NationStates Jolt Archive

Britney, Britney, poor soul, you did it again.

Now she can't help it, it's the media. What is starting to worry me, is that also the serious so-called quality media, is talking about several non-events.

What non-event?

Well Britney Spears was singing with a tampon string hanging down.

Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtPiSE4AIO8&feature=player_embedded

Because the American Press is simultaneously the second (next to the FCC) most prudish organization in the country and the biggest rumor mongers.

And its fun to drag that Spears woman through the mud.

And ironically you're adding to it by creating a thread complaining about media obsession in the banal.

are you saying that there are places in the world where tampon strings are commonly visible?

are you saying that there are places in the world where tampon strings are commonly visible?

The tampon museum, tampon factories, tampon boxes...

The list is endless.

And ironically you're adding to it by creating a thread complaining about media obsession in the banal.

Yes, in a way it is. But this forum is not part of the quality media :)

Yes, in a way it is. But this forum is not part of the quality media :)

It's not?!? :eek:

It's not?!? :eek:

Sorry, you still have to read "de Volkskrant", "Trouw" or "NRC Handelsblad".

Maybe it was a fuse.

:eek:

Leave the poor girl alone.

Then the meedy gredia say "She shouldn't complain! We made her what she is!"

She was on the fast track from the time she was little; talent and energy made her a success. The Greedia just made her hounded and miserable.

This reminds me of that South Park episode where the media was constantly after Britney. I have to say, that was one of the most disturbing episodes I had ever seen.

Oh my god Brittany has periods and still got to work. And Brittany's work requires she be in a bikini bottom dancing in way that might let a tampon string slip out.
Who is the bigger loser ? Brittany spears or the guy who watches ever move she makes in slowmo jsut to catch a tampon string.

and the news media creates another non-story. OMG a woman is on her period! STOP THE PRESSES! :rolleyes:

:yawn: :checks watch:

Was there even a point to this, or was it just an awkward way to try to snipe at America?

:yawn: :checks watch:

Was there even a point to this, or was it just an awkward way to try to snipe at America?

Not at all. You only see real clear differences in news approaches between Europe & USA.

In Europe they just bring it as celebrity news, in a fun style.

In USA some media are outraged because the little rope, that she should wear decent clothing etc...


PS: Since Bush created many Americans a kind of Calimero (http://www.writersblog.nl/images/calimero.jpg) feeling. :)

and the news media creates another non-story. OMG a woman is on her period! STOP THE PRESSES! :rolleyes:

Periods are real??? I thought that was just a myth perpetrated by women to avoid sex.

God forbid America be equated with her media.

Our media are not American anyway.

Fox and the Wall Street Journal are Australian.

Bob Kraft, heavily invested in Israeli development, creator of the "passport to Israel" program, is the moving force among directors of Viacom.

Besides, even if these transnational guys were all clones of Lee Greenwood I would still not wanting them representing me.

If you say so HK. I live in America and I hadn't heard anything about this from either the news or from my fellow Americans, a lot of whom are the right-wing evangelical christians that I assume would have an issue with this. I never knew this had happened until a European brought up the issue.

God forbid America be equated with her media.

Our media are not American anyway.

Fox and the Wall Street Journal are Australian.

Bob Kraft, heavily invested in Israeli development, creator of the "passport to Israel" program, is the moving force among directors of Viacom.

Besides, even if these transnational guys were all clones of Lee Greenwood I would still not wanting them representing me.


So Fox & Wall Street Journal are created by Australians? I believe it's a 'no'. They are just owners, have some impact, but most influence is done by the employees inside.

And I still think that most of these employees are Americans.

Besides, the same Australians are working in Europe as well. Those Australian-European papers smell different as compared to the ones in USA.

If you say so HK. I live in America and I hadn't heard anything about this from either the news or from my fellow Americans, a lot of whom are the right-wing evangelical christians that I assume would have an issue with this. I never knew this had happened until a European brought up the issue.

You can send a cheque if you want to receive more Britney 'news' in the future ;)

In a few short years we will have no newsprint to smell.

It's all going up in smoke, like the Chicago Tribune.

I like some columnists, especially Dave Barry, but I will not miss the paper.

Now how can we get rid of electronic entertainment news?

And ironically you're adding to it by creating a thread complaining about media obsession in the banal.

Exactly this.

HK, how does trumpeting this garbage here in any way support your mindless ranting about the US?

Yes, in a way it is. But this forum is not part of the quality media :)

And YouTube is?

I don't know if this thread is another of your "jokes", but there's no reasoning with you if you think YouTube is a media outlet of any quality other than the ability to upload video.

Exactly this.

HK, how does trumpeting this garbage here in any way support your mindless ranting about the US?



And YouTube is?

I don't know if this thread is another of your "jokes", but there's no reasoning with you if you think YouTube is a media outlet of any quality other than the ability to upload video.

You're intellectual very dishonest. I never said that youtube can be considered as quality media, I even didn't talk about youtube. But you did and you're frustrated filling in my opinion about youtube.

But if you need my opinion about youtube, here it is:

It is one huge pile of shit, but you can find real diamonds inside.

Is the Youtube video of a TV show, or is it just the concert?

You just all wish you were her tampon string.

You're intellectual very dishonest. I never said that youtube can be considered as quality media, I even didn't talk about youtube. But you did and you're frustrated filling in my opinion about youtube.

But if you need my opinion about youtube, here it is:

It is one huge pile of shit, but you can find real diamonds inside.

"Filling in?"

Your.

LINK.

Is.

From.

YouTube.

You mentioned "quality media" in your opening post, and your link was to YouTube. You mentioned NO OTHER media outlet. What were we supposed to think?

It's NOT "intellectually dishonest" to take what you give us and ask what the hell you're talking about.

Was this video on ABC? CBS? FOX? CNN? Well, was it? No. Then what the hell are you on about with your indictment of "quality media"?

Just in case you don't read what you type:

Britney, Britney, poor soul, you did it again.

Now she can't help it, it's the media. What is starting to worry me, is that also the serious so-called quality media, is talking about several non-events.

What non-event?

Well Britney Spears was singing with a tampon string hanging down.

Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtPiSE4AIO8&feature=player_embedded

The link is from YouTube. I am left to conclude that by "quality media", YouTube is what you mean. If it isn't, then please be more specific.

Yeah, it's be a good idea if the bald pussy provided a link to an actual news source rather than linking to the evidence.

Just in case you don't read what you type:



The link is from YouTube. I am left to conclude that by "quality media", YouTube is what you mean. If it isn't, then please be more specific.


And where is my opinion about youtube?

I can't see it.

Yeah, it's be a good idea if the bald pussy provided a link to an actual news source rather than linking to the evidence.

The Standaard is considered as a quality paper and even them are bringing such 'news':

http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF30042009_009&subsection=5

And where is my opinion about youtube?

I can't see it.

:headbang:

I showed it to you. By using the term "serious, quality media" and sharing a link that was from YouTube, you left the distinct impression that you were considering YouTube to be exactly that. Your mistake was in not providing a link to De Standaard in your original post. Thank you for posting the other link. I NOW, FINALLY, know what you mean and NO LONGER ARE FORCED TO ASSUME that you meant YouTube when you said "serious, quality media" and gave no other example, as in your original post.

Please don't ask where your opinion about YouTube is again. I've made it abundantly clear what happened and how. Any further ignoring of those facts are tantamount to provocation.

This is what I mean when I say that your English is excellent, but you've no grasp of nuance. If you mention the problem with media, your example should be from the media that you're accusing of pandering to stuff like Britney.

Anyone else here know anything about De Standaard? I'm not Dutch(?) so I don't know how reputable it is.

The Standaard is considered as a quality paper and even them are bringing such 'news':

http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF30042009_009&subsection=5

Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????
That's not American.:rolleyes:

The Standaard is considered as a quality paper and even them are bringing such 'news':

http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF30042009_009&subsection=5

It's in...uh...Dutch or Walloon or Flemish or something...

It's in...uh...Dutch or Walloon or Flemish or something...

That doesn't matter. I don't read often quality American papers. I read them in my own language.

And yeah, I feel it should not be published in such papers.

Btw, I'm rather sure that American papers are doing the same, no?

That's not American.:rolleyes:

I didn't want to mention this for fear of getting deliberately misinterpreted again, but yes. HK mentions the American media so disdainfully, but his link -- a link she had to be asked to provide -- is not an American paper/Web site.

*Kif-type sigh*

The Standaard is considered as a quality paper and even them are bringing such 'news':

http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelId=DMF30042009_009&subsection=5I think what Intangelon is getting at is that you didn't mention any news organization in your OP, just a link to youtube, so he (as did I) figured you meant youtube was a quality media source.

And since this is the first I and other posters have heard of this story, I'm going to guess that you are a wee bit exaggerating when you say it's all over the news.

