annaj

josiebee, whilst you're entitled to your opinion it makes me extremely sad to hear a woman say that women were better off when they had less choice and fewer rights. Around the world, right now, there are women who are not allowed to vote, or to go outside with their face uncovered, or to talk to a man who isn't family, or have an education or a profession. Better off? Happier? Really?

Prettyflowers, I'm so sorry you've suffered the double insult of firstly being leered at by drunk men while on your own and secondly being told by other women that you should be grateful. Extraordinary. Whistling, jeering, shouting and any other form of objectifying or intimidating is not flattering, it's rude. And if it upsets pretyflowers then it is, by definition, not harmless, since harm has been caused.

*runs to check that Moos isn't peering in through the window of MrJ's "study"*

Ah, well, you see that's the problem MickMac, MrJ is away.

That's really odd. And very funny.

BBW, no they're not. No more than you deserve anyway. No booze at all here, I'm a rubbish honourary dad, just me fighting overwhelming boredom and the urge to eat everything in the fridge (which admittedly is only two fish cakes, three slightly soft carrots, a yogurt and half a tub of soft cheese). Very sad really.

I'm not a dad and I'm here. Just so you know. Didn't see Strictly though.

Sorry to drag this back a page, but Great choice, but be warned, you'll hate it for the first 4 or 5 chapters, but then find your self hooked. It's totally worth it in the end and I'd love to hear what you think of it. I've never ever read Dan Brown. I did watch a bit of the Da Vinci Code film, but five minutes in I turned to MrJ and said "So, the old guy's the badie and the girl's the holy grail, when does the mystery bit start?" I've always hoped that's because the film was dumbed down a bit compared with the book.

Harsh *Bob*. I don't think it's wrong or oversentimental to express regret that someone you admire has died, particularly if they've died prematurely, even if you have never met them. You can respect and admire someone you've never met and it's not as if people are demanding national holidays or claiming to be inconsolable, they're just saying "that's sad". It's hardly a sea of flowers at the gates of Kensington palace.

Both good ideas, an obituary type thread and Quids being The Chair that is, deaths do seem to be announced in clusters and, whilst they deserve respect, it makes for a morbid front page.

No, not a joke, odd response Kel. An interesting and talented actor who, in my opinion, handled his illness in the public eye with dignity and without self pity. Pancreatic cancer, the same diease that robbed the world of the talent of Bill Hicks, is a horrible, aggresive disease which often takes people far too young. Very sad.

Happy Birthday Quids! Enjoy your day x

Night shift. Booooo

Psssst... Quids.... Guilty Pleasures and Emily Maitlis' Legs (no connection implied) One or the other by the end of the day....

Oh, honestly, Ladymuck, I can't believe I'm bothering to answer this, but since you seem to be implying that I either masochistically forced myself to repeatedly check a thread I didn't like, or that I'm lying and it didn't really offend me, but I reported it anyway, either of which would be frankly a bit bonkers, I feel compelled to respond. Here's how it was: I kept an eye on the original thread, because I thought it was interesting, but I noticed it was starting to go down hill a bit. I then went away for a bit and did something else, you know life stuff, and later came back to look at the forum. I noticed there had been lots of activity on the thread, so I read through all the posts since I'd last read it. As I read them I was troubled by an increasing feeling that it all felt a bit wrong to me, so I posted to that effect and reported the posts to the moderator. Then I went away and got on with my life. That doesn't seem that unconvincing or weird to me. Please, can you just accept that I, and others, think that on this occasion a joke went too far and get over it. Now... I know you were joking, but there may well be something in that. But I'm only allowing myself and half hour lunch break before it's back to the books, so we'll have to discuss that one another time.

