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: 754164" data-attributes="member: 5"><p>Oh yes <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p>Obviously that's going to be the case, but that's a slightly separate issue. </p><p></p><p>With regard to the original point; purely from a logical perspective more money for the kids is definitely best (just as less money for the kids is definitely worse). There's no way that less money for the kids is going to be better - regardless of how that money is eventually spent. It's then purely academic to argue how the money is going to be spent as we don't know what specific safeguards are going to be in place for its use. </p><p></p><p>Again, that's just your opinion of course. Jade is simply doing what she has been for the entirety of her kid's lives. She is making more money now simply because she is dying, but she isn't doing anything different herself. Let's say for arguments sake she was a doctor or a priest or a bank clerk or whatever - would you equally hold it against her for continuing to work when she found out she was dying? I suggest that "what the fuck has it got to do with you" would be a fairly reasonable response if you did. Why should it be any different because she's a professional celebrity?</p><p></p><p>That's not been the attitude of every discussion I've had. I'd personally say that everything that Jade has done is justified because she is simply doing what she has always done - so why are people up in arms because she's continuing to do that when she's dying? Why are you personally bothered what's she's doing now, compared to when she wasn't ill? </p><p></p><p>Alright then justify your implication that she would "stop at nothing" - what has she done which makes you say she will stop at nothing to make a few quid? </p><p></p><p>Again, no it's not. The justification is that she's doing nothing differently than she did when she wasn't ill. It's not her fault that she's making far, far more money now that's she's ill. I'm pretty damn sure she would have always have had a celebrity wedding, and I'm fairly sure she would have continued to do reality TV shows. Why does there need to be any further justification than that?</p><p></p><p>But that's you, and I wouldn't hold it against you for doing that. Equally I wouldn't hold it against you if you didn't, just as I don't hold it against Jade for continuing to be in the limelight. What right do any of us have to dictate how someone should spend their last months of life as long as they're not harming anyone else? </p><p></p><p>I would hazard a guess that the photos and interviews will be sold and distributed in the same way they always are. Do you think that should be different because she is ill? It's not Jade's fault that her stock has suddenly risen.</p><p></p><p>I still don't understand your issue here. People forget to do things in life and something which happens to someone else makes them remember. How often do you check your balls for lumps? I'm guessing it's not every day - it certainly isn't for me. If someone you knew died of testicular cancer, then you'd bet your bottom dollar that you'd certainly check your bollocks there and then, and you'd probably check them more in the future as well. Why is it a poor reflection on society that it takes something you hear about to make you remember to do something - it's just human nature. </p><p></p><p>I see absolutely no problem with any <em>celebrity</em> who seeks to profit by it. They didn't create the system. Surely your problem should be with the editors and journalists who deem that celebrity stories are newsworthy and ultimately the general public who make the Sun the most popular "newspaper" in the country, and make it profitable for OK magazine to spend £700,000 on Jade's wedding. </p><p></p><p>There's the crux of this; people want to read about this whether you want to or not, and celebrities want to be read about, so quite frankly who are you to dictate whether they should be able to or not. You have the choice to not read it.</p><p></p><p>Lack of respect for who? The kids? The whole media circus has been their life so far. Fair enough if you disagree with the whole aspect of the modern celebrity but I don't think Jade should have just downed tools when she found out she was ill - as I've said I certainly don't hold it against her to carry on as she has.</p><p></p><p>This is a separate issue IMO. With Jade, the public obviously want to read about her and she wants to be read about. The whole celebrity thing is one aspect of the tabloid press and whilst it's probably not healthy for society it's not something I take offence to. All concerned are willing participants and if I don't want to read about it I won't.</p><p></p><p>What does offend me about the tabloids however is when they destroy people's lives or take the moralistic high ground to the detriment of others. Maxine Carr being vilified because they have deemed that she should still be punished even though she has already been punished, Barry George being continually labelled a killer in the face of evidence to the contrary simply because he's a weirdo etc etc. All this done to sell newspapers is simply morally repugnant and those editors / journalists that do it should be absolutely and categorically ashamed. That's why I would love to see the end of the tabloids not for the celebrity stuff they publish. </p><p></p><p>Jade being very public with her illness will cause problems for her kids in later life? That's obviously debatable. I personally don't think it will. I personally think that the public way she has about gone her illness has garnered far more sympathy and support from the majority of the general public, than she has made people dislike her for it. The front page of both the Mirror and the Sun today are both sympathetic stories about her. Her face was on the front page of every tabloid yesterday, with similarly sympathetic stories. People are obviously buying these papers in droves. Good or bad, her eventual death will no doubt lead to a Princess Diana / George Best outpouring of public mourning (I wouldn't be at all surprised if her funeral was televised live). Pretty much everyone in the country will want the best for her children. I fail to see how this will be a bad thing for them in later life. They will undoubtedly gain huge strength and support to see how important her life was by the interest and sympathy shown by millions in her death (and her terminal illness). This would probably not happen, or at least certainly not to the same degree, if she had downed tools and gone private as soon as she found out she was ill.</p><p></p><p>Add to this the financial gain they will have from her public behaviour of her illness and death, then I'd personally think that they wouldn't hold it against her for a second.