TAXPAYER-FUNDED COLLEGE ORGIES?
We knew there was a reason South Carolina’s (Erotic) Poet Laureate Kristin Maguire fled to Canada when her sex scandal broke three-and-a-half years ago …
Apparently, it’s the only place that likes sex as much as we do …
According to a Facebook Invite that’s attracting worldwide attention, the University of Toronto’s Sexual Education Centre is renting out a water-themed adult night club to host … well … an orgy for students. Or according to the club that’s hosting the event, “not necessarily an orgy.”
Wait … not necessarily an orgy?
Hmmm-kay. This “not-necessarily-an-orgy” – news of which first broke on Reddit – has been dubbed the “SAW Social Sexy” in honor of University’s “Sexual Awareness Week.” And so far 131 students (mostly dudes) have signed up to participate in this year’s event, which is being held at Toronto’s Oasis Aqualounge.
The University of Toronto is a public institution, and funding for its Sexual Education Centre comes from student fees. In fact this event has been held for several years running using these fees.
Not surprisingly, the event has drawn its fair share of criticism …
“While I would doubt that students would need encouragement to engage in sex, (the University’s Sexual Education Centre) thinks that they do,” writes Andrew Lawton of Landmark Report. “They’re even going so far as to supply a venue for copulation and a buffet (of) overhormonal teens and young ‘adults’ to enjoy it with. Welcome to the next generation of post-secondary education.”
Coming to an American University near you …
***
(Banner via)
60 comments
Hmmmm – can’t wait to read BigT’s take on this
Big T is a Bible thumpin Church of God type who handles snakes to prove he is special in God’s eyes.
With his deep moral convictions, he is also probably a closeted homo.
He will write something critical today of these fine asses,I guarantee.
Do the tatoos come with Hepatitis A, B or C?
I got a STD with my tattoo.
See the joke is that jitty has an STD. Get it?
The joke is that he has Hep C, and that’s funny.
But seriously, you guys, you catch Hep C by having sex. True facts. If your dong so much as touches a vagina, BAM, Hep C. You can watch it crawl from the vagina onto the peen. Doesn’t matter which vagina.
Seriously, though, sorry about the VD, bro, that sucks.
copy pasting profile pictures now are we? jesus fucking christ you guys are creepy. it’s not an orgy in the slightest sense (that’s a rumor some people on reddit spread) but more a social that just happens to be arranged by the sex ed centre at said university. way to take things out of context for an excuse to stalk college girls on facebook and post their pictures on your website like the creepy shits you are.
it’s like ‘here’s a little smattering of what you just might get if you drag your ass out of your mom’s basement and head down here’. proud of you, fellas.
Thank you for taking down the pictures.
I cannot speak for the girls, but I genuinely believe that was a stand-up thing you did, just now. Though I disagree with the article– tongue-in-cheek or otherwise– their prompt removal was classy and very appreciated.
Cheers, and all the best.
Yes. Good on FITS for taking down those pics, even though I gotta stifle a snidely snarfle at the phrase “stand-up thing”. (I’ll have a another entendre. And make it double!) I’m OK with being left with just the lurvely curvy backs and buttoxi and the tasty peek at nipply Canookie (?) side-boobage in the big pic up top.
GOD BLESS PAN-AMERICA!!!
CUE BigT: “BUZ, you are just like FITS bla bla bla blabberdy blah …”
and now you deleted that barrage of comments from the women whose pictures you illegally picked out without their consent? holy fuck someone’s a little paranoid. what’s the matter? afraid people are going to look at this shit stain you call a website the wrong way?
who needs to delete an article when you can just delete evidence of your revolting wrongdoing and ensure ad revenue from more hits? aren’t you just the epitome of humankind.
i second this response…this guy’s a total loser
never mind, thanks for doing the somewhat decent thing and getting rid of the pictures. cheers
Looks like somebody took a moment to realize what an ass he/she was being. Thanks for calming down, and understanding your little world is less important than you thought. Just a suggestion, but if you want to protect your privacy, or if your friends wish to do so, don’t post stuff on the Intertubes you don’t want to be made public. It’s really not that hard.
