Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Well, revolutionary though it might be we could just accept that we all have these bits that work in both wonderful and functional ways and get over it and not denigrate or elevate each other on the basis of what we look like instead of how we behave and what we are.
But isn't part of the point with Lisa Lewis that we're not commenting on her actual bits, but on her decision to have those bits cosmetically altered to meet market expectations? I really did think they looked sore and overstuffed, which presumably wasn't the desired outcome.
I should say I have no quarrel with Ms Lewis. She has a kid to raise and rent to pay, like the rest of us. It's just that the show is 10 minutes of my life I'll never get back.
-
Once again, discourse doing wonders for Russell's google hits...
You got it. I had to go and check, and the number of people finding us on pr0n searches actually seems to have fallen away -- although the "Hard" in Hard News will always haul in a few.
My favourite search term for this month is: "plastic travel bong"
-
And Russell I respect your position and want to reassure you that I'm not having a go.
Of course. And we've already seen a few times that this is a thread where emotions might be heightened. If Jill's still here, I'm not actually having a go at her: just objecting on my own behalf.
-
giovanni, that sounds like you're implying that women get screwed, and men screw. That women are passive sexually. That's not really an idea I can get on board with. In a lesbian relationship, who's doing the screwing.
Actually, I have to say that the coarsest conversation I've had all year was with a fiftysomething lesbian about getting a "wide on". I think i blushed a little :-)
-
That's certainly how I read what Russell said at the time. However, there are always broader power relationships involved despite intent or outcome, and Russell is no more a passive participant in this forum than Lewis is in hers.
I'm a very active participant: it's my house, basically. I'm responsible for it -- legally, financially, ethically -- and it takes quite a lot of time and emotional energy.
Jill is free to take issue -- that's the point of a discussion -- but to come in and say that I exercised some undue "power" in that thread is objectionable.
Anyway, I went and found the original exchange.
It was Julie who thought the reference was from a deleted comment. I could have left it, but I thought I should point out it was me:
__I'm assuming there has been some moderation here, as I can't seem to find the original irrelevant comment about someone's breasts? Good job that moderator!__
Actually, that was me in the original post, referring to Lisa Lewis's breasts, them being the point of Alt TV's Naked Newsflash.
To which Julie replied:
Oops, my bad Russell, thanks for the correction. For once it was relevant to be talking about someone's boobs! :-) Although as I'm currently breast-feeding your assertion that they looked sore did rather pique my interest...
I just can't square that with Jill's comment that "Russell is clearly striving to be one of the 'good guys' in terms of his views and words that we regularly see here," but implying that I'd given myself away and slapped down the person who challenged me. It's a tricky enough job running this place without being accused of that.
-
Something similar happened on another thread here. Russell described the Naked News as "embarrassing" and commented that the readers swollen, bruised breasts were ugly anyway. Taken to task by an unwitting poster who didn't realise he had written it, Russell replied that because it was in the context of the Naked News it was fine to comment on her breasts. The program would be less embarrassing in quality if the reader's breasts were to his taste? She asked for it because she was semi naked on TV?
I think that's really, really unfair. It's up to you if you want to see a "perceived power" relationship in the exchange, but someone (Jackie?) queried it -- on the basis of a quote separated from the main post --and I explained the context.
I watched the bulletin so I'd know what we were talking about on Media7.
The entire point of Naked Newsflash is that Lisa Lewis's breasts are exposed. At various times, they are even subject to close-ups. There is no other rationale for watching -- the script is dire and she can't read with any expression. My response was that her surgically enlarged breasts looked terribly sore and actually unattractive -- which is ironic, given that their perceived attractiveness is the ostensible point of the show.
You have every right here to take issue with that, but I really do find your characterisation of it, and particularly the assumption that I'd exercised some undue power in simply clarifying the context, both extreme and unfair.
-
Damian Christie talks to Craig Neilson about the new fantasy game from the creators of Telecom Virtual Rugby: this time it's political.
-
If this report is true, then the HoS interview is starting to look very, very bad. Obscene, you might say.
-
From this morning's Herald:
Veitch left Kristin on floor for hours
Six hours, the story says. After throwing her down the stairs.
-
Craiog, after posting that, I'm regretting badly putting such personal information in the public realm. I emailed RB several hours ago and asked him to remove my comment, but I haven't heard back yet. Are you able to sort this out for me?
Sorry, I think it might have taken a while for the email to arrive (this sometimes happens with Ihug/Voda). It's gone now.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 … 2279 Older→ First