I'd like to consider myself a humble individual. I'd like to think that when a times comes that I am proven wrong (a rare occurrence indeed), I'm able to suppress my ego and admit it.
Now is one of those times.
Brandon: You were right and I was wrong. David Bowie really is a woman.
He (she?) was pictured here with actor Will Smith at a charity gala in NYC on Wednesday.
Well snaps and claps to you, Brandon. I never saw this one coming.
I'm just . . . stunned, really. I mean, I had my suspicions all along, of course (not that I ever admitted those to anyone), but I never expected him/her to come out even if he/she did turn out to be . . . you know . . . a female.
This is devastating and more than a little awkward.
(P.S. Is it just me or is Bowie looking a little fat?)
Well snaps and claps to you, Brandon. I never saw this one coming.
I'm just . . . stunned, really. I mean, I had my suspicions all along, of course (not that I ever admitted those to anyone), but I never expected him/her to come out even if he/she did turn out to be . . . you know . . . a female.
This is devastating and more than a little awkward.
(P.S. Is it just me or is Bowie looking a little fat?)
7 comments:
I am sorry Lassin. Truly it must be devastating to loos such a close friend. I will not start shouting "I was RIGHT!!!" because I am not that kind of person, well and because my windpipe is shredded from racking hacks. I am curious however, was it his hair or the implants that gave him away?
P.S. He is getting that way around the hips.
I would like to publicly say that I am sorry for attacking tho Bowie. I have clamed that his singing stunk but in actuality he is not that bad. However I still think that somewere in his dark and strange mind he is still somewhat Bi.
Since you have granted me lenience in the past, I will now resist the temptation to scream "GUESS WHO WAS RIGHT?!" while beating you over the head with my Bowie poster. This is mostly due to the fact that my head has suddenly become very light due to the lack of oxygen (hysterical laughing fits have truly detrimental effects on blood flow), rather than being a good person. I'll even ignore the fact that you said "not that bad" instead of "devastatingly brilliant and awe-inspiring" because I'm just happy you've finally seen the truth, and I'm not particularly picky in which way you come to that. :-) I think you're wrong about a niche of his psyche clinging to bisexuality, though. But that's okay -- the freedom to have differing opinions is what makes America great. (Unless you are a fan of Keith Richards, Mick Jagger, or any of Led Zeppelin as people, in which case you need to be removed from greater society and exterminated.)
All kidding aside, though, I think it's very big of you to admit this in a public forum, given your previous bashing of Bowie and my adamant defense of him. It means a lot to me to hear a friend say this. :-)
I will still bash his controversial making out with men but his singing will be exempted from my wrath. He is an ammazing singer, still no David Archuleta, but he can hold his own on a stage. Mush more then I can do. Same with Keith Richards, Mick Jagger, or Led Zeppelin all are good singers but as people should be exterminated with extreme predigest. Hey, We could kill them using the methods of a mutual friend, the blabbermouth one. Anyway in regards to the Bowie subject it could be his fault that we are in a economic down turn. David Bowie started a trend of 'securitisation' in 1997 by selling the royalties for his music upfront for a large lump sum. The many banks saw this and stole the idea and sold their mortgages in lump sums possible causing the bad economy. So it's Bowie's fault that we (collective we not me I have lots of money) do not have any funds.
P.S. I am still trying to find a way to blame Bowie for the fall of man so if anyone has ideas post them.
P.P.S. Just kidding about the Archuleta thing. I very much dislike him.
According to Angela Bowie, it's a lot more than just "controversial." Click the link, I dare you . . . heheh, try to sleep now. >:D Oh jeez, for a second there I was like "David Archuleta?! You are a disturbed individual," but then I saw you were joking, and it was all rainbows and sunshine again. :-) I think you definitely have something there in regards to the "forceful removal" of Jagger, Richards, and Led Zeppelin from this plane of existence . . . although I'm not sure how good any of their livers will be after living through the '70s. I really don't think we can peg the economic crisis on Bowie (surprise, surprise). Although securitisation became popular in the '90s, it was was something that began in the '70s, and I think Bowie was just latching onto a preexisting idea in the financial markets.
P.S. It's quite simple, really, though perhaps not what you had in mind. The total effects of this phenomenon have not yet come to fruition, bu this is how it starts: when women set eyes on David Bowie, they are inexplicably and innately drawn to him with such deep-seated want that all other men come up short. Therefore, babies are not made, and the human race slowly depopulates (in Western society, at least, where people are more exposed to the glory that is David Bowie).
YAHHHHH I am not the only one that plays on snopes!!!!! So Lassin your cruel attempt to wipe my brain has failed. I am now immune to all pervertedness (Mickie Jackson excluded). I can only say this about the fall of man business. Most women are attracted to properties they see in themselves. Thus the supposed attractedness stems from the feminineness of Mr. Bowie.
Post a Comment