It’s not about it being posted, it’s about the context. I have no trouble being associated with SEC or with this event, I have a problem with being pimped out and offered as bait without my consent. It’s a safety concern and a major violation of privacy.
Privacy? So, this website hacked into someones personal computer, stole some pics, and posted them for the world to see? Or were there some pics posted for virtually anyone to see that were used in a context you did not like? Gee, welcome to the Intertubes. Again, if you want privacy, don’t make your life so public.
Actually, skippy, Facebook content is owned wholly by Facebook, the second it’s submitted to Facebook. Provided that those pictures were not posted by the owner elsewhere online (which they weren’t), the only way to access the pictures is by using a Facebook account – and if you’re caught with that illegally obtained content, you’re in violation of the privacy agreement you commit to when you start your own account. You can face honest-to-god legal action – because private domain Internet is still private domain.
And before you get all ‘INFORMATION WAANTS TO BE FREE’ 4chan warrior on me, skip, just don’t. Using illegally obtined stalker pics is worse than just illegal, it’s low class, dumb and gross. Which I’m guessing Wil figured out on his own (or maybe he just genuflected, and decided on being a good guy irrespective on his legal position – in which case, cool.)
Wil – you’ve got to catch the difference between spin and lying, mate. You’ll end up in a lot of legal trouble if you don’t. But kudos for losing the pictures. That was the right thing to do.
Yeah, there are a ton of people out there being prosecuted for reposting stuff that originated on Facebook. I mean, the prisons are just overflowing with them.
Now, before you begin a little rant about what you think I think about information on the Intertubes, you best check yourself before you wreck yourself (as the kids would say, back in what I call “the day”). I couldn’t care less about what the law says or doesn’t say about reposting content. What I’m saying is, if you want to retain some privacy, don’t post your life where it is relatively easy to see by virtuall anyone with a computer. If you choose to post, don’t get shocked if someone reposts it somewhere you don’t like.
Now, if you feel you have recourse for legal action, go ahead and pursue it. I don’t care.
As for your warning to Sic about “spin and lying,” you are obviously new here.
Finally, they were not stalker pics. Generally, people don’t post pics of themselves that were taken by their stalkers. The goal of Sic to post them was not for the purpose of stalking. It was for the purpose of making fun of those involved with UT’s SEC. If you can’t take a joke, well, I guess you can’t take a joke. Lighten up, Frances.
So that was a few dumb paragraphs. It’s cool. I can correct you, skippy.
Your first paragraph was an argument from ignorance – you’re saying that since you don’t know anyone in jail because they broke a privacy agreement, those people don’t exist. Thing is, Facebook’s legal department does in fact handle several cases like this a year, usually when they’ve been place in potentially litigious situations. This could have been one of them – except the OP was smart enough to work things out on his own. So you kind of made a dumb argument, there.
You’re right about the stalker pics thing, in a little kid logic sort of way. A stalker didn’t take these pictures themself. This is more akin to a girl in an apartment having a pile of vacation pictures on her desk, leaving her door unlocked, and having one of her neighbours come into her room. It’s akin to the neighbour showing the pictures to the rest of the neighbours, and telling them that she’s a total slut.
It’s akin to you saying that you don’t feel that the neighbour did anything wrong, because that slut forgot to lock the door, and you don’t feel he committed a crime because technically he didn’t break in, even if he did illegally enter the apartment, and subsequently used those (illegally obtained) pictures afterwards.
Fortunately, the law disagrees with you. Irrespective of your personal opinion of what people should or shouldn’t be allowed to do, and irrespective of your want to continue stalking people because they’ve posted pictures online (which is a really weird and gross thing for a person to want :D ), both Canada and the United States respect Facebook’s privacy policy, and Facebook would have well been in their rights to take legal action against (say) a website that generates ad revenue through it’s uploaded content, if said content was obtained illegally from Facebook’s archives.
