´óÏó´«Ã½

Peter's web link

Comments

1. At 05:56 PM on 02 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

   No thanks; frankly I'm sick of hearing it already.

   Love today's strapline, although I'm not really sure it means anything.

   Apparently I'm being offensively fast again.

2. At 06:00 PM on 02 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

   PS Nice production Lissa-with-an-a Cook!

3. At 06:08 PM on 02 Oct 2006, wrote:

   Aw, shucks Eddie, you spoil us...

   ...bet Lissa Wana did the real work!

   SB 1 18:06 (no, probably not)

4. At 06:45 PM on 02 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

   It's hard to concentrate with the dancing postcards.

   OF COURSE I am controlling them with my neurobionic techniques.

   Wow

5. At 08:24 PM on 02 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

   I'm not so sure I'm keen on the moving postcards. It would probably be churlish of me to say that there are other more important blog features that need to be fixed before we have fancy stuff like this. So I won't.

   Ah.

6. At 10:01 PM on 02 Oct 2006, wrote:

   And where is MY postcard may I ask? There are too many mundane representational images on here -(never mind the fact that they dance around & make me feel drunk when I haven't touched a drop.) Get with the exciting cutting- edge art installation look & PUT THE MICE ON PLEASE. I have the "artist" in New Zealand just waiting to be told her work is on the ´óÏó´«Ã½ website - in fact it will probably hit the headlines in her local small town paper. No pressure though Lissa - just in your own time.

7. At 10:26 PM on 02 Oct 2006, Rosalind wrote:

   Aperitif, what more important blog features could be fixed? We should have the best and brightest to match PM.
   Dancing dead mice Annasee, what are you doing to us?

8. At 11:24 PM on 02 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

   SB7

   I wanted to mention, in the interests of nothing in particular: the MP interviewed last week after spending time in Afghanistan, that’s my MP that is. He bothered my doorstep once.

   OK, get back to what you were doing.

9. At 11:32 PM on 02 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

   Actually, if anyone's interested, I'm getting freaked out by the Trick or Treat ones. Do we have to have them for a whole month? When will the Christmas ones appear - I've already been conned into buying an advent calendar (AND starting my Christmas list - see other blog).

10. At 12:06 AM on 03 Oct 2006, anne wrote:

    I too can do without the dancing postcards and would be ever so grateful Lissa if you could work out how to make them stay still.

    I'm afraid I don't see where the art is is a picture of two dead mice, am finding the 'trick or treat' one quite ghastly enuff without dead animals. If I want to look at those I just get up early and survey the carnage our cats have wrought during the night. It's particularly upsetting when they find a nest to raid...

    For valery and other pedants I do know how to spell enough, the enuff is for comic effect - well I hope it's comic.

11. At 12:17 AM on 03 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Nuff Said

12. At 10:14 AM on 03 Oct 2006, Big Sister wrote:

    Wow! Cor! Spiffing!

13. At 10:45 AM on 03 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    Rosalind (8),

    Time for posts to appear; Up to date "recent comments" list that actually lists the most recent comments; Up to date numbering on "number of comments" (although that's been a lot better the last few days) - all the things we've all been whingeing about for a while really.

    But I'm not going to say anything - I don't want to get on the wrong side of the lovely Lissa.

14. At 12:07 PM on 03 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    Yes, number of comments for ‘Steps’ is currently showing two more than are actually there to be read.

    Nurse, scalpel!

15. At 12:59 PM on 03 Oct 2006, Dr Hackenbush wrote:

    SB15

    Meanwhile, this entry is showing 13 comments, when there are 14 here - and my 14 took about 50 minutes to appear....

    More suction!

16. At 07:18 PM on 03 Oct 2006, wrote:

    Thank you Lisa for putting the mice on now. It's a shame people can't read the back of the card to appreciate the pretentious twaddle - it's along the lines of "This installation of two dead mice juxtaposed with carpet is but one of xxxx's (cat's name?) many creations. Unfortunately due to an innate reluctance of humans to appreciate art involving dead animals, so many installations on these lines are wantonly destroyed..."
    That is how it's art - by the critique on the back, not the picture on the front.
    Oddly enough - the artist (she is a real one, albeit with a wacky sense of humour)predated Damian Hurst's work by several years - there's a trick she missed!

17. At 04:04 PM on 04 Oct 2006, Jane Hamilton wrote:

    You know my name now. I sent the brilliant card of the Production Meeting. I love them all.

18. At 06:32 PM on 05 Oct 2006, Alan wrote:

    Where can I write to agree with Jack Straw about veiled muslim women?
    They look creepy, antisocial, alien. The veil in public is definitely socially divisive.

    I write as a liberal, anti-war demonstrating, very reasonable chap. But when I see these women round here, it just looks terribly wrong.

19. At 10:31 PM on 05 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    oooh Alan.
    don't think I can agree with you on that one.

    Although I grew up in a pretty homogenous town where everyone looked pretty similar, and recognise that the full veil does look different to what I was used to, I wouldn't agree with your words.
    "creepy" - well, I'm not scared by her;
    "antisocial" - well, I'm unlikely to start a conversation with a woman in the street but I'm not going to ignore someone wearing a veil if she asked directions, or if she was in a meeting with me at work;
    "alien" - I live in London so... nothing really 'alien' here. There's a local guy who walks his dog who has blue hair and painted fingernails and a skirt (mainly that's the guy). He looks 'odder' than a woman in a veil, but not like he doesn't belong.
    Yeah, I'm a liberal minded reasonable chap too and I think we probably have a lot in common.
    Fair play for giving your opinion, its just that I don't have those reactions and fancied saying that!
    Maybe I'm lucky to live in London and get exposed to a helluva wide range of 'stuff'..? maybe though that's not the point and its something else... dunno.

    oh, btw - I wouldn't worry too much about finding a theme to any of these blogs - they probably stray off topic within a post or too!!

20. At 09:19 AM on 06 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    Alan,
    a thought that i didn't say last night, was that I don't think I "agree" with the full face veil itself (I don't know the history oro religious background, but my cynical mind makes me think of men dominating women - again)

    But that's a separate issue.

    btw - I doubt anyones gonna come back this far so re-post to the latest and get a debate going - I'm intrigued as to what other people think!

21. At 11:40 AM on 06 Oct 2006, Aperitif wrote:

    I've come back this far and read your posts Whisht, but I don't have anything to add!

22. At 09:32 PM on 06 Oct 2006, whisht wrote:

    brilliant! Alan tries to have a conversation on the day before Eddie goes Blog-postal!

    if anyone makes it back this far then I also forgot the whole Jack-going-for-deputy angle. Which would be just calculated and dispiriting.

    but maybe he just owed a few Editors a favour for them to have a laugh with the "veil" in headlines...

    mind you - I haven't seen any that says:
    "Straw Veil Uncomfortable"

    if i'm weak and still sniggering i'll post that again...

23. At 11:23 PM on 11 Oct 2006, valery pedant wrote:

    Aw, gwan, Whisht - why didn't you re-post?