That doesn't matter. I don't read often quality American papers. I read them in my own language.

And yeah, I feel it should not be published in such papers.

Btw, I'm rather sure that American papers are doing the same, no?

Wait.

You're "rather sure"?

Listen, you need to link to a US paper that printed this story, or I'm going to be forced to assume that you don't know what you're talking about, and just like to insult the US whenever you can for whatever reason. You want to talk about "intellectual dishonesty"? Saying something and then not backing it up is top of that list. I'll wait....

That doesn't matter. I don't read often quality American papers. I read them in my own language.

Yet you're on about American media...

And yeah, I feel it should not be published in such papers.

Btw, I'm rather sure that American papers are doing the same, no?

I didn't see it in the Dispatch or the Times this morning...

Wait.

You're "rather sure"?

Listen, you need to link to a US paper that printed this story, or I'm going to be forced to assume that you don't know what you're talking about, and just like to insult the US whenever you can for whatever reason. You want to talk about "intellectual dishonesty"? Saying something and then not backing it up is top of that list. I'll wait....

Would you like me to bring you your meals every morning till then, sir?

i dont know what that was but it seemed a little big to be a tampon string.

Would you like me to bring you your meals every morning till then, sir?

I think it's only fair we take turns, it might be a while.

:headbang:

I showed it to you. By using the term "serious, quality media" and sharing a link that was from YouTube, you left the distinct impression that you were considering YouTube to be exactly that. Your mistake was in not providing a link to De Standaard in your original post. Thank you for posting the other link. I NOW, FINALLY, know what you mean and NO LONGER ARE FORCED TO ASSUME that you meant YouTube when you said "serious, quality media" and gave no other example, as in your original post.

Please don't ask where your opinion about YouTube is again. I've made it abundantly clear what happened and how. Any further ignoring of those facts are tantamount to provocation.

This is what I mean when I say that your English is excellent, but you've no grasp of nuance. If you mention the problem with media, your example should be from the media that you're accusing of pandering to stuff like Britney.

Anyone else here know anything about De Standaard? I'm not Dutch(?) so I don't know how reputable it is.

You assume a lot. If you are not sure about something, you can always ask a question.

But instead you're filling in my opinions.

I provided the youtube link just to make sure that people here can judge about what happened. By accident it was a youtube file. I never said that youtube could be considered as a quality media source.

In Dutch we have a proverb: "Spijkers op laag water zoeken".

It means "nagging" or "looking for excuses to niggle"

And that's exactly what you are doing.

I just did something I've never done before: I launched a google search for Britney Spears in order to get the news search that resulted.


http://news.google.com/news?q=britney+spears&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&ei=nM75Sdr-M8nktgeV1ryxAw&sa=X&oi=news_group&resnum=1&ct=title


I see nothing...

Would you like me to bring you your meals every morning till then, sir?

I wouldn't want to keep you from your day job for that long, but thanks for the offer. *finishes my Fiber One pop tart*

I think it's only fair we take turns, it might be a while.

Of this, I have no doubt.

You assume a lot. If you are not sure about something, you can always ask a question.

But instead you're filling in my opinions.

I provided the youtube link just to make sure that people here can judge about what happened. By accident it was a youtube file. I never said that youtube could be considered as a quality media source.

In Dutch we have a proverb: "Spijkers op laag water zoeken".

It means "nagging" or "looking for excuses to niggle"

And that's exactly what you are doing.
In English, we have this phrase called "Disinformation". It's pretty much what your little rant about TEH EBIL AMERICANZ MEDIA in the OP consisted of.

And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????


From your OP.

You still haven't given us any indication that the American press is even remotely involved.

So American quality newspapers do not bring news similar as the one in this posting?

You assume a lot. If you are not sure about something, you can always ask a question.

But instead you're filling in my opinions.

I provided the youtube link just to make sure that people here can judge about what happened. By accident it was a youtube file.


You really need to make up your mind. Either you intentionally linked to youtube, or it was by accident. The latter, btw, is not even remotely plausible.

OMG the USian media is going ape shit over this! Crazy!

Um...except that it seems the only one going apeshit about this are you, and media outlets in YOUR area.

Seems like perhaps the problem isn't the media in the US.

So American quality newspapers do not bring news similar as the one in this posting?You said they did in the OP, yet you show no proof of this claim.

So American quality newspapers do not bring news similar as the one in this posting?

...

The fact that you even have to ask that question...the fact that you actually have NO clue, is disturbing, considering your claims in the OP.

So American quality newspapers do not bring news similar as the one in this posting?

Not that anyone of this dimension can find.

So American quality newspapers do not bring news similar as the one in this posting?

Maybe...there are thousands of newspapers in the US, though, and I've only looked at the Dispatch and the Times today, so I really can't say for certain. But I've not seen any evidence that they have acted with shock or disbelief, as you said they had in your OP.

You assume a lot. If you are not sure about something, you can always ask a question.

But instead you're filling in my opinions.

I provided the youtube link just to make sure that people here can judge about what happened. By accident it was a youtube file. I never said that youtube could be considered as a quality media source.

In Dutch we have a proverb: "Spijkers op laag water zoeken".

It means "nagging" or "looking for excuses to niggle"

And that's exactly what you are doing.

Look -- one last time.

Your opening post complained about "American" "serious" "quality" "media", and the ONLY THING in the post was a YouTube link. What were we suppsed to think? You've now seen FOUR posters here make the same assumption because your opening post left us no choice. That's why I asked this question:

And YouTube is?

I don't know if this thread is another of your "jokes", but there's no reasoning with you if you think YouTube is a media outlet of any quality other than the ability to upload video.

You see, I WASN'T sure! So, I asked a simple question, and included "if" AND the possibility that you might be "joking" as in the Shrek wedding thread. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as best as I could, given your vague opening post.

What would you think had I posted that exact same thing (and substituted "Dutch" for "American")? And THEN what would you think if no Dutch paper or news agency Web site or program could be found with a reference to Britney's tampon?

What would you think?

Finally, if you deflect and ignore my points again, I'll be force to place you on ignore. I don't need the aggravation from someone so in love with their sense of European self-righteousness that they don't have the common decency to admit when they've been repeated shown to be incorrect.

I had the decency to apologize for my remarks in the Shrek thread. You, madam, at long last -- have you no decency?

So American quality newspapers do not bring news similar as the one in this posting?

Actually, no. Tabloids like Weekly World News, New York Post, The Enquirer, and other nonsense papers do, but nothing of "quality". Unless there's a New York Times Review of Cooze that nobody's told me about.

Btw, I didn't say that American Quality papers are in shock...

"Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????"

...

The fact that you even have to ask that question...the fact that you actually have NO clue, is disturbing, considering your claims in the OP.

THANK you.

Btw, I didn't say that American Quality papers are in shock...

"Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????"

You haven't provided links to any American press at all. Quality or otherwise.

Btw, I didn't say that American Quality papers are in shock...

"Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????"

Anything to avoid admitting you were wrong to create an OP that did not in fact support the claims you were making.

Btw, I didn't say that American Quality papers are in shock...

"Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????"

One more time!

Britney, Britney, poor soul, you did it again.

Now she can't help it, it's the media. What is starting to worry me, is that also the serious so-called quality media, is talking about several non-events.

What non-event?

Well Britney Spears was singing with a tampon string hanging down.

Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtPiS...layer_embedded

You put those two sentences together, and now you're trying to back your way out of it. Just admit it. You exaggerated too far, made something up, and now you're being called on it. Please have the integrity to just admit it, and let's all get on with our lives, shall we?

I'll never understand why it's soooo fucking hard to just admit when you're wrong. We ALL do it. We're all guilty of it from time to time. It's not going to cause some horrible chain of events leading to our destruction if we just recognise that we are all fallible.

Btw, I didn't say that American Quality papers are in shock...

"Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????"My emphasis.

Your evidence of bolded claim? Link to 'American press in shock?'

Btw, I didn't say that American Quality papers are in shock...

"Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????"

You have yet to show us ANY American Press! Other than, of course, Youtube. :rolleyes:

I'll never understand why it's soooo fucking hard to just admit when you're wrong. We ALL do it. We're all guilty of it from time to time. It's not going to cause some horrible chain of events leading to our destruction if we just recognise that we are all fallible.

Personally, I'm an expert on being wrong. I'm wrong all the time. People should embrace the knowledge of their wrongness and use it as a learning experience.

Either that or feed themselves to your godless communist atheistic socialist Canadian polar bears.

Actually, no. Tabloids like Weekly World News, New York Post, The Enquirer, and other nonsense papers do, but nothing of "quality". Unless there's a New York Times Review of Cooze that nobody's told me about.

It would surprise me that several European quality papers are bringing such news and American ones would not?

What do you consider as American quality papers?

Jesus fucking Christ...

It's barely afternoon yet, and I need a drink.

