Beth Ditto Naked on Cover of NME

[SouthpawGlamour]

I don't know about you, but I do not have to be 'worked up' to post a few messages about something on an internet forum.

As for passing comment, you'll note that my comments concern the NME's treatment of her, and the various attempts to appropriate her cover appearance by various agendas e.g. the whooping 'you go girl!! you big beautiful NATURAL woman' crowd.

fair enough, I mix you up with SNS22

[SouthpawGlamour]

Southpaw, when is your cover coming out?

You need to start an email campaign

[SNS22]

I don't know about you, but I do not have to be 'worked up' to post a few messages about something on an internet forum.

As for passing comment, you'll note that my comments concern the NME's treatment of her, and the various attempts to appropriate her cover appearance by various agendas e.g. the whooping 'you go girl!! you big beautiful NATURAL woman' crowd.

I'm leaving this one alone....

[Slightly_Afraid]

Is anyone else sick of the current attidue of "well, I LOVE food, I eat shitloads, so I must be down-to-earth and 'real' and whatnot"? The amount that someone weighs / eats is not an interesting thing at all. It wasn't interesting when Richey Edwards weighed all of 2lbs and it isn't interesting in the reverse with this person.

If a "normal" (what's that?) sized girl or a skinny girl was naked on the NME then she'd be a tacky whore, I'd imagine. So - what? - because this Beth Ditto's the size of a small country, it's liberating and empowering?

Personally, the picture makes me feel a bit ill. And, of course, that makes me a horrible, prejudiced person, I suppose

End of the day, the music is a bit generic and rather dull, so why not use your morbidly obese midrif to flog a few extra copies?

[DAnn Coulter]

Is anyone else sick of the current attidue of "well, I LOVE food, I eat shitloads, so I must be down-to-earth and 'real' and whatnot"? The amount that someone weighs / eats is not an interesting thing at all. It wasn't interesting when Richey Edwards weighed all of 2lbs and it isn't interesting in the reverse with this person.

If a "normal" (what's that?) sized girl or a skinny girl was naked on the NME then she'd be a tacky whore, I'd imagine. So - what? - because this Beth Ditto's the size of a small country, it's liberating and empowering?

Personally, the picture makes me feel a bit ill. And, of course, that makes me a horrible, prejudiced person, I suppose

End of the day, the music is a bit generic and rather dull, so why not use your morbidly obese midrif to flog a few extra copies?

I fucking love you to pieces.... xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo

I hate it when fat bitches think they're cute just because they eat like PIGS..... anyone can be a fatass, it's nothing special what so ever..... If a girl chooses to be fat than that's her business but she shouldn't rub it all over people's faces.... THEY NEED TO KEEP THEIR DISGUSTING COTTAGE CHEESE CELULITE BODY TO THEMSELVES.

Also, Being a hardcore Liberterian, I completely hate it when people here in america CHOOSE to become morbidly obese beasts and then when they get all sick from being so FAT..... they get all kinds of free medical care costing us taxpayers billions of dollars that could be spent better.... these fatsos rob poor innocent children of recieving healthcare. Same goes for smokers. Fatsos and smokers need to start taking reponsibilities for their actions and stop crying to the government for help when they put themselves in a bad situation. People over 250lbs and heavy smokers should be banned from recieving any type of goverment aid.

[SouthpawGlamour]

I fucking love you to pieces.... xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxo

I hate it when fat bitches think they're cute just because they eat like PIGS..... anyone can be a fatass, it's nothing special what so ever..... If a girl chooses to be fat than that's her business but she shouldn't rub it all over people's faces.... THEY NEED TO KEEP THEIR DISGUSTING COTTAGE CHEESE CELULITE BODY TO THEMSELVES.

Also, Being a hardcore Liberterian, I completely hate it when people here in america CHOOSE to become morbidly obese beasts and then when they get all sick from being so FAT..... they get all kinds of free medical care costing us taxpayers billions of dollars that could be spent better.... these fatsos rob poor innocent children of recieving healthcare. Same goes for smokers. Fatsos and smokers need to start taking reponsibilities for their actions and stop crying to the government for help when they put themselves in a bad situation. People over 250lbs and heavy smokers should be banned from recieving any type of goverment aid.

I think you are confusing 'Liberterian' with 'fascist' Try to express yourself without describing your fellow man as 'beasts' and you may come across better.

Will you ban alcoholics and drug users from care and HIV/Aids patients who acquired infection from sex/drug use. In fact, will you ban all Sexual Health clinics?

Almost all illness/disease can be described as 'self-inflicted' in you wish to take that route, from pneumonia to Cancers.

