OT: My sympathies for Kate, Duchess of Cambridge (well, sort of....)

[d***@lbl.gov]

I hope you are all well & in good spirits.

I'm sure many of you have heard the story (here at the BBC):

"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535

It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of her in a situation like this without her consent.

That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.

Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?

Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot believe anyone is seriously surprised by this.

Best wishes to all....

[GordonD]

Post by d***@lbl.gov
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are hardly
strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in shrubs,
jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like
jack-in-the-boxes
from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.

I remember when Diana married Prince Charles - one of the papers printed
details of some of the advice she had been given by her security staff on
how to avoid unwanted attention by the press. One of them was never to use a
toilet on the ground floor of a building.

[Mike L]

Post by d***@lbl.gov
I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of her in a situation like this without her consent.
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?
Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot believe anyone is seriously surprised by this.
Best wishes to all....

The British press have been laying off for quite a while (there's a
big official enquiry going on), and it's illegal in France, so they
probably thought they were safe. They're particularly sensitive, as
they believe it was paparazzo pursuit in France that led to the death
of Princess Diana. I suppose it must be particularly galling that
these two have been behaving in a very un-celeb way.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by d***@lbl.gov
I hope you are all well & in good spirits.
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of her in a situation like this without her consent.
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?
Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot believe anyone is seriously surprised by this.
Best wishes to all....
--
Brett (in Berkeley, California, USA)http://www.ForeverFunds.org/
My plan for erasing poverty from the world with micro-endowments that "give" forever into the future

I'm wondering: if Kate's mother-in-law were alive today, would she be
judgmental and disapproving of those pictures, like a regular mother-
in-law?

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Arcadian Rises
I'm wondering: if Kate's mother-in-law were alive today, would she be
judgmental and disapproving of those pictures, like a regular mother-
in-law?

From their known temperament, I think that the evidence against mother-
in-laws being regular is strong.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Peter Brooks
From their known temperament, I think that the evidence against mother-
in-laws being regular is strong.

"Mothers-in-law", surely?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:44:05 +0100, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter Brooks
From their known temperament, I think that the evidence against mother-
in-laws being regular is strong.

"Mothers-in-law", surely?

"Mother-in-law" is initialised as "MiL". The plural of "MiL" is "MiLs".
The expansion of "MiLs" is "Mother-in-Laws".

QED, or something.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:44:05 +0100, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter Brooks
From their known temperament, I think that the evidence against mother-
in-laws being regular is strong.

"Mothers-in-law", surely?

"Mother-in-law" is initialised as "MiL". The plural of "MiL" is "MiLs".
The expansion of "MiLs" is "Mother-in-Laws".
QED, or something.

Mostly people are fortunate enough to encounter them only singly.

[Pablo]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:44:05 +0100, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter Brooks
From their known temperament, I think that the evidence against
mother- in-laws being regular is strong.

"Mothers-in-law", surely?

"Mother-in-law" is initialised as "MiL". The plural of "MiL" is "MiLs".
The expansion of "MiLs" is "Mother-in-Laws".
QED, or something.

Mostly people are fortunate enough to encounter them only singly.

I like my mother in law. She lives a thousand miles away and she's 90 years
old.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:44:05 +0100, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter Brooks
From their known temperament, I think that the evidence against mother-
in-laws being regular is strong.

"Mothers-in-law", surely?

"Mother-in-law" is initialised as "MiL". The plural of "MiL" is "MiLs".
The expansion of "MiLs" is "Mother-in-Laws".
QED, or something.

Mostly people are fortunate enough to encounter them only singly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hence the old joke: ther punishment for bigamy is having two MiLs
simultaneously.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:44:05 +0100, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter Brooks
From their known temperament, I think that the evidence against mother-
in-laws being regular is strong.

"Mothers-in-law", surely?

"Mother-in-law" is initialised as "MiL". The plural of "MiL" is "MiLs".
The expansion of "MiLs" is "Mother-in-Laws".
QED, or something.

Mostly people are fortunate enough to encounter them only singly.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Hence the old joke: ther punishment for bigamy is having two MiLs
simultaneously.

Quite.

[Bob Martin]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 15:44:05 +0100, "Guy Barry"

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter Brooks
From their known temperament, I think that the evidence against mother-
in-laws being regular is strong.

"Mothers-in-law", surely?

"Mother-in-law" is initialised as "MiL". The plural of "MiL" is "MiLs".
The expansion of "MiLs" is "Mother-in-Laws".
QED, or something.

Like cup of teas?

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Bob Martin
Like cup of teas?

Certainly for a blend.

[Lewis]

Post by d***@lbl.gov
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of her
in a situation like this without her consent.

I don't think 'sad' is the right word. I think the right word should be
'criminal sex offense' myself.

Post by d***@lbl.gov
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are
hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in
shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like
jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo
snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?

Surprising? No. Reprehensible? Absolutely.

Look, these photovultures already killed one princess, we don't need them
killing another (even if she is a duchess).

Post by d***@lbl.gov
Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot believe
anyone is seriously surprised by this.

I don't think anyone is surprised the pictures were taken.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Lewis

Post by d***@lbl.gov
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of her
in a situation like this without her consent.

I don't think 'sad' is the right word. I think the right word should be
'criminal sex offense' myself.

Post by d***@lbl.gov
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are
hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in
shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like
jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo
snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?

Surprising? No. Reprehensible? Absolutely.
Look, these photovultures already killed one princess, we don't need them
killing another (even if she is a duchess).

She might have learned from the first one
that it really is a good idea
to fasten safety belts?

Jan

[Stan Brown]

Post by Lewis
Look, these photovultures already killed one princess, we don't need them
killing another (even if she is a duchess).

I don't understand your parenthesis. I'm sure you don't mean what
you seem to be saying, that a princess who is a duchess is at least
marginally more worthy being a murder victim than a princess who is
not a duchess.

In any case, at the time of her death Diana, having been divorced
from the Prince of Wales, was not a princess. But when they were
married she was both a princess (of Wales) and a duchess (of
Cornwall).

[Lewis]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Lewis
Look, these photovultures already killed one princess, we don't need them
killing another (even if she is a duchess).

I don't understand your parenthesis. I'm sure you don't mean what
you seem to be saying, that a princess who is a duchess is at least
marginally more worthy being a murder victim than a princess who is
not a duchess.

I didn't mean it that way, only that she's a Duchess and I'm not sure
she's *actually* a princess.

Post by Stan Brown
In any case, at the time of her death Diana, having been divorced
from the Prince of Wales, was not a princess. But when they were
married she was both a princess (of Wales) and a duchess (of
Cornwall).

I was confused on this point at the time, since she retained here title
a HRH. Certainly we still called her "Princess Di".

