Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
This is probably a stupid question but why does the fact that some people are authorized to take the pics prevent the paparazzit from getting different and potentially more embarrassing photos- which is what we really want to see?

Edited to add that I think this stalkarazzi thing makes more sense on the baby level and not the wedding level which is a one time event. However, I am not sure why the stalkarazzi wouldnt still go for it just bc the Star has some pics of the little gekko wrapped up in towels. ANd why does CZJ have to do these stypid commercials? I am guessing she gets nachos in the prenup and divorce is not an impossibility

On 1), nothing prevents it, but the EXCLUSIVE FIRST PICS label has a lot of value in that world, which is gone once the pics are there. Also, better quality actually has value. From everything I've read about this industry, which is not much, readers/buyers actually do prefer high-quality pics to ones that look like they've been taken from behind a bush late at night, while running away from the cops, since that's how they were taken. So the paparazi are left to pick up crumbs like CZJ smoking with child in tow. Still valuable, but not as.

2) Didn't CZJ sign some deal where she comes into more money each year? Like, $1M for each year she stays with him, and after 7 years she gets full inheritance rights, or at least pretty good rights? But, yeah, if you're a 28 year old marrying a 56 year old, you have to figure that as soon as your tits sag because a baby has been clamped on to them, the chances that another 25 year old with perky nips might draw his attention go way up.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
What would you do without *us*?

The proper question is: What would you all do without me?

And I have a computer at home.

TM

[greatwhitenorthchick]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
TM,

You're right - there is an exception. If a woman has worked and quits work to raise kids for a while, there's nothing wrong with that. She has her opinions, goals, etc. My problem is the husband-hunters who never work at anything real, get hitched, start pumping out kids and spend their lives between soccer practice, the nail salon, and the home. So yes, there is a carve-out, and yes, I painted with too broad a brush. that's part of the problem with this limited medium...

S(only so mch time to type)D

I have met few women of my generation who have never worked. However, on my last vacation I hung out with a totally cool chick. Three kids, never ever worked, well-educated, lots of fun to be around, well-adjusted etc. No less opinionated or goal-oriented, intelligent etc. than the rest of us. I would not call her boring at all - I've met many many working women who are more boring than she. I did not meet her kids but I am sure they are delightful. If you're not the working outside of the home type, and you don't have to, why should you do it? And why should you be judged as boring or stupid if you make that choice?

I think you are being too judgmental here.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by dtb
This is perhaps the most ignorant thing I've ever seen you say (and that's saying something!) I'm not saying that women with lots of time on their hands (armies of babysitters and no work outside the home) can be dullards -- in fact, I agree that most of them are. I had much first-hand experience with lots of them when I was on maternity leave.

However, you try staying home (without babysitting help) with a child (or two, or three) all day, and you'll be so grateful you have a job to go to, I wager the complaining-about-his-job, crotchety SD would disappear forever.

Raising children is real work. A lot harder than sitting behind a desk all day, that's for sure. Anyone who can spout off such ignorance clearly has never cared for a child. From the tenor of your attitude, I'm sure that after two days of looking after a child you cared about, you'd be begging to go back to your miserable job.

d(And I have no respect for "full-time mommies" (what kind of bullshit label is that? If you're a mother, you are by definition a full-time mommy) who don't have pride in their children -- what, you'd rather they be ashamed of them?)tb

DTB,

My problem was with women who do nothing else but have kids and raise kids and talk about their kids and live every waking moment for their kids. I failed to specifically define the target of my ire, and so I deserve the heat. Please understand, as the shild of a career oriented woman, I have nothing but respect for women who juggle career and children. Its their steallr example that causes me to have such a low opinion of husband-hunetsr who never have a real job, start pumping out kids early and never do anything else. I knew these awful women in college and now see them at reunions - they have nothing to say except what golf course they joined and how much they enjoy mommyhood. Sorry - solely devoting your life to doing something everyone has the biological ability to do is not grabbing life for all its worth.

The most interesting people are those who have the time and/or ability to interest others with their unique views, humor or world experience - none of which you'll get if you've been doing nothing but living in idyllic suburban ignorance shuffling from the nail salon to soccer practice to the golf course pool. Like it or not, our ability to interest others and bring something to the conversation is a product of our life experiences, good a=or bad. I'd wager that the life of an indulgent kid who followed a band across the country is at least more interesting than a woman who rarely leaves the neighborhood. If all you do is work, you're dull. If all you do is raise kids, you're dull. I didn't make this rule - its fact. I cannot help it that when I sit down and discuss politics/sports/music/you name it with women who've never done anything other than raise kids, they bore me. And they can't help boring me.

S(what can i say... its a fact)D

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

When it was explained to him that it was NOT ok to uproot small trees, he continued to do it. At some point, my brother picked him up and escorted him to his mother.

As is the nature of small kids at parties, he managed to escape his mother, and his next victims were the dogs.

My sister's dog at the time was still in gun school . . . Trey LOVED the reaction to the shock collar, and distracted my sister, got a hold of the remote and started shocking Holden. He would press down on the button and not let go. To this day I think my sister is prepared to skin that child alive. My brother ended up grabbing the remote to the shock collar and forcibly handed the kid to his mother, who was oblivious to the whole thing.

The crowning moment was when the kid started whacking the windchimes with a stick, annoying everyone, and one of the windchimes whacked him in the face on the upswing.

Young Jeffrey Dahmer?

A few comments. If you are going to bring your kids to a social event -- you as a parent are STILL responsible for supervising them.