Ladymuck, if you'd read my post properly you'd see that after HAL's post I acknowledged that I'd misuderstood which part of Mockney's post you were referring to, but that it didn't change my opinion or my post. Now, just to be clear about my opinion of the sex therapy thread, I had no objection at all to LE's original post or the general concept of a thread about sex. As I said on the thread itself, I believe LE was genuine in her desire to help people enjoy a healthy and happy sex life and I thought it had potential to be really interesting. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it was then completely hijacked by a small group of posters exchanging what you all obviously thought were very witty bits of innuendo, but to the outside reader were just at first faintly distasteful and later plain rude and, yes, unpleasant to read. I can't remember specific examples of things that went too far (and no, it wasn't the references to lesbian sex, I'm not a prude or easily shocked) because I didn't commit the entire thread to memory, but the whole tone of the exchange felt wrong to me. I posted on the thread that I thought it had gone too far and strayed away from LE's original and valid point and I reported the thread to the moderators. Obviously, I wasn't the only one, because a whole thread wouldn't be removed for one complaint. I appreciate that you feel wronged and defensive and I'm not judging you as a person, I'm just saying I think that thread went to far and whilst, obviously, some people disagree and support you, some people also clearly agreed since the thread was removed. This thread, again in my opinion, has a different tone and less detail and I don't think there's any double standard.

Strawbs, aren't you renting? You'll need to check your lease to make sure you're allowed to sublet.

That just shows that we're older, not better! I know that I can come across as a bit dull and worthy on the forum and I probably am on this thread, but I'm really not (I don't think) in real life. It might seem like I'm picking on a really small point here, but the thing is that all the small things put together make up big things and, if left unchallenged, remain accepted. BBW, thank you for your good luck wishes, I don't doubt for a second that they were genuine.

Yes, reading back, I agree that she probably was, but I stand by my comment that the tone and content of this thread is completely different and the previous thread crossed a line in terms of explicit and smutty content and the decision to remove it was justified.

Huguenot, it's absolutely true that there aren't many male newsreaders in their twenties, but that's because most newsreaders are in their 30s before they get a slot on a mainstream news show - all the woman on this thread are in their 30s. There are some exceptions, Krishnan Guru-Murthy graduated from Newsround to Newsnight at the age of 24 and Matthew Amroliwala first appeared on the BBC news in his late 20s. For the most part newsreaders, both male and female, have put in the years behind the scenes or on radio before they get to TV news. The difference is that, once they make it, the women will be expected to look good on sceen and off and may well get taken off screen altogether when they start to age, making it a pretty short career. I also take your point about the way these TV personalities "choose" to portray themselves, but I think it's less straightforward and less of a choice than you imply. They are responding to the expectations of a Heat Magazine society and that, in my opinion, is what need to change. But it's two days until one of the biggest exams of my career, so I really shouldn't be procrastinating on here discussing the ins and outs of sexism in the 21st century in the context of pretty newsreaders. Just one more thing though, Ladymuck, in Mockney's defence there is a big difference between him saying someone is "wuvvvwevy" and the kind of filth that was circulating on the other thread, which was really unpleasant to read and I'm not afraid to say I reported, so no double standard. The only thing similar on this thread was BBWs unpleasant contribution early on which has, quite rightly, been edited. It's the attitude on this thread that I have rasied a (fairly mild) objection to, not the smut.

As a student I had a housemate who claimed that rugby was posh and classy and football was common. He also said that cutting sandwiches straight across was common and triangles were posh... He killed the house hamster and ran away in the middle of the night leaving several student accounts in the red and a padlocked room full of personal possessions that he'd stolen from other people in the house.... There's a message in there somewhere.

Indeed. I might even say that the photos were unkind. Or that sniggering at attractive women and implying that they're transvestites is unkind. After all, how many of the men posting are perfect specimens who've never had an off day or been photographed at an unflattering angle? I might even get started on the fact that female newsreaders are all expected to be young and gorgeous and get replaced whent they're not, but male newsreaders are not. But I'm sure I'd only be called humourless, or something similar, so I'll leave you to it.

Jojo, next Friday 4th September and it's a lot of fun. chez, 30-something.

Oh, now, I promised myself I wouldn't do any more correcting, but did you really mean "literally" there, BBW? I mean did you really, actually, physically used to wee when you read *Bob*'s posts? Really?* I just can't stand misuse of the word literally. In fact where's that tiny things that cause irrational rage thread gone... As for daizie's comment, well, she's not wrong. I am really, really bored. *Of course, the answer to that could be yes. In which case, I'm terribly sorry both for the correction and the insensitivity, but there are exercises you can do you know.

Brilliant. Next Friday!