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 19:03:35 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Lewis
Look, these photovultures already killed one princess, we don't need them
killing another (even if she is a duchess).

I don't understand your parenthesis. I'm sure you don't mean what
you seem to be saying, that a princess who is a duchess is at least
marginally more worthy being a murder victim than a princess who is
not a duchess.

I didn't mean it that way, only that she's a Duchess and I'm not sure
she's *actually* a princess.

Post by Stan Brown
In any case, at the time of her death Diana, having been divorced
from the Prince of Wales, was not a princess. But when they were
married she was both a princess (of Wales) and a duchess (of
Cornwall).

I was confused on this point at the time, since she retained here title
a HRH. Certainly we still called her "Princess Di".

"Princess Di" was an accurate nickname.

As it says here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diana,_Princess_of_Wales#Divorce

Days before the decree absolute of divorce, Letters Patent were
issued with general rules to regulate royal titles after divorce. In
accordance, as she was no longer married to the Prince of Wales,
Diana lost the style Her Royal Highness and instead was styled
Diana, Princess of Wales. Buckingham Palace issued a press
release on the day of the decree absolute of divorce was issued,
announcing Diana's change of title, but made it clear Diana
continued to be a British princess.

The style "His/Her Royal Highness" is awarded to a prince or princess
but the award is not automatic. HRH is not synonymous with
Prince/Princess. The style is very occasionally awarded to someone who
is not a prince or princess. One instance was Philip Mountbatten who
became HRH (and Duke of Edinburgh) just a few hours before he married
the then Princess Elizabeth. He did not become a Prince until ten years
later.

[abc]

I hope you are all well& in good spirits.
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of her in a situation like this without her consent.
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?
Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot believe anyone is seriously surprised by this.
Best wishes to all....

What I have a hard time understanding is that there is a large enough
mass of dimwits around who care enough to be interested, thus creating a
market for absolute non-issues such as this one.
abc

[PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}]

Post by abc

I hope you are all well& in good spirits.
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of
her in a situation like this without her consent.
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are
hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in
shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like
jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo
snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?
Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot
believe anyone is seriously surprised by this.
Best wishes to all....

What I have a hard time understanding is that there is a large enough
mass of dimwits around who care enough to be interested, thus creating a
market for absolute non-issues such as this one.
abc

Why do you have a hard time understanding people? Who's the dimwit?

[abc]

Post by PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}

Post by abc

I hope you are all well& in good spirits.
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of
her in a situation like this without her consent.
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are
hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in
shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like
jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo
snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?
Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot
believe anyone is seriously surprised by this.
Best wishes to all....

What I have a hard time understanding is that there is a large enough
mass of dimwits around who care enough to be interested, thus creating a
market for absolute non-issues such as this one.
abc

Why do you have a hard time understanding people?

Do I? Says who?

Post by PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Who's the dimwit?

Find a mirror.
abc

[PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}]

Post by abc

Post by PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}

Post by abc

I hope you are all well& in good spirits.
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of
her in a situation like this without her consent.
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are
hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in
shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like
jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo
snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?
Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot
believe anyone is seriously surprised by this.
Best wishes to all....

What I have a hard time understanding is that there is a large enough
mass of dimwits around who care enough to be interested, thus creating a
market for absolute non-issues such as this one.
abc

Why do you have a hard time understanding people?

Do I? Says who?

You. It's what you just said.

Mirrors? They are for vain, arrogant people, or for women (-:

[Peter Young]

[snip]

Post by PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}

Post by abc
Do I? Says who?

You. It's what you just said.

I was re-reading an excellent book recently, "The Life and Death of St
Kilda" (go and Google if you don't know about St Kilda, Scottish
Island archipelago). The first mirror arrived on St Kilda sometime
early in the 20th Century, and was jealously guarded by its male
owner, who kept looking at it. His wife became convinced that it was a
picture of another woman. One day, when her husband was out, she
managed to look in it. She said, "Well, at least, she isn't pretty".

Go figure!

Peter.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by abc

I hope you are all well&  in good spirits.
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of her in a situation like this without her consent.
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?
Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot believe anyone is seriously surprised by this.
Best wishes to all....

What I have a hard time understanding is that there is a large enough
mass of dimwits around who care enough to be interested, thus creating a
market for absolute non-issues such as this one.
abc- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

In defense of the "dimwits": a moderate dose of gossip is good for
your mental health.
People who gossip have a certain amount of altruism that motivates
them to care about others.

Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto".

[Pablo]

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

I know you're trolling, but most gossip is generally considered malicious,
not altruistic. I don't give a stuff about Kate's tits (I don't even know
who she is).

Has anyone here seen these pictures? Are they worth a look? Or might I just
as well take a walk along any beach in Málaga, as there are hundreds on show
down there. Nobody seems to mind.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by Pablo

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

I know you're trolling, but most gossip is generally considered malicious,
not altruistic. I don't give a stuff about Kate's tits (I don't even know
who she is).
Has anyone here seen these pictures? Are they worth a look? Or might I just
as well take a walk along any beach in Málaga, as there are hundreds on show
down there. Nobody seems to mind.

I haven't seen the pictures. She was sunbathing topless on private
property rather than on a public beach.

The speculation is that the photos were taken from outside the property
using telephoto lenses.

[Pablo]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Pablo

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

I know you're trolling, but most gossip is generally considered malicious,
not altruistic. I don't give a stuff about Kate's tits (I don't even know
who she is).
Has anyone here seen these pictures? Are they worth a look? Or might I
just as well take a walk along any beach in Málaga, as there are hundreds
on show down there. Nobody seems to mind.

I haven't seen the pictures. She was sunbathing topless on private
property rather than on a public beach.
The speculation is that the photos were taken from outside the property
using telephoto lenses.

So, now lots of people know that the young lady has breasts, and even what
they look like. I've never seen them, but I'm pretty sure I can guess what
they look like.

It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Nothing to see here...

[the Omrud]

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

[Pablo]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures
of somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a
google search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost
identical to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I
doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Heh. We've got lots of full-on nudist beaches around here.

There's still the internet option for you wot live in Blighty.

[Nick Spalding]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Pablo's climate is different.

[Lanarcam]

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Pablo's climate is different.

What has one millimeter thickness of fabric to do with climate?

Or perhaps you meant the mindset?

Here also, there are far many less exposed skin as there was years
ago, times are changing.

[Skitt]

Post by Lanarcam

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get
pictures of somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down
the beach or do a google search on "breasts". All the ones thay
will see will look almost identical to those in the candid
pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Pablo's climate is different.

What has one millimeter thickness of fabric to do with climate?
Or perhaps you meant the mindset?
Here also, there are far many less exposed skin as there was years
ago, times are changing.

Weight gain has its influences.