My brother and his wife will sit around oblivious to what the kids are getting into, meanwhile they would rather fight over whose turn it is to change a kid's diaper because it might cut into their good time.

Another annoying thing is when you have to listen to a parent bargain with a kid to stop acting like a little shit. "Pookie, if you quit beating the dog, we'll get ice cream on the way home." - - Fuck the ice cream. You do not reward a child for acting the way em is expected to act. They are rewarded for acting above and beyond expectations and they are punished when they act inappropriately. I want to smack the parent upside the head every time they cave in to a child just to get them to stop acting like a brat. You're reinforcing the bad behavior, idiot! Bad behavior has negative consequences, not rewards!

And SD, I have to agree with Thurgreed. You may find stay-at-home mothers tedious to associate with, but I'm in the camp that I would much rather have one of the parents at home at least until the child is in school, if possible. My wife and I have sacrificed a lot in terms of income/social life/etc. so that the kids will have someone at home with them and so a consistent message is communicated to them.

Unfortunately, the type of behavior illustrated above comes about precisely because the parents try to delegate too many parental responsibilites to others. Sorry, end of rant.

Edited to ask. Gun school? Is that a Texas thang?

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Dammit, Leagaleze, this is like the third time I've had the system automatically log me out while I'm typing a reply, and then, upon logging back in, it doesn't retain my response and it's all lost. Help?

A few other people have had this problem. The problem is because this board uses cookies that have a built-in timeout period. This timeout period isn't a problem if you have your options set to "Automatically login when you return to the site."

However, if you have this option set to no and you are inactive (composing a response) for the period of time within which the cookie is set to expire, the board software will log you out and you will not be able to post the message you took such painstaking effort to compose.

There are only three ways to solve this. The first is to edit your profile so that the software automatically logs you in when you return to the site. The second is to make sure you compose any long-winded posts in a text editor like notepad. The third is to make sure you ALWAYS copy the text of your replies to the clipboard before you hit the "Submit Reply" button. If you do that, you'll be able to paste it into a new reply box after you log back in.

Hope this helps.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck There are only three ways to solve this.

No, there's four. Write shorter posts.

[Mister_Ruysbroeck]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, there's four. Write shorter posts.

I stand corrected.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
This is probably a stupid question but why does the fact that some people are authorized to take the pics prevent the paparazzit from getting different and potentially more embarrassing photos- which is what we really want to see?

Edited to add that I think this stalkarazzi thing makes more sense on the baby level and not the wedding level which is a one time event. However, I am not sure why the stalkarazzi wouldnt still go for it just bc the Star has some pics of the little gekko wrapped up in towels.

I don't think it makes a difference whether it's a wedding or a baby photo. In those cases, the photogs aren't looking to embarass, they are looking for exclusivity, and the celebs selling their photos allows them to control quality, since their whole careers are based on image, while making it economically less attractive to the paparazzi. If the celebs release authorized photos, there is really no incentive to go to the trouble of getting unauthorized photos, with the attendant loss of quality control.

Now the as for the photos of cottage cheese ass, on the other hand, there will always be a market. It's different than the baby/wedding photo thing.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I would send that kid bac kto from whence it came.

I remember being at the Stamford train station and this mean lady had two little kids running around and she just stood there yelling "get the fuck back here, motherfuckers". I was readdy to call social services.

I was in a grocery store and some kid, old enough to know better, was being really nasty to her mom. I actually said to her, wow, if I talked that way to my parents, I would be in some real pain.

Her mom, who looked utterly fed up, said, "see?" to the daughter, who actually blushed bright red.

I am still not sure why I said anything, normally I wouldn't.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
This is probably a stupid question but why does the fact that some people are authorized to take the pics prevent the paparazzit from getting different and potentially more embarrassing photos- which is what we really want to see?

So, speaking of embarrassing -

How come none of you "holier than thou anti-smoking zealot types" aren't going to take Catherine to task for endangering the life of little Michaela or whatever?

What if l'enfant hacks up a lung?

not7yS

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
This is probably a stupid question but why does the fact that some people are authorized to take the pics prevent the paparazzit from getting different and potentially more embarrassing photos- which is what we really want to see?

Edited to add that I think this stalkarazzi thing makes more sense on the baby level and not the wedding level which is a one time event. However, I am not sure why the stalkarazzi wouldnt still go for it just bc the Star has some pics of the little gekko wrapped up in towels. ANd why does CZJ have to do these stypid commercials? I am guessing she gets nachos in the prenup and divorce is not an impossibility

I've heard (heck, it could have even been here), that in Europe it is not frowned upon to do commercials and many of the top stars do them regularly. Not the sign of a career slump as it often is here...

Maybe that is also why Guy Ritchie thought it would be OK to sign Madonna up for a BMW ad...

n(but those are godawful stupid commercials)cs

For fear of ending up with children like those described above, we have decided to limit our household to ONE - this way we outnumber him and seem to be reasonably in control. Still, there's no end to the questioning - "you mean you're going to make him grow up alone?, etc." It never ends.

[spookyfish]

Originally posted by evenodds
Even(the OM has agreed to stay home if/when we have the OddKids)Odds

Which would make you OddParents?

[evenodds]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
So, speaking of embarrassing -

How come none of you "holier than thou anti-smoking zealot types" aren't going to take Catherine to task for endangering the life of little Michaela or whatever?

What if l'enfant hacks up a lung?

not7yS

Because it was completely expected from her . . .

This is the classy lady who solicited donations to a trust for baby #1 at some outrageous shindig.

Even(not a fan)Odds