Latest Episode
Play

Go Back   Keith and The Girl Forums Keith and The Girl Forums Show Talk

Show Talk Talk about the show

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-09-2007, 04:10 PM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
brotherdarkness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: San Diego
Posts: 764
When are we going to have Gabrielle and Patrice as guests on the same show? I would give up a kidney for that. The working one.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2007, 07:58 PM   #22 (permalink)
Senior Member
2023 Marathon Kickstarter Backer2022 Marathon Kickstarter Backer2021 Marathon Kickstarter Backer2020 Marathon Kickstarter Backer2019 Marathon Kickstarter Backer24-hour Marathon 2017 Fundraiser Backer57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer38-hour Marathon 2014 Kickstarter Backer54-hour Marathon 2013 Kickstarter Backer
 
Bucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Aotearoa
Posts: 3,883
- I don't give two shits for Heather McCartney or her motivation but all the stuff she wants to do sounds good to me. All that lame "an eyewitness said" and "sources said" and "a friend told us" bullshit they always pull can get fucked.

If you're going to print it you should back it up, and if you print an apology or retraction for some lie you've told then it should be in every paper you print for the next five editions and it should be bigger than the original story and the editor should have to wear nappies and have daschunds gnaw their genitals off. Fuck you liars.

- The Kid-Nation thing is getting less fun every show because it sounds more contrived every show. Even the kid is starting to lose adorable points now she knows she's a KATG star. Quit rooning her entertainment value Michael C.

- Everything else on the show ruled.

Last edited by Bucho; 11-09-2007 at 08:03 PM.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2007, 03:55 AM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 103
Yeah, I disagree with Patrice on this one, too. Whether or not Heather Mills benefits from it is not that significant. If some little girl at school was being bullied by some kid, and that girl started saying there should be a rule against bullying, should we really ignore it because - you know - she's just wants it for selfish reasons, and therefore, we can ignore her complaint. That's pretty poor reasoning. A lot of movements have happened because the people who were being treated unfairly stood up and fought against it. The fact that they benefited from the changes doesn't discredit their campaign.

It was also funny to hear Patrice try to take the paparazzi/gossip magazine's side of the issue. She's wrong, and it's easy to see why she would have a bias in picking sides.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2007, 07:35 AM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
57-hour Marathon 2015 Kickstarter Backer
 
starscream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,025
Quote:
A lot of movements have happened because the people who were being treated unfairly stood up and fought against it. The fact that they benefited from the changes doesn't discredit their campaign.
I would this is the only way any kind of successful movement gets started. But apparently, this isn't the end of the opposition's reasoning. It's the supposedly deceitful public face she's putting on it:

Quote:
What I have a problem with is, to my understanding she is trying to appear as being a benevolent person, fighting to change the media for the greater good. When I don't think this is the case. The reasons she gives and the actual reasons seem to be in conflict.
I don't think this is the case, really. She's saying she's tried to be this benevolent person, but the media has made that impossible. Unfortunately, the only way she can fight back is through the media and they are playing this perfectly, making her look like a nutsquad. Which may in fact be the case, of course.


Quote:
It was also funny to hear Patrice try to take the paparazzi/gossip magazine's side of the issue. She's wrong, and it's easy to see why she would have a bias in picking sides.
But how can Patrice be wrong for taking the side that would protect her interests? You're just saying the same thing she is.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2007, 01:07 PM   #25 (permalink)
Member
 
censorshipwreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Denver
Posts: 33
Someone needs to get Michael C.'s wife to call in. That would rap up this whole saga very nicely, or in a very ugly way. Either way, it would be fun as hell.

Oh, and I don't like the schoolyard girl argument. Too simple. How about this: the little girl has been picked on for years, but she never reported it. Now, she gets a bad grade on a report card and suddenly wants the entire school district to put a ban on bullying. Eh? What do you think?
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2007, 01:23 PM   #26 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
strangeone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Covington, LA
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBrit View Post
Yeah, I disagree with Patrice on this one, too. Whether or not Heather Mills benefits from it is not that significant. If some little girl at school was being bullied by some kid, and that girl started saying there should be a rule against bullying, should we really ignore it because - you know - she's just wants it for selfish reasons, and therefore, we can ignore her complaint. That's pretty poor reasoning. A lot of movements have happened because the people who were being treated unfairly stood up and fought against it. The fact that they benefited from the changes doesn't discredit their campaign.

