Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Emma, just lie back and think of Engl...on second thoughts, maybe you could just look at the pictures in Wisdens while sitting upright?
Oh stephen, you know me so well. Mmm, Kevin Pietersen...
-
she said she would have almost exclusively male writers as they knew a lot more about sex.
Ow, my brain...
-
Has anyone yet printed underwear with "NSFW" on the front?
Good idea. Suggest it to these people.
-
Thanks for the tugid member link, Emma - but, with all due respect to those of the male persuasion, dicks just aren't as aesthetically pleasing as breasts, are they?
I think it's much easier to find pleasing pictures of breasts than of penises. How much of that is things like nice curve and how much is the shot and how much is social attitude I don't know. I'm not sure that's the comparison we should be making, though. The genitals are the last area to be kept covered, so we should really be comparing penises with vulvas.
-
Just to cap off the deficiency, I'm imagining Alanis warbling "isn't it erotic, don't you think?"
And with her track record, it wouldn't be.
-
I always thought that "erotic" covers this - although dictionary definitions seem to focus on the "sexually arousing" part rather than the "beautiful" part.
Unfortunately, I have real issues with the word 'erotica', which is drifiting to mean 'pornography I approve of'.
-
I prefer to think of it as being "a light smack for Panteral correction". I.e. for the purposes of correcting Pantera.
I think that takes more than a light smack. Perhaps 'for the purposes of correcting the amount of ash on the end of my panatela'.
-
But seriously, I'm going to have to have *that* conversation with this person obviously, but I've put it off partly because I don't remember how it goes in its tactful version, and partly because in 2009 it's so rare to find people who will do that.
Yeah, it's been years since I last had to do that, tell a co-worker that her hilarious climate-change denial emails were unwelcome. I'd send you a copy of my response, but it's only appropriate if you want that person to burst into tears and then never speak to you again.
But it's been a couple of weeks since I had to tell a 'friend' on Facebook to stop sending me invitations to 'send a message to Jesus' or give a Twitter followfriday advice on what to do with the rest of a soon to be shortened life.
-
and a 'neutral weighting' clause.
And how would that work? I take your point, but I don't know if that's something the Clerk of the House should have to determine.
I don't know, I wish I did. The current system, however, where the question is written by one side of the debate, seems designed to produce poor questions, and that's certainly what it does. Even the uncontroversial firefighters' referendum was basically 'firefighters deserve and cuddle and a puppy' with a question mark bunged on the end.
What we've got here is a situation where pretty much everyone can see that the question is fatally flawed, but there's nothing that can be done about it. Given the clerk has to vet the question anyway, that seems the logical place to insert further checks.
-
(b) May take into account such other matters as the Clerk of the House of Representatives considers relevant.
Ah, thanks Graeme, look at that, a big juicy 'and whatever else you want' clause.
I'd still be happier with something that, up with the 'two answers' criteria, included a 'one question' criteria, and a 'neutral weighting' clause.