This isn’t an argument about what is right or not – it’s not even an argument, really. It’s the facts. But I understand that you don’t like it, skippy. You have successfully communicated your feelings. :)
Anyways, this is all tangential. The OP was classy enough to remove the pictures on his own, without any threats of legal action. Whether or not he knew of the laws beforehand, he made a moral judgement call, and did the right thing. Irrespective of your wishes. That’s pretty cool.
Did you just learn the usage of “akin”? Good for you! Now let’s try learning a little thing called “reading comprehension.”
Nowhere did I suggest there were laws in question. Nowhere did I suggest I support Sic reposting silly photos some tramp posts online. Nowhere did I suggest Facebook doesn’t get its legal team involved when it feels it is necessary.
What I did suggest is that it is rather silly for people to scream their privacy has been violated when the photos they post for virtually anyone to see are reposted elsewhere.
Your silly analogy is quite inaccurate. It would be more “akin” to someone posting their photos on a bulletin board outside their home, where almost anyone can see them, and then someone taking them down (or copying them, which is more accurate, since the property was not actually removed) and showing them in to others to make fun of that person.
Again, the legal issue was nowhere in question. As I stated earlier, “I couldn’t care less about what the law says or doesn’t say about reposting content,” but “if you feel you have recourse for legal action, go ahead and pursue it.”
And, once again, the stalker angle just doesn’t fly. The point of the post here, along with the photos (which I never saw, but am sure were quite charming) was to make fun of the event and those involved. It was political speech and humor, which are also protected, and have been for far longer than Facebook has existed. Whether or not the courts would have sided with Sic or Facebook, had there been a case, is debatable, but moot.
Finally, to describe Sic as “classy” is an even stronger indication you are a novice to this site. I doubt even Sic would call himself “classy,” at least, not with a straight face.
Now, back to your public education, or whatever it is you do while trolling the Intertubes looking for stuff that doesn’t concern you.
:D Skippy, I was just correcting your factual errors. But okay, I can correct you again.
First paragraph – Ad hominem, and dismissable. Akin was an apt word to use – if you changed akin for any of it’s myriad of synonyms, the same message would be conveyed. If you’re having trouble parsing out the language because it’s repetitive… well, that’s on you, skip.
Second paragraph – Rhetoric, dismissible, doesn’t matter. I get that you’ve made a ‘suggestion’. Your ‘suggestion’ is wrong, and is founded on the principle that a person shouldn’t take a legally protected action because someone might take an illegal action in the future. That’s like saying you shouldn’t cross the street at the stoplight because someone in a car might run a red light. That’s dumb.
Third paragraph – No, your analogy assumes that she had uploaded those pictures to a public forum, or to imageshack, or uploaded it to reddit, or the like. Those would fall under the public domain, where there are specifically no privacy agreements in place to protect content in question. However, Facebook is private domain. The consequences of breaking that privacy agreement is punitive legal action. Soooo…. no. I was right. It is analogous to a legally protected, if open space being violated (just because it was easy to do so), and a person taking action with the consequence of illegal action.
Your ‘suggestion’ isn’t unreasonable. It’s just proven wrong by consequence of the law. You want to project the idea that she was in the wrong because she uploaded those pictures to Facebook, but the person in the wrong here (both morally and legally) is whomever broke Facebook’s privacy agreement, and
chose to take legally protected images from the site.
(You can keep up with the language I’m using, right? I’m trying to keep my language simple here.)
Fourth paragraph – Okay. Cool. It turns out that you actually agree with me on the legality of it. Now on to the other part of the paragraph.
