Originally posted by @leunammiHere is one of your 116 million hits...
"there is nothing new under the sun"
Google search: about 116,000,000 results (0.56 seconds)
... in the US
"Yesterday, THE BBC revealed that actor Jodie Whittaker would be taking over for Peter Capaldi as the lead in the network’s long-running scifi program “Doctor Who.” Whittaker, already a veteran of TV-drama at 35, will become the first woman to play the role of “The Doctor” in the character’s 54 history of onscreen and offscreen appearances.
The BBC’s decision to offer the part to Whittaker was hailed by many (including those who had played the role before). Whittaker herself asked fans not to, “be scared of my gender.” That said, the move was also met by a outpouring of sometimes toxic, often ill-informed criticism by those who could not — for whatever reason — accept the idea of a woman playing the fictional character.
For the most part, those objections have surfaced in the form of personally authored Tweets and posts on social media. One nationally published paper, however, launched something that could been seen as its own anti-Whittaker campaign this morning.
THE SUN — owned NEWs Group Newspapers Ltd, a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. — reacted to the news of Whittaker’s casting with both a withering editorial and the publication of nude stills from the actor’s past onscreen work.
In an editorial, Adam Postans said, “it is frankly nauseating that the [BBC] should now get on their sci-fi high horse and gallop into Right-Onsville to plonk a woman sheriff in town.” He went on to call Whittaker’s casting a pure publicity move. To his logic, since Carrie Fisher played Princess Leia and Daisy Ridley played Rey in the “Star Wars” franchise, the casting could be reduced to ” self-important virtue signalling.” He’s entitled to that opinion, however shaky it may be.
More unnecessary is the Sun’s publishing of nude images of Whittaker from her past roles under the headline “Dalektable” with a mention of Whittaker’s “saucy screen past.” A similar article on the Mail Online — a competing publication — offered more nude photos under the headline “Doctor Nude!” alongside nude and topless images of past, male Doctors. The Daily Mirror, Daily Express and Daily Star all offered up similar images (we aren’t linking to any of them).
Equal Representation for Actresses, a British advocacy group, released this statement: “We are delighted by the casting of Jodie Whittaker as the 13th Doctor. However, we are surprised and disappointed by the Daily Mail [Mail Online is owned by the Daily Mail and General Trust] and the Sun’s reductive and irresponsible decision to run a story featuring pictures of Jodie in various nude scenes.”
Whittaker has been an actor for some time and many female actors do indeed appear naked on film — and increasingly on television — for purposes both sensational and narrative. THERE IS NOTHING shameful, tawdry or even “saucy” about that within context. It can even be empowering.
This, however, is not in context. That all of these British publications have marked the what is — like it or not — a landmark in the representation of women on screen by publishing such images is, at the least, reductive and off tone. It is, at most, viciously UNDERmining."
😀
19 Jul 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeWhich translation are you using?
Ghost 9:27
True love comes from the heart of man, not his imagination.
19 Jul 17
Originally posted by @leunammiWhat do you make of this statement by Paul :
The issue is that this is an internet forum, there are no real relationships here. In Philippians (specifically the verses you added) refer to relationships (none really exist in this internet forum from what I see, so I don't see how it has any real bearing) and how to deal with fellow believers that have strayed. Additionally Rajk999, you don't know wh ...[text shortened]... Thanks for the response, no need to reply.
edit: Would you care to discuss the love of God?
(For many walk, of whom I have told you often,
and now tell you even weeping,
that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly,
and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
(Philippians 3:17-19 KJV)
And Paul said this about 20 times.
Peter said it twice
John said it a thousand times
Jude said it once
James about 5 times
Jesus .. well too much to count.
Are they all crotchety old men as well ?
Cool Im in good company.
20 Jul 17
Originally posted by @rajk999With all due respect rajk999, please reread the post that you are responding to because you are not comprehending what I am saying.
What do you make of this statement by Paul :
(For many walk, of whom I have told you often,
and now tell you even weeping,
that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ:
Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly,
and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
(Philippians 3:17-19 KJV)
And Paul said this abou ...[text shortened]... .. well too much to count.
Are they all crotchety old men as well ?
Cool Im in good company.
20 Jul 17
Originally posted by @fmfI typed in what you posted, does it really matter anyways? Kind of a silly exercise if you ask me, I was just playing along.
Why would you look to see how many Google hits a particular phrase or sentence gets but not put the words in quotes? What kind of statistic do you think that is going to give you?
20 Jul 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeYou mean the one who flatly refuses to answer the question himself because it's "too personal"?
dj2becker literally just asked me the same question. Why not ask him if his question was a bit personal?
Or did you just see an opportunity to have a dig at Rajk?
20 Jul 17
Originally posted by @rajk999And since you've now "asked it", perhaps you can now "answer it"?
No, not for him. He is apparently asking others the same question. I have a dont tell people my business policy so I dont answer that question generally.
My point was if you can ask it you can answer it.
Or is it still "too personal"?
20 Jul 17
Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-dukeNo and no.
Yes and yes.
Give us your definition of "atheist" again?
20 Jul 17
Originally posted by @rajk999Because, after all, it's SO much easier just to assume that Christians in this forum do not follow Jesus because it makes you look more righteous than any of them, even though, like you, we've not seen ANY evidence or testimony of your "doing", just your "saying".
You lack understanding. I asked him BECAUSE he asked Ghost.
I have no interest in his answer. Don't care and never did and never will care who follows Christ commandments.
So it's fair for you to assume the worst of us, as long as we assume the best of you?
Nonsense.
20 Jul 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterThere is always "we".
You that's disappointing because you are just lazily copiying what Suzianne said in a vain hope that I won't press you on this.
There is no "we". It is a lazy rhetorical wheelspin™
Oh, you can exclude yourself from it to make your own dreams of being "special" a reality, but there is still a "we". It's called the human race.
Unless you don't "lower" yourself to be counted among humanity. But no matter how desperately you may desire to have other "lesser" humans kiss your feet, you are still human yourself.
20 Jul 17
Originally posted by @suzianneDo you "focus too much upon the wrath of God" and so "forget about His love"?
There is always "we".
Oh, you can exclude yourself from it to make your own dreams of being "special" a reality, but there is still a "we". It's called the human race.
Unless you don't "lower" yourself to be counted among humanity. But no matter how desperately you may desire to have other "lesser" humans kiss your feet, you are still human yourself.