You won't catch me cavorting on the beaches in the altogether anymore.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Perhaps if you'd asked nicely.....

[Charles Bishop]

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Perhaps if you'd asked nicely.....

There was, at one time, a young man who located himself on the sidewalks
of New York(?), with a video camera. He would ask women if he could video
their breasts. If they said yes, he'd take them to a private space and
video them as they lifted their tops.

I don't know how I know this, or what his success rate was.

[Robin Bignall]

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Perhaps if you'd asked nicely.....

There was, at one time, a young man who located himself on the sidewalks
of New York(?), with a video camera. He would ask women if he could video
their breasts. If they said yes, he'd take them to a private space and
video them as they lifted their tops.
I don't know how I know this, or what his success rate was.

Back in the 1960s I knew an electrician, one of the ones who does
maintenance of domestic wiring and gadgets, who asked every woman he met
if they wanted to fuck. He was a big curly-headed bloke in his
twenties, with a shit-eating grin, and probably came across to
housewives as a harmless bit of rough. I knew several women he'd asked,
including my future first wife. She gave him an equal grin and told him
no thanks (I was there at the time in the pub) but I believed him when
he told us his hit rate was over 50%. He was quite open about it.

[Robert Bannister]

Post by Charles Bishop

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Perhaps if you'd asked nicely.....

There was, at one time, a young man who located himself on the sidewalks
of New York(?), with a video camera. He would ask women if he could video
their breasts. If they said yes, he'd take them to a private space and
video them as they lifted their tops.
I don't know how I know this, or what his success rate was.

Persistence seems to be the key. A friend of my brother's used the line:
"You're an ugly cow. Do you drop your knickers?" You could mark his
progress around every party, but he scored at least once at every party
because he asked every woman there, instead of only approaching the ones
that seemed almost pretty after eight pints of beer as the rest of us did.

[R H Draney]

Post by Charles Bishop
There was, at one time, a young man who located himself on the sidewalks
of New York(?), with a video camera. He would ask women if he could video
their breasts. If they said yes, he'd take them to a private space and
video them as they lifted their tops.
I don't know how I know this, or what his success rate was.

You speak, I believe, of "Ugly George"...he was one of the last of the great
public-access cable celebrities before the internet took all their business
away....r

[Guy Barry]

Post by Charles Bishop
There was, at one time, a young man who located himself on the sidewalks
of New York(?), with a video camera. He would ask women if he could video
their breasts. If they said yes, he'd take them to a private space and
video them as they lifted their tops.

Was that "Ugly George"?

[R H Draney]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Some of us don't live right at the sea's edge like you do...Google Maps says 217
miles to the nearest beach, 359 if I don't want to cross an international
border....r

[Robert Bannister]

Post by R H Draney

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Some of us don't live right at the sea's edge like you do...Google Maps says 217
miles to the nearest beach, 359 if I don't want to cross an international
border....r

I was actually surprised. I'm sure I read somewhere that nowhere in
England was more than 45 miles from the sea, but of course "sea" and
"beach" don't necessarily go together.

[abc]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by R H Draney

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Some of us don't live right at the sea's edge like you do...Google Maps says 217
miles to the nearest beach, 359 if I don't want to cross an international
border....r

I was actually surprised. I'm sure I read somewhere that nowhere in
England was more than 45 miles from the sea, but of course "sea" and
"beach" don't necessarily go together.

I can't believe he resides in the UK with the distances given, and the
fact about crossing an international border.

The 45 miles is clearly inaccurate though. I had a twirl with Google
Earth which is always good fun: From a general area NE of Birmingham
there is certainly more than 60 miles to the sea as the crow flies,
whichever direction you try, possibly as much as 80. The tricky part is
to decide where the Severn estuary ends and the sea begins.

abc

[the Omrud]

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by R H Draney

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Some of us don't live right at the sea's edge like you do...Google Maps says 217
miles to the nearest beach, 359 if I don't want to cross an international
border....r

I was actually surprised. I'm sure I read somewhere that nowhere in
England was more than 45 miles from the sea, but of course "sea" and
"beach" don't necessarily go together.

I think it's likely to be 70 miles, rather than 45. The closest sea
shore to me is about 30 miles away by road. There are beaches at those
shores, but they are usually deserted and therefore unsuitable for
ogling activities.

[LFS]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by R H Draney

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Some of us don't live right at the sea's edge like you do...Google Maps says 217
miles to the nearest beach, 359 if I don't want to cross an
international
border....r

I was actually surprised. I'm sure I read somewhere that nowhere in
England was more than 45 miles from the sea, but of course "sea" and
"beach" don't necessarily go together.

I think it's likely to be 70 miles, rather than 45. The closest sea
shore to me is about 30 miles away by road. There are beaches at those
shores, but they are usually deserted and therefore unsuitable for
ogling activities.

Oxford is just under 100 miles form Bournemouth which, I think, is our
closest beach. If you count Gloucester as being on the coast, that's
probably the nearest we get.

I grew up believing that Oxford was the place in England furthest from
the sea which, according to my mother, was why you could never get good
fresh fish here, but I think somewhere in Derbyshire has the true claim
to that title.

[Peter Young]

Post by LFS

Post by the Omrud

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by R H Draney

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Some of us don't live right at the sea's edge like you do...Google Maps says 217
miles to the nearest beach, 359 if I don't want to cross an
international
border....r

I was actually surprised. I'm sure I read somewhere that nowhere in
England was more than 45 miles from the sea, but of course "sea" and
"beach" don't necessarily go together.

I think it's likely to be 70 miles, rather than 45. The closest sea
shore to me is about 30 miles away by road. There are beaches at those
shores, but they are usually deserted and therefore unsuitable for
ogling activities.

Oxford is just under 100 miles form Bournemouth which, I think, is our
closest beach. If you count Gloucester as being on the coast, that's
probably the nearest we get.

Though the Severn is tidal at Gloucester I don't think you could count
it as seaside. My personal opinion is that the nearest beach to here
would be Weston-super-Mare, nearly 62 miles from here by road and not
a great deal less as the crow flies. In this house it's known as
Weston-super-Mud, as I wouldn't classify it as a proper beach. For
that, you have to go to Minehead, 100 miles by road and I would guess
80 for the crow.

Peter.

[Nick Spalding]

Post by Peter Young

Post by LFS

Post by the Omrud

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by R H Draney

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Some of us don't live right at the sea's edge like you do...Google Maps says 217
miles to the nearest beach, 359 if I don't want to cross an international
border....r

I was actually surprised. I'm sure I read somewhere that nowhere in
England was more than 45 miles from the sea, but of course "sea" and
"beach" don't necessarily go together.

