, piece of pig shit prophet, Mohammed.
I'm not offended by much of what I see or hear. While I think the OP image is bullshit when judged for its intent, it does not offend me. It simply amuses me that gays think legitimacy and nobleness has been forever established by the ruling of a non-elected court of nine.
Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.I did. It's a simple question that misrepresents its own object. A learned person would not reply to it as if they believed it was a photograph taken ten years ago as described by the less than truthful originator.Again, you make up stories. Again, you miss the point of being honest. I support gay rights myself. One doesn't have to be gay to support gay rights.
Again, I never said anything about a difference in symbology. Please take a course in reading comprehension before replying to my posts again.
Check the thread title there, Evelyn Wood.
Duh.
Jesus Christ on a Cracker, get lost in shiny objects much??
Congratulations on persistently missing the entire point here. Nobody gives a flying FUCK how it was created. This ain't the freaking Kennedy Assassination, and neither is it a fucking Photoshop class.
Freeman produced his own photo-shopped image for the Los Angeles-based Frontiers gay magazine for men 15 years ago, and claims this is the first time he has had a complaint.
The image is a composition of several images from the Sierra Nevada mountains serving as a background to the four models, who are standing on rocks at Joshua Tree National Park.
He took the photograph in his Los Angeles studio with the men holding a PVC pipe before he meshed in a Pride flag in post-production. -- DailyMail
It is the equivalent of one asking a Christian if the image below offends them.
Now a Muslim wouldn't be offended by that it. A Muslim is offended only when you disrespect HIS religion by drawing an image of his demented, pedophile, piece of pig shit prophet, Mohammed.
I'm not offended by much of what I see or hear. While I think the OP image is bullshit when judged for its intent, it does not offend me. It simply amuses me that gays think legitimacy and nobleness has been forever established by the ruling of a non-elected court of nine.
Finally, off the shiny object.
But your analogy is bullshit. There simply is no direct reference to Iwo Jima Marines in the image. Nor in any of the images of post 42 save the beer can. The observer has to plug one in.
And further, the image was created some fifteen years ago, so it's got nothing whatsoever to do with "a non-elected court of nine" or any other number.
Finally, your flailing attempt at analogy isn't offensive to religion. It's offensive to Bill Watterson.
The same people who find that offensive would find nothing wrong with burning a cross.This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.
I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.
AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.
The same people who find that offensive would find nothing wrong with burning a cross.This ripoff of U.S. Marines planting Old Glory on Iwo Jima was actually staged and photo taken ten years ago. However with the recent SCOTUS decision, it's been all over the internet.
I find it offensive to mess with such an iconic moment in the history of the U.S.
AND YES I AM AWARE THE ICONIC ROSENTHAL PHOTO ITSELF IS A REENACTMENT FROM AN EARLIER FLAG RAISING.
Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.I did. It's a simple question that misrepresents its own object. A learned person would not reply to it as if they believed it was a photograph taken ten years ago as described by the less than truthful originator.Check the thread title there, Evelyn Wood.
Duh.
Jesus Christ on a Cracker, get lost in shiny objects much??
Congratulations on persistently missing the entire point here. Nobody gives a flying FUCK how it was created. This ain't the freaking Kennedy Assassination, and neither is it a fucking Photoshop class.
Freeman produced his own photo-shopped image for the Los Angeles-based Frontiers gay magazine for men 15 years ago, and claims this is the first time he has had a complaint.
The image is a composition of several images from the Sierra Nevada mountains serving as a background to the four models, who are standing on rocks at Joshua Tree National Park.
He took the photograph in his Los Angeles studio with the men holding a PVC pipe before he meshed in a Pride flag in post-production. -- DailyMail
It is the equivalent of one asking a Christian if the image below offends them.
Now a Muslim wouldn't be offended by that it. A Muslim is offended only when you disrespect HIS religion by drawing an image of his demented, pedophile, piece of pig shit prophet, Mohammed.
I'm not offended by much of what I see or hear. While I think the OP image is bullshit when judged for its intent, it does not offend me. It simply amuses me that gays think legitimacy and nobleness has been forever established by the ruling of a non-elected court of nine.
Finally, off the shiny object.
But your analogy is bullshit. There simply is no direct reference to Iwo Jima Marines in the image. Nor in any of the images of post 42 save the beer can. The observer has to plug one in.
And further, the image was created some fifteen years ago, so it's got nothing whatsoever to do with "a non-elected court of nine" or any other number.
Finally, your flailing attempt at analogy isn't offensive to religion. It's offensive to Bill Watterson.
OH come on, Pogo, that image even doctored is very recognizable as an iconic symbol. I understand that gay people are happy about the recent ruling, but I still think that using that image in that manner is inappropriate.
Dream on, Dufus! The comparison is blatantly obvious to any sane person studied in American history.Quite not so. The purpose of the thread is to stoke the fires of disgust by getting in the face of those that respect, admire and honor the soldiers that died defending the freedoms now enjoyed in this tolerant nation by comparing the courage of those men to the persistence of the gay community in redefining courage.I did. It's a simple question that misrepresents its own object. A learned person would not reply to it as if they believed it was a photograph taken ten years ago as described by the less than truthful originator.
Jesus Christ on a Cracker, get lost in shiny objects much??
Congratulations on persistently missing the entire point here. Nobody gives a flying FUCK how it was created. This ain't the freaking Kennedy Assassination, and neither is it a fucking Photoshop class.
Freeman produced his own photo-shopped image for the Los Angeles-based Frontiers gay magazine for men 15 years ago, and claims this is the first time he has had a complaint.
The image is a composition of several images from the Sierra Nevada mountains serving as a background to the four models, who are standing on rocks at Joshua Tree National Park.
He took the photograph in his Los Angeles studio with the men holding a PVC pipe before he meshed in a Pride flag in post-production. -- DailyMail
It is the equivalent of one asking a Christian if the image below offends them.
Now a Muslim wouldn't be offended by that it. A Muslim is offended only when you disrespect HIS religion by drawing an image of his demented, pedophile, piece of pig shit prophet, Mohammed.
I'm not offended by much of what I see or hear. While I think the OP image is bullshit when judged for its intent, it does not offend me. It simply amuses me that gays think legitimacy and nobleness has been forever established by the ruling of a non-elected court of nine.
Finally, off the shiny object.
But your analogy is bullshit. There simply is no direct reference to Iwo Jima Marines in the image. Nor in any of the images of post 42 save the beer can. The observer has to plug one in.
And further, the image was created some fifteen years ago, so it's got nothing whatsoever to do with "a non-elected court of nine" or any other number.
Finally, your flailing attempt at analogy isn't offensive to religion. It's offensive to Bill Watterson.
OH come on, Pogo, that image even doctored is very recognizable as an iconic symbol. I understand that gay people are happy about the recent ruling, but I still think that using that image in that manner is inappropriate.
That's fine. But when I asked this threat what's "offensive" about this, all I got was a lot of finger-wagging claiming a "comparison" between the Marines and the later figures, which comparison does not exist, and I made that point.
This last clown was obsessed on how the image was generated, and when I finally got him off that shiny object he tried to slip an analogy that isn't a fair comparison at all ---- so I called him on that too.
It's what I do around here--- call out the hypocrisy.
