I guess you and I have different definitions of what the "same blasted thing" is, Monique. There is a mighty big difference between random profanity and verbal abuse, even cussing out the sidewalk when you stub your toe is radically different than doing the same thing to a person, for whatever reason--the sidewalk has no feelings to hurt, it's a one-way exchange. It may be crass and ugly and distasteful if it's in the extreme, but it's not abusive.
I also think degrees come into play with language and how it's used: I would characterize Craig's comment--even put there by the puff reporter--as rude (and abusive, sure). I would characterize what Brosnan said as an attack. Very different, IMO. You think not, okay.
You know, as soon as Craig (or anybody, for crying out loud) steps off the deep end, I'll call him (and them) out on that. IMO it hasn't happened yet, and I just don't get the comparison you seem to be trying to make, nor do I see anything smacking of hypocrisy about any of this. But yeah, I'm kinda weird like that, so whatever, I dunno, it stymies me.
Two quick comments, Craig's look, if you can call it that, is dreadful. I would say that no matter who was wearing that hideous outfit.
To me, swearing is never acceptable in a public forum. Is not make you hip or cool, it just diminishes your character, IMO. Call me old fashion.
His use of the word c*** is especially crass and vulgar. I don't know about anywhere else but where I work, using such language, in any context, for any reason, is grounds for immediate suspension, if not outright dismissal.
His use of the word c*** is especially crass and vulgar. I don't know about anywhere else but where I work, using such language, in any context, for any reason, is grounds for immediate suspension, if not outright dismissal.
) Don't get your hopes up, Tony.
But I wish he'd tone it down a bit, too. Playboy, I can see. In fact, it's probably expected. But the London Times, no. It's a matter of being aware of your audience, that's all.
His use of the word c*** is especially crass and vulgar. I don't know about anywhere else but where I work, using such language, in any context, for any reason, is grounds for immediate suspension, if not outright dismissal.
) Don't get your hopes up, Tony.
But I wish he'd tone it down a bit, too. Playboy, I can see. In fact, it's probably expected. But the London Times, no. It's a matter of being aware of your audience, that's all.
) ) You know, I honestly wasn't thinking about terminating him when I wrote that, but now that you mention it, that's not such a bad idea. :v
Two quick comments, Craig's look, if you can call it that, is dreadful. I would say that no matter who was wearing that hideous outfit.
If I was your son, you'd probably disown me for how I dress, then.
Me too. )
Hey guys, I was there once too, and I cringe at the memory of the different "styles" I sported as a youngster. But that's why society must be more gracious and understanding with kids for how they dress
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
If I was your son, you'd probably disown me for how I dress, then.
Me too. )
Hey guys, I was there once too, and I cringe at the memory of the different "styles" I sported as a youngster. But that's why society must be more gracious and understanding with kids for how they dress
Ah yes,and Craig a kid only two years away from 40.Oh impetuous youth...
It's always difficult for adults to dig these crazy kids with their wild clothes and bizarre musical interests.
Craig's making a statement with his costume:"Everybody else in my circle dresses like this so I do,too.It makes me look unique."
Yet another example of the pack mentality in action--regardless of how ridiculous and affected a certain look may be.
A real suit would give Craig a much more impressive appearance.
His use of the word c*** is especially crass and vulgar. I don't know about anywhere else but where I work, using such language, in any context, for any reason, is grounds for immediate suspension, if not outright dismissal.
) Don't get your hopes up, Tony.
But I wish he'd tone it down a bit, too. Playboy, I can see. In fact, it's probably expected. But the London Times, no. It's a matter of being aware of your audience, that's all.
I fully agree.
In my opinion this type of vulgar behavior is not particularly attractive or appealing, and only serves to diminish the interviewee and his still relatively new image.
Sure, curse a blue streak elsewhere(Playboy,Esquire,etc.), but not in a newspaper interview designed for the general public.That's just common sense.It's also polite.Let the interviewers make fools of themselves(which is not that hard)--don't do that to yourself.
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Hey guys, I was there once too, and I cringe at the memory of the different "styles" I sported as a youngster. But that's why society must be more gracious and understanding with kids for how they dress
Ah yes,and Craig a kid only two years away from 40.Oh impetuous youth.It's always difficult for adults to dig these crazy kids with their wild clothes and musical interests.He's making a statement:"Everybody else in my circle dresses like this so I do,too."The pack mentality regardless of how ridiculous and affected a specific look may be.
A real suit would be much more impressive.
