Tofte’s ticked: TMU toilet tagged

By on June 20, 2013

JACKSON HOLE, WYO – “I’d like to find the guy who did this and have a fistfight with him, that’s all,” Jeremy Tofte told JH Weekly by phone today. Tofte was dismayed to learn someone had defaced the wall mural in one of Thai Me Up’s bathrooms last night by tossing the contents of a can of paint onto the artwork. The owner of the Thai eatery and hottest nano-brewery in the valley right now said he would pay anyone $1,000 for ratting out the culprit so Tofte could challenge him or her to duke it out.

When reached by phone today, Tofte said his maintenance staff was able to clean most of it off the wall but the floor remained stained in green paint. He said a paint can was swiped from a utility closet and used as the ‘weapon of crass destruction.’

Tofte said the challenge stands and here at JH Weekly we would also like to offer our online comment section as a fess up forum. Our Half Off Jackson Hole department said they could hook up informants with some really cool schwag.


About Jake Nichols

Jake is a work in progress.

16 Comments

  1. Sarah H.

    June 20, 2013 at 4:16 pm

    The mass anger in this town is palpable.
    The mural actually looks better with green paint.
    Get over yourselves graffiti artist and and owner.

    • Sarah H

      June 20, 2013 at 5:38 pm

      Mass anger? They had property vandalized! Its almost as low as your perception of art. You and the vandal should show up for a punch in the face. Go back to your commune and leave the rest of us to spend tons of money at Thai me up enjoying mingling in the palpable mass anger.

  2. JHowe

    June 20, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    Bunch of savages in this town.

    • Sam

      June 20, 2013 at 8:36 pm

      Hells yeah!!!

      I really can’t think of a better punishment for people who vandalize other peoples’ property. Frankly, I think people who pee on toilet seats deserve a punch in the face. But this? The entire can of whoop ass needs to be emptied.

  3. Sell Booze, Expect it.

    June 20, 2013 at 7:20 pm

    Kinda funny that if you had this art at almost ANY other business it would be cause for a sexual harassment lawsuit – or whatever overly sensitive dingbatty women like to label it nowadays. A “hostile workplace’, perhaps, like playboys in the mensroom. Could you see this art at the county building? Wells fargo? Unnn aaaah. Nope. Nada.

    • Robert

      June 21, 2013 at 12:41 am

      What if it was in an art gallery? Like art galleries, bars have a different standard of social decorum than a bank or a government office. This doesn’t mean one set of standards is inviting property destruction or vandalism. How would this constitute sexual harassment. Here is the definition because you wouldn’t do the work yourself. “Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.” I don’t see how this is bullying or coercive and in no way promises rewards. By your definition all employees of all adult novelty stores are being sexually harassed all the time. Presence of nudity doesn’t mean sexual objectification, but i guess you can’t expect a clenched puritanical American to understand that.

      • It's ART

        June 21, 2013 at 12:56 am

        “”””Art and Music: Likewise, art or music that is seen as politically offensive, misogynistic, or sexually themed can lead to harassment liability. A U.S. Court of Appeals in Slayton v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Services, for instance, upheld a $125,000 damages award based in part on a coworker’s playing “misogynistic rap music” and displaying “music videos depict[ing] an array of sexually provocative conduct.” 52

        The injunction in another case barred the possession or display of any “sexually suggestive, sexually demeaning, or pornographic” 53 materials in the workplace, defining “sexually suggestive” as covering anything that “depicts a person of either sex who is not fully clothed . . . and who is posed for the obvious purpose of displaying or drawing attention to private portions of his or her body.” This would clearly cover a wide variety of art, and might actually send people to jail — one form of sanction for violation of a court order — for possessing and display Gauguin prints. And I describe below many instances in which harassment complaints were brought based on legitimate art, from Goya to New Yorker cartoons, but which never came to court because employers, faced with the risk of liability, ordered the art taken down. “”””

        I don’t think the poster was saying that this was an excuse for property destruction.

        http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/harass/breadth.htm

        • Robert

          June 23, 2013 at 12:41 am

          There is nothing sexually provocative about nudity.

          • gARY

            June 25, 2013 at 4:34 pm

            “There is nothing sexually provocative about nudity.”

            sure, on your planet.

      • Spirit of Justice

        June 21, 2013 at 6:40 am

        A ‘hostile workplace’ covers many topics besides the ones you list. ‘Sexual harassment’ also is broader than you suggest. You’re the one who needs to do the research. The idea that ‘Sell Booze’ was endorsing defacing the bathroom wall is something that you dreamed up much like your limited definition of a hostile workplace. Nude statues and the like usually get a pass except from ‘overly sensitive dingbatty women ‘ and men like Attorney General John Ashcroft.

  4. hang-em-high

    June 20, 2013 at 8:45 pm

    Judging by the black light, those floors needed a fresh coat of something other than man-paint anyway.

  5. Tom B'atch

    June 20, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    Tofte for mayor! This will be like the old west but with better beer and larb!

  6. It's ART

    June 21, 2013 at 12:44 am

    Don’t clean it, sell it to Daniela Botur and Frank Marinaro’s Intencións art gallery. Use the money to paint yourself a new picture with 2 lovers going at it..

    http://planetjh.com/2013/06/18/high-art-seek-the-intention-of-intencions/

  7. Nate

    June 21, 2013 at 8:16 am

    How does Tofte know the vandal was male? If the vandal turns out to be a “she” will tough Tofte still want to “duke it out”? How’s that for a moral-discriminatory quandary? Maybe she was just pissed about having been served a poor excuse for Thai food!

    • hang-em-high

      June 21, 2013 at 8:53 am

      Well, then she’ll be the kind of girl who deserves equal opportunity.

    • Paint like a girl

      June 21, 2013 at 5:07 pm

      Girls know how to paint.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

37,032 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments

HTML tags are not allowed.