It would surprise me that several European quality papers are bringing such news and American ones would not?

How should I know. You've not given us any evidence of it being anywhere in the American media...let alone the quality media.

What do you consider as American quality papers?

The New York Times, Los Angeles Times and Washington Post, of course. The Plain Dealer out of Cleveland, perhaps.

There's naturally a couple more, but I don't feel like elaborating.

It would surprise me that several European quality papers are bringing such news and American ones would not?

Then maybe you should STOP MAKING UP BULLSHIT CLAIMS IN YOUR OP! Check your facts before posting! I know, it's so tiring to, you know, actually THINK before you start trashing the Ebil, Nasty Americans and their propaganda spewing, over hyping media, but maybe you should give it a shot!

It would surprise me that several European quality papers are bringing such news and American ones would not?

What do you consider as American quality papers?

You are dodging the point, but I'll bite.

Papers widely considered to be "quality" include:

New York Times
Chicago Tribune
Washington Post
L.A. Times
Miami Herald
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Detroit Free Press

You'll notice those are regional papers. Most "national" news sources of quality tend to be magazines like Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report, Harper's, and the like.

National newspapers like USA Today are mostly headlines only and considered not tabloid, but not all that much high quality, either.

US "national" tabloid papers are into legends (most notoriously the "Bat Boy" -- so notorious, it was made into a musical), rumors, gossip, stuff like your original post. Think along the lines of The Sun in England.

Now, are you going to admit that you really didn't know what you were talking about in your original post, especially now that you've actually had to ASK which papers are legitimate in the US AFTER mocking them in your original post and making wild false statements over and over again? Or are you going to continue to dodge and dance?

This thread hurts my brain.

Sorry, you still have to read "de Volkskrant", "Trouw" or "NRC Handelsblad".

:( But those cost money :(

You just all wish you were her tampon string.

Thank you, I just threw up my lunch and breakfast. ugh...I am so going to give you nightmares.

That doesn't matter. I don't read often quality American papers. I read them in my own language.

And yeah, I feel it should not be published in such papers.

Btw, I'm rather sure that American papers are doing the same, no?

Actually CNN, Fox News, not one of my local paper is covering this.

at least she's wearing pants!

comon folks, one thing at a time!

This thread hurts my brain.

Yes, it was oddly...painful.

She ought to sell the thing on eBay and cash in on it. She could donate the proceeds to charity.

Leave the poor girl alone.

http://cm1.theinsider.com/media/0/47/52/chris-crocker-cries_389x324.0.0.0x0.389x324.jpeg

Disgusting: Britney Spears Tampon String (Video) Debuts in Concert

Pop Princess Britney Spears is gross - at least that's what some people are saying after getting a front-row seat to the singer gyrating and swinging around her tampon string.

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212226551.shtml

Britney Spears suffers a tampon malfunction

It just keeps going from bad to worse for Britney Spears. Last week we added a hair malfunction to her list of recent malfunctions, that includes a wardrobe malfunction (breasts), a stage malfunction (well, walking off the stage mid-concert anyway), and a calendar malfunction (wishing fans a Merry Christmas March 25.) Now we can add a tampon malfunction to the list

http://www.inquisitr.com/22924/britney-spears-suffers-a-tampon-malfunction/

The NY times is having more than 10,000 hits on Britney Spears.
The Washington Post only 125

Plain Dealer is having 569 results for Britney


It seems that also those US quality papers are bringing Britney news....

:( But those cost money :(

Hollander ;)

Hollander ;)

No, poor student :p

Then maybe you should STOP MAKING UP BULLSHIT CLAIMS IN YOUR OP! Check your facts before posting! I know, it's so tiring to, you know, actually THINK before you start trashing the Ebil, Nasty Americans and their propaganda spewing, over hyping media, but maybe you should give it a shot!

Doh, I said nothing bad about US papers, you little Calimero.

I just noticed a difference in approach.

It seems that also those US quality papers are bringing Britney news....
Yet it took you hours to find them, and yet, you included them in your OP before you even knew that they were there. Which says something.
Doh, I said nothing bad about US papers, you little Calimero.

I just noticed a difference in approach.
What does Calimero mean? I'd prefer that, if you use terms that are non-standard English, you provide definitions, thank you.

Yet it took you hours to find them, and yet, you included them in your OP before you even knew that they were there. Which says something.

What does Calimero mean? I'd prefer that, if you use terms that are non-standard English, you provide definitions, thank you.

Hours? No 5 minutes. Sometimes I do other things then posting on this board. May I?

Calimero is a little chicken with a low self-confidence.
It was very popular a few decades ago.

Here (http://julien.danjou.info/blog/images/debian/calimero.jpg) is a picture of the cute little thing.

Hours? No 5 minutes. Sometimes I do other things then posting on this board. May I?

Calimero is a little chicken with a low self-confidence.
It was very popular a few decades ago.

Here (http://julien.danjou.info/blog/images/debian/calimero.jpg) is a picture of the cute little thing.

OP up at 7:15. Links to the American papers not found until 3:17. Hours. Perhaps someone needs a basic lesson in telling time...?

And low self-confidence? Honestly? If this little exchange has taught you anything, please let it teach you that I'm an arrogant son of a bitch, please. :tongue:

That doesn't matter. I don't read often quality American papers. I read them in my own language.

And yeah, I feel it should not be published in such papers.

Btw, I'm rather sure that American papers are doing the same, no?

So your position is that since the Dutch media is making a big deal out of it, American media must be also?

EDIT: Yes I see now that you, after several hour delay found links showing that some American media is covering this...

OP up at 7:15. Links to the American papers not found until 3:17. Hours. Perhaps someone needs a basic lesson in telling time...?

I'll tell you what happened. First I saw the news in my local newspaper. Later I was here. In the meantime I was surfing around. I looked for some sites about that Britney non-event and I was curious for the video.
Not that I am a pervert or something, I knew that the video would show nothing fancy.
While I was surfing I saw a difference in the approach of the media.

While most European sites were just bringing the 'news' like it was, several American sites were forming an opinion.

I created my post, people reacted and then my friend, the poodle, found it necessary to shove things in my board I didn't order.

I was fighting the silly remarks but then I had to prepare food, clean my dishes, do some ironing...

The rest is history.

BTW: Is this a new forum rule, I'm not aware about, that you have to react in a few seconds/minutes? ;)

Cheers, my friend.

That doesn't matter. I don't read often quality American papers. I read them in my own language.

And yeah, I feel it should not be published in such papers.

Btw, I'm rather sure that American papers are doing the same, no?
You are "rather sure" that American papers, which you don't read, are running with this story? What is it that makes you "sure"??? You eventually to two Internet gossip sites, neither of which is a newspaper at all, let alone a "quality" newspaper.

So your position is that since the Dutch media is making a big deal out of it, American media must be also?

EDIT: Yes I see now that you, after several hour delay found links showing that some American media is covering this...

Eh no.

They don't make a big deal about it. They just bring it, but not on their front cover.

I'll tell you what happened. First I saw the news in my local newspaper. Later I was here. In the meantime I was surfing around. I looked for some sites about that Britney non-event and I was curious for the video.
Not that I am a pervert or something, I knew that the video would show nothing fancy.
While I was surfing I saw a difference in the approach of the media.

While most European sites were just bringing the 'news' like it was, several American sites were forming an opinion.

I created my post, people reacted and then my friend, the poodle, found it necessary to shove things in my board I didn't order.

I was fighting the silly remarks but then I had to prepare food, clean my dishes, do some ironing...

The rest is history.

BTW: Is this a new forum rule, I'm not aware about, that you have to react in a few seconds/minutes? ;)

Cheers, my friend.

No, but if you're going to make a claim in your OP, you should be able to back it up, preferably in the OP.

You are "rather sure" that American papers, which you don't read, are running with this story? What is it that makes you "sure"??? You eventually to two Internet gossip sites, neither of which is a newspaper at all, let alone a "quality" newspaper.

So? Big deal. I never said that American quality papers were bringing THIS news.

But a little research learned me that also the American ones do bring Britney news.

No, but if you're going to make a claim in your OP, you should be able to back it up, preferably in the OP.

Which claim?

Which claim?

This one \/
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????

i.e. that the American press is in an uproar over it...
A statement you made based on the fact that the Dutch media was covering it.

I'll tell you what happened. First I saw the news in my local newspaper. Later I was here. In the meantime I was surfing around. I looked for some sites about that Britney non-event and I was curious for the video.
Not that I am a pervert or something, I knew that the video would show nothing fancy.
While I was surfing I saw a difference in the approach of the media.

While most European sites were just bringing the 'news' like it was, several American sites were forming an opinion.

I created my post, people reacted and then my friend, the poodle, found it necessary to shove things in my board I didn't order.

I was fighting the silly remarks but then I had to prepare food, clean my dishes, do some ironing...