I don’t think anyone involved is taking legal action now, but if I were the aggrieved party (as in, it was my pictures used illegally), *and* the OP didn’t remove the pictures, I probably would take the legal action. :D I don’t mind long, protracted fights when I’m in the right. It would take a few months, but it wouldn’t be hard – it’s *really* simple to get a list of who’s seen what content on Facebook, and it’d be easy enough to match up an I.P. to an address. But, I mean, since no one is taking an illegal action now anyways, it’s neither here nor there. You’re just kind of spouting non-sequiturs. :D
Fifth paragraph – Um….. no. Speech is legally protected so long as no laws are being broken to allow the speech to occur. The use of the illegally obtained pictures, as such, is not a protected act. So, that’s wrong, too.
Or was this another instance where you were just ‘suggesting’ something (as in, were you ‘suggesting’ that it should be legally protected speech)?
Because that would still be wrong, but it’d be a much more interesting idea to bring to the conversation.
Seventh paragraph – Sure, this site is still a novelty to me. That doesn’t change the fact that when petitioned to undo an action he had taken, irrespective of the law (which to the best of my information had never been presented to him), the OP chose to take down the pictures in question. Without threat of ramifications. He left the story up (which is fine), but without the offending material. That’s a classy action on his part. He did what was right without compromising himself or his position. Dude deserves kudos for that. Maybe I’m just missing some in-joke where he plays the part of a classless clod on this website – but I’ve never gotten to see it, and as such can only commend him for the (positive) action he’s taken.
If you’re intent on making sure that I never see him as classy, well I guess I could keep my eyes open in the future for classless action – but in this specific instance, he was classy. Deal with it.
(And I mean, even if I was more familiar with the OP as a classless individual, it’d be fallacious of me to judge him for his past actions, instead of judging him for the actions he was taking. I’m too intellectually honest to choose to do that.)
Final paragraph – cute strawman, bro, but you should really be on the stronger (non-rhetorical) side of the argument before you try to dismiss someone. You kind of come off a little dumb when you’re not.
(tl;dr version – you could have just said you “knew the use of the pictures was illegal, but you feel the law is wrong” in a quick sentence like that. It would have saved a lot of time, and probably made you look a lot smarter in the long run, too. It’s not our job to parse out meaning from your ambiguous use of language – it’s your job to convey your message without ambiguity. :D )
Looking forward to your reply. :)
Man, you love to see yourself type.
So, to start off, explain the factual errors. You say you corrected them, yet you do not offer any examples. Quote, exactly, what I wrote that was factually in error.
First paragraph–Just trying to teach you something about writing and comprehension. You are weak at one, and the other is practically nonexistent. But I’m sure you hear that plenty, so I apologize for poking a sore spot.
Second paragraph–I stated facts. You read more into my post than was there. Quite simply, you were wrong because you have an emotional attachment to this issue, apparently. You let your feelings get the better of you, which is probably not hard to do. Then again, maybe you just don’t know the difference between the second and third paras.
Third paragraph–Now I see your problem. You can’t follow along. So, I guess I have to renumber for you at times. My “suggestion,” which was in the third para but mentioned by you in what you referred to as the “Second paragraph,” was an expression of an opinion. You can disagree with it, but it is not “wrong.” I made no reference to whether or not someone should take legal action. I merely said complaining was silly. I could add “in my opinion,” but most would understand that is implied. Apparently, not you. Sorry I expected more from you.
My fourth paragraph–I said “someone posting their photos on a bulletin board outside their home.” I didn’t say posting publicly. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but “outside the home” was still intended to be on private property. It is still illegal to remove something from private property, but not necessarily to view it. Similarly, it is quite easy for virtually anyone to view photos on Facebook, unless you engage certain safeguards. Again, though, it is my opinion my analogy is more accurate than yours. No comment on the legalities of the actions, just on whether what Sic did was more “akin” to my descrition or yours.
I didn’t suggest anything here, you merely inferred what I meant. You were wrong. I didn’t imply someone was wrong for posting photos in a relatively public manner, just that it was silly to claim privacy was invaded when the photos were far from private.
My fifth paragraph–There was never any indication I had a disagreement with you over legal issues. That was simply in your mind. And, personally, I don’t care what you are or are not willing to do should you feel wronged in some imagined way.