I think it's likely to be 70 miles, rather than 45. The closest sea
shore to me is about 30 miles away by road. There are beaches at those
shores, but they are usually deserted and therefore unsuitable for
ogling activities.

Oxford is just under 100 miles form Bournemouth which, I think, is our
closest beach. If you count Gloucester as being on the coast, that's
probably the nearest we get.

Though the Severn is tidal at Gloucester I don't think you could count
it as seaside. My personal opinion is that the nearest beach to here
would be Weston-super-Mare, nearly 62 miles from here by road and not
a great deal less as the crow flies. In this house it's known as
Weston-super-Mud, as I wouldn't classify it as a proper beach. For
that, you have to go to Minehead, 100 miles by road and I would guess
80 for the crow.

My commiserations to you inlanders. There is a beach 400 yards north of
my house and another 530 yards south.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Peter Young
Though the Severn is tidal at Gloucester I don't think you could count
it as seaside. My personal opinion is that the nearest beach to here
would be Weston-super-Mare, nearly 62 miles from here by road and not
a great deal less as the crow flies.

Well, Severn Beach is so named (just beside the Second Severn Crossing),
though it's hardly somewhere I'd go for a seaside day out.

What about Clevedon, though? It's got a sea front and an interesting
restored Victorian pier. It's small, but I'd choose it over
Weston-super-Mare any day.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 13:02:07 +0100, LFS

Post by LFS

Post by the Omrud

Post by Robert Bannister

Post by R H Draney

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Some of us don't live right at the sea's edge like you do...Google Maps says 217
miles to the nearest beach, 359 if I don't want to cross an
international
border....r

I was actually surprised. I'm sure I read somewhere that nowhere in
England was more than 45 miles from the sea, but of course "sea" and
"beach" don't necessarily go together.

I think it's likely to be 70 miles, rather than 45. The closest sea
shore to me is about 30 miles away by road. There are beaches at those
shores, but they are usually deserted and therefore unsuitable for
ogling activities.

Oxford is just under 100 miles form Bournemouth which, I think, is our
closest beach. If you count Gloucester as being on the coast, that's
probably the nearest we get.
I grew up believing that Oxford was the place in England furthest from
the sea which, according to my mother, was why you could never get good
fresh fish here, but I think somewhere in Derbyshire has the true claim
to that title.

An internet search reveals various places claiming the honour.

If we include tidal estuaries as being part of the sea then Oxford is
65-70 miles from the sea, as the crow flies, in the form of the coast of
the Severn Estuary near Bristol.

[Lewis]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Wrong beach, obviously.

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh.  I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

If you had a picture of a naked or half-naked child on your computer
you would have a fit and expect yourself to be arrested at any moment.
In the the real world, when you visit people in their own homes, you
find children running around naked all the time - it is normal and
natural and innocent, and what you did and what your children did.

The photo has beome different to the "real life" it supposedly
captures.

[Skitt]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

If you had a picture of a naked or half-naked child on your computer
you would have a fit and expect yourself to be arrested at any moment.
In the the real world, when you visit people in their own homes, you
find children running around naked all the time - it is normal and
natural and innocent, and what you did and what your children did.
The photo has beome different to the "real life" it supposedly
captures.

My mom took me with her to the beach in Latvia during the women's hours
(those were the nude hours for women and the small children with them).
I was quite young then.

There were nude hours for the men also, but my dad had extremely fair
skin that burned quickly, so he seldom ventured to the seaside.

The family hours were not for nude people, though, and a knotted
handkerchief alone was not sufficient dress.

[Cheryl]

Post by Skitt

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

If you had a picture of a naked or half-naked child on your computer
you would have a fit and expect yourself to be arrested at any moment.
In the the real world, when you visit people in their own homes, you
find children running around naked all the time - it is normal and
natural and innocent, and what you did and what your children did.
The photo has beome different to the "real life" it supposedly
captures.

My mom took me with her to the beach in Latvia during the women's hours
(those were the nude hours for women and the small children with them).
I was quite young then.
There were nude hours for the men also, but my dad had extremely fair
skin that burned quickly, so he seldom ventured to the seaside.
The family hours were not for nude people, though, and a knotted
handkerchief alone was not sufficient dress.

Were there debates about the age at which a male child was too old to go
with his mother and the other women?

When I used to swim (not, alas, at the seaside), young male children
were allowed in the women's change room with their mothers, and
periodically someone would bring in a child someone else thought was a
bit old, and Complaints were made to the Management. Early school age
seemed to be the cut-off point for most of the complainers.

No one bothered complaining much about the other cultural difference -
some women walked around the change room and used the common showers
while naked, whereas others did so only when modestly swathed in a towel
or bathing suit, waiting for one of the few cubicles if they didn't want
to change under the shelter of their towels.

[Skitt]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Skitt
My mom took me with her to the beach in Latvia during the women's hours
(those were the nude hours for women and the small children with them).
I was quite young then.
There were nude hours for the men also, but my dad had extremely fair
skin that burned quickly, so he seldom ventured to the seaside.
The family hours were not for nude people, though, and a knotted
handkerchief alone was not sufficient dress.

Were there debates about the age at which a male child was too old to go
with his mother and the other women?

I was not aware of them, as I was too young to notice or care. In
general, people were not very up tight about nudity in Latvia. Kids at
the beach used to play in the nude to an older age than they do here in
the USA, if they do that here at all.

<snip>

[R H Draney]

Post by Skitt
My mom took me with her to the beach in Latvia during the women's hours
(those were the nude hours for women and the small children with them).
I was quite young then.
There were nude hours for the men also, but my dad had extremely fair
skin that burned quickly, so he seldom ventured to the seaside.

For people like me, and your father, they should have put the nude hours after
sunset....r

[Robert Bannister]

Post by the Omrud

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Oh, I say, that's harsh. I've just strolled down to the beach (60 miles
or so to the nearest one of any consequence, at Blackpool), and there
wasn't a single exposed pair in the whole place.

Doubtlessly they had all gone off to somewhere warmer.

[abc]

Post by Pablo

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]

Post by Pablo

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

I know you're trolling, but most gossip is generally considered malicious,
not altruistic. I don't give a stuff about Kate's tits (I don't even know
who she is).
Has anyone here seen these pictures? Are they worth a look? Or might I
just as well take a walk along any beach in Málaga, as there are hundreds
on show down there. Nobody seems to mind.

I haven't seen the pictures. She was sunbathing topless on private
property rather than on a public beach.
The speculation is that the photos were taken from outside the property
using telephoto lenses.

So, now lots of people know that the young lady has breasts, and even what
they look like. I've never seen them, but I'm pretty sure I can guess what
they look like.
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.
Nothing to see here...