The rest is history.

BTW: Is this a new forum rule, I'm not aware about, that you have to react in a few seconds/minutes? ;)

Cheers, my friend.
Actually, it's generally considered that if you spend hours away, only to come up with the links people have pestering with you back and forth for posts on end suddenly, you've been looking for them. Not to mention that a couple of Generalites skimmed around and couldn't find any American sources. Oh, and just so you know, no source is without bias. Claiming that the European sources were just giving the news 'how it was', and that the American sources were giving an opinion, spin so to say, is... What's that word, intellectually dishonest? And silly remarks? You mean people accusing you of intellectual dishonesty when you couldn't come up with the sources requested, and even after YOU ASKED IF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS WERE CARRYING THIS STORY? But hey, if it helps you sleep at night better because you've made up a few non-verifiable excuses, be my guest.

Hate to be the harbinger of bad news...

Click on a couple of the side links from the original, and you'll find little white strings in at least three entirely different outfits, and in one of them the little white string must be a good 6 inches long.

Part of her ensemble, perhaps - it's not like any tampon I ever saw.

So? Big deal.
Big deal? As in, 'Big deal, so I lied out of ignorance in my OP.'? The hell is wrong with you?
I never said that American quality papers were bringing THIS news.

But you did say that the American sources were in 'shock' about it.

But a little research learned me that also the American ones do bring Britney news.
But the point is that you didn't know that until much later, AFTER you claimed that they were in shock.

Actually, it's generally considered that if you spend hours away, only to come up with the links people have pestering with you back and forth for posts on end suddenly, you've been looking for them. Not to mention that a couple of Generalites skimmed around and couldn't find any American sources. Oh, and just so you know, no source is without bias. Claiming that the European sources were just giving the news 'how it was', and that the American sources were giving an opinion, spin so to say, is... What's that word, intellectually dishonest? And silly remarks? You mean people accusing you of intellectual dishonesty when you couldn't come up with the sources requested, and even after YOU ASKED IF THE AMERICAN NEWSPAPERS WERE CARRYING THIS STORY? But hey, if it helps you sleep at night better because you've made up a few non-verifiable excuses, be my guest.

Can you stop moaning please? The poodle filled in my opinion about youtube. I never said anything about youtube, just provided a link but that was enough for him/her to express my idea about youtube. Go figure.

I never said something bad about American press, but you found it needed to push your virtual idea about my opinion on table. Which was entirely false.

I think this is rather silly, if you don't like the thread, stay out it.

For heaven sake, this is just a posting about Britney, not some law examen or something.

Poor souls :)

Big deal? As in, 'Big deal, so I lied out of ignorance in my OP.'? The hell is wrong with you?

But you did say that the American sources were in 'shock' about it.

But the point is that you didn't know that until much later, AFTER you claimed that they were in shock.

Eh, you can't read can't you?

Yes I knew they were in shock before, I just didn't realise that people would make a big deal about it and would demand for silly proof.

Later I gave the proof. And still you are fighting as a weasel.

Can we go on, now? :)

Hate to be the harbinger of bad news...

Click on a couple of the side links from the original, and you'll find little white strings in at least three entirely different outfits, and in one of them the little white string must be a good 6 inches long.

Part of her ensemble, perhaps - it's not like any tampon I ever saw.

Damn :)

Can you stop moaning please? The poodle filled in my opinion about youtube. I never said anything about youtube, just provided a link but that was enough for him/her to express my idea about youtube. Go figure.

Actually, the only 'news source' of which you claimed was in 'shock' at first was Youtube.

I never said that something bad about American press, but you found it needed to push your virtual idea about my opinion on table. Which was entirely false.
Except for the fact that you regularly express your distaste with the US. And the fact that you have continuously claimed that the European sources were just doing their honest job, reporting just the news, whereas the American New sources were putting their 'opinions' on the table, and were in 'shock'.

I think this is rather silly, if you don't like the thread, stay out it.

I also think this is rather silly, if you're wrong, and being a complete bigot, please admit it. I like the thread, just not your American bashing on the matter, and pathetic attempts on obscuring the history of the thread.

For heaven sake, this is just a posting about Britney, not some law examen or something.

Point? You brought it up for a discussion. If you expected that no one would call you on your dishonesty, think again.

That was really disturbing! that south park episode...

Eh, you can't read can't you?

Yes I knew they were in shock before, I just didn't realise that people would make a big deal about it and would demand for silly proof.

Later I gave the proof. And still you are fighting as a weasel.

Can we go on, now? :)

Really? You did? Explain this then:
Btw, I'm rather sure that American papers are doing the same, no?

Eh, you can't read can't you?

Actually, I can. Quite well, in fact. I believe you have trouble separating fantasy from fact.

Yes I knew they were in shock before,

So... Let me get this straight:

You're a prophet...
I just didn't realise that people would make a big deal about it
...Who doesn't realize that posting things on a board meant for discussion, will LEAD to discussion...
and would demand for silly proof.
...And doesn't believe in silly things like 'proof'?

Later I gave the proof. And still you are fighting as a weasel.

While I don't appreciate you constantly comparing me to various animals with bad reputations in Western Society, you didn't give the proof until after you had already made the statement, and it was hours afterwords. You didn't even know if the US sources were giving out this information, as you clearly expressed in before posts.

could be worse...

she could've had that tampon string showing and NOT be wearing pants...

Really? You did? Explain this then:

Look at the ? at the end. It's a question. *sigh*

Look at the ? at the end. It's a question. *sigh*

Indeed. Indicating that you didn't know whether or not they were reporting this, despite having already claimed that they were 'in shock'.

Actually, I can. Quite well, in fact. I believe you have trouble separating fantasy from fact.

So... Let me get this straight:

You're a prophet...

...Who doesn't realize that posting things on a board meant for discussion, will LEAD to discussion...

...And doesn't believe in silly things like 'proof'?

While I don't appreciate you constantly comparing me to various animals with bad reputations in Western Society, you didn't give the proof until after you had already made the statement, and it was hours afterwords. You didn't even know if the US sources were giving out this information, as you clearly expressed in before posts.

If you really want to believe I'm a kind of prophet... Well, be my guest! :)

If you really want to believe I'm a kind of prophet... Well, be my guest! :)

Ah, a one-liner with little real relevance to the post in question. Truly, you've disproved my argument, you were right, you knew all about this before it was going to happen! Please, oh mighty one, tell us what will happen to us in the future. :hail: :rolleyes:

Indeed. Indicating that you didn't know whether or not they were reporting this, despite having already claimed that they were 'in shock'.

*sigh*

Yeah, I knew that some regular American media were in shock.

I never, never, never said that the quality papers went berzerk.

Ah, a one-liner with little real relevance to the post in question. Truly, you've disproved my argument, you were right, you knew all about this before it was going to happen! Please, oh mighty one, tell us what will happen to us in the future. :hail: :rolleyes:

You will have no sex the coming 10 years ;)

Look at the ? at the end. It's a question. *sigh*
Thank you for proving my point...
Also, see this \/
Indeed. Indicating that you didn't know whether or not they were reporting this, despite having already claimed that they were 'in shock'.

*sigh*

Yeah, I knew that some regular American media were in shock.

I never, never, never said that the quality papers went berzerk.

Can you comprehend what you're reading, or do only respond to what you think I'm going to post? And by 'Think I'm going to post', I mean 'What you want me to post'? YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY AMERICAN NEWS SOURCES THAT WERE REPORTING THIS AT ALL UNTIL LONG AFTER YOU MADE YOUR CLAIM THAT THEY WERE IN SHOCK!

Yeah, I knew that some regular American media were in shock.

And yet you couldn't prove it until hours later...

You will have no sex the coming 10 years ;)
I can see sarcasm is lost on you.

I can see sarcasm is lost on you.

I don't know... Good chance she's right on that one... :p

Can you comprehend what you're reading, or do only respond to what you think I'm going to post? And by 'Think I'm going to post', I mean 'What you want me to post'? YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY AMERICAN NEWS SOURCES THAT WERE REPORTING THIS AT ALL UNTIL LONG AFTER YOU MADE YOUR CLAIM THAT THEY WERE IN SHOCK!

No.

I knew BEFORE I created my post that regular American media was in 'panic'. I didn't check the quality ones.

I don't know... Good chance she's right on that one... :p
http://marriedtotheenemy.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/frustrationgif.jpg
:D

No.

I knew BEFORE I created my post that regular American media was in 'panic'. I didn't check the quality ones.

And yet you couldn't provide any proof...

http://marriedtotheenemy.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/frustrationgif.jpg
:D

In a way, yes. So much rush for nothing :)

And yet you couldn't provide any proof...

I could, but I didn't.

No.

I knew BEFORE I created my post that regular American media was in 'panic'. I didn't check the quality ones.


