*wonders if she can really be arsed*

/Dany: i'm sorry but i have to, partially, go with presshardy on this one because, despite your oft best of intent, you've, again, argued yourself round in circles/into a corner. I often read your posts and think i understand the point you're trying to make, and (if i'm right in my surmising) sometimes agree and sometimes disagree.

At this point now, however, you've kind of (when appearing to argue for the hope of a level playing field for those with disability applying for BB) fallen foul of also arguing that other/special attributes ought to be taken into account in selection. I'm prepared to think that this has come about through a certain level of reaction to some goading/negative-nudging...but it doesn't appear to be doing your case any good.

Sum and substance may, indeed, be that no HM with disability (however, bear in mind there were press reports of Emma [BB5] having dyslexia and mild dispraxia), visible or otherwise, has appeared to have the character/personality deemed to be suitable by the BB-selectors for any given BB at that given point.

I certainly agree that physical measures could easily be taken to ensure the inclusion of an HM with necessary physical needs due to disabilty. The BB House is a pre-fab kit set-up with plenty scope for speedy adaptation. Even lesser measure would be required for those of lesser physically disabling needs - and full inclusion in tasks ought to be possible with a little thought.

However, we cannot generalize re: disabilty and there would be a number of conditions (classified as disabilities) which would, effectively [to my mind], dis-bar, some from entry, perforce.

Personally i have a registered disability which would make me unsuitable for the House personality/character aside (not for me to judge whether those attributes would make me suitable either ** at self**)...i would understand a rejection by BB-selectors were i mug enough to place myself in that zone in the first place ...

Sometimes it is just horses for courses and not about forcing a set-up like BB to conform to some notional quota in order to appear just and fair **shrugs**.

Perhaps the ideal personality is awaiting audition as we speak, but i'd much rather they entered the House as a personality and not a labelled-disablity.

BB does not tell us why an hm was chosen - he remains inscrutable on this matter. If a disabled person were to go in now it would not necessarily mean they were chosen on a quota basis any more than any black/ethnic hms have. Any black or ethnic hms who have participated have faced the problem of why they were chosen and dealt with it. The grounds for choice of all of the hms remain unknown and positively mysterious when you consider some of the housemates there have been. That people want to go in the house is also mysterious to me.

I don't muchly disagree with any of this post but is it ok to be a little scared as to how hideously omniscient and monolithic (a la one of those sci-fi movies, whose title i forget) it makes BB sound...

I feel there ought to be eerie music accompanying the post

Sum and substance i agree that no knowledge will ever be available re: positive/negative discrimination...and the categories for which we could question that could stretch into the realms of daft to the extent that it might make '1984' seem simple by comparison.

that's probably the film, deerd.............

Oh, Swing, how i wish it were...there was no Hurt (tons of potential psychological damage, but no hurt - bah-boom) in the one i'm thinking of - big monolithic rock thingy...significant spooky relevance given to said rock...arrrrrrrrggggggggh...sci-fi [one of the classic, although not a genre i'm too keen on]...bums, can't remember

/def heavy on eerie music, though

You're thinking of 2001 - A Space Odyssey

Big monolithic rock found on the far side of the moon...............

Hal, Dave, drugs, you know, that one...........

That's the one - i thought it'd be daft to mention my image of the ever turning walkie-excercise-regime thing...mainly for fear that it would sound like i was describing a parody of my thought-processes ...

/there was eerie music, though

/deerd: now going off to worry about de-railing a thread for her own selfish movie trivia ends AND trying desperately to suggest that we're OT because Hal kinda had a BB thing going on...it's a stretch...but maybe ** endearingly, honest guv**

It was 'popular' classics, Richard Wagner, Strauss etc

A BB related image comes to mind. The famous scene where Dave kills Hal by slowly removing the 'rods'.

Take Nadia's fags and slowly remove the ciggies one by one.................

THATS YOU PUT ON IGNORE THEN

ce sera...i'd hope not...

personally, no-holds-barred, i reckon you've been tougher on Dany than necessary and picky-choosed on the bits of her posts that may have, oft, gone awry in terms of reason - the same appears to apply visa-versa. Again, ce sera and such is DS:BB...it's a bizarre merry-go-round in that no-one covers themselves in glory either way.

I can appreciate your frustration AND perhaps, by my surmising, i give greater credit to Dany's intent than is there...i don't know. Hell, i'm the bod who's literally gone round in cirlces for a few posts over a sci-fi movie (go figure ** at self**).