This is exactly what I meant with the whole thing being a non-issue, not
the general interest in the royal family as such which I have nothing
against. My comment about the "non-issue" seems to have been
misinterpreted by quite a few posters in other parts of the thread.
abc

[Iain Archer]

Pablo wrote on Sat, 15 Sep 2012

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

I enjoyed this Twittery riposte:

El Fenner @lfenner 14 Sep

Howcome she's 'The Duchess of Cambridge' when she's looking at orchids,
and 'Kate Middleton' when she's got her baps out?

John Finnemore @JohnFinnemore 14 Sep

@lfenner Because she has the eyes of a Duchess, but the baps of a
commoner. It is her tragedy.

[Lewis]

Post by Iain Archer
Pablo wrote on Sat, 15 Sep 2012

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Howcome she's 'The Duchess of Cambridge' when she's looking at orchids,
and 'Kate Middleton' when she's got her baps out?
@lfenner Because she has the eyes of a Duchess, but the baps of a
commoner. It is her tragedy.

"Baps" is a new one.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Lewis

Post by Iain Archer
@lfenner Because she has the eyes of a Duchess, but the baps of a
commoner. It is her tragedy.

"Baps" is a new one.

Not here it isn't.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012 10:05:29 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Iain Archer
Pablo wrote on Sat, 15 Sep 2012

Post by Pablo
It's sad that people feel the need to go to such lengths to get pictures of
somoene's tits, when they could just stroll down the beach or do a google
search on "breasts". All the ones thay will see will look almost identical
to those in the candid pictures. Are royal tits different? I doubt it.

Howcome she's 'The Duchess of Cambridge' when she's looking at orchids,
and 'Kate Middleton' when she's got her baps out?
@lfenner Because she has the eyes of a Duchess, but the baps of a
commoner. It is her tragedy.

"Baps" is a new one.

Think
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bap?q=bap

bap
noun
British

1 a large, round, flattish bread roll, typically with a spongy
texture and floury top.

2 (baps) informal a woman’s breasts.

Baps of the bread variety are relatives of the hamburger bun -

A pack of four:
Loading Image...

British Brown Baps:
http://www.woodfiredkitchen.com/?p=693

There are other names for the same thing:
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=36914

[Lewis]

Post by Pablo
Has anyone here seen these pictures?

I saw one.

Post by Pablo
Are they worth a look?

No.

Post by Pablo
Or might I just
as well take a walk along any beach in Málaga, as there are hundreds on show
down there. Nobody seems to mind.

A quick google of 'tits' in image search will turn up millions of better
pictures.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Pablo

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

I know you're trolling,

not this time

Post by Pablo
but most gossip is generally considered malicious,
not altruistic.

I wasn't talking about the evil kind of gossip. Just a moderate
amount, without meddling and carrying the words back and forth, shows
innocuous interest in your fellow humans.
And what could be more inocuous than discussing celebrities,our
guineea pigs to try on different scenarios, take sides, vent our pet
peeves, etc?

I don't give a stuff about Kate's tits (I don't even know

Post by Pablo
who she is).
Has anyone here seen these pictures? Are they worth a look? Or might I just
as well take a walk along any beach in Málaga, as there are hundreds on show
down there. Nobody seems to mind.
--
 Pablo

[Vinny Burgoo]

Post by Arcadian Rises
In defense of the "dimwits": a moderate dose of gossip is good for
your mental health.
People who gossip have a certain amount of altruism that motivates
them to care about others.
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto".

'Rugosa regina micat micas.'

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread,

I missed this, you're surely trying to say 'uninterested'.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread,

I missed this, you're surely trying to say 'uninterested'.

Yes, and also the second sense of "disinterested".

[tony cooper]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:45:05 -0700 (PDT), Arcadian Rises

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by abc

I hope you are all well&  in good spirits.
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of her in a situation like this without her consent.
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?
Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot believe anyone is seriously surprised by this.
Best wishes to all....

What I have a hard time understanding is that there is a large enough
mass of dimwits around who care enough to be interested, thus creating a
market for absolute non-issues such as this one.
abc- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

In defense of the "dimwits": a moderate dose of gossip is good for
your mental health.
People who gossip have a certain amount of altruism that motivates
them to care about others.
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto".

Like most males, I find the nude, or partially nude, body of an
attractive female to be worth looking at...sometimes a look of greater
length than other times.

However, I am not at all selective. An uncovered royal is of no more,
or no less, interest than an uncovered commoner, or, in the case of
American uncovered females, ordinary citizen.

Photographs of nude, or partially nude, attractive females are not of
particular interest to me, though. Accordingly, I haven't bothered to
view any of the photographs of the Duchess. I have seen other images
of her, and cede that she is - indeed - an attractive female. If she
sunbathes partially clad within my view, I will look.

I have personally seen a Duchess, but she was not unclothed at the
time. Sarah, Duchess of York, made an appearance at a polo game here
in Florida that I attended.

I'm not sure if she was a Duchess at the time. Is that a title
retained, or handed over in the divorce proceedings?

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:05:11 -0400, tony cooper

Post by tony cooper
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 06:45:05 -0700 (PDT), Arcadian Rises

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by abc

I hope you are all well&  in good spirits.
"Topless Kate pictures: Duke and duchess sue French magazine Closer"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19604535
It is certainly sad when any young woman has such pictures taken of her in a situation like this without her consent.
That being said, members of the Royal Family of Great Britain are hardly strangers to the way the press works. Photographers hiding in shrubs, jumping out of alleys, lurking in trees, and popping up like jack-in-the-boxes from manhole covers is not at all unknown to them.
Can it really be all that surprising that some enterprising paparazzo snapped these pictures and (presumably) sold them to be published?
Though it is regrettable the photos were taken, I simply cannot believe anyone is seriously surprised by this.
Best wishes to all....

What I have a hard time understanding is that there is a large enough
mass of dimwits around who care enough to be interested, thus creating a
market for absolute non-issues such as this one.
abc- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

In defense of the "dimwits": a moderate dose of gossip is good for
your mental health.
People who gossip have a certain amount of altruism that motivates
them to care about others.
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto".

Like most males, I find the nude, or partially nude, body of an
attractive female to be worth looking at...sometimes a look of greater
length than other times.
However, I am not at all selective. An uncovered royal is of no more,
or no less, interest than an uncovered commoner, or, in the case of
American uncovered females, ordinary citizen.
Photographs of nude, or partially nude, attractive females are not of
particular interest to me, though. Accordingly, I haven't bothered to
view any of the photographs of the Duchess. I have seen other images
of her, and cede that she is - indeed - an attractive female. If she
sunbathes partially clad within my view, I will look.
I have personally seen a Duchess, but she was not unclothed at the
time. Sarah, Duchess of York, made an appearance at a polo game here
in Florida that I attended.
I'm not sure if she was a Duchess at the time. Is that a title
retained, or handed over in the divorce proceedings?