Btw, I'm rather sure that American papers are doing the same, no?
Actually, I'm pretty sure that according to your posts after you posted it, you actually didn't. You assumed they were, and didn't bother with coming up with the facts until long after. You didn't know if ANY of the American news sources were 'in panic'. You assumed. And you refuse to admit it when faced with the facts.

I could, but I didn't.

Indeed, that's why you ADMITTED THAT YOU DON'T EVEN FUCKING READ US NEWS SOURCES AND THEN PROCEEDED TO ASK IF THEY WERE REPORTING IT!

Actually, I'm pretty sure that according to your posts after you posted it, you actually didn't. You assumed they were, and didn't bother with coming up with the facts until long after. You didn't know if ANY of the American news sources were 'in panic'. You assumed. And you refuse to admit it when faced with the facts.

There is only one assuming and that's you. You assume a lot, but you will never be sure. :)

No honestly, I really knew that some American media were wild.

I have read stuff as : 'Disgusting, why she can't wear decent clothes' :)

There is only one assuming and that's you. You assume a lot, but you will never be sure. :)


The hell is wrong with you? Does your mind just blot out facts that you don't like? Or are you just doing this so I have to take Blood Pressure medication?

Indeed, that's why you ADMITTED THAT YOU DON'T EVEN FUCKING READ US NEWS SOURCES AND THEN PROCEEDED TO ASK IF THEY WERE REPORTING IT!

Fucking fucking...

Go back to your caravan, learn some manners and then try again.

I refuse to debate with cavemen.

Bye bye :)

Fucking fucking...

Go back to your caravan, learn some manners and then try again.

I refuse to debate with cavemen.

Bye bye :)
Bye. *places on IGNORE*

hey, um Hairless Kitten.......who is in your avatar?

hey, um Hairless Kitten.......who is in your avatar?

Veronique De Kock.

Fucking fucking...

Go back to your caravan, learn some manners and then try again.

I refuse to debate with cavemen.

Bye bye :)

Why would a caveman live in a caravan?

Btw, I didn't say that American Quality papers are in shock...

"Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????"
Given that you haven't provided any links to the American Press discussing it, don't actually know if it's been covered in the American Press, and none of the Americans on the forum who've chimed in have heard about this from any source other than you and your links, it is safe to say the American Press is not up in arms about it as you suggest.

Given that you haven't provided any links to the American Press discussing it, don't actually know if it's been covered in the American Press, and none of the Americans on the forum who've chimed in have heard about this from any source other than you and your links, it is safe to say the American Press is not up in arms about it as you suggest.

Uh? Yes I provided links.

Check these ones:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14754666&postcount=76

Why would a caveman live in a caravan?

Also cavemen have a need for more comfort.

who honestly cares?

who honestly cares?

Yes indeed. That was my feeling from the start.

I am just a little upset that quality papers in my country are bringing such news....

See stuff like this only makes me hate the idea of becoming famous, I don't really get what the big deal is.

See stuff like this only makes me hate the idea of becoming famous, I don't really get what the big deal is.

I hope that I never will be famous. Even if they offer me zillion $, I would refuse.

Never heard of either of them. Never heard about this on the local news, either. And as pointed out by others, it wasn't provided originally, and you admitted you don't read the papers and didn't know if it was being reported, after you reported the American press was outraged by it.

Perhaps next time, before you make definitive statements about what anyone else is allegedly doing, especially when it's a slam, you'd be so kind as to recall it's considered good debating and good manners to provide a link.

Never heard of either of them. Never heard about this on the local news, either. And as pointed out by others, it wasn't provided originally, and you admitted you don't read the papers and didn't know if it was being reported, after you reported the American press was outraged by it.

Perhaps next time, before you make definitive statements about what anyone else is allegedly doing, especially when it's a slam, you'd be so kind as to recall it's considered good debating and good manners to provide a link.

To be honest, I was completely not aware that the debate would go in that direction, since it was not the purpose of my initial post.

That’s the only reason why I didn’t back it up at the start.

In the end, you have to provide a link for each word. :)

Also cavemen have a need for more comfort.

If they have caravans, are they still cavemen?

Can you comprehend what you're reading, or do only respond to what you think I'm going to post? And by 'Think I'm going to post', I mean 'What you want me to post'? YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY AMERICAN NEWS SOURCES THAT WERE REPORTING THIS AT ALL UNTIL LONG AFTER YOU MADE YOUR CLAIM THAT THEY WERE IN SHOCK!Sounds like Robert McNamara, I believe he said, "Never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you."

Maybe that's HK's approach.

To be honest, I was completely not aware that the debate would go in that direction, since it was not the purpose of my initial post.

That’s the only reason why I didn’t back it up at the start.

In the end, you have to provide a link for each word. :)Not each word, but it's generally good form to back up your main point of 'the American press is shocked over tampon string' from the start with sources, which you didn't.

After reading this thread, I am now convinced that it was a fuse. :p

Disgusting: Britney Spears Tampon String (Video) Debuts in Concert

Pop Princess Britney Spears is gross - at least that's what some people are saying after getting a front-row seat to the singer gyrating and swinging around her tampon string.

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212226551.shtml

Britney Spears suffers a tampon malfunction

It just keeps going from bad to worse for Britney Spears. Last week we added a hair malfunction to her list of recent malfunctions, that includes a wardrobe malfunction (breasts), a stage malfunction (well, walking off the stage mid-concert anyway), and a calendar malfunction (wishing fans a Merry Christmas March 25.) Now we can add a tampon malfunction to the list

http://www.inquisitr.com/22924/britney-spears-suffers-a-tampon-malfunction/

The NY times is having more than 10,000 hits on Britney Spears.
The Washington Post only 125

Plain Dealer is having 569 results for Britney


It seems that also those US quality papers are bringing Britney news....

Funny, the NY Times does get "more than 10,000 hits" if you type in britney spears with no quotes. No tampon stories, though.

I got NO hits at the Cleveland Plain Dealer site. Probably did something wrong. Didn't try the Washington Post.

Funny, the NY Times does get "more than 10,000 hits" if you type in britney spears with no quotes. No tampon stories, though.

I got NO hits at the Cleveland Plain Dealer site. Probably did something wrong. Didn't try the Washington Post.

I just wanted to see if the quality papers are bringing Britney news. And they do.

I would be rather ridiculous to assume that the NY times is having more than 10,000 hits on Britney Spears Tampon news, no? :)

For cleveland, try this one:

http://search.cleveland.com/britney-spears

Leave the poor girl alone.

Then the meedy gredia say "She shouldn't complain! We made her what she is!"

She was on the fast track from the time she was little; talent and energy made her a success. The Greedia just made her hounded and miserable.

Agreed. That is all I'll say on the subject, because you just took the words right out of my mouth.

Sounds like Robert McNamara, I believe he said, "Never answer the question that is asked of you. Answer the question that you wish had been asked of you."

Maybe that's HK's approach.

Yes, I like my car very much. :)

Least it wasn't bloody

Britney, Britney, poor soul, you did it again.

Now she can't help it, it's the media. What is starting to worry me, is that also the serious so-called quality media, is talking about several non-events.

What non-event?

Well Britney Spears was singing with a tampon string hanging down.

Why are the press covering this, anyway?
And why are the American press in shock for a visible tampon string????

Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtPiSE4AIO8&feature=player_embedded

The media, at least the member so it who cover this shit for a living, strike me as little but pathetic vultures. I can see them going out and partying every time they drive some disturbed celebrity to suicide, because they know they'll get more viewers, and that means more money for the worthless dipshit's wallets.:mad:

I think that if I am ever rich and famous somehow, and these swine (God forbid) take an interest in me, I will make it a point of honor to do all in my power to make their lives miserable and their careers failiures.

Seriously, though, its also you people who share the blame. If you don't like seeing the media waste their time covering this stuff, boycott it. Don't watch their shows, buy their papers, or read their websites. Just avoid all coverage of Britney Spears, and encourage others to do likewise. If its unprofitable, they won't do it.

Seriously, though, its also you people who share the blame. If you don't like seeing the media waste their time covering this stuff, boycott it. Don't watch their shows, buy their papers, or read their websites. Just avoid all coverage of Britney Spears, and encourage others to do likewise. If its unprofitable, they won't do it.

And that's about the truth of it. You can't complian about tacky media treatment of 'celebraties' with a copy of Hello in you hand.

You really need to make up your mind. Either you intentionally linked to youtube, or it was by accident. The latter, btw, is not even remotely plausible.

OMG the USian media is going ape shit over this! Crazy!

Um...except that it seems the only one going apeshit about this are you, and media outlets in YOUR area.

Seems like perhaps the problem isn't the media in the US.
Now you did it. You made Neesika defend the US. I hope you're happy with yourself...
Disgusting: Britney Spears Tampon String (Video) Debuts in Concert

Pop Princess Britney Spears is gross - at least that's what some people are saying after getting a front-row seat to the singer gyrating and swinging around her tampon string.