I really disagree here. I don't think Craig dresses like anyone else I've seen lately. I try to channel Craig in the way I dress (Esquire's best dressed man, why not?), and I'll tell you nobody dresses like I do. The big thing to do in my age bracket is to wear distressed jeans and a Lacoste polo with white sneakers. 8-)
I don't see anything wrong with that look you wear Nightshooter. With Caig though, it's the vest and tie I can't get past. Especially with jeans, it totally cuts him off at the waist and makes him look a lot shorter! I normally think a sport coat or blazer looks really cute with jeans on a guy, but the tie and vest makes him look really affected.
WG I had to laugh at your post about him pushing 40, the impetuous youth stage! )
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Um.. notice he's the only one wearing it?? Did you read the caption??? It said if anyone can pull that look off it's the new Bond. It certainly didn't say it was in style.
The headline "In Style This Week" referred to what they saw people wearing this week.
Um.. notice he's the only one wearing it?? Did you read the caption??? It said if anyone can pull that look off it's the new Bond. It certainly didn't say it was in style.
Yeah... that sort of means they think he's pulled it off. It just means he isn't feeling like he has to look up some set of 'rules' on a GQ website before he goes out . Getting a most stylish man award probably gives you a bit of confidence that way!
Yeah another attempt at scarcasm, em? Guess I didn't have to look very far.
Er, no- 'being sarcastic' generally means to state the opposite of what you think but with a tone of voice to suggest you don't think that. I wasn't saying the opposite of what I thought- I genuinely believe they said he's pulled off the look because...well, it does say that!
NightshooterIn bed with SolitairePosts: 2,917MI6 Agent
Whether or not Em expressed himself... nicely... he's right. They put that up because they agree it is a daring combination, but they think he did it right.
Looking at that piccy again, I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't have preferred his hair the way it is there to be how Bond wore it. Still not overly sold on the tousled look for the casino scenes...
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
Just read over the weekend at a bookstore the recent issue of Premier with Craig on the cover. In it, there's more of the usual, edited "interviews." Of course, there's the retelling about him being the one to spill the beans to Brosnan about him getting propositioned by EON, but more relevant to this thread is that other old piece about him seeing the negative stuff online, but what's new to me is how he categorically called people "a bunch of c*nts!" ) It was funny to read, and it perhaps was the frankest response to critics from a new 007 I've ever read!
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Critics? Is that what you call the CNBers? Generous, IMO. I think there's quite a difference from someone being unimpressed with and critical of Craig being cast as Bond, and the CNB website; there have been quite a few of the former around here who've made it quite clear they in no way want to be associated with the latter.
I think Craig's more balanced and polite comment about understanding why some people question him in the role and that he'll have to try harder to win them over would be a better read on his response to his critics. Blue-colored glasses.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
edited October 2006
I'm a critic. I am not a CnB'ner. Am I a c*nt, Blue? No matter how justified he is in calling those people that, his is not the most gracious response, is it?
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I think there's quite a difference from someone being unimpressed with and critical of Craig being cast as Bond, and the CNB website; there have been quite a few of the former around here who've made it quite clear they in no way want to be associated with the latter.
Not sure I can be any clearer than that, and totally mystified at your question. ?:)
There's also the second paragraph, where I suggest which Craig comment I believe is in response to his critics (not CNBers).
And no, calling someone a c*nt is never gracious.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
I think there's quite a difference from someone being unimpressed with and critical of Craig being cast as Bond, and the CNB website; there have been quite a few of the former around here who've made it quite clear they in no way want to be associated with the latter.
Not sure I can be any clearer than that, and totally mystified at your question. ?:)
There's also the second paragraph, where I suggest which Craig comment I believe is in response to his critics (not CNBers).
And no, calling someone a c*nt is never gracious.
And a ?:) ?:) ?:) ?:) back at you, which is why I posed my question the way I did in the first place. You comment on my use of the words "critics" as too mild, which is really a non-issue compared to Craig's repeated use of "c*nt" in interviews. So I agree, you do look at things through blue-colored glasses.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
Craig seems to have made the distinction between CNBers and critics of himself in the role. You may not agree that there's a distinction between the two, but Craig does, and has responded to each group separately.
I haven't seen where Craig calls critics of him being in the role c*nts...have you? If you have, please share and I'll concede I'm wrong about this. But so far his comments seem to be split between the two groups, however one may or may not agree with seperating them out like that. You seem to think there should be a seperation, so I'm not quite sure what your point is in all this... ?:) You're a critic of him being in the role, but you're not a CNBer. So anything he says about CNBers does not apply to you. We agree on that.
