Posts by Emma Hart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
after one too many cases of other people clicking on a link marked "Hilarious" and getting goatse or similar.
Can we get a consensus that 'funny' is the most misleading link descriptor by quite some way? (Unless I use it, of course. You can trust me.)
What are the limits of the collective trust we have here?
I invest a very high level of trust in you guys. So I told Suraya she could come and comment here and nobody would give her aggro. And sometimes I can't take on a flaw in someone's argument but if it's obvious enough I can rely on this community to collectively do it for me. I trust yous to know when I'm joking.
You read me, follow a couple of my links, get a feel for me, and then inherently trust me to behave in a fashion consistent with that 'feel' in the future. If I abuse that trust, I lose it.
The internet is a big place. (You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, etc.) So we all have people/sites that we trust to point us at things we'll find interesting or useful. Think of Russell as your native guide.
-
But I cannot for the life of me understand why the question as framed has made it onto the ballot paper. My information is that Baldock chose the wording and the Clerk of the House checked and approved it. The Clerk was required to advertise the proposed wording and take submissions. Did he receive none from supporters of the law? Did somebody who has done Semantics 101 take a look.
I believe the Clerk can only object to the question if it doesn't fulfil the guidelines for questions - it has to be answerable by a simple 'yes' or 'no'. It's probably unsurprising that I'm burning to attempt to write guidelines for questions that would prevent both a question like this one, which is heavily loaded, and like the 'let's kick criminals in the nuts' one from a few years back which was actually three separate questions all run together. This is what my brain does with its spare time.
Parental correction?. This is completely out of kilter for any political line.
how do you define correct? Do we assume that children are "evil" at birth and need to be "corrected"?No no, parental correction. The correcting of parents.
-
So long as you've blogrolled me (thank you! when did that happen?!)
Heh, I recently and sneakily updated my blogroll to include you, Megan and hexpletive, an Australian aboriginal non-neuro-typical sex worker. Apparently I just don't have any lines anywhere.
-
No, Emma, it doesnt: it literally means 'of sense and sensation.'
It includes 'of depending of the senses only & not of the intellect or spirit...'
This is a beginner's dictionary, which I always keep close by (COD.)Ah, yes, fair point. I think I hear it used in a more sexual sense frequently. Whereas for a non-erotic sensibility I'd go for 'aesthetic', which probably isn't fair either.
I have a very strong sensibility to beauty in non-sexual objects - the line of a vase, light on a flower - and the physical reaction to that is almost sexual in nature. I don't think I'd be able to draw a clear line there either. (There is a theory that bisexuality is rooted in an over-active libido. I couldn't possibly comment.)
So, what word do we use for something that evokes both 'that is beautiful' and 'that is sexually arousing'?
-
Just popping back to drop off Jackie's penis. (Totally NSFW)
I'm not sure why that particular photo got pulled out of the gallery, but I think she just likes his smile. He has a lovely smile.
-
could you link to the blood engorged love truncheon again? ;)
If you could just wait until my daughter isn't sitting next to me...
I thought it was pretty, either way.
It's interesting you say that. No, it is. All those pics came off my hard drive - most of them, ironically, from my work folder. I have a bunch that are 'worse' (ie more explicit) that I think are beautiful, in an artistic sense, as well as being sexual. There's supposed to be this very clear line between porn and art and I've never been able to see it. In fact, the word I'd use is 'sensual', which surely combines an erotic sensibility and an artistic one?
It tends to be very conservative about human bodies, and very liberal about the most vile and hateful material.
I think the US religious right (with, I have to say, the help of some branches of feminism) have done a sterling job in making 'immoral' synonymous with 'sexual'. Violence, hate speech, generally treating people like shit, that's fine, but boobies? Out of the question.
Which is a crying shame, because boobies are lovely.
-
Often the truly "NSFW" sites are those that attract attention to the fact that you're looking at something not work-related.
Yeah, the one thing I really can't use NSFW for is predicting what is and isn't safe for your work-place. Except for the blindingly obvious. I could describe the links in advance, but where would the fun be in that? And then you end up with those detailed warnings like the ones in front of The Sopranos and Outrageous Fortune , that act like promos. We try to predict the plot on the basis of whether we've been warned about sexual content, or violence, or both.
-
Heh, freaking army boys. We used to get a lot of that back home (I hate to use the 'Timaru' word, it makes Russell go all frothy) but not so much up here.
-
The fight started in the Bush Inn Tavern in upper Riccarton before spilling out onto the street.
LOL. Given that's the nearest pub to varsity, I can just imagine how try-hard that haka was.
Not having been there, or noticed it given I live several blocks away, I"m blaming ENSOC.
-
I saw the title of this post and had a horrible moment where I thought you were going to spoil tonight's 'Booth in a coma hallucination' episode of Bones, which no, I haven't seen, that just seems the logical assumption at this point. Having seen the trailer, I'll be astounded if anything that happens is real. Yes it's corny. No I don't care - yet.
Of course, I could be completely wrong, on the internet where everyone can see.