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212226551.shtml
First, I have no idea what that paper is. Never heard of it. Do you have information on its circulation? Second, it's not 'front page news,' it's from a column titled "Tittle-Tattle Too". It's a gossip column from a paper no one has heard of. For future reference, we do not consider this 'quality media.'

Britney Spears suffers a tampon malfunction

It just keeps going from bad to worse for Britney Spears. Last week we added a hair malfunction to her list of recent malfunctions, that includes a wardrobe malfunction (breasts), a stage malfunction (well, walking off the stage mid-concert anyway), and a calendar malfunction (wishing fans a Merry Christmas March 25.) Now we can add a tampon malfunction to the list

http://www.inquisitr.com/22924/britney-spears-suffers-a-tampon-malfunction/
Likewise, we do not consider gossip rags to be 'quality media.' I can't say I've heard of The Inquistr, again you'd have to go a long way to establish this as our 'quality media.'

The NY times is having more than 10,000 hits on Britney Spears.
The Washington Post only 125

Plain Dealer is having 569 results for Britney


It seems that also those US quality papers are bringing Britney news....
The New York Times has an entertainment section. Britney Spears, despite any opinion one might have of her, is an entertainer. I imagine that the Plain Dealer has one as well. Since the paper you originally begrudgingly quoted was your own Dutch paper, we can assume that European papers also report on entertainment. Thus the complaint is not that entertainers are mentioned at all but rather the quality of the mention in the quality of the paper. This, I'm afraid, has not been demonstrated.

Yes, I like my car very much. :)"Yes, I would like an omelette" would have been so much better. :)

Can you stop moaning please? The poodle filled in my opinion about youtube. I never said anything about youtube, just provided a link but that was enough for him/her to express my idea about youtube. Go figure.

I never said something bad about American press, but you found it needed to push your virtual idea about my opinion on table. Which was entirely false.

I think this is rather silly, if you don't like the thread, stay out it.

For heaven sake, this is just a posting about Britney, not some law examen or something.

Poor souls :)

The insults continue. You also hurled a "caveman" insult, and possibly went after Bedouins with that "caravan" remark. Reported. You don't play well with others.

The media, at least the member so it who cover this shit for a living, strike me as little but pathetic vultures. I can see them going out and partying every time they drive some disturbed celebrity to suicide, because they know they'll get more viewers, and that means more money for the worthless dipshit's wallets.:mad:

I think that if I am ever rich and famous somehow, and these swine (God forbid) take an interest in me, I will make it a point of honor to do all in my power to make their lives miserable and their careers failiures.

Seriously, though, its also you people who share the blame. If you don't like seeing the media waste their time covering this stuff, boycott it. Don't watch their shows, buy their papers, or read their websites. Just avoid all coverage of Britney Spears, and encourage others to do likewise. If its unprofitable, they won't do it.

No, sorry. I've not had cable TV since November of 2007 and I've not picked up a magazine or paper that would trumpet trash like this at any time in my adult life. So I've done my part. Where's the effect of my boycott?

No, sorry. I've not had cable TV since November of 2007 and I've not picked up a magazine or paper that would trumpet trash like this at any time in my adult life. So I've done my part. Where's the effect of my boycott?

Obviously, boycotts only work at full effectiveness when a large number of people take part. But we can at least take some comfort in the knowledge that these vermin won't take more of our money to add to their ill-gotten gains, can't we?

Obviously, boycotts only work at full effectiveness when a large number of people take part. But we can at least take some comfort in the knowledge that these vermin won't take more of our money to add to their ill-gotten gains, can't we?

Absolutely. Hear, hear!

Hate to be the harbinger of bad news...

Click on a couple of the side links from the original, and you'll find little white strings in at least three entirely different outfits, and in one of them the little white string must be a good 6 inches long.

Part of her ensemble, perhaps - it's not like any tampon I ever saw.
plus dont dancers wear tights so their thighs dont jiggle? surely those arent her bare legs in the video. if she is wearing tights, she cant dangle anything out of her vagina.

This reminds me of that South Park episode where the media was constantly after Britney. I have to say, that was one of the most disturbing episodes I had ever seen.

That episode really made me feel sorry for Britney Spears....

plus dont dancers wear tights so their thighs dont jiggle? surely those arent her bare legs in the video. if she is wearing tights, she cant dangle anything out of her vagina.

It looks like she's wearing tights in several of the videos, so she'd have to be wearing a tampon with a hole cut THROUGH the tights... or she'd have to be wearing her tampon outside her tights.

There are enough considerations to strongly doubt it's actually a tampon string... although it's a possibility (I suppose) that she's deliberately wearing a tampon string (without, necessarily, a tampon attached) JUST to promote the kind of nonsense we've seen presented here.

It looks like she's wearing tights in several of the videos, so she'd have to be wearing a tampon with a hole cut THROUGH the tights... or she'd have to be wearing her tampon outside her tights.

There are enough considerations to strongly doubt it's actually a tampon string... although it's a possibility (I suppose) that she's deliberately wearing a tampon string (without, necessarily, a tampon attached) JUST to promote the kind of nonsense we've seen presented here.
lol so true.

its no more odd than that she should have such a poor dresser that she has stray strings that should have been cut off before the first time she put the pants on.

lol so true.

its no more odd than that she should have such a poor dresser that she has stray strings that should have been cut off before the first time she put the pants on.

It's got to be deliberate or, at least, part of the costume - because I can't see how it would appear on several DIFFERENT outfits, otherwise.

Perhaps it's some kind of 'sex appeal' trick - because, being fair, she's lost quite a lot of that market in recent years - if she can get cameras focused on a string between her legs, well.. it's cameras between her legs. Sex sells.

The insults continue. You also hurled a "caveman" insult, and possibly went after Bedouins with that "caravan" remark. Reported. You don't play well with others.


I called him a caveman AFTER, he f*ck f*cked, no? :)

I called him a caveman AFTER, he f*ck f*cked, no? :)

...so? Your opinions on other people's choice of vocabulary don't make flaming any less against the rules here.

It's got to be deliberate or, at least, part of the costume - because I can't see how it would appear on several DIFFERENT outfits, otherwise.

Perhaps it's some kind of 'sex appeal' trick - because, being fair, she's lost quite a lot of that market in recent years - if she can get cameras focused on a string between her legs, well.. it's cameras between her legs. Sex sells.

not knowing what a tampon string would look like dangling... I thought it was a label on the inseam of her shorts... you know... like she was wearing them inside out or something.

not knowing what a tampon string would look like dangling... I thought it was a label on the inseam of her shorts... you know... like she was wearing them inside out or something.

In one of the videos in the sidebar to the original link, there's clearly something like 6 inches of 'string' outside of her clothes. A label is far more likely than a tampon with a foot of string.

In one of the videos in the sidebar to the original link, there's clearly something like 6 inches of 'string' outside of her clothes. A label is far more likely than a tampon with a foot of string.

which is why I was more shocked that she was wearing pants! :eek:

...so? Your opinions on other people's choice of vocabulary don't make flaming any less against the rules here.

Swearing is also against the rules. That's not my opinion.

I don't feel it like flaming when you call swearing people cavemen.

There's usual no need for swearing and more than often it is used by people who have no remarkable opinion. They use the swearing to aggressively impress another with their clueless remarks.

Others are swearing that much that I suspect that they suffer from the Tourette syndrome.

What the fuck's your point?

There's usual no need for swearing and more than often it is used by people who have no remarkable opinion. They use the swearing to aggressively impress another with their clueless remarks.

There's no need for remarking about the needlessness of swearing, and more often than not it is done by people who have no remarkable opinion. They use their haughty self-righteousness to aggressively impress another with their meaningless remarks.

Others are swearing that much that I suspect that they suffer from the Tourette syndrome.

That's about as clever as suggesting that "others are making such stupid points that I suspect they suffer from mental retardation."

I called him a caveman AFTER, he f*ck f*cked, no? :)

Completely irrelevant. His "fuck fucking" (seriously?) isn't against the Forum rules. You were banned for 24 hours, he was not. See the difference?

Swearing is also against the rules. That's not my opinion.

Yes it is, because swearing is not against the Forum's rules.

I don't feel it like flaming when you call swearing people cavemen.

I'm sorry, but the actual rules matter -- the ones in your head do not.

There's usual no need for swearing and more than often it is used by people who have no remarkable opinion. They use the swearing to aggressively impress another with their clueless remarks.

No more or less impressive than someone getting on a language high horse and declaring themselves to be superior, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Others are swearing that much that I suspect that they suffer from the Tourette syndrome.

Denial doesn't make you clever, nor does deflection.

