From: Bruce on
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 12:29:24 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2010-04-05 11:35:03 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>
>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 09:52:23 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-04-05 08:41:41 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 08:13:18 -0700, Irwell <hook(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 04 Apr 2010 22:02:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree. It is an extremely unflattering portrait of an interesting
>>>>>> woman who deserves much better. Very much better.
>>>>>
>>>>> She/he can always try changing the contact lens.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe she should choose a competent photographer.
>>>
>>> The photographer was probably quite competent.
>>
>>
>> If so, he/she would have deleted that shot. Or at least made sure it
>> never reached the public domain. It's horrible.
>
>Another frightening thought is, this might have been the best from the
>shoot, and the photog had no choice other than submitting the "eye"
>shot to the editorial staff. There might be some truly bad Ellen images
>out there.
>...and this was in the NY Times of all places.


If true, and I agree it is quite possible, that would be a savage
indictment of the photographer. But also of the NYT, because
situations like that call for a picture editor who is prepared to
source an alternative.

From: Albert Ross on
On Sun, 4 Apr 2010 12:29:05 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>...but that photograph, with that bug-eyed expression, I do not find
>particularly appealing, or as you describe it, "quirky". More like
>scary.

Looks like an advert for Duracell
From: tony cooper on
On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 19:20:56 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
wrote:

>This is only about definitions, not "things" or "laws." Let me know when you
>think "up" means "down" or "sideways."

It's already happened. "Up" means "down" when it describes a house
that has been consumed by fire.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Chris H on
In message <fa848f41-b1d6-4134-b57c-14589684d476(a)s9g2000yqa.googlegroups
..com>, AnOvercomer <ibclh(a)live.com> writes
>
>The ten commandments will never be discarded,

Of course they ARE, Large parts of the plant don't bother with them.

> if you obey them you
>will be blessed and if you don't you will be cursed,

That is a fairy tale.

> many in this
>generation are cursed.

Yes... We call the Christians.


> The mad men who currently rule the world have
>underground facilities and are ready for the nukes

EVERY government since the evolution of military bomber aircraft has had
bunkers of one sort or another.

>and the general
>public is brainwashed.

Well you are and that is a start...



--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/



From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on
Neil Harrington <never(a)home.com> wrote:

> This is the whole point: No court has the competence to radically change the
> meaning of a common word that has meant the same thing since the word itself
> came into existence.

Of course they have, and on occasion they have done so.
They define even tests at times to decide if something is
some-special-word or not.

> Courts may pass whatever laws they like,

Last I knew, legislative and judicative powers were separated.
You are radically changing the meaning of either courts or
passing laws. Do you have the competence to do so?

> including
> ridiculous, contradictory or unenforceable ones. A high court in some state
> or nation might rule that the law of gravity is herewith repealed, or that
> two plus two will henceforth equal seventeen, but such rulings would not
> actually change anything.

And you'd be arrested for falling down, dropping things or
counting 1 2 3 4. Of course, being arrested by fanatics who
believe that there is no gravity (the Earth just sucks) and who
believe you count 1 2 3 *17* probably means a horrible death,
but that doesn't actually change anything, really!


Just as some fanatics claim that marriage can only happen between
man and woman, where any *cultured* person knows the King marries
the Land.

Did you even consider that all partners in a group marriage are
married to each other, singly and combined?

-Wolfgang
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Prev: a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres
Next: iPad practical jokes