It was also funny to hear Patrice try to take the paparazzi/gossip magazine's side of the issue. She's wrong, and it's easy to see why she would have a bias in picking sides.
Do you understand how these things are different as well? A little girl on the playground is vastly different from Heather Mills. Heather Mills has resources at her disposal to try and stop the media. She has 4,400 articles badmouthing her, and she jumps from relative inactivity to national legislation without fulling utilizing her other resources.

Your case about the little girl on the playground would be more comparable if the little girl didn't tell anybody for months about what was happening, documented every occassion of bullying and then walked up to the principle of her school saying that bullying should be stopped because she's been bullied for months and nothing's been done about it.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 11-10-2007, 01:39 PM   #27 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
paul_r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Moonbase Alpha
Posts: 2,879
Quote:
Originally Posted by censorshipwreck View Post
Someone needs to get Michael C.'s wife to call in. That would rap up this whole saga very nicely, or in a very ugly way. Either way, it would be fun as hell.

Oh, and I don't like the schoolyard girl argument. Too simple. How about this: the little girl has been picked on for years, but she never reported it. Now, she gets a bad grade on a report card and suddenly wants the entire school district to put a ban on bullying. Eh? What do you think?
but bullying is already banned.

they only started hating on heather after the wedding, i think she has enough money from modelling and compensation from the cops who's motorbike took her leg off.
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2007, 01:16 PM   #28 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Vision's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 8
I'm with Blitzgal. It's the same as saying that women and blacks were selfish for trying to get equal rights. The belief that someone would spend their whole life fighting a cause strictly on priciple is completely out of touch with reality. Yes, a few people do fight on principle. Very, very, few, as in the exeption, not the rule.
Yes, there are clear differences in the scale and impact of those fights and the "crusade against bad journalism," but the opposing argument fails against itself here, because the PRINCIPLE is what equivocates them: someone who is wronged should stand up and fight it as best they can, going so far as to change the laws so that they, and consequently EVERYONE, won't be wronged again.
I must admit my own bias. I'm partial to Heather Mills because I too was a model, and I lost my left leg in a boating accident. While in the hospital, I met and later married the singer/songwriter Jewel. We had four wonderful years together until I finally listened to one of her albums, and it's been a biiter divorce battle ever since. Don't believe that bitch's lies!
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2007, 02:15 AM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 103
Quote:
Quote:
It was also funny to hear Patrice try to take the paparazzi/gossip magazine's side of the issue. She's wrong, and it's easy to see why she would have a bias in picking sides.
But how can Patrice be wrong for taking the side that would protect her interests? You're just saying the same thing she is.
Ha. No, I'm not. I never argued that Patrice was "wrong for taking the side that would protect her interests". I'm saying that she is wrong, and my explanation for her position is that she is biased. In other words, Patrice is wrong AND biased. On the other hand, Patrice argues that Heather Mills is should be ignored *because* she's biased.

Quote:
How about this: the little girl has been picked on for years, but she never reported it. Now, she gets a bad grade on a report card and suddenly wants the entire school district to put a ban on bullying.
I don't understand the analogy of "bad grade on a report card" at all - what is that supposed to represent?

Quote:
Your case about the little girl on the playground would be more comparable if the little girl didn't tell anybody for months about what was happening, documented every occassion of bullying and then walked up to the principle of her school saying that bullying should be stopped because she's been bullied for months and nothing's been done about it.
First, of all, I was attacking the simple and bad logic that Heather Mills should be ignored simply because she has an interest in this case. Do you agree that the logic is deeply flawed?

Further, apparently, your conclusion is that bullying *shouldn't* be stopped? Anyway, from what I've read, the Press Complaints Commission is pretty toothless - it has no legal power, cannot impose fines, the media can choose whether or not they want to be affiliated with the PCC, they voluntarily adhere to the rulings, and the newspapers can get away with publishing corrections buried somewhere in the paper and 5% of the size of the original article. PCC "rulings" seem to involve publishing a retraction and writing a letter of apology. It seems to exist mainly so the media can self-police itself, but that also means it has no actual power. It seems reasonable to suggest that Heather Mills accurately believed the PCC couldn't and wouldn't do anything for her.

Google: "Press Complaints Commission" + "toothless"
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Pr...n%22+toothless
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2007, 11:37 AM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Preston Buttons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 383
Why isn't this episode called "It's balls, it's meat, it's fine"?
(Offline)   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:14 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
Keith and The GirlAd Management plugin by RedTyger