Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
1.57pm
14 April 2010
Offline
Hang in there, mr. Sun king. Whatever is bugging you, remember; all things must pass!
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
5.16pm
1 May 2011
Offline
It might be me but is the story of Kate Middleton being photo'd topless in France really worthy of such media coverage? Surely there are more important stories going on than a woman being snapped sunbathing without a top !
If it was the Princess of some other country the pics would be on pages 4 & 5 of all the newspapers with some suggestive double entendre headline yet if its one of ours they actually like its shouts of disgusts. Anyway wasnt Sarah Ferguson (one of the Royals) plastered all over the papers back in the 90's in a big scandal; the media didnt gave a toss about printing pics then.
5.20pm
19 September 2010
Offline
Your media trying to be (slightly) less sleazy. It's the Rupert Murdoch effect.
6.00pm
3 May 2012
Offline
I told my mom this morning that I didn´t think it right that no one makes such a big deal of it when it´s any other person in the public eye, and I recieved a very cold look back in response. I'm not saying that it´s right what the photographer and the various papers did/are doing but I've seen loads of pictures of topless celebs and I never heard anything about that on the news.
Mind you, I'm not the biggest fan of the Royal Family (
), so maybe I'm biased anyway.
6.13pm
24 August 2012
Offline
I don't know where all of you are from, but Americans are OBSESSED with the royals. Obsessed. So for something like this to happen, the American media will go absolutely insane and won't shut up about it for probably another few weeks. That's how American media is, I feel: report every single little thing that happens and act like it's huge news.
Obviously, it was very rude of that photographer to take those pictures, but Americans hold on to every scandal like a dog holds on to steak. They just won't give it up until they've picked apart all that they could.
7.09pm
1 May 2011
Offline
So will the next pics of Victoria Beckham or some other celeb be passed over by The Sun, Daily Star or any other of the tabloids? Of course not, they wont be able to get the money out and print them quick enough. It wont even occur to them to ask how the photos were gained.
7.48pm
14 April 2010
Offline
annab93 said
I don't know where all of you are from, but Americans are OBSESSED with the royals. Obsessed. So for something like this to happen, the American media will go absolutely insane and won't shut up about it for probably another few weeks. That's how American media is, I feel: report every single little thing that happens and act like it's huge news.Obviously, it was very rude of that photographer to take those pictures, but Americans hold on to every scandal like a dog holds on to steak. They just won't give it up until they've picked apart all that they could.
I think you may be referring to the American Media being obsessed with the Royals.
Personally, this American could not possibly care less if the queen herself was photograped topless.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
8.27pm
24 August 2012
Offline
this is true, Zig. the American media is obsessed with the Royals (it just makes it seem like the rest of America is too). Thanks for bringing that up!
9.09pm
14 April 2010
Offline
Yeah – I don't know why that is. I realize it is a small sample, but I can't recall anyone I've ever known giving a rat's sphincter about what the Royal lunatics were up to. The media here keeps ramming it down our throats as if we care. What a waste of time.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
9.22pm
24 August 2012
Offline
At this point, I would agree. A few years ago I was all excited about the royal wedding and such, but now I'm getting kind of sick of hearing about them. It's just that they chronicle every single move they make and act as though everyone cares. It's getting pretty old.
9.31pm
14 April 2010
Offline
OK, moving forward.
Big Bang Theory – why have I not been watching this show from the very beginning? It seems that every network except possibly the Food Network is airing the syndicated reruns. There is no time of day when no one is airing an episode of this show. So, me and the Missus decided to check it out one night. Now, we are recording every episode we can find.
Love. This. Show.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, Let it roll for all its worth.
2295 6972
10.57pm
14 December 2009
Offline
Ha, I only discovered it myself last year! I fell in love instantly as well and watched every episode I could – it was on about 3 times a day on different networks…but I believe the scripts really went downhill about 2010 or so. New episodes pretty much suck. Just my opinion.
It's pretty cool how each of the main 4 corresponds to a Beatle! (Howard = Ringo, Raj = George, Sheldon = Paul, Leonard = John)
1.20am
9 May 2012
Offline
Why you think Sheldon is Paul and Leonard John?
1.22am
24 August 2012
Offline
I want to start watching it from the beginning! Maybe I'll ask for it on DVD for Christmas 
1.34am
23 July 2012
Offline
Oh my God, my favorite non-Beatles topic: THE BIG BANG THEORY!!!!!
If you're not watching it already, you NEED to start.
feature=youtube_gdata_player
Love Amy's tiara. 
3.23am
24 August 2012
Offline
I've seen one episode and I liked what I saw, but I've found out most of what I know from other sources on the internet as opposed to the show itself.
3.23pm
14 December 2009
Offline
Why you think Sheldon is Paul and Leonard John?
Sheldon's a control freak and egotist who has to have everything his way and dictates terms to the others, just like Paul! Meanwhile, Leonard wears glasses, plus his name kinda sounds like "Lennon".
I suppose there are plausible reasons for reversing the two, however – John had a pretty healthy ego and some Sheldon-sized neuroses of his own.
10.54pm
4 December 2010
Offline
Raj is George because he is Indian and Howard is Ringo because all the others were taken?
I would say that George is more like Leonard (the straight man to Sheldon/Lennon-McCartney), Ringo is loveable Raj, and John and Paul could be either the egotist or the womaniser.
2.10am
24 August 2012
Offline
Well, I'm listening to Revolution 9 at 9:09 pm, so I clearly feel like a champ. 
(even though it's now 9:10)
11.01am
9 May 2012
Offline
Von Bontee said
Why you think Sheldon is Paul and Leonard John?Sheldon's a control freak and egotist who has to have everything his way and dictates terms to the others, just like Paul! Meanwhile, Leonard wears glasses, plus his name kinda sounds like "Lennon".
I suppose there are plausible reasons for reversing the two, however – John had a pretty healthy ego and some Sheldon-sized neuroses of his own.
Haha love the glasses part 
, but not really sure if they are comparable.
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: Inner Light, Scoun, mja6758, AppleScruffJunior, Ralphrennick
2 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3438
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1540
vonbontee: 1427
Von Bontee: 1379
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1686
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2400
Posts: 73488
Newest Members: Jay Riley, BrettB, Ralphrennick, fartoons, RIGBY
Moderators: Joe (2702), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2702)
