No one in Germany finds vice amusing
Jan. 25th, 2005 02:29 pm"Newsnight presenters like to pretend they're different. But all they are is a bit more pompous."
Paxman speaks.
Newsnight referenced the Idler's 'Cr@p Towns' feature/book last week, which seemed like some sort of watershed moment. I wonder if they've used the word 'chav' yet?
They also had the head of the European Space Agency saying that Titan had most of the ingredients for life, but not oxygen, as though that were an insurmountable obstacle. Given we have stuff like the archaea here, that seems a little pessimistic. (I also note from that link that there is a level of biological classification back before 'kingdom' - 'domain'. I wish they'd taught us the truth in school science classes)
antonyjohnston informs me that there is currently a TV advertising campaign for KY jelly. The mind boggles. As do other things, I suppose.
I love the way that even a tabloid press given to pouncing on celebrity 'love rats' can't muster much outrage at Brad Pitt ditching Jennifer Aniston in favour of Angelina Jolie, because it was so obviously the right choice. Hmmm, a very symmetrical woman with photogenic hair, or one of the sexiest human beings on Earth?
[Poll #424601]
Paxman speaks.
Newsnight referenced the Idler's 'Cr@p Towns' feature/book last week, which seemed like some sort of watershed moment. I wonder if they've used the word 'chav' yet?
They also had the head of the European Space Agency saying that Titan had most of the ingredients for life, but not oxygen, as though that were an insurmountable obstacle. Given we have stuff like the archaea here, that seems a little pessimistic. (I also note from that link that there is a level of biological classification back before 'kingdom' - 'domain'. I wish they'd taught us the truth in school science classes)
I love the way that even a tabloid press given to pouncing on celebrity 'love rats' can't muster much outrage at Brad Pitt ditching Jennifer Aniston in favour of Angelina Jolie, because it was so obviously the right choice. Hmmm, a very symmetrical woman with photogenic hair, or one of the sexiest human beings on Earth?
[Poll #424601]
no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:34 pm (UTC)xx
no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:37 pm (UTC)this is what happends when you have no telly and only family guy dvds work...
Date: 2005-01-25 02:40 pm (UTC)peter: no way buddy - i remember the last time i listened to a giant chicken.
(cue long scene with peter battling giant chicken)
peter: another time.
giant chicken: there won't BE another time. Y2K!!!
peter: what, are you trying to sell me chicken or sechs jelly?
the server IS STILL DOWN.
Re: this is what happends when you have no telly and only family guy dvds work...
Date: 2005-01-25 02:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:43 pm (UTC)The man made vows, its not my fault he made the wrong first choice.
But if you're going to do something stupid like get married to Aniston, you deserve all the 'repenting at leisure' there is, in my opinion.
I nearly bought you that crap cities book for Christmas, but I thought you might already have it.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:44 pm (UTC)No, not really. She creeps me out.
Then again, so does Brad Pitt, to a certain part.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:47 pm (UTC)As regards vows - this is one reason I generally prefer seeing people who also fancy Angelina Jolie. It makes such problems less likely to arise.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:53 pm (UTC)(PS I seriously do not know my own answer to this question)
no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 02:58 pm (UTC)