[Slightly_Afraid]

Hahahaha! Well...er, thanx.

However, I'm pretty much a chain-smoker and I totally agree with you on personal responsibility and whatnot, but seeing as I pay about £4.50 (roughly $8) worth of tax on every carton of cigs I buy, I feel like I've paid for my hospital bed when I invariably end up with some kind of cancer. Until they start over-taxing cheeseburgers, I don't think you can compare smokers and obese people.

*Waits for tobacco fascists to kill me*

[SouthpawGlamour]

Hahahaha! Well...er, thanx.

However, I'm pretty much a chain-smoker and I totally agree with you on personal responsibility and whatnot, but seeing as I pay about £4.50 (roughly $8) worth of tax on every carton of cigs I buy, I feel like I've paid for my hospital bed when I invariably end up with some kind of cancer. Until they start over-taxing cheeseburgers, I don't think you can compare smokers and obese people.

*Waits for tobacco fascists to kill me*

National Insurance and Tax are NOT voluntary in the UK, it is not lawful to deny treatment to smokers or obese people. You either have the current system or a private one, but the Government can't take NI contributions and then deny treatment that would be paramount to theft.

As you rightly say, the Govt also takes revenue from tobacco and alcohol. Western society encourages obesity, then gets upset when everyone is fat

[SNS22]

Hahahaha! Well...er, thanx.

However, I'm pretty much a chain-smoker and I totally agree with you on personal responsibility and whatnot, but seeing as I pay about £4.50 (roughly $8) worth of tax on every carton of cigs I buy, I feel like I've paid for my hospital bed when I invariably end up with some kind of cancer. Until they start over-taxing cheeseburgers, I don't think you can compare smokers and obese people.

*Waits for tobacco fascists to kill me*

Personally, I'd just want to give the tobacco company executives, cancer, emphyema, etc...and see how they feel then about profiting off of Murder..

It is so ridiculous that marijuana is illegal, and it's not known to be a killer...the reason why tobacco is legal..it's home grown and it's taxed...the government and the Tobacco companies make billions in profit..

If tobacco were outlawed our national debt would grossly inflate...not to mention the millions of smokers suffering from withdraw would turn to play-doh

[SouthpawGlamour]

Personally, I'd just want to give the tobacco company executives, cancer, emphyema, etc...and see how they feel then about profiting off of Murder..

It is so ridiculous that marijuana is illegal, and it's not known to be a killer...the reason why tobacco is legal..it's home grown and it's taxed...the government and the Tobacco companies make billions in profit..

If tobacco were outlawed our national debt would grossly inflate...not to mention the millions of smokers suffering from withdraw would turn to play-doh

Anything inhaled at temperature is potentially carcogenic including cannabis! Your health obsession is most amusing!

[DAnn Coulter]

I think you are confusing 'Liberterian' with 'fascist' Try to express yourself without describing your fellow man as 'beasts' and you may come across better.

Will you ban alcoholics and drug users from care and HIV/Aids patients who acquired infection from sex/drug use. In fact, will you ban all Sexual Health clinics?

Almost all illness/disease can be described as 'self-inflicted' in you wish to take that route, from pneumonia to Cancers.

You're taking it too far Mister. First of all I don't believe in banning anything, but I do however believe that people need to be responsible for their actions. I choose to remain abstinent for my own personal reasons, one of them is the fear of contracting some weird disease or infection.... HELL NO! I take responsability for myself. it's not easy. If a young guy in his mid 20's like myself chooses to go out and hook up with different people each night, then gets AIDS or other illness because of his actions.... then it is HIS FAULT for being irresponsible.

PS: Arent you the one who said that people are born homophobic and that homosexuality is repulsive to the vast majority of the population? You're the one who sounds fascist, NOT ME

[SNS22]

Anything inhaled at temperature is potentially carcogenic including cannabis! Your health obsession is most amusing!

True..but marajana is not addicting in the same sense at nicotine...

I took me 15 years to get my Batchelor's...so I studied just about everything....Health being one of the topics...

A woman drove me to smoke at one time..so I know it can be a vice...fortunately, anti-depressents were able to break me of the smoking habit...people laugh when they ask how long I was a smoker and I say...about 9 months

[Slightly_Afraid]

Well, yes, SN22, quite right. The government hates drugs, not because they kill people (like Blair et al give a fuck about that), but because they make no money from them. The way they treat smokers is contemptible - take with one hand and take with the other. It's all very well offering patches and so forth, but if they really cared about the health of the nation, they'd simply ban cigarettes altogether, instead of stopping people smoking in pubs, bars etc...

