Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  6
Likes Likes:  32
Dislikes Dislikes:  7
Results 1 to 15 of 86

Thread: "Woke Coke" by Gandalf

Share/Bookmark

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,333
    Mentioned
    680 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    854
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: "Woke Coke" by Gandalf


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,333
    Mentioned
    680 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    854
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: "Woke Coke" by Gandalf

    @Gandalf

    How I felt when u left


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    16,333
    Mentioned
    680 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    854
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: "Woke Coke" by Gandalf

    But @Gandalf since you left me like that I’ve grown quite close to beaner, this is the final song for you

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    26,093
    Mentioned
    530 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    1954
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: "Woke Coke" by Gandalf

    I honestly don't give a shit as #1, I don't live in California... and #2, I'm not into shopping at retail stores. So there's that

    However, these excerpts from the legislation in question are good for a laugh.


    PART 2.57. Gender Neutral Retail Departments
    55.7. The Legislature finds and declares both of the following:
    (a) Unjustified differences in similar products that are traditionally marketed either for girls or for boys can be more easily identified by the consumer if similar items are displayed closer to one another in one, undivided area of the retail sales floor.
    (b) Keeping similar items that are traditionally marketed either for girls or for boys separated makes it more difficult for the consumer to compare the products and incorrectly implies that their use by one gender is inappropriate.



    Part (a) is just some convoluted gobbledygook written by someone obviously on drugs. "Unjustified differences in similar products that are traditionally marketed for girls or for boys...." Whoo... gives you a headache just reading that drivel. Anyway, the part about the displays being closer to one another is harmless enough. Pain in the ass for those in retail floor design now having to toe the line on totally useless legislation... but what the hell. Those in retail floor design should've studied something else.

    Part (b) is where the side-splitting comedy kicks into gear. Separation of similar items "marketed either for girls or for boys makes it more difficult for the consumer to compare the products and..." (chuckle, guffaw) "... incorrectly implies that their use by one gender is inappropriate."


    Oh STOP it you people! You're killing me here!!

    Seriously. This is what some people in the state legislature get paid thousands and thousands of dollars to do. On some level it stops being funny.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 06-10-2019, 12:15 AM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 08-03-2017, 02:14 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2017, 03:06 PM

Bookmarks

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Saddo Boxing - Boxing