I'm aware there's a history and i'm not one to preach...

och, enough said...you have been, largely, right on this point...if, by agreeing, I'm on others['] ignore fair play. Just calling like i see.

"popular"(!...harrumph) - damned if they'd been a tad discordant and unpalatably avant-garde then i'd have been far less flegged ...

I can see a BB-task producers' wet-dream evolving from this thread ...

/AND i wwweally want rid of that image

classic!!

QUOTEI made the discovery that the door wouldn't lock from the inside. To add insult to a full bladder, the toilet had no seat either.[/quote]

what's new?...same goes for us all.

do you write for any local 'gay-mags/news'?...
if not, i reckon there's a 'slot'(ooops!) there for you to
"tell-it-how-it-is"...
i reckon your "experience, wit and soberness" will go well with 'them', and it can also kickstart some action on behalf of your 'issues'

i completely agree!
i have been hard on dany ever since accusations were made that i found to be entirely unjustified....that said i do appreciate her good intent in the majority of her posts and i understand your criticism of me in this respect.

RE. vice versa
your implication that my posts have gone awry in terms of reason interests me... any chance you could elaborate on which posts you are referring to?

who are you talking to?
Lisa Egan?

the person who wrote the article that dany posted?

/truly respecting a question asked directly of me: ummm, i had a general sense in a couple of threads (scanning vis-a-vis Dany) that you lost tightness in argumentative reason and allowed yourself to engage in cheap-shot/edit/snap-miscontrue for the sake of perpetuating an argument. No offense intended but there were occassions you appeared to argue yourself around the houses, slightly. There was an abiding sense of self-perpetuating which appeared mutually re-inforcing from a bystander perspective.

I'm not sure it's beholden on me to trawl to give specific examples but i would, truly, endeavour to do so were i able to do so:

*my comment was based on an impression and consciouness at the time of reading (i didn't challenge either way because i chose not to make it my debate)

*it's the wee small hours and even my (a bittie notorious memory for text [old GD/Chatter circles] fails me at times sorry

*i'm a tad ermmm, well refreshed and can't recall specifics.

Truly, my comment was based on a general (noted by myself at the time) impression - 2/3 threads - there were a few logical fallacies used.

My impression may be inaccurate, fair play...it just was what it was at the time.

I know the ^^^ may not satisfy you and i'm willing to search and go into greater depth should you require

gosh! are you serious?..
have i mistaken 'Dany' to be the author of 'Dany's' post??..
if yes,..i'll let 'Dany' correct me on that one.
Last edited by smalltree : 04-02-2005 at 05:08

ooh...your so willing , might be easier if the search worked round here

Look at pg 8, post 196.

She quoted the article & left the reference. I don't see how there could be any confusion if you read her post properly

Yikes, where did you surface from ...muchly good to see you back, erm...but you kinda missed the main event by a week or two ,...

hmmmm, typical...just pop on to imply i'm easy

/if absolutely necessary i can trawl the old fashioned way

what's new?...same goes for us all.

do you write for any local 'gay-mags/news'?...
if not, i reckon there's a 'slot'(ooops!) there for you to
"tell-it-how-it-is"...
i reckon your "experience, wit and soberness" will go well with 'them', and it can also kickstart some action on behalf of your 'issues'[/quote]



I don’t write for any one however the person who wrote the story that I quoted works for the BBC. You can find her article on ’ Ouch, the BBC website for disabled people. O quoted the link in my post.

meh. i wouldn't bother. im moving on from the petty squabbling. my problem now is that i can not submit a post disagreeing with certain people without being accused of stalking or other such nonsence.

what a strange post
im not sure whether your being sarcastic or not
or what (if anything)you are implying by your use of quotation marks on 'Dany's' name (or if that is what they are even supposed to be).

does anyone else understand the intent of this post??

I see from you quote that presshady has once again, misunderstood my post. I did not say that there should be a quota for disabled housemates.

What I said was:

”This myth about disable people not being promiscuous is another reason why they need a disable housemate; then my be there will be less cases like the one in this article2

What that means is that maybe if and when they have a disable HM people will see that disabled people are individuals who can bee just a promiscuous as anyone else.


If you read the post that I was replying to you will understand the Pont that I am trying to a make

Ps as presshady is only ignore list I have only read the section of his post that you have quoted.

as usual the misunderstanding is at your end dany.
i never said you said there should be a quota for disabled housemates.