Otta

Typing on phone. Make Which to be honest I thought was reasonably obvious even with the typos.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be honest I wouldn't personally listen to S&R, > but it really does surprise me that people are so > quick to criticise what they're doing with such > venom. I kind of hope that in a few years time, > I'll be a middle-aged dad making music and > embarrassing my kids too. I may be biased, but I rather think the music you nake wilk be a bit more... like music than this particular piece of art. However, I suspect that S&L like many a genius before them are merely unappreciated in their own lifetimes. I'm sure the future will be based on their work, much like Wikd Stallions.

I think if one partner has faith, it's cool for the other to accept it and go along with it. What I think is stupid is when people just do the church thing because they think it's the done thing. As for the people who attend, I'd argue that they are just there for their friends. I did feel a bit of a hypocrite being a god father in a Catholic christening though!

Buy a cheap xbox 360, it has windows media app which you can sync with your pc (via wireless). Then anything on your pc can be viewed on your tv. You can also access Netflix/Lovefilm through it. Think you have to subscribe to xbox gold though, which is an extra fee, but not huge.

I've had a few Sunday beers and have no idea about anything serious.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Who said you shouldn't shout them down for > anything? " > > probably expressed a bit strongly but you, for > example have said "the tabloid press is what it > is" and even in your last post "it probably did > sell a load of papers and that's what they're paid > to do, whether we think it's in good taste or > not" > > the subtext of which, to me, suggests "no point > shouting them down about it" Nope, I fully support shouting them down, and saying when they're out of order. The point I am trying to make is that there are a load of people who will buy it and see no harm in it. Please don't try to paint me as one of them, but as long as they are willing to buy the paper, the paper will continue doing what it's doing. Because it's making money and that is why it exists. You may disagree with porn for example, but as long as the industry makes money, it won't close up because other people don't like it. > also, to say "I disagree for the most part that > she has been degraded. Even showing her in a > bikini isn't exactly degrading when you consider > that she was a model. " > > seems odd to me. Because if you are her family, do > you look at that picture, not in it;'s original > context which seems fine to me, but in the context > of her still being warm on the slab, you don't > think it's out of order? Bit fed up with you putting words in my mouth. Yes it is out of order, I wouldn't buy that shite, and haven't even looked at it, but plenty of people want to, and so it exists for them. Would a lot of families like what is put in the tabloids about them? Of course not. Would this family be up;set by the Sun's cover? I don't know if they'll have even seen it, I imagine right now they wouldn't really be in a place to bother getting upset about it because they are trying to come to terms with their relative's death. But they have people like you to be outraged for them, so that's okay. This thread has now turned in to the debate that LB claims she was trying to start in the first place, and it's a debate worth having. I only got involved in the first place because the OP didn't actually put any kind of point across and it took a whole page of posts before we managed to work out the subject. I agree with Jeremy that Oscar P is not a mere celebrity, and I totally agree that the victim should not just be described as a "model girlfriend". I do however understand why the headline would say "Oscar P accused of murdering girlfriend", because that is more likely to get people's attention than "Oscar P accused of murdering Reeva Steenkamp" because people would have said "who?". I basically agree with LB and SJ's thoughts on this, I'm just shocked that you're shocked about the Sun's article. It's the Sun, and shed loads of people buy it, so it'll carry on doing what it does.

Who said you shouldn't shout them down for anything? I suspect (and this is not my opinion) that they would argue that she was an attractive young woman who modelled and that they were somehow paying tribute to her beauty. Of course that's bollocks, but it probably did sell a load of papers and that's what they're paid to do, whether we think it's in good taste or not

Lets just leave this argument. LB, you weren't particularly clear in your opening post about what bothered you about the story (you never once used the word celebrity). I disagree for the most part that she has been degraded. Even showing her in a bikini isn't exactly degrading when you consider that she was a model. Unless you think that modelling is degrading, but that's a whole other thread. Tabloid press is what it is, and could probably be more tasteful in the way they report most things.

Usual shit. Either that or I'm just not getting the genius.

Perhaps a loss in translation of thoughts to text is at play.

