Theories or suspicions you (I) have that are unpopular or Shirley OBNOXIOUS

[UTUSN]

1) Years ago, this Fundie at work, who was totally humble/simple/"pure", who participated in prayer groups in the breakroom, sponsored Scouts and school activities (get the picture?), was clearly proud to have scheduled a drug sniffer dog for a school presentation. And I mentioned my theory/SUSPICION that, since dogs' smelling powers are humongous, might sniffer dogs not be ADDICTED to the drugs they are finding?!1 The dude was totally shocked, like I had blasphemed.

2) Tattoos. My vague suspicion is not about the usual connotation of "exhibitionism" (I have two, of the back-in-the-day-"military" sort, up on the short-sleeve locations, from before tattooing and wrestling got popular. I'm talking about sort of "extensiveness", meaning going back for "work" many many times. And my sure-to-be-unpopular suspicion is that the exhibitionism I'm specifying here MIGHT have something to do with going to the tattooist and exposing skin (usually in blatant places). What I'm wondering/suspecting is whether the customer is seeking out exposing to and being handled by somebody. A lot of the "Ink" t.v. shows (I haven't seen THAT many) feature customers with very emotional, sad, treacley stories behind their absolute NEED to have that tattoo. I realize many of my brethren here have (lots? of) tattoos, and I am sincerely not trying to offend.

3) Now that there's a "Charlie/Chocolate Factory" thread--actually TWO, I'm reminded that that movie (the Willie Wonka/Gene WILDER version) has always creeped me out, and especially after Coup 2000 when Al GORE did a sketch about it on SNL. As usual, I'm talking out of my hat again, since I never saw the whole movie, was just creeped out by the whole concept of a weird adult interacting with weird children in creepy tones of voice and exerting some kind of creepy control. And I'm reminded of it these days because there is a commercial that seems to be Gene singing from that movie. And, no, I didn't read the book, and didn't see the latest version, so I realize there might be a large amount of unfairness in my shooting-off-of-the-mouth (like THAT never happens!1). But my unpopular theory/suspicion was that Al GORE did not need any more CREEPY associations with his personality beyond all the crap that was attached to him during the campaign.

Now, now: I *said* my theories were unpopular/shocking/obnoxious. But if we can't open up to understanding, intelligent, accepting others (DUers), who CAN we open up to and what is permissible to "discuss"?

On Edit: Actually, I shouldn't have started a thread this late because I'm going to bed. If my topic is obnoxious, I'll ask the dear Mods to lock or disappear it.