</p><p></p><p>Who knows though - I just fail to see how they would.</p><p></p><p>Quite</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jonno, post: 754164, member: 5"] Oh yes :D Obviously that's going to be the case, but that's a slightly separate issue. With regard to the original point; purely from a logical perspective more money for the kids is definitely best (just as less money for the kids is definitely worse). There's no way that less money for the kids is going to be better - regardless of how that money is eventually spent. It's then purely academic to argue how the money is going to be spent as we don't know what specific safeguards are going to be in place for its use. Again, that's just your opinion of course. Jade is simply doing what she has been for the entirety of her kid's lives. She is making more money now simply because she is dying, but she isn't doing anything different herself. Let's say for arguments sake she was a doctor or a priest or a bank clerk or whatever - would you equally hold it against her for continuing to work when she found out she was dying? I suggest that "what the fuck has it got to do with you" would be a fairly reasonable response if you did. Why should it be any different because she's a professional celebrity? That's not been the attitude of every discussion I've had. I'd personally say that everything that Jade has done is justified because she is simply doing what she has always done - so why are people up in arms because she's continuing to do that when she's dying? Why are you personally bothered what's she's doing now, compared to when she wasn't ill? Alright then justify your implication that she would "stop at nothing" - what has she done which makes you say she will stop at nothing to make a few quid? Again, no it's not. The justification is that she's doing nothing differently than she did when she wasn't ill. It's not her fault that she's making far, far more money now that's she's ill. I'm pretty damn sure she would have always have had a celebrity wedding, and I'm fairly sure she would have continued to do reality TV shows. Why does there need to be any further justification than that? But that's you, and I wouldn't hold it against you for doing that. Equally I wouldn't hold it against you if you didn't, just as I don't hold it against Jade for continuing to be in the limelight. What right do any of us have to dictate how someone should spend their last months of life as long as they're not harming anyone else? I would hazard a guess that the photos and interviews will be sold and distributed in the same way they always are. Do you think that should be different because she is ill? It's not Jade's fault that her stock has suddenly risen. I still don't understand your issue here. People forget to do things in life and something which happens to someone else makes them remember. How often do you check your balls for lumps? I'm guessing it's not every day - it certainly isn't for me. If someone you knew died of testicular cancer, then you'd bet your bottom dollar that you'd certainly check your bollocks there and then, and you'd probably check them more in the future as well. Why is it a poor reflection on society that it takes something you hear about to make you remember to do something - it's just human nature. I see absolutely no problem with any [I]celebrity[/I] who seeks to profit by it. They didn't create the system. Surely your problem should be with the editors and journalists who deem that celebrity stories are newsworthy and ultimately the general public who make the Sun the most popular "newspaper" in the country, and make it profitable for OK magazine to spend £700,000 on Jade's wedding. There's the crux of this; people want to read about this whether you want to or not, and celebrities want to be read about, so quite frankly who are you to dictate whether they should be able to or not. You have the choice to not read it. Lack of respect for who? The kids? The whole media circus has been their life so far. Fair enough if you disagree with the whole aspect of the modern celebrity but I don't think Jade should have just downed tools when she found out she was ill - as I've said I certainly don't hold it against her to carry on as she has. This is a separate issue IMO. With Jade, the public obviously want to read about her and she wants to be read about. The whole celebrity thing is one aspect of the tabloid press and whilst it's probably not healthy for society it's not something I take offence to. All concerned are willing participants and if I don't want to read about it I won't. What does offend me about the tabloids however is when they destroy people's lives or take the moralistic high ground to the detriment of others. Maxine Carr being vilified because they have deemed that she should still be punished even though she has already been punished, Barry George being continually labelled a killer in the face of evidence to the contrary simply because he's a weirdo etc etc. All this done to sell newspapers is simply morally repugnant and those editors / journalists that do it should be absolutely and categorically ashamed. That's why I would love to see the end of the tabloids not for the celebrity stuff they publish. Jade being very public with her illness will cause problems for her kids in later life? That's obviously debatable. I personally don't think it will. I personally think that the public way she has about gone her illness has garnered far more sympathy and support from the majority of the general public, than she has made people dislike her for it. The front page of both the Mirror and the Sun today are both sympathetic stories about her. Her face was on the front page of every tabloid yesterday, with similarly sympathetic stories. People are obviously buying these papers in droves. Good or bad, her eventual death will no doubt lead to a Princess Diana / George Best outpouring of public mourning (I wouldn't be at all surprised if her funeral was televised live). Pretty much everyone in the country will want the best for her children. I fail to see how this will be a bad thing for them in later life. They will undoubtedly gain huge strength and support to see how important her life was by the interest and sympathy shown by millions in her death (and her terminal illness). This would probably not happen, or at least certainly not to the same degree, if she had downed tools and gone private as soon as she found out she was ill. Add to this the financial gain they will have from her public behaviour of her illness and death, then I'd personally think that they wouldn't hold it against her for a second. Who knows though - I just fail to see how they would. Quite [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Music
The Chillout Room
Guess when Jade Goody dies & win an iPod
Top
Bottom