Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
What's new
Members
New posts
Search forums
VIP
OSA Radio
Chat
0
Features
Tunes
Mixes
Events
Flyers
Forums
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
What's new
Members
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to thread
Welcome to Old Skool Anthems
The Old Skool Resource. Since 1998.
Join now
NATIVE INTERNET WEB RADIO PLAYER PLUGIN FOR SHOUTCAST, ICECAST AND RADIONOMY
powered by
Sodah Webdesign Mainz
Forums
Music
The Chillout Room
Guess when Jade Goody dies & win an iPod
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jonno" data-source="post: 754117" data-attributes="member: 5"><p>That's absolutely your own implication as to her stopping "at nothing" though, because there's currently no difference between what's she's doing now since she found out she's ill and what she did before, i.e. living her life in the public eye. Do you have any evidence that she would stop "at nothing"? I personally find it vulgar that you would suggest she would stop at nothing. </p><p></p><p>I personally don’t see how "More money for the kids = better" is vulgar either - it's surely simple logic. I want to be able to provide for my children now and in the future, and unsurprisingly I need money to do that - am I vulgar as well? Where's the difference? Surely the issue should be more pertinent for Jade as she is not going to be around to substitute financial assistance for parental love. How is that vulgar when she's dying? If I became ill I’d want to try and make sure my kids had financial security too – is that vulgar?</p><p></p><p>Should we all be anarchists or hippies or something and material wealth should count for nothing in life? Get a grip.</p><p></p><p>No-one is viewing terminal illness and death in purely those terms <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /> I think you are making a huge and wholly unsubstantiated jump by suggesting that because Jade is still making money (and it's worth noting again here that she's doing nothing different to when she wasn't ill) then that somehow means nothing else matters to her. You categorically don't know that, and to start making that assumption is bizarre (vulgar even!). Yes she’s making money but she’s doing nothing different to what she was doing before she was ill - I'm certainly not going to hold it against her now she is ill (since I didn’t before).</p><p></p><p>Who cares though? The upshot is more women are now having smear tests. I can't see how you could ever argue against that being a good thing (however it came about). If one single life is saved because of Jade's illness in the public eye then surely her illness in the public eye is a brilliant thing.</p><p></p><p>That's the nature and hypocrisy of the modern media though isn't it. The papers are simply publishing what they thinks the public wants to read (and therefore what will sell more papers), and people like the repulsive Max Clifford are now the mediators between celebrities and the media. Pretty much any modern celebrity has someone like Clifford doing what he’s doing now - the "pound sign mentality" is basically the entire nature of the celebrity aspect of the modern media. Why should it suddenly be different if someone is dying and therefore the need for financial gain becomes all the pertinent?</p><p></p><p>The way the media works with the likes of Clifford involved is a far bigger issue than Jade and her illness. It's distasteful to many many people, but it certainly shouldn’t be viewed as more distasteful because someone is dying – that’s surely the decision of the person that’s dying. The bottom line is you don’t need to watch it and you don’t need to read about it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jonno, post: 754117, member: 5"] That's absolutely your own implication as to her stopping "at nothing" though, because there's currently no difference between what's she's doing now since she found out she's ill and what she did before, i.e. living her life in the public eye. Do you have any evidence that she would stop "at nothing"? I personally find it vulgar that you would suggest she would stop at nothing. I personally don’t see how "More money for the kids = better" is vulgar either - it's surely simple logic. I want to be able to provide for my children now and in the future, and unsurprisingly I need money to do that - am I vulgar as well? Where's the difference? Surely the issue should be more pertinent for Jade as she is not going to be around to substitute financial assistance for parental love. How is that vulgar when she's dying? If I became ill I’d want to try and make sure my kids had financial security too – is that vulgar? Should we all be anarchists or hippies or something and material wealth should count for nothing in life? Get a grip. No-one is viewing terminal illness and death in purely those terms :confused: I think you are making a huge and wholly unsubstantiated jump by suggesting that because Jade is still making money (and it's worth noting again here that she's doing nothing different to when she wasn't ill) then that somehow means nothing else matters to her. You categorically don't know that, and to start making that assumption is bizarre (vulgar even!). Yes she’s making money but she’s doing nothing different to what she was doing before she was ill - I'm certainly not going to hold it against her now she is ill (since I didn’t before). Who cares though? The upshot is more women are now having smear tests. I can't see how you could ever argue against that being a good thing (however it came about). If one single life is saved because of Jade's illness in the public eye then surely her illness in the public eye is a brilliant thing. That's the nature and hypocrisy of the modern media though isn't it. The papers are simply publishing what they thinks the public wants to read (and therefore what will sell more papers), and people like the repulsive Max Clifford are now the mediators between celebrities and the media. Pretty much any modern celebrity has someone like Clifford doing what he’s doing now - the "pound sign mentality" is basically the entire nature of the celebrity aspect of the modern media. Why should it suddenly be different if someone is dying and therefore the need for financial gain becomes all the pertinent? The way the media works with the likes of Clifford involved is a far bigger issue than Jade and her illness. It's distasteful to many many people, but it certainly shouldn’t be viewed as more distasteful because someone is dying – that’s surely the decision of the person that’s dying. The bottom line is you don’t need to watch it and you don’t need to read about it. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Music
The Chillout Room
Guess when Jade Goody dies & win an iPod
Top
Bottom
