|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: {*.*}{*.*} Date: Jan 1, 2007 07:40
> Uhhhmm, that's all - carry on ',;~}~
>
>
Weirdoes?
You Brits are the weird ones.
Taa!
Where's my Gadgey?
Happy New Year to Mrs. aRe and Jemmie!
--
>--|
<:((>>>>>
>--|
|
| |
|
| | 18 Comments |
|
|
Author: Paisely SkyPaisely Sky Date: Jan 1, 2007 08:47
Shaun aRe wrote:
> Uhhhmm, that's all - carry on ',;~}~
>
> Shaun aRe
Thanks, Shaun.
Have you seen the Google page today? It looks like it says Gzogle
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Paisely SkyPaisely Sky Date: Jan 3, 2007 06:08
Shaun aRe wrote:
> "{*.*}" nobugs.com> wrote in message
> news:DX9mh.12$1M.3@newsfe11.lga...
>>>> Uhhhmm, that's all - carry on ',;~}~
>>>
>>>
>> Weirdoes?
>
> Ahyuss missy, for dead certain.
>
>> You Brits are the weird ones.
>
> Really, in this we are far from alone, some of us that is. Namely the not
> alone ones.
You're a Brit?
I've got a few questions for you.
Has that new movie about the Queen's reaction to Diana's death gotten over
there yet. If so, what do Brits seem to think about it?
|
| Show full article (1.00Kb) |
| 17 Comments |
|
|
Author: Paisely SkyPaisely Sky Date: Jan 3, 2007 14:18
pj wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:08:04 GMT, Paisely Sky retina.net>
> wrote:
>>>You're a Brit?
>
> I am.
>
>>I've got a few questions for you.
>
> Fire away.
>
> btw: in the UK that means, "ask the questions". It doesn't mean
> "shoot!".
:-D
|
| Show full article (2.32Kb) |
| 15 Comments |
|
|
Author: Paisely SkyPaisely Sky Date: Jan 3, 2007 17:45
pj wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:18:14 GMT, Paisely Sky retina.net>
> wrote:
>>>pj wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:08:04 GMT, Paisely Sky retina.net>
>>> wrote:>
>>>>Has that new movie...
|
| Show full article (2.73Kb) |
| 14 Comments |
|
|
Author: Paisely SkyPaisely Sky Date: Jan 4, 2007 06:13
MushMouth wrote:
> "Paisely Sky" retina.net> wrote in message
> news:459C791B.6E1A52E4@retina.net...>>
>>
>> pj wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 22:18:14 GMT, Paisely Sky retina.net>
>>> wrote:...
|
| Show full article (6.62Kb) |
| 3 Comments |
|
|
Author: Paisely SkyPaisely Sky Date: Jan 5, 2007 18:28
MushMouth wrote:
> "Paisely Sky" retina.net> wrote in message
> news:459D6BE2.8FEF94B1@retina.net...>>
>>
>> MushMouth wrote:
>>
>>> "Paisely Sky" retina.net> wrote in message
>>> news:459D285F.3332AA25@retina...
|
| Show full article (24.82Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: pjpj Date: Jan 5, 2007 17:14
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:45:41 GMT, Paisely Sky retina.net>
wrote:
>She was a big help in destigmatizing aids.
Was she? I remember the media making a really big deal about her
touching a person with AIDS. Perhaps this did have a massive
destigmatizing effect - but personally I doubt it. The stigma
surrounding AIDS was because there was a lot of ignorance about how it
was transmitted, and it mainly affected people whose sexual
orientation was already stigmatized. Increasing awareness of how HIV
is transmitted, realization that it doesn't just affect homosexuals,
increasing acceptance of homosexuality, and the development of
treatments that meant people could live much more normal lives with
HIV and AIDS were, in my opinion, rather more important than Di giving
someone a hug.
> She brought attention to the problems of
>third world children.
Yes. No-one knew about that before.
>She got involved in an attempt to ban land mines world wide.
Yes she did. Like many other rich celebs. Maybe she made an impact
there. I don't know. We're unlikely to agree on this point anyway -
I'm somewhat skeptical about bans on particular types of weapons....
|
| Show full article (3.09Kb) |
| 9 Comments |
|
|
Author: pjpj Date: Jan 5, 2007 17:19
On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 13:04:34 -0800, Paisely Sky retina.net>
wrote:
>I think you come down on Diana a little too hard. Yes, I believe royalty is a
>hold over from the past that has outlasted its usefulness. But she did manage to
>be more useful, in my opinion, to the world at large, by promoting peace and
>compassion, than the royal family she married into.
I'm not coming down on her or criticising her. She was a pretty
celebrity. Sweet, heart in the right place etc. etc., but she wasn't a
counter-culture figure (she was at the heart of the establishment!!!)
who changed the world.
pj
|
| |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Paisely SkyPaisely Sky Date: Jan 5, 2007 17:46
pj wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:45:41 GMT, Paisely Sky retina.net>
> wrote:
>>>She was a big help in destigmatizing aids.
>
> Was she? I remember the media making a really big deal about her
> touching a person with AIDS. Perhaps this did have a massive
> destigmatizing effect - but personally I doubt it.
Big things have small beginnings. I think it's obvious it was deliberate
on her part. I suppose it could also have been self-serving, But I really
don't think so. I think she was genuinely a compassionate person. So was
John Lennon, but he was hardly perfect. He once had a fearsome temper. God
help anyone who was on the receiving end of it. Later he mellowed out
more.
Look, Diana was very young when she agreed to mary Charles. What girl back
then wouldn't have married a prince? I think she grew into the job very
nicely. I think she nade the best out of the situation.
|
| Show full article (6.09Kb) |
| 8 Comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