My sixth paragraph–Since there is no legal case at hand, it would be pointless to discuss your mistake. In a nutshell, though, you would have to first prove something illegal took place before you can make such a claim. Absent of such proof, which would require legal proceedings (just because you say it so does not make it so), you are simply wrong. But that was a good try. Try to remember that most of this discussion is what is called hypothetical, and involves a great deal of opinions being offered. Very little “right” or “wrong” in such discussions. You’ll learn that in your studies, I hope.
Seventh paragraph (back on track)–Um, yeah, if you say so. You obviously came here because of this one issue. I can guess why, but won’t bother. Clearly you are foreign to this site, which was my point. I couldn’t care less what you think of Sic, nor, do I imagine, would he. But you don’t strike me as someone who is particularly intellectually honest, based on how much you chose to read into my posts that simply wasn’t there.
“Bro”? Really? Look, I get that you feel the need to defend those who can’t, or don’t want to, defend themselves. Honestly, though, you came here looking for confrontation. I didn’t address you, you addressed me. Drop the holier-than-thou charade, as it just doesn’t fly. And your inflated prose, and painful verbosity, is not impressive. Another lesson for you is to write less. You can often say more.
Now, I could have said any number of things, but I choose to say what is most accurate and germaine. Another lesson you could follow. There was nothing ambiguous in my posts, unless you choose to try to torture out some hidden meaning in what are really rather simple posts. Work smarter, not harder (yay, more lessons).
Toodles.
Sorry, dude, I didn’t read any of that. Cheers, though!
No prob, dude, it wasn’t meant for you. Doubt you would have the capacity to understand, so don’t bust a blood vessel trying.
Actually, it was your general intellectual dishonesty that’s stoping me. You’re fond of rhetoric and ad hominem, and that’s fine – this is the Internet after all – but Sid, you really have to understand. You’re sloppy. I keep name calling to a minimum, because I use it to drive a point home. You do it because you’re not sure you can stack up against me, and you need a weapon to even things up. I point out flaws like your formal fallacies, or broken logic structure (or your deliberate mistruths). You point out that people use slang inaccurately (like you getting hung up over the use of the word ‘stalker’, [as in ‘stalker pics’, pictures stolen from social media sites,] and how the world ignores your suggestions on how it could be better.
I can’t tell if you’re really young, or if you’re a non-intellectual who was forced to interject with intellectuals, or if you’re just one of those intuitive feeler types, but whatever it is, you’re trying to be boisterous and critical without having the wisdom that proper intellectuals usually carry. You don’t get it, but you’ll be damned if you’d ever let anyone know it.
None of this matters to to you – you’ll just brush this off as someone on the Internet being mean to you, and you’ll probably type up some unflappable reply – but I chose not to read your comment mostly because everything you’ve said to me up to this point has been, well, intellectually dishonest (and I know you’ve expressed difficulty with word repetition, but like before, it’s an apt descriptor).
(PS – the funniest possible reply you could type is ‘sorry, I didn’t read that’. Ciao~)
I knew you’d be back. So, still not able to point out a factual error? Point for me. Yay me!
I’m not too worried about comparing intellects with you. You are pretty weak. Clearly not an idiot, but still weak.
As for name-calling, can you give me a count for how many times I did it compared to you and your multiple personalities? I always find it funny when people start crying about someone making personal attacks, even though they do the same thing, and even admit it. I must have struck that sore spot pretty hard. Sorry, I thought you could handle it.
It’s cute, though, that you seem to think of yourself as a “proper intellectual.” It seems a tad forced. Like I said, I’m not too worried on my end. I’ve been tested (insert one of the little emoticons you girls use to indicate a wink). I’ve done legal analysis, written for publications, research of both a historical and sociological nature, and spanked quite a few trolls like you. I’m sure your book reports have been top-notch, but let me know when you make an actual contribution to society.