[SouthpawGlamour]

You're taking it too far Mister. First of all I don't believe in banning anything, but I do however believe that people need to be responsible for their actions. I choose to remain abstinent for my own personal reasons, one of them is the fear of contracting some weird disease or infection.... HELL NO! I take responsability for myself. it's not easy. If a young guy in his mid 20's like myself chooses to go out and hook up with different people each night, then gets AIDS or other illness because of his actions.... then it is HIS FAULT for being irresponsible.

PS: Arent you the one who said that people are born homophobic and that homosexuality is repulsive to the vast majority of the population? You're the one who sounds fascist, NOT ME

I am not taking it 'too far', I am taking your argument to it's logical conclusion thus demonstrating it's absurdity.

I am not a fascist. My assertions re: programming are becoming common belief.

[2-J]

Potentially yes, but clinically proven; never.

Though I'd be the last to deny that it would be logical to assume that given that (smoking) cannabis is basically inhaling burnt vegetable matter, it would have the potential to cause cancer.

The difference is in the volume of matter smoked. Many cannabis users are (tobacco) smokers so it's hard to isolate the one factor from the other, and invariably in this case the smokers do more tobacco than cannabis.

Those who just smoke cannabis tend to smoke very little actual material compared to cigarette smokers, (many users might do it once a week or less, even).

Don't forget other ways of taking cannabis too, such as in drinks and food, which don't require any smoking.

[SNS22]

You're taking it too far Mister. First of all I don't believe in banning anything, but I do however believe that people need to be responsible for their actions. I choose to remain abstinent for my own personal reasons, one of them is the fear of contracting some weird disease or infection.... HELL NO! I take responsability for myself. it's not easy. If a young guy in his mid 20's like myself chooses to go out and hook up with different people each night, then gets AIDS or other illness because of his actions.... then it is HIS FAULT for being irresponsible.

PS: Arent you the one who said that people are born homophobic and that homosexuality is repulsive to the vast majority of the population? You're the one who sounds fascist, NOT ME

If you're stupid enough to be promiscious and you're stupid enough to not use condoms...then you're stupid enough to get an STD

Okay, I'm waiting for the hate mail that's gonna get me

[SouthpawGlamour]

Potentially yes, but clinically proven; never.

Though I'd be the last to deny that it would be logical to assume that given that (smoking) cannabis is basically inhaling burnt vegetable matter, it would have the potential to cause cancer.

The difference is in the volume of matter smoked. Many cannabis users are (tobacco) smokers so it's hard to isolate the one factor from the other, and invariably in this case the smokers do more tobacco than cannabis.

Those who just smoke cannabis tend to smoke very little actual material compared to cigarette smokers, (many users might do it once a week or less, even).

Don't forget other ways of taking cannabis too, such as in drinks and food, which don't require any smoking.

You mean you like dope, so you are looking for excuses for it's use?

[2-J]

Not looking for an excuse!

I was simply pointing out that the risks to the average cannabis user who doesn't smoke cigarettes are an order of magnitude lower than that for a cigarette smoker. You can't really compare the two.

I smoke cannabis occasionally, maybe a session once a fortnight. I don't smoke tobacco with it.

I feel the recreational benefits are great and the impact to my health on such a low usage is slight.

[SNS22]

Well, yes, SN22, quite right. The government hates drugs, not because they kill people (like Blair et al give a fuck about that), but because they make no money from them. The way they treat smokers is contemptible - take with one hand and take with the other. It's all very well offering patches and so forth, but if they really cared about the health of the nation, they'd simply ban cigarettes altogether, instead of stopping people smoking in pubs, bars etc...

What's really pathetic is something I saw on the history of illegal drugs on cable a while back

Cocaine was becoming a problem in the US, but no one would make a law about it...then someone started making reports that (Forgive my outdated quotes here) "Cocaine was turning Negro dock workers into sex crazed manaics" and lawmakers quickly banned it...

Same thing happened with Marijuana...reports circulated about the Migrant farm workers in Arizona and Southern California..and sure enough, it got banned...

But yet Ampithetamines were commonly used by suburban housewives in the 50's and 60's and nothing was done about that until much later...

Meanwhile Tobacco continues to kill millions every year..and despite the education we have...millions more pick up the habit...

[SNS22]

Not looking for an excuse!

I was simply pointing out that the risks to the average cannabis user who doesn't smoke cigarettes are an order of magnitude lower than that for a cigarette smoker.

I smoke cannabis occasionally, maybe a session once a fortnight. I don't smoke tobacco with it.

I feel the recreational benefits are great and the impact to my health on such a low usage is slight.

You do have a perscription for your cataracts, right?