Controversy is raging in the gurning world over the kinds of gurns that should be allowed and which should be banned.
The rules of gurning, which started out as speed dating for ugly people, were set out many years ago but have been amended over time. The second amendment enshrines the right of anyone, whether ugly or not, to gurn.
Gurn control advocates, such as Piers Morgan have pointed out that gurning should be a deliberate intentional act and that automatic or semi-automatic gurning, where a ‘not so ugly’ gurner flicks their face around in random movements, are not necessary and should be banned. The anti gurn control lobby believe that ability to gurn is a fundamental right and that supposed problems with gurning are really caused by people making faces when playing computer games.
The chairman of the anti-gurning league, Roger Moore, who refuses to allow his face to move at all, recently had a debate with the cuddly face of gurning, John Sargeant. During the meeting, traditional gurners looked apoplectic, though that might just have been part of their warm up.
The debate takes place against a backdrop of another shocking incident when several old ladies queuing for a bus were severely distressed as a result of a drive by gurning incident. Such inexplicable acts have given gurning a bad name and made life harder for ‘sports’ gurners and other moderates who feel victimised.
The National Mooning Association is watching events carefully.
Not Amused (HT Squudge) Punchline Al O’Pecia