Personally, I couldn’t care less if you are trying to be “mean,” but don’t labor under the misconception that I think you are being “mean.” Hang out on this site for a while and you’ll see “mean.” But I know you’ve been reading everything I write. It shows in your text, and you are clearly the type that can’t stay away. Besides, a true intellectual wouldn’t just ignore an opportunity to expose flaws in an argument she is having.
Oh, and there isn’t a problem with comprehension when you repeatedly use words you’ve just learned how to use. It’s just sloppy writing. If you ever get a chance to write professionally, your editor will explain this to you. I suggest you listen to him, even if you refuse to listen to me.
Toodles
PS–If you have to explain your attempt at humor, it’s usually not very funny.
I want to echo Kayla’s sentiment and thank you for taking charge and following up so promptly.
Too many ellipses weaken your argument.
Actually curious what pictures there were – if they were from the club I wanna see how it is and such… oh well =/
Hey there.
The pictures were not of the venue, but rather of some of the intended attendees. Pictures of Oasis can be found on the Gallery section of oasisaqualounge.com .
Ta!
Wil took photos off of facebook, nothing illicit about them. It was really fucking creepy.
I think what SEC is doing with this event is wonderful — even if it were an orgy, or intended to become an orgy. However, as stated, there is no pressure for students to behave in any way, except that they feel welcome and safe in the environment.
The social is providing a safe space for sex-positivism, whether or not the participants choose to act on that sexuality during the party. And if anyone wants my smiling profile pic endorsing my attendance, they can have it. In fact, FITSNews, you have my consent to put mine back up. I’m going this party and I’m pumped about it.
Love Coco
I’d likewise be fine with mine being up were it in a different context then, “Hey look at these slutty girls who are totally up for anything”
Absolutely! And you have the right to be protected and your consent is needed before your photo is used in such a way. I’m just saying that I do give my consent. I look forward to seeing you on Monday night!
In a similar vein though, there’s nothing wrong with being a slutty girl who’s up for anything, as long as you’re safe and consensual and comfortable with being portrayed that way.
At least you took the stalker pics down…
1) These jard-up, lecherous pervs hear “Orgy” and they think eager and fit little girls showing up to do whatever they want done. But in reality only Boz, FITS and 9″ show up…and 9″ is hoping they get so stoned or drunk….they don’t know the difference…
2) Michelangelo could be the Tattoo artist, and on his BEST day all he would do is spoil God’s feminine masterpiece known as the female body…
3) FITS and Boz, even if your middle name IS “Inch-Worm”…turn your attention to your wives…There’s a lot of more of what you’re looking for AT HOME, instead of these Skanks you lust after, while your wife sits alone, un-satisfied…and it’s]better for your children to see you LOVING their mother, instead of some Tramp tying to get a millions eyes on her naked, marked-up, worn-out body…
I imagine their wifes only tolerate them at this point and would prefer them to stay away and on the computer stalking other women
Got no wife, BigT, been divorced for a decade and a half. Also I don’t go out with college girls or girls in their 20s or seek them out for dates/sex. Even in my burlesque shows, dancers have to be over 21 and I don’t hit on talent. This could be verified by many dozens of women I’ve worked with in various shows over the last five years. Have I flirted with some, online and elsewhere, who were in their late 20’s? Yes, but only when they have initiated it, and I have better sense than to really follow up on anything that might result. It’s just ego-boo. I go out sometimes with women in their 30s or 40s, but by any reasonable standard you could apply they are old enough for me. As usual, you tar me with an over-broad brush in your daily/hourly/minute-by-minute obsessive pogram against Will Folks. So I get smeared with left-over feces as you apply your shit by going after the dude like it’s your job.
IS it, btw?
I react to what you seem to present yourself as…
/// I react to what you seem to present yourself as… ////
WRONG, BitT. You react to the voices in your head reacting to the snakes in your head biting the asses of the monkeys in your head while they try to avoid getting bit by the scorpions in your head.