Swearing is also against the rules. That's not my opinion.
Then you can quote the rules sticky showing where it says that fucking swearing is against the fucking rules... :p

I don't feel it like flaming when you call swearing people cavemen.
We really don't care about your fucking opinion.

There's usual no need for swearing and more than often it is used by people who have no remarkable opinion. They use the swearing to aggressively impress another with their clueless remarks.
By that theory you should be the one who swears the most.

Others are swearing that much that I suspect that they suffer from the Tourette syndrome.
Maybe we fucking do?

Disgusting: Britney Spears Tampon String (Video) Debuts in Concert

Pop Princess Britney Spears is gross - at least that's what some people are saying after getting a front-row seat to the singer gyrating and swinging around her tampon string.

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212226551.shtml

Britney Spears suffers a tampon malfunction

It just keeps going from bad to worse for Britney Spears. Last week we added a hair malfunction to her list of recent malfunctions, that includes a wardrobe malfunction (breasts), a stage malfunction (well, walking off the stage mid-concert anyway), and a calendar malfunction (wishing fans a Merry Christmas March 25.) Now we can add a tampon malfunction to the list

http://www.inquisitr.com/22924/britney-spears-suffers-a-tampon-malfunction/





Neither of those are print media, they're both internet gossip tabloids...

The NY times is having more than 10,000 hits on Britney Spears.
The Washington Post only 125

Plain Dealer is having 569 results for Britney


It seems that also those US quality papers are bringing Britney news....

And you expect them not to? They, like almost every newspaper, have something of an entertainment section somewhere. None of them, though, have anything to do with this little Tampon flap. In the lingo of the tubes, what you're doing right now is moving the goalpost. Of course, I'd say that its' not just that you're moving the goalpost, but you're also lowering by about 8 feet.

In fact the Times entire first page of searches is of concert and album reviews, editorials where General Petraeus is compared to Britney Spears (for lip synching to the Bush Administration's tune) and a piece in the business section about Spears signing an endorsement contract with a perfume company.

*sigh*

Yeah, I knew that some regular American media were in shock.


Those sources are not regular American media, though, they're a step below the supermarket tabloids (you know, the one's that claim that Al Capone has been reincarnated in the form of a violent, cigar-smoking toddler)--they're internet tabloids.

I never, never, never said that the quality papers went berzerk.

You did.

Those sources are not regular American media, though, they're a step below the supermarket tabloids (you know, the one's that claim that Al Capone has been reincarnated in the form of a violent, cigar-smoking toddler)--they're internet tabloids.



You did.

You will not get far using HK's words against her. She is a devout practitioner of the reality-bending practice of ego defense. It's her tiny, tiny little world, and in it, she cannot be wrong.

You will not get far using HK's words against her. She is a devout practitioner of the reality-bending practice of ego defense. It's her tiny, tiny little world, and in it, she cannot be wrong.

I thought HK was a dude.

I thought HK was a dude.

So did I. :confused:

You learn something new every day.

You learn something new every day.

New. Not interesting, always, but new.

Completely irrelevant. His "fuck fucking" (seriously?) isn't against the Forum rules. You were banned for 24 hours, he was not. See the difference?


Eh no, I was not banned. Just another lie.



Yes it is, because swearing is not against the Forum's rules.

I'm sorry, but the actual rules matter -- the ones in your head do not.


Yes it is against the rules. I checked those rules. But this is not your first lie.


No more or less impressive than someone getting on a language high horse and declaring themselves to be superior, despite all evidence to the contrary.


Typical your style. I never said I felt superior. But once more again you like to fill in my feelings, opinions or whatever.


Denial doesn't make you clever, nor does deflection.

Sure.

Then you can quote the rules sticky showing where it says that fucking swearing is against the fucking rules... :p


We really don't care about your fucking opinion.


By that theory you should be the one who swears the most.


Maybe we fucking do?

How old are you? 6?

Those sources are not regular American media, though, they're a step below the supermarket tabloids (you know, the one's that claim that Al Capone has been reincarnated in the form of a violent, cigar-smoking toddler)--they're internet tabloids.



You did.

Show me.

First, I have no idea what that paper is. Never heard of it. Do you have information on its circulation?
It has zero circulation, because it is not a newspaper at all.
Likewise, we do not consider gossip rags to be 'quality media.' I can't say I've heard of The Inquistr, again you'd have to go a long way to establish this as our 'quality media.'

It is not even a "gossip rag", because it is not a newspaper at all: no-one even wastes one rag on making paper to print it on.

How old are you? 6?
This, also, is what is meant "flaming".

This, also, is what is meant "flaming".

No, it isn't. I didn't say that out of the blue. When one is using 'fuck' in almost every sentence to make a point about a 'fuck' then I consider such people as little kids. Besides, it's a polite question about his actual age. When he's 6 or something, then I have some context why he reacted that way.

Yes it is against the rules. I checked those rules. But this is not your first lie.Source.

No, it isn't. I didn't say that out of the blue. When one is using 'fuck' in almost every sentence to make a point about a 'fuck' then I consider such people as little kids. Besides, it's a polite question about his actual age. When he's 6 or something, then I have some context why he reacted that way.Do you judge people when they use the word 'the' too much too?

How old are you? 6?

Nope, I'm actually 39. Just proving a point.

Oh, and by the way, yes you were banned.

No, it isn't. I didn't say that out of the blue. When one is using 'fuck' in almost every sentence to make a point about a 'fuck' then I consider such people as little kids. Besides, it's a polite question about his actual age. When he's 6 or something, then I have some context why he reacted that way.

Congratulations on managing to extract an extra two days from a pretty much long dead thread. Shame you had to hijack your own thread to do it.

Eh no, I was not banned. Just another lie.

Really (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=592325)?

I shall take care of it... with a ban. This is not the first time he's engaged in this kind of trollish behaviour.

Should Hairless Kitten carry that behaviour over to here, I it will be dealt with accordingly.

So...you weren't banned, despite being banned. Neat trick.

Yes it is against the rules. I checked those rules. But this is not your first lie.

Please link to or post the rules you're talking about. If you can't back your statement up, you're the liar. But I've already actually proven that, as opposed to just saying it.

Typical your style. I never said I felt superior. But once more again you like to fill in my feelings, opinions or whatever.

I fill in what is blatantly obvious. You deny what I and many others see when we read your posts, and then dance around trying to keep what we can actually see from meaning anything to you. Fine by me. I'll ignore you form now on.

Sure.

The one part of this post that's not complete and total tripe. Congratulations.

No, it isn't. I didn't say that out of the blue. When one is using 'fuck' in almost every sentence to make a point about a 'fuck' then I consider such people as little kids. Besides, it's a polite question about his actual age. When he's 6 or something, then I have some context why he reacted that way.

You can "consider" all you want. You can't call someone a six-year old. I thought you said you read the rules. You weren't...lying...were you? Oh, hell, let's just head to the rules:

Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)!

Flame: Expressing anger at someone in uncouth ways with OOC (out-of-character) comments (i.e. swearing, being obnoxious, threatening etc). It does to watch what you post IC (in-character) as well unless the other posters know you're not serious. You do not need to curse to be a flamer. Erudite slams while maintaining a veneer of politeness can also be considered flaming. Flaming in the forums should be reported in the Moderation forum, in the game itself, through Getting Help Page.

Oh look! It DOES say "swearing", doesn't it? Oh, but wait. That's a parenthetical part of a larger sentence, isn't it? The preposition "at" is the key there. "At someone". Hmmm. So that means if A says "fuck you" to B or "fuck B", then THAT is a flame and against the rules. However if A says "I fucking hate it when B does that", well golly, that's not being directed at someone, is it? No! Not at all! Well fuck me, it seems HK is wrong.

Because if you really thought you had a leg to stand on, you'd have summoned a Mod. But then, you didn't have to, did you? Mods have already been in this thread! If they thought someone using "fuck" as an adverb was breaking the rules, then y'know something? They'd have been warned! And look at that, they weren't. You, however, were not just warned for your behavior, but actually banned for 24 hours. Not for your antics here, but elsewhere. So tell me, which of us is the rule-breaker?

Oh, and don't bother trying to change the subject or deflect by saying "that is the prejudice of the mods not enforcing rules equally" -- I've shown you the rules. They're being enforced exactly as they have been ever since I've been here. I've been shown the hand of Mod more than once myself. So you can keep your fake sanctimony.

It has zero circulation, because it is not a newspaper at all.

It is not even a "gossip rag", because it is not a newspaper at all: no-one even wastes one rag on making paper to print it on.

Indeed, a victim of too much benefit of the doubt.

Really (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=592325)?



So...you weren't banned, despite being banned. Neat trick.



Please link to or post the rules you're talking about. If you can't back your statement up, you're the liar. But I've already actually proven that, as opposed to just saying it.



