Posts by Sam F
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
For purposes of formfilling could I just get confirmation whether this screened on the 24th or 25th? Tom's post says the latter, YouTube says the former.
-
[Kai Luey] said he would support the project because it would keep Chinese traditions alive for new immigrants
Puns aside, it's a neat idea, and one which could make life a lot easier for families of these people living in NZ.
Less accident-prone than other solutions too, perhaps.
-
Sure, but there's the grilling of a serious line of questioning and there's... whatever the hell Paul Henry does. Which is not so much a roasting, as standing next to someone dipped in petrol trying to light a cigarette.
Oh, for sure. I guess I should have built a rhetorical question thusly: at what point is it no longer the fault of the guest for exposing themselves to this sort of thing, and rather the fault of those who allow the host to act this way?
I'd like to heartily third what Danielle and Jake have said as well. I think it was the high-pitched insistences and wheezy hysterics that did it for me.
-
Wow, what a revolting clip.
Whilst I appreciate Craig's argument, some people are professionally obliged to seek public exposure (as a spokesperson), and thus might be willing to take the risk of a roasting if it gets their issue onto national TV.
And whilst people should be careful about wading into trash media traps, I don't think anyone appearing on a news show produced by our national broadcaster should be blamed for not factoring in the possibility that Paul Henry might turn the ten minutes immediately following into hysterical ridicule over her facial hair. I think that is way outside what a reasonable person could expect to be subjected to on live TV.
I don't regularly watch Breakfast, but if this is more or less the standard that Henry works to (as other posters have suggested), it's a very curious situation, no? I'll be prudent here and assume that the whole gibbering idiot thing is just an occasional on-air persona. Is this what people ought to expect from morning TV?
-
Oops, quote fail. Needed more attentiveness and less stream of consciousness.
-
<quote>I've taken to sitting on my hands.
I've just barely resisted wading in myself. Actually, having started typing I'm so sorely tempted to do so, but ... gah. That was close.
-
I don't think we have an incandescent bulb left in our unit now - not even in the globe fitting that lights our front door. Every time an incandescent died we've thrown in a CFL. To date, not a single one has died on us - not even the RED brand bulb I put into our elderly desk lamp more than three years ago.
Won't hear a word against them, but then we don't have dimmers, so we would say that.
-
Is it just me, or is "clearly implying" sex what 15-year old boys do? "Yeah, we totally did it last night, man. Like, with the sex and everything. Yeah."
More like "I'd sure engage in brief and unsatisfying sexual relations with her, if you know what I mean."
-
So is a couple appearing with offspring "a scene which is cut so that it is clearly implied that two of the characters had sex"
Better filter out all those Brokeback to the Future YouTube mashups then...
'Clearly implied' is a wonderful phrase too.
-
Bet this has been posted elsewhere already, but it's over now.