willedoo Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago The confusion happened when ome quoted Jerry (in relation to pmccarthy's post) and in the reply tacked on a second part about the methanol poisoning. Then Jerry quoted ome's total post (including the bit about Laos) when his answer was only in relation to the first part of the post (regarding pmccarthy's post). Then ome has quoted Jerry thinking Jerry's answer was in relation to the Laos poisoning and given a response to Jerry about the poisoning when Jerry was talking about pmccarthy's post. Situation normal for this forum. It would be boring otherwise.
willedoo Posted 4 hours ago Posted 4 hours ago I guess the lesson is, if you are answering a particular part of someone's post, only quote the section that relates to your reply and not the entire post. It avoids different topics getting mixed up. 1
red750 Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago Here's something really random. Can you imagine a TV program, promoted as an Australian version, filmed in the UK with a Welsh comedian as host? The show, Australian Wheel of Fortune, is hosted by Graham Norton, and aired on Channel 10. The Australian bit is that all contestants are ex-pat Aussies living in the UK. Jerry, are you there?
pmccarthy Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago (edited) Way back when, if someone was a victim, a serious respectable photo of them was used in the press. Now they seem to seek out the other sort, but perhaps that is all to be found on social media. The Laos victim photos were not bad like that, but probably still lacking some of the respect that I would appreciate. Edited 3 hours ago by pmccarthy 1
Jerry_Atrick Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 24 minutes ago, red750 said: Jerry, are you there? I'm here, but not there (as in on the TV show).. I guess I am not that photogenic.
red750 Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago Just watched the first episode. It was so-so. Graham Norton is no Pat Sajak, and the prizes are a lot less.
willedoo Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 41 minutes ago, pmccarthy said: Way back when, if someone was a victim, a serious respectable photo of them was used in the press. Now they seem to seek out the other sort, but perhaps that is all to be found on social media. The Laos victim photos were not bad like that, but probably still lacking some of the respect that I would appreciate. I guess in the past the press would contact the family or police for a photograph. These days they would find it a lot easier to google the victim's facebook or instagram account and grab a photo from there. It poses a lot of ethical questions as those photos might be publicy downloadable but for the media to repost them publicly makes you think that ethically it should only be done with the family's consent. Particularly as in the past family supplied photos would be vetted by the family and be reasonably formal photos. The bulk of younger people's FB and Instagram photos are of them partying with their mates.
willedoo Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 4 hours ago, facthunter said: A lot of money is made from using sexuality in Advertising etc. Barbie dolls etc. I've never had the impression Barbie was promoted in a sexual manner. Her and Ken don't even have genitals.
willedoo Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago I think Elle Woods in Legally Blonde was like a human Barbie doll.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now