I fill in what is blatantly obvious. You deny what I and many others see when we read your posts, and then dance around trying to keep what we can actually see from meaning anything to you. Fine by me. I'll ignore you form now on.



The one part of this post that's not complete and total tripe. Congratulations.

I'll answer your pointless remarks for the last time, after this I stop feeding you.

If I was banned, which I am not sure about, I was certainly not aware.

If they did ban me then they forgot to read what was posted by you and some others. The personal insults dripped of this thread. I asked several times to stop the personal attacks. I did ask it to you as well. You even said sorry once but you just continued your low personal attacks.

That YOU ran to the mods is the act of a coward and intellectual dishonest. You suggested that I am a tranny, a fugly woman and you continuously misquoted my statements, you even filled in opinions for me which were not my opinions, but you sold them that way.

Recent Examples:

* You said I called someone a 6 years old while I didn't. I asked if he was 6. That's a different animal. And you also forgot to mention the context. I asked if he was 6 for some reason (the ridiculous going on swearing...)

* I never said that I felt superior, but you filled that one in for me.

Swearing is not allowed on this board.

And the 'at', sir, is very debatable. If you think that a continuous stream of swearing is NOT expressing anger at someone then you're wrong.

You are following my shadows in almost every thread. And often you do the same thing:

You don't add something useful to the debate, but instead you wait for a minor mistake (and sometimes you're not even waiting) and then you hijack the thread in a lot of shouting, screaming and swearing. Sometimes hard enough to make the tourists curious and getting active in showing the same poor behaviour like you are showing.

Don't waste your time in replying. From now on, I will ignore you anyway.

Well fuck me

Hey, lay off the flaming.

If they thought someone using "fuck" as an adverb was breaking the rules, then y'know something? They'd have been warned! And look at that, they weren't.

In New York City, fuck isn't even an adverb - it's a comma.

Swearing is not allowed on this board.

Actually, yes it is, as we have demonstrated.

Actually, yes it is, as we have demonstrated.

Yes, it actually is. But the mods are interpreting their own rules sometimes in a weird way.

You can bash palestine people. You will not get any punishment.
But don't bash American ones, not even in a minor way or you'll be punished. :)

5 or 6 years ago, the swearing would not be accepted on this forum. But the times are changing.

So many things changed over the years. Currently when one is not sharing the same opinion the only thing he or she has to post is something as : 'this is so fucking shit, man'. A few years ago, he would be attacked by the ordinary members to explain why it is wrong. This is not needed anymore.

Yes, it actually is. But the mods are interpreting their own rules sometimes in a weird way.

You can bash palestine people. You will not get any punishment.
But don't bash American ones, not even in a minor way or you'll be punished. :)

5 or 6 years ago, the swearing would not be accepted on this forum. But the times are changing.

So many things changed over the years. Currently when one is not sharing the same opinion the only thing he or she has to post is something as : 'this is so fucking shit, man'. A few years ago, he would be attacked by the ordinary members to explain why it is wrong. This is not needed anymore.

It must be nice to live in your own little world. :rolleyes:

You even said sorry once but you just continued your low personal attacks....You suggested that I am a tranny, a fugly woman
No, as has been pointed out to you many times before, this was talking about your AVATAR, which is a "costume" that you choose to adopt here, sort of like a Shrek costume.
Swearing is not allowed on this board.
That is a fucking lie.

I'll answer your pointless remarks for the last time, after this I stop feeding you.

Aw. And I was so much enjoying the taste of your unique variation on skewed perception bisque.

If I was banned, which I am not sure about, I was certainly not aware.

HK, I provided the link. You can take the time to click it and investigate, or you can sit back and continue to deny it. I don't care either way, but the fact remains, whether or not you tried to log in during those 24 hours or not.

If they did ban me then they forgot to read what was posted by you and some others. The personal insults dripped of this thread. I asked several times to stop the personal attacks. I did ask it to you as well. You even said sorry once but you just continued your low personal attacks.

I said sorry because you made me think that your AVATAR, the picture next to your name, WAS ACTUALLY YOU. It isn't. You stated that later, in fact.

That YOU ran to the mods is the act of a coward and intellectual dishonest. You suggested that I am a tranny, a fugly woman and you continuously misquoted my statements, you even filled in opinions for me which were not my opinions, but you sold them that way.

I went to the Mods because I thought that if I showed you how to deal with things you think are against the rules, YOU might actually try it yourself.

But I know why you don't. It isn't because you fear unequal treatment, Smunkeeville has disabused you of that notion in another thread. Lots of long time members have been justly Modded. So that theory is completely false. You don't go to the Mods because deep down, you know you haven't got a case. Not just "not a strong case", but no case at all.

One more time, so that the next time you deliberately misrepresent yourself and others, ALL will see it: I SAID YOUR AVATAR LOOKED LIKE A TRANSSEXUAL, AND THAT YOUR AVATAR WAS FUGLY. An opinion I STILL hold.

I have never seen a picture of you, HK, there's no way I could know what you look like.

Recent Examples:

* You said I called someone a 6 years old while I didn't. I asked if he was 6. That's a different animal. And you also forgot to mention the context. I asked if he was 6 for some reason (the ridiculous going on swearing...)

Asking if someone is six is a mild flame, to be sure, but a flame nonetheless.

* I never said that I felt superior, but you filled that one in for me.

I assume you feel that way because the only other excuse for not going to Moderation when you feel wronged other than the ones I've listed here is because you think you're better than even they are. What else are we supposed to think? All you seem to be able to focus on is how others address you -- the only other kind of person who is that obsessed with how they're addressed is royalty. Surely the height of superiority.

Swearing is not allowed on this board.

I debunked this in the very post you've quoted. You don't bother to click the links and read the rules. I can't help you there.

And the 'at', sir, is very debatable. If you think that a continuous stream of swearing is NOT expressing anger at someone then you're wrong.

You are deliberately failing to understand. "AT" is the WHOLE POINT. "I'm fucking tired of your rotten posts" is not directed at you. "Go fuck yourself" would, if posted as a reply to something you posted and not used as an example, as I have here (just to make sure you don't deliberately misinterpret THIS part, too), be swearing directed AT someone, and would DEFINITELY be against forum rules.

If you can't understand the difference, again, not my problem.

You are following my shadows in almost every thread. And often you do the same thing:

You don't add something useful to the debate, but instead you wait for a minor mistake (and sometimes you're not even waiting) and then you hijack the thread in a lot of shouting, screaming and swearing. Sometimes hard enough to make the tourists curious and getting active in showing the same poor behaviour like you are showing.

I haven't once sworn at you, and I'll wait for you to prove it. If I've used swearing, it's been in examples (see above) or as interjections to punctuate my frustration or even elation at some points. I "get active" in threads you're in because -- wait for it -- I use NS General, too! I look at all the same threads you do. And guess what? You pull the same behavior in many threads (not all, to be sure). You're currently aggravating Polliwanacraca and Smunkeeville in the Mensa thread. And wow, you're trying to irritate them the same way you've irritated folks in this thread.

Y'know, at some point, you have to listen to yourself when you say "what's wrong with everyone that they dislike me" -- and realize that the problem is yours, not ours.

Don't waste your time in replying. From now on, I will ignore you anyway.

Oh, I'll waste my time. After all, it's the polite thing to do.

Well that, and I can't let your remarkably inaccurate post go unchallenged.

Yes, it actually is. But the mods are interpreting their own rules sometimes in a weird way.

Example, please.

You can bash palestine people. You will not get any punishment.
But don't bash American ones, not even in a minor way or you'll be punished.

Link? Proof? Example? Anything?

5 or 6 years ago, the swearing would not be accepted on this forum. But the times are changing.

Really? Were you here that far back? 'Cause I've been here over four years and I don't recall you being here the whole time. Perhaps you were an original NSGer and before my time, but I doubt it. Why? The stories I've heard of the "wild days" seem to be less tame, not more tame.

So many things changed over the years. Currently when one is not sharing the same opinion the only thing he or she has to post is something as : 'this is so fucking shit, man'. A few years ago, he would be attacked by the ordinary members to explain why it is wrong. This is not needed anymore.

So ignore it. If you can't concentrate on the point and ignore the invective (unless it's directed right at you, which is against forum rules), the problem is in the mirror. It's that insistence you have that everyone should play by your idea of the rules that makes me think you've got a superiority complex. That's not me "filling in" anything, that's observation of obnoxious behavior such as complaining about what is obviously not a problem for anyone but you. Get over it. If you can't, this might not be a good place for you to visit. I'm not suggesting you leave, but I am suggesting that just you against the overwhelming majority of the forum is a fight you're not going to win.

Periods are real??? I thought that was just a myth perpetrated by women to avoid sex.

Periods aren't real. Commas are, though.

Why does this thread still exist?

Why does this thread still exist?

My fault, I fear. I shall stop posting in it. Apologies.