Between the blaise stories, the false promises of major developments, the breaking news that comes 2 seconds before WISTV and the State News releases, and, and I add, the never-ending worthless and did I say worthless comments from some turd that uses the moniker BigT who I am forever convinced is Will, and the sophomoric slant that most of these articles and the resulting comments take,
I now return to more interesting and informative websites for now and forever, bid a big fucking adios to this shithole of a website.
A pledge to myself and a great big ole fuck ya’ll.
You won’t be missed.
Did somebody say “shithole?”
Go back to Huff Po…
see what I predicted? only a homo would call this level of pulchritude “skanky.”
Not a homo by any stretch of the imagination – the bimbo in the middle is a skank, the one on the right is a virgin and the one on the left is a skanky lesbian.
Actually, I think all three are hetero honours students. I might be wrong, but I don’t think so.
Why is this picture made better for you if you can visualize them as either lesbians, or as skanks?
You forgot virgin, eh (or is it ay?). How would you have us visualize them?
Honestly.
As such, I’m assuming that Fishmeal was being honest, and is visualizing the woman in the middle is a skank, the one of the right is a virgin, and the one on the left is a skanky virgin.I’m still interested in why he thinks the picture is better if he is visualizing the women as skanks and lesbians.
And I mean, I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, but that was a really simple thing to parse out. :D
Nobody was talking to you, RJ S, but since you offered, where did Fishmeal say “he thinks the picture is better if he is visualizing the women as skanks and lesbians”? You seem to have a big problem with reading comprehension. You regularly imagine words that simply are not there. Time to up your meds?
Nonetheless, he/she simply offered his opinion on the girls, based on appearance. It was, I presume, his honest opinion. Not mine, of course, but I don’t know the girls, so for all I know, he is correct.
Personally, I try not to judge on appearance, but that’s just me.
Now, don’t take this the wrong way, as I mean it in the most positive way imaginable, but you seem like a bit of a douche. I’m not a little girl, so I don’t use emoticons, but if I did, I’d use whatever y’all use to represent a big hug and a kiss. How’s that, sweetie?
Actually, you were specifically talking to me. As indicated by you asking me direct questions, pertaining directly to my comment.
And sorry, I just kind of skipped the rest of what you’d typed after that. :)
No, I was responding to your other character. I figured you were not capable of keeping up a discussion. That fits your type. And with that, the canucks run away, after valiantly defending the honor of the skanks they love.
My ‘other character’?
What are you talking about, now? :D
Dude, you’ve got to put down the bong. The weed is damaging some key areas, like short-term memory.
I’m talking about the fact that you use different names at different times when you post. A common strategy for those who aren’t very bright and are tired of getting shown up when posting. Especially when they lie, as you do.
Now go tell the skanks you did right by them, and maybe you’ll get a handy at the orgy.
Nipple shot on the front page?!? well done.
So did this site get invaded by a bunch of Canucks that will be attending this orgy? And did Will delete their posts?
If you people would just check your geography, you’d realize it gets really fucking cold up here and this time of year we only get seven hours of daylight. We need a little orgy now and then just to brighten things up.
Buy yourselves a pair of long johns and make the trip up here. Orgies aren’t hard to find in T.O. (Toronto).
Whoever wrote this is immature, pathetic, and sad they could never attend a University as highly regarded and prestigious as U of T. Keep writing false articles, because clearly you are an idiot and we are glad you are nowhere near our school. We do not need such narrow-minded thinking around.
Oh and I go to U of T, so automatically I’m better than you!!! lool (facebook reference )
p.s the author of this article is still an idiot.
Thanks for the clarification. Your Name “UofTstudent” confused me.
It’s cute that you take such pride in your school, though. Here in the USofA we have many universities that are more highly regarded than your school. Hell, most lists I’ve seen don’t even rank U of T (I presume you mean Toronto, and not Texas, Tennessee, Tampa, etc.) in the top 20, worldwide, but you keep trying.
BTW, how’s your basketball team?
How did you find this site? Are you one of the girls in the photo?
Oh I just love me some orgies!