She is still the Duchess of York, and is still listed as a member of the
Royal Family.

The Queen is at the top of the list. The Duchess's ex-husband and her
daughters are in positions 6, 7 and 8. She is in 27th position at the
bottom of the list.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Charlotte%20Martin%20Sep12/ANNEX%20C%20-%20Royal%20Family.pdf

[the Omrud]

Post by tony cooper
I have personally seen a Duchess, but she was not unclothed at the
time. Sarah, Duchess of York, made an appearance at a polo game here
in Florida that I attended.

I am acquainted with a Countess (in her own right, not from marriage).
However, she's 71 and a retired goat farmer, so she probably doesn't go
in for public exposure.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 12:05:11 -0400, tony cooper
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

... snip, much]

Post by tony cooper
Like most males, I find the nude, or partially nude, body of an
attractive female to be worth looking at...sometimes a look of greater
length than other times.
However, I am not at all selective. An uncovered royal is of no more,
or no less, interest than an uncovered commoner, or, in the case of
American uncovered females, ordinary citizen.
[snip]

I suppose that I'm with you, on the pictures of a British royal.

But I readily understand why Playboy would offer a larger
fee for a nude set of [name your actress] than for someone
better looking but unknown.

[Curlytop]

tony cooper set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time

Post by tony cooper
Like most males, I find the nude, or partially nude, body of an
attractive female to be worth looking at...sometimes a look of greater
length than other times.

I am a naturist, so the sight of a naked body doesn't shock me. Yes I will
look at a pretty female, naked or clad. Actually I'm not a tit man, and
unnaturally large tits are a turn-off for me. I prefer to check out the
face and hair for general beauty, with curly hair and freckles being
particular points of attraction for me, and I will also check out the legs
for shapeliness.

At the last naturist event I attended, there was a 7-year-old blonde
present..Even at that age, she was worth looking at and checking out.
Pretty face and already rather shapely legs, but straight hair and no
freckles.

(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Curlytop
tony cooper set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time

Post by tony cooper
Like most males, I find the nude, or partially nude, body of an
attractive female to be worth looking at...sometimes a look of greater
length than other times.

I am a naturist, so the sight of a naked body doesn't shock me. Yes I will
look at a pretty female, naked or clad. Actually I'm not a tit man, and
unnaturally large tits are a turn-off for me. I prefer to check out the
face and hair for general beauty, with curly hair and freckles being
particular points of attraction for me, and I will also check out the legs
for shapeliness.
At the last naturist event I attended, there was a 7-year-old blonde
present..Even at that age, she was worth looking at and checking out.
Pretty face and already rather shapely legs, but straight hair and no
freckles.
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

At my local pub, there was an beautiful young girl working there;
obviously she was ogle-able because she was over eighteen - she was
working in a pub for chrissakes! - but if she had been in school
uniform she could have passed for a ten year old.

We are animals and our instincts guide us. I just want to see those
pictures of Kate Middleton's tits!

[Irwell]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Curlytop
tony cooper set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time

Post by tony cooper
Like most males, I find the nude, or partially nude, body of an
attractive female to be worth looking at...sometimes a look of greater
length than other times.

I am a naturist, so the sight of a naked body doesn't shock me. Yes I will
look at a pretty female, naked or clad. Actually I'm not a tit man, and
unnaturally large tits are a turn-off for me. I prefer to check out the
face and hair for general beauty, with curly hair and freckles being
particular points of attraction for me, and I will also check out the legs
for shapeliness.
At the last naturist event I attended, there was a 7-year-old blonde
present..Even at that age, she was worth looking at and checking out.
Pretty face and already rather shapely legs, but straight hair and no
freckles.
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

At my local pub, there was an beautiful young girl working there;
obviously she was ogle-able because she was over eighteen - she was
working in a pub for chrissakes! - but if she had been in school
uniform she could have passed for a ten year old.
We are animals and our instincts guide us. I just want to see those
pictures of Kate Middleton's tits!

Put some poached eggs in the pan.

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 21:43:48 +0100, Curlytop

Post by Curlytop
tony cooper set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time

Post by tony cooper
Like most males, I find the nude, or partially nude, body of an
attractive female to be worth looking at...sometimes a look of greater
length than other times.

I am a naturist, so the sight of a naked body doesn't shock me. Yes I will
look at a pretty female, naked or clad. Actually I'm not a tit man, and
unnaturally large tits are a turn-off for me. I prefer to check out the
face and hair for general beauty, with curly hair and freckles being
particular points of attraction for me, and I will also check out the legs
for shapeliness.
At the last naturist event I attended, there was a 7-year-old blonde
present..Even at that age, she was worth looking at and checking out.
Pretty face and already rather shapely legs, but straight hair and no
freckles.
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

Ah good. Perhaps you can answer a question that I've been mulling over
after reading a post by Lanarcam.

On a non-nudist beach people will wear thin, minimal, clothing but if
things become chilly they will wrap themselves in towels, coats or
anything else to keep warm. Is it the same on a nudist beach or do
nudists try to stay uncovered as a matter of principle?

[Curlytop]

Peter Duncanson [BrE] set the following eddies spiralling through the

Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On a non-nudist beach people will wear thin, minimal, clothing but if
things become chilly they will wrap themselves in towels, coats or
anything else to keep warm. Is it the same on a nudist beach or do
nudists try to stay uncovered as a matter of principle?

Yes absolutely. Every naturist knows where his towel is (usually underneath
him, as a matter of common courtesy) so it is ready for other uses as
required by the weather conditions.

On a recent visit to Steep Holm (a little island four miles offshore from
the UK mainland) the weather was cold and showery to start with, so we all
stayed conventionally dressed until the weather improved later in the day.
But we all kept our clothes handy in case the weather forced us all to
cover up.

[Nasti J]

Post by Curlytop
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

yes, you are. the fact that you were having sexually-oriented thoughts
about a seven-year old and leering at her (call it what you like)
makes you another creepy old man her parents should beware of.

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Nasti J

Post by Curlytop
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

yes, you are. the fact that you were having sexually-oriented thoughts
about a seven-year old and leering at her (call it what you like)
makes you another creepy old man her parents should beware of.

People cannot help what they think - they can help what they do.
Parents who parade a pretty child in a nudist camp have themselves to
blame.

[Lewis]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Nasti J

Post by Curlytop
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

yes, you are. the fact that you were having sexually-oriented thoughts
about a seven-year old and leering at her (call it what you like)
makes you another creepy old man her parents should beware of.

People cannot help what they think - they can help what they do.
Parents who parade a pretty child in a nudist camp have themselves to
blame.

Blame?

