The second annual Underwear Party apparently drew 1200 people in various states of undress to Club Congress on Saturday (around 900 attended last year, which means this event will eventually be Tucson’s best-attended public gathering by 2015).
Now, whether you attended and are trying to remember what happened, or stayed home and want to voyeuristically look for people you know in their boxers/panties/whatever, some of the official photos are online now, mostly of the “teen girl bedroom” set, featuring a somewhat handsy Santa statue.
This article appears in Aug 1-7, 2013.
I clicked the link to get my voyeurism on and I received the following message:
“The page you requested cannot be displayed right now. It may be temporarily unavailable, the link you clicked on may have expired, or you may not have permission to view this page.”
If it expired, that seems awfully soon. If I don’t have permission to view this page, then maybe Zuckerberg knows about my disdain for his baby. WTF?
The photos are on Facebook, so if you have a FB account and you’re logged in, you should be able to see the photos. They are public.
@Muff: That’s kinda what I figured, but as I mentioned above, I have no love for facebook and because of that I don’t have an account. I can always hack my ol’ lady’s account, but why bother for something as trivial as this? This is just another example of the asinine exclusivity exhibited within the world of fb. Pathetic!
@AZ/DC: “asinine exclusivity?” There are one billion+ users who apparently don’t agree with this assessment.
@riorican: When it is a requirement for me to have an account to view something that is obviously available by the poster for public view that is what I and many others view as “asinine exclusivity.” There are still a BUNCH of people who do not bother to establish a facebook account because of this and a load of other bullshit. It will not be long before that billion+ shrinks to myspace numbers. Mark my words.
@AZ/DC: Wow! A “bunch” of people?
Well, I bought a bunch of radishes the other day and there were 12.
Is this what you have in mind?
“This is just another example of the asinine exclusivity exhibited within the world of fb. Pathetic!”
Beautifully put
Facebook is for losers.
@Mike: “Facebook is for losers,” you say?
Not so sure of that: my shares just appreciated in value 30% during the past 6 trading sessions.
But if you know of a better “loser” than FB, I’m all ears…
🙂
@riorican – is the stock value ALWAYS your argument? I am sure jean shorts are doing well at WalMart, does that mean that middle aged men aren’t losers when they wear them?
In reference to your “Well, I bought a bunch of radishes the other day and there were 12.” comment: Troll much?
Just because you have stock in this loser doesn’t mean it’s gonna keep appreciating in value. Did you use the same logic when your Atari stocks soared in 1981? I hope you removed your assets before 1983 when the stock plummeted 2/3rds. Just as the Atari example which I used, facebook is a passing FAD. If you have worthy stockbrokers I’m sure you’ll hear the same thing from them soon enough. DC