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > "Reeva Steenkamp shot dead by disabled boyfriend > who is now charged with her murder". > > Why haven't we read that headline? > On a personal note of interest, why does the fact he's disabled nees to be pointed out in the headline? How about "Reeva Steenkamp shot dead by famous athlete boyfriend, who is now charged with her murder". That would be a fair and accurate headline fiven the current facts wouldn't it?

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Otta, the gender thing follows, sadly, in the > sense that women are more frequent victims. I was > interested too that all the men commenting thought I must have been making a gender point. "Woman gets cross at lack of identity of female victim > therefore making gender point." Perhaps we've > finally programmed you all to think that if you're > in trouble you must have been sexist! legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Unsurprisingly all the men contributing to this > thread seem to have missed the point. I wasn't trying to row with you, but that is the most sexist comment on this thread. You're right about the poor woman killed on that bus, but it's an exceptional case. Many men and women are raped and/or murdered and we don't hear a thing about it, so in a twisted way the celebrity involvement of this case actually brings her death to the forefront of international news, and hopefully means that IF he is guilty it can't be swept away.

civilservant, LB was not beastly to TED.

With regards celebrity I agree 100%, but I have to say that your earlier posts suggested (to me anyway) that this was a gender thing (hence your comment that all the men had looked at it in a certain way). I still believe that if genders were reversed it would be the same story, but yes, that goes with the celebrity thing. And yes, it's sad that some murders make headlines whilst many more don't. It's the same with other crimes, like child abduction for example. I don't know why some are deemed more news worthy than others, but there is too much crap that goes on in the world for us to hear about it all

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Love and kisses all round! Oi, wench! Get back to the kitchen and bake me some pie!

Just to add that there are plenty of people killed in our own city (let alone country) who we never hear about. If a female athlete had shot and killed her boyfriend, I strongly suspect that he would be described as the boyfriend of the famous athlete, with his name as an afterthought. I don't think this has to do with sexism. Either way, a sad story and a waste of life. I hooe that it was a horrific mistake, but the number of shots certainly looks very bad!

LB, I get the point, but to be fair, a woman killed in SA wouldn't normally make the news over here (neither would a man). It is "news worthy" on an international basis because of who has shot her. Not right perhaps, but at least she's not another nameless gunshot victim who barely gets a paragraph in a South African newspaper.

Which reminds me. People who don't attend church reasonably regularly (once a month maybe) have got absolutely no business getting married in church or having their child christened. Christening s for people who don't really bother with church are just another excuse to make them centre of attention and get more presents out of people!

No babiew at all is just ridiculous! My mate was upaet when he was best man for his okdest friend, and was tokd he couldn't bring his son, who the groom is God father to!

Yeah, it's tomorrow night (well Sunday morning). Expect him to show heart but be outclassed, like Hatton Vs Mayeather a few years back.

Oops, had missed this page. Was referring to Mick's earlier post.

Come on Mick, when has Scottish football as a whole ever been stronger than English football? I know Celtic had a couple of years at or near the top of Europe, but they are one team, and English teams were also there abouts at the time.

Saturday 16th February 2013 Luton 1 V Millwall 3 Arsenal 3 V Blackburn 0 MK Dons 1 V Barnsley 1 Oldham 1 V Everton 2 Sunday 17th February 2013 Chelsea 3 V Brentford 0 Man City 2 V Leeds United 2 Huddersfield 1 V Wigan 2 Monday 18th February 2013 Man Utd 2 V Reading 0 Wednesday 27th February 2013 Middlesbrough 2 V Brentford 2 or Middlesrough 1 V Chelsea 3

Asset Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Nail varnish wouldn't bother me. I quite like the > smell, I can appreciate some don't though and for > that it is pretty antisocial. But eating a burger > or something is much more vile in an enclosed > space. I've had to change carriages when people > are eating. > I do get irritated with people putting make up on. > I don't know why. Fairly intolerant of me I know. > I don't let it get my blood pressure up though. > Lets face it there are plenty of anti-social, > inconsiderate divs out there. I've had to "eat on the go" between appointments before, and remember feeling like such a dirty scummer. Only do it when I really really have no option, and fully appreciate that everyone will think I'm disgusting.

"The rich don't deserve child benefit. " "deserve" is a poor choice of word, but they clearly don't need it, and so shouldn't get it when the country is basically skint.