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Lewis

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Nasti J

Post by Curlytop
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

yes, you are. the fact that you were having sexually-oriented thoughts
about a seven-year old and leering at her (call it what you like)
makes you another creepy old man her parents should beware of.

People cannot help what they think - they can help what they do.
Parents who parade a pretty child in a nudist camp have themselves to
blame.

Blame?

Well read your Milton starting from "the serpent me beguiled and I did
eat". Walking around naked was fine up until that point, but now we
know it isn't fine - people are not the innocents we took them for.

We have traveller sites around here; traveller children invariably
dress in eye-popping mini-skirts with make-up, leather boots, boob
tubes etc. Their parents are "to blame" IMO because childhood is
precious and they are sexualising it. People who parade their children
naked in front of male adult strangers are very much "to blame".

[Curlytop]

Nasti J set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time

Post by Nasti J

Post by Curlytop
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

yes, you are. the fact that you were having sexually-oriented thoughts
about a seven-year old and leering at her (call it what you like)
makes you another creepy old man her parents should beware of.

At no point were my thoughts sexually oriented. As many naturists have
found, the naked body is nowhere near as sexually arousing as a
scantily-clad one. I repeat that I am not a peado, for I never have
sexually-oriented thoughts towards children at all. I was admiring the
innocent beauty of a pretty little girl, without regarding her as a sex
object or entertaining any other lewd thoughts towards her.

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Curlytop
Nasti J set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time

Post by Nasti J

Post by Curlytop
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

yes, you are. the fact that you were having sexually-oriented thoughts
about a seven-year old and leering at her (call it what you like)
makes you another creepy old man her parents should beware of.

At no point were my thoughts sexually oriented. As many naturists have
found, the naked body is nowhere near as sexually arousing as a
scantily-clad one. I repeat that I am not a peado, for I never have
sexually-oriented thoughts towards children at all. I was admiring the
innocent beauty of a pretty little girl, without regarding her as a sex
object or entertaining any other lewd thoughts towards her.

Possession of a photograph of what you saw would be a criminal offence
in the UK, so presumably naturists no longer take pictures of
themselves in family groups?

The whole "child porn" issue is doomed to failure because millions of
people worldwide have a legitimate interest in ogling naked children;
they have high quality cameras available to take pictures whenever
they want; and it is perfectly natural for an 11 year old boy to take
an interest in a 9 year old girl and vice-versa! Labelling them all
"criminal" means every person in the world will grow up a criminal.

[Curlytop]

Harrison Hill set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time

Post by Harrison Hill
Possession of a photograph of what you saw would be a criminal offence
in the UK, so presumably naturists no longer take pictures of
themselves in family groups?

Notices to that effect were posted at the entrance to the place. The
person's consent must be obtained before taking any photograph. Naturally,
possession of naked family photographs is not an offence, even when they do
feature children, since such consent can be assumed within a family group.

Since the little girl I referred to was not a relative, I had no desire to
take a photograph of her. That *would* have been beyond the pale.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Curlytop
Nasti J set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time

Post by Nasti J

Post by Curlytop
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

yes, you are. the fact that you were having sexually-oriented thoughts
about a seven-year old and leering at her (call it what you like)
makes you another creepy old man her parents should beware of.

At no point were my thoughts sexually oriented. As many naturists have
found, the naked body is nowhere near as sexually arousing as a
scantily-clad one. I repeat that I am not a peado, for I never have
sexually-oriented thoughts towards children at all. I was admiring the
innocent beauty of a pretty little girl, without regarding her as a sex
object or entertaining any other lewd thoughts towards her.

Possession of a photograph of what you saw would be a criminal offence
in the UK, so presumably naturists no longer take pictures of
themselves in family groups?
The whole "child porn" issue is doomed to failure because millions of
people worldwide have a legitimate interest in ogling naked children;
they have high quality cameras available to take pictures whenever
they want; and it is perfectly natural for an 11 year old boy to take
an interest in a 9 year old girl and vice-versa! Labelling them all
"criminal" means every person in the world will grow up a criminal.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Right. According to those standards, "Romeo and Juliet" must be
banned.You know, that play about those two ciminals, the child
molesters.

[James Hogg]

Post by Curlytop
Nasti J set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time

Post by Nasti J

Post by Curlytop
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

yes, you are. the fact that you were having sexually-oriented thoughts
about a seven-year old and leering at her (call it what you like)
makes you another creepy old man her parents should beware of.

At no point were my thoughts sexually oriented. As many naturists have
found, the naked body is nowhere near as sexually arousing as a
scantily-clad one. I repeat that I am not a peado, for I never have
sexually-oriented thoughts towards children at all. I was admiring the
innocent beauty of a pretty little girl, without regarding her as a sex
object or entertaining any other lewd thoughts towards her.

The issue here is not whether you're a "peado", it's how you spell the word.

[abc]

Post by Nasti J

Post by Curlytop
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

yes, you are. the fact that you were having sexually-oriented thoughts
about a seven-year old and leering at her (call it what you like)
makes you another creepy old man her parents should beware of.

These comments are more revealing about the person who makes them than
the ostensible subject being described.
abc

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by abc

Post by Nasti J

Post by Curlytop
(No I'm not a peado. Apart from a smile and a raise of my eyebrows, there
was no further approach made to this little beauty.)

yes, you are. the fact that you were having sexually-oriented thoughts
about a seven-year old and leering at her (call it what you like)
makes you another creepy old man her parents should beware of.

These comments are more revealing about the person who makes them than
the ostensible subject being described.
abc

Right.
Who mentioned the word "peado" out of the blue?

[Lewis]

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

Oh, please, that's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in this
newsgroup.

[Robin Bignall]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:55:56 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

Post by Lewis

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

Oh, please, that's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in this
newsgroup.

Yes, I was just thinking that.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Robin Bignall
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:55:56 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

In message

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

Oh, please, that's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in this
newsgroup.

Yes, I was just thinking that.

I wouldn't go that far. It's just plain rude.

I will confess that I sneaked a look at the front page of the Sun when
Prince Harry was on it just to see what all the fuss was about, but that's
about as far as it went. This obsessive interest in our Royal Family - with
or without their clothes - is something that I shall never understand,
particularly amongst inhabitants of other countries. Kate Middleton (as she
was) is never going to be Queen of any non-Commonwealth country, so why do
people anywhere else remotely care about her?

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Robin Bignall
On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:55:56 +0000 (UTC), Lewis

In message

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

Oh, please, that's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in this
newsgroup.

Yes, I was just thinking that.

I wouldn't go that far.  It's just plain rude.
I will confess that I sneaked a look at the front page of the Sun when
Prince Harry was on it just to see what all the fuss was about, but that's
about as far as it went.  This obsessive interest in our Royal Family - with
or without their clothes - is something that I shall never understand,
particularly amongst inhabitants of other countries.  Kate Middleton (as she
was) is never going to be Queen of any non-Commonwealth country, so why do
people anywhere else remotely care about her?

