“Smoking cigars as an art form"

[ggiese]

I wasn't going to say anything in this thread but I feel compelled to to add a comment regarding the above quote, for I disagree that censoring pictures will make it more informative. I 'll begin by saying the only cigar magazine that I have been exposed to is cigar aficionado. Frankly, in my opinion that magazine is a piece of art. The book is over sized, the pictures are bold, glossy, and full of beauty. I have known the covers of the magazine to be adorned with strong, rich, intelligent, funny, worldly men which are all quality's that I find very sexy. For me cigar aficionado magazine does more for me then a playgirl magazine. However, I tell my husband I buy it for the article shhhhhhhhhh! I think its important to remember how information is forwarded is best determine by the audience. The beautiful photos of the cigars and their bans are timeless. Cigar bands and boxes were original created to be beautiful and artsy to lure the person in to an experience before your other senses could be plaited. In addition, cigar advertising encompassed all types woman and how they were portrait in that time. Clad woman are part of that advertising history although I myself have yet to see naked woman in that magazine.
On the other hand, I don't think you could denied the photo of Alejandro Robaina smoking a cigar August 2010 magazine tells a history before any written word is read. Much like your paintings photos in a cigar magazine should capture the history, the culture and the beauty of the cigar 's emancipation to compliant any written articles in the magazine.
I hope this is as clear as mudd!

Clear as can be, Grinella!

But - this is what I have to say about that...

I am writing this letter because I take issue with some of Daysiartpainter's ideals. Although my approach may appear a bit pedantic, by setting some generative point of view against a structural-taxonomical point of view or vice versa, I intend to argue that Daysiartpainter's reasoning is circular and therefore invalid. In other words, she always begins an argument with her conclusion (e.g., that she is as innocent as a newborn lamb) and therefore—not surprisingly—she always arrives at that very conclusion. The law is not just a moral stance. It is the consensus of society on our minimum standards of behavior. I don't want to overstate this point, but some people have indicated that it is difficult for many people to accept that Daysiartpainter's hectoring assertions have been found incompatible with personal security and the rights of property. I can neither confirm nor deny that statement, but I can say that no one has a higher opinion of Daysiartpainter than I, and I think Daysiartpainter is a dour meathead.

Please don't misinterpret that last statement to mean that it's okay to make my stomach turn. That's not at all what it means. Rather, it means that I shall be blamed by ignorant persons when I say that Daysiartpainter's surrogates always detect profound wisdom in what is most incomprehensible to them personally. Cruel as that maxim may appear, her childish "Mine! Mine! Mine! Now! Now! Now!" attitude makes me think that maybe Daysiartpainter rather grandiloquently refers to me and everyone else she dislikes as an infantile, militant scapegrace. But there's the rub; when Daysiartpainter hears anyone say that she has lost all sense of compassion, understanding, and humanity, her answer is to incite young people to copulate early, often, and indiscriminately. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to get us out of the hammerlock in which she is holding us.

On a more personal note, at no time in the past did stentorian tricksters shamble through the streets of cities, demanding rights they imagine some supernatural power has bestowed upon them. This makes Daysiartpainter's manuscripts seem pea-brained and even a bit destructive. The destruction of the Tower of Babel, be it a literal truth, an allegory, or a mere story based upon cultural archetypes, illustrates this truth plainly. I have this advice to offer: The world has changed, Daysiartpainter; get used to it. On a completely different tack, I once had a nightmare in which she was free to address what is, in the end, a nonexistent problem. When I awoke, I realized that this nightmare was frighteningly close to reality. For instance, it is the case both in my nightmare and in reality that the idea of basing our entire society on slimy teetotalism is so far from reality, it's laughable. Now that's a rather crude and simplistic statement, and in many cases it may not even be literally true. But there is a sense in which it is generally true, a sense in which it clearly expresses how ignorance is bliss. This may be why Daysiartpainter's flacks are generally all smiles. Finally, any one of the points I made in this letter could be turned into a complete research paper, but the conclusion of each would be the same: It can plausibly be surmised that Daysiartpainter should be locked up.