Comments
I also think degrees come into play with language and how it's used: I would characterize Craig's comment--even put there by the puff reporter--as rude (and abusive, sure). I would characterize what Brosnan said as an attack. Very different, IMO. You think not, okay.
You know, as soon as Craig (or anybody, for crying out loud) steps off the deep end, I'll call him (and them) out on that. IMO it hasn't happened yet, and I just don't get the comparison you seem to be trying to make, nor do I see anything smacking of hypocrisy about any of this. But yeah, I'm kinda weird like that, so whatever, I dunno, it stymies me.
So, Pierce saying M****r F****r is the equivalent of using an Uzi! Got it!
Well I agreed with him, so apparently I too am that violent!
Moving on.
Maybe Sienna Miller came up with this particular look for Craig.I understand she mistakenly sees herself as quite the trend setter...:o
To me, swearing is never acceptable in a public forum. It does not make you hip or cool, it just diminishes your character, IMO. Call me old fashion.
His use of the word c*** is especially crass and vulgar. I don't know about anywhere else but where I work, using such language, in any context, for any reason, is grounds for immediate suspension, if not outright dismissal.
But I wish he'd tone it down a bit, too. Playboy, I can see. In fact, it's probably expected. But the London Times, no. It's a matter of being aware of your audience, that's all.
If I was your son, you'd probably disown me for how I dress, then.
Me too.
Hey guys, I was there once too, and I cringe at the memory of the different "styles" I sported as a youngster. But that's why society must be more gracious and understanding with kids for how they dress
Ah yes,and Craig a kid only two years away from 40.Oh impetuous youth...
It's always difficult for adults to dig these crazy kids with their wild clothes and bizarre musical interests.
Craig's making a statement with his costume:"Everybody else in my circle dresses like this so I do,too.It makes me look unique."
Yet another example of the pack mentality in action--regardless of how ridiculous and affected a certain look may be.
A real suit would give Craig a much more impressive appearance.
I fully agree.
In my opinion this type of vulgar behavior is not particularly attractive or appealing, and only serves to diminish the interviewee and his still relatively new image.
Sure, curse a blue streak elsewhere(Playboy,Esquire,etc.), but not in a newspaper interview designed for the general public.That's just common sense.It's also polite.Let the interviewers make fools of themselves(which is not that hard)--don't do that to yourself.
I really disagree here. I don't think Craig dresses like anyone else I've seen lately. I try to channel Craig in the way I dress (Esquire's best dressed man, why not?), and I'll tell you nobody dresses like I do. The big thing to do in my age bracket is to wear distressed jeans and a Lacoste polo with white sneakers. 8-)
WG I had to laugh at your post about him pushing 40, the impetuous youth stage!
I told you guys it was in style.
Funny to see all those rappers apparently aping Dr Who's suit-with-sneakers look!
The headline "In Style This Week" referred to what they saw people wearing this week.
Yeah... that sort of means they think he's pulled it off. It just means he isn't feeling like he has to look up some set of 'rules' on a GQ website before he goes out
Bully for you guys, by all means, imitate Craig..go out wearing that combo, see how many women give you the time of day.
Er, no- 'being sarcastic' generally means to state the opposite of what you think but with a tone of voice to suggest you don't think that. I wasn't saying the opposite of what I thought- I genuinely believe they said he's pulled off the look because...well, it does say that!
I think Craig's more balanced and polite comment about understanding why some people question him in the role and that he'll have to try harder to win them over would be a better read on his response to his critics. Blue-colored glasses.
Not sure I can be any clearer than that, and totally mystified at your question. ?:)
There's also the second paragraph, where I suggest which Craig comment I believe is in response to his critics (not CNBers).
And no, calling someone a c*nt is never gracious.
And a ?:) ?:) ?:) ?:) back at you, which is why I posed my question the way I did in the first place. You comment on my use of the words "critics" as too mild, which is really a non-issue compared to Craig's repeated use of "c*nt" in interviews. So I agree, you do look at things through blue-colored glasses.
I haven't seen where Craig calls critics of him being in the role c*nts...have you? If you have, please share and I'll concede I'm wrong about this. But so far his comments seem to be split between the two groups, however one may or may not agree with seperating them out like that. You seem to think there should be a seperation, so I'm not quite sure what your point is in all this... ?:) You're a critic of him being in the role, but you're not a CNBer. So anything he says about CNBers does not apply to you. We agree on that.