Obviously you don't keep pets. If you did, you'd understand.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry
This obsessive interest in our Royal Family - with
or without their clothes - is something that I shall never understand,
particularly amongst inhabitants of other countries. Kate Middleton (as she
was) is never going to be Queen of any non-Commonwealth country, so why do
people anywhere else remotely care about her?

Obviously you don't keep pets. If you did, you'd understand.

You mean the Royal Family are like some sort of national zoo?

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Guy Barry

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry
This obsessive interest in our Royal Family - with
or without their clothes - is something that I shall never understand,
particularly amongst inhabitants of other countries.  Kate Middleton (as she
was) is never going to be Queen of any non-Commonwealth country, so why do
people anywhere else remotely care about her?

Obviously you don't keep pets. If you did, you'd understand.

You mean the Royal Family are like some sort of national zoo?

Hadn't you noticed? More a petting zoo than a real zoo with wild
animals, but, yes.

[Guy Barry]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry
You mean the Royal Family are like some sort of national zoo?

Hadn't you noticed? More a petting zoo than a real zoo with wild
animals, but, yes.

Well then, why not get rid of them all and open a zoo instead? It'd be a
lot cheaper.

[R H Draney]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry
You mean the Royal Family are like some sort of national zoo?

Hadn't you noticed? More a petting zoo than a real zoo with wild
animals, but, yes.

Actually more a stable of show horses...their only purposes in life are to look
good and to breed....r

[Peter Brooks]

Post by R H Draney

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry
You mean the Royal Family are like some sort of national zoo?

Hadn't you noticed? More a petting zoo than a real zoo with wild
animals, but, yes.

Actually more a stable of show horses...their only purposes in life are to look
good and to breed....r

And to provide entertainment - hence this thread.

I think it's rather shocking abuse of humans, actually. People think
that it's nice for lapdogs to do nothing, be treated as if they're
something special and get all those funny airs and graces, but I see
human lives being thrown away in a callous fashion. It's a good thing
that this sort of abuse is limited to a small number of people, but
it's none the less wrong for that.

[Harrison Hill]

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by R H Draney

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry
You mean the Royal Family are like some sort of national zoo?

Hadn't you noticed? More a petting zoo than a real zoo with wild
animals, but, yes.

Actually more a stable of show horses...their only purposes in life are to look
good and to breed....r

And to provide entertainment - hence this thread.
I think it's rather shocking abuse of humans, actually. People think
that it's nice for lapdogs to do nothing, be treated as if they're
something special and get all those funny airs and graces, but I see
human lives being thrown away in a callous fashion. It's a good thing
that this sort of abuse is limited to a small number of people, but
it's none the less wrong for that.

"...no less wrong..." surely.

[Peter Brooks]

Post by Harrison Hill

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by R H Draney

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry
You mean the Royal Family are like some sort of national zoo?

Hadn't you noticed? More a petting zoo than a real zoo with wild
animals, but, yes.

Actually more a stable of show horses...their only purposes in life are to look
good and to breed....r

And to provide entertainment - hence this thread.
I think it's rather shocking abuse of humans, actually. People think
that it's nice for lapdogs to do nothing, be treated as if they're
something special and get all those funny airs and graces, but I see
human lives being thrown away in a callous fashion. It's a good thing
that this sort of abuse is limited to a small number of people, but
it's none the less wrong for that.

"...no less wrong..." surely.

Yes, though, better, would be to have left out the 'for that'.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by R H Draney

Post by Peter Brooks

Post by Guy Barry
You mean the Royal Family are like some sort of national zoo?

Hadn't you noticed? More a petting zoo than a real zoo with wild
animals, but, yes.

Actually more a stable of show horses...their only purposes in life are to look
good and to breed....r
--
Me?  Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

I prefer guinea pigs.

I don't recall who said that celebrities are social guinea pigs that
allow us to experiment with various scenarios, express our moral
outrage, take sides etc.
The reactions on this thread is revealing: many people took the
highroad expressing their indignation against the paparazzi's invasion
of royal privacy (thus somehow identifying themselves with the royals)
Some men took a healthy interest in those pictures whikle others voice
their annoyance in other people's interest in royals, etc, etc.

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Lewis

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

Oh, please, that's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in this
newsgroup.
--
'You don't think you've had enough, do you?' he said.  I KNOW WHEN I'VE
HAD ENOUGH.  'Everyone says that, though.  I KNOW WHEN EVERYONE'S HAD
ENOUGH. --Moving Pictures

Well, I forgot to include those who are overwhelmed by personal
tragedies thus temporarily couldn't care less about other people's
dramas.

[Cheryl]

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Lewis

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

Oh, please, that's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in this
newsgroup.
--
'You don't think you've had enough, do you?' he said. I KNOW WHEN I'VE
HAD ENOUGH. 'Everyone says that, though. I KNOW WHEN EVERYONE'S HAD
ENOUGH. --Moving Pictures

Well, I forgot to include those who are overwhelmed by personal
tragedies thus temporarily couldn't care less about other people's
dramas.

What about those who reserve their interest in marital problems for
those of people they actually know rather than those of some celebrity
they have never met?

[Arcadian Rises]

Post by Cheryl

Post by Arcadian Rises

Post by Lewis

Post by Arcadian Rises
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

Oh, please, that's possibly the dumbest thing I've ever read in this
newsgroup.
--
'You don't think you've had enough, do you?' he said.  I KNOW WHEN I'VE
HAD ENOUGH.  'Everyone says that, though.  I KNOW WHEN EVERYONE'S HAD
ENOUGH. --Moving Pictures

Well, I forgot to include those who are overwhelmed by personal
tragedies thus temporarily couldn't care less about other people's
dramas.

What about those who reserve their interest in marital problems for
those of people they actually know rather than those of some celebrity
they have never met?
--
Cheryl- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

It;s a lot safer to discuss a Hollywood divorce than your cousin's.
Actually, I can vent my moral indignation about your cousin's lack of
scruples by discussing the similar Hollywood case.

[abc]

Post by Arcadian Rises
In defense of the "dimwits": a moderate dose of gossip is good for
your mental health.
People who gossip have a certain amount of altruism that motivates
them to care about others.
Those who don't gossip and are totally disinterested in the kind of
scandals we discuss in this thread, are either too self-centred and
narcissistic, or on the verge of schizophrenia, autism, or other
mental ills.

Something about this that IS interesting though, reported said by some
representative or other of the security personnel: What if that camera
had been a gun?

If a paparazzo can get close enough with his camera to take those shots,
how hard can it be for a gunman to do the same, perhaps disguised as a
paparazzo?
abc