You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “or you could just sing kum-bay-yah.”.
meg fowler tripp dot com
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “or you could just sing kum-bay-yah.”.
I’d love to see liberal v. conservative pundits. Jon Stewart v. Geraldo, Al Franken v. Rush Limbaugh, Nancy Grace v. Samantha Bee, etc. But I think instead of Survivor they should do it like the old Battle of the Network Stars. They could use those giant Q-tip weapons and try to make each other fall off beams into pits of slime. It would be awesome.
Or they could just do Christians v Muslims v Jews v Hindus v atheists.
I find the whole thing offensive on so many levels. I don’t get how they can justify any part of it.
Talk about serendipity! I didn’t even know that you had posted something about Reality TV!
from my own life – I’d like to see People Who Tan vs. The Fishbelly Pale. I’ll let you guess which one I am.
cat people vs. dog people
coffee drinkers vs. tea drinkers
night owls vs. early birds (scheduling dual would prove quite difficult, i imagine)
PC people v Politically Incorrect people
Blue v Gray
Spy v Spy
Shirts v Skins
Good v Evil
Kumb v Aya
From Salon today “Coca-Cola, Home Depot, UPS and Campbell Soup have all joined suit with General Motors in announcing they’ve dropped advertising with this season’s “Survivor.”"
Pandora–would that be a win for “Good” or “Evil.”~,:^)
OK, I was wrong. I just read quite a bit of your blog with the intent of disproving your contention that you’re not “political”, and if not that, then at least proving that you’re “liberal”. I got nothing like that. You come across as a good writer, just generally discussing life, and (perhaps) a fun person….maybe a little too into yourself. The smoking cat made me laugh, too.
Regarding your alternative Survivor Teams, we did that awhile back right on NewsBusters. (Sometimes we take a break from self-righteous pontificating.) You came up with some new teams, but you forgot the all-important “First, Second, Third (and later) Born”, “Innies & Outies”, as well as “Blondes & Brunettes & Redheads & Baldies”. There were others, too, but I’m too lazy to look for them.
Rush Limbaugh’s comments on Survivors were taken out of context and intent, as they frequently are. He was poking fun at existing stereotypes, not expressing in any way what he believes about those groups. Even CNN corrected their mistaken report on his comments.
I suspect that the primary reason he bothers you is his delivery, but since you’ve obviously built up a very large warchest of anti-Limbaugh baggage, it would be pointless to try to get you to hear him in any other way.
Thanks for your time.
Now, Meg, PC users v. Mac users? That’s hardly a competition.
I love that you were willing to spend time reading my blog to “prove me wrong.” That’s awesome. No better reason on earth to read it, really:). But sincerely — thanks for taking the time to read it. I do appreciate that, and your perspective. My response:
I think Rush Limbaugh needs to understand that someone who is frequently quoted can’t always rely on print media to convey context… whether or not he was “poking fun” or not (his capacity for fun notwithstanding), he should be a little more mindful of how he comes across. I feel that same way about anyone in the political sphere, liberal OR conservative. I’d hold any Democrat pundit to the same standard.
And I’m selling Anti-Limbaugh baggage on eBay — anyone interested?
I like the idea of the Survivor team by haircolour, but would it be according to original colour, or colour of choice?
And heaven knows, can I dispute being “into myself” on a website named after me? Ha! Blogging is navel gazing by nature to some degree — but I think you might be mistaking introspection and self-deprecation for self-involvement. Or not. Check OUT my navel!
Scott — I knew you would understand:)
Oh, thanks for responding, meg. I wanted to mention that you and Rush, apparently, have something in common. Isn’t it a real drag, having your words misinterpreted and misrepresented?
I think Survivor is missing out on the greatest blockbuster Survivor of all time in the “First, Second, Third (& later) Born. The physical and emotional comptetition would be fierce!
Lastly, I do like your tendency for spare writing. Maybe I’ll pop in once in awhile to see what’s up.
(Speaking of blogs, have you tried the NYHack blog? Give it a try. It’s written by a female NY cabbie. Caution: language)
http://newyorkhack.blogspot.com/
Not only do we have THAT in common, but I ALSO got stopped in the airport with a bunch of Viagra!
;)
Thanks for your comments, RJ. Come around anytime!
OK, then, how ’bout:
- Viagra Users vs. Sex Addicts Anonymous Members
- Milk Chocolate Lovers vs. Dark Chocolate Lovers
- Glasses vs. Contacts (glasses team would win ’cause the Contacts team would be on their hands & knees all the time, trying to find the one they dropped)
- Health Food Eaters vs. Junk Food Eaters
- Poodle Owners vs. Pit Bull Owners
- Trekkies vs. Renaissance Festival actors
- Highly Educated People With No Common Sense vs. Pooly Educated People With Keen Intellects
- Yes! on Jon Steward vs. Geraldo!!!
- Yes! on Night Owls vs. Early Birds!
This is a lot of fun!
I once worked with two extremely christian people who each thought the other was for sure going to hell. One believed the bible was the most important thing and the other believed the holy trinity was the most important thing. For that they condemned one another to hell. They would have made a great set of opponents.
Ha! That’s funny. But whatever happened to “what happens at the airport stays at the airport?”
I think Viagra should ALWAYS stay at the airport.
Polygamists vs. Feminists is a classic.