Posts by Bart Janssen
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Only one? C'mon, that's a bit slack.
Well apart from schoolboy stuff, yeah just one.
But I did it really well if that gets me more style points :).
-
men are a bit shit.
obviously very important, and precludes becoming vice-president in a way that being corrupt and bat-fuck crazy seemingly doesn't
the kind submissive self-controlled pure ship has sailed
Too much win for one post Emma. People in the lab are wondering why I'm LOLing at my sequence alignments.
Job of the husband? Well apart from being a bit shit, it's whatever is needed at the time.
Seems to me that given the huge diversity of relationships even within PA that defining the actual activities is going to be hard for either wife or husband job.
BUT
Having stuffed up one relationship in my life I took the time to try and figure out what I did wrong. For me the issue was not about what job was I doing but instead that I was doing something.
So long as you actually are still willing to do something to maintain your relationship (whatever that something might be and whatever that relationship might be) then you are doing your job. It's when you stop doing anything that you are asking for your relationship to fail.
So what is the "job of the wife"? It's to do the job of a wife, however you define that job for yourself but you must actively do it.
So if it's wearing thigh boots and waving a lightsaber around each full moon, then great.
If it's providing emotional and intellectual support when your partner can't cope with the world, then great.
If it's pretending to be interested in beads, then great.
If it's going out to dinner and just listening, then great.
If it's buying that Loot card for her, then great
Just keep doing it. And I hope you'll both be wonderfully happy burning together in the fires of damnation :).
-
Just a thought about why the ad works so well.
While the writing is good and the words are good, for me, the key thing is the people delivering the words. I know it's a matter of doing lots of takes and editing really well, but in the end those people saying those words seem to really project the feeling behind the words.
In the end it's people I have some respect for, saying something really important to them. That emotional content comes through.
-
The job of advertising is to alter behaviour.
Sample of one. The campaign is a success!
I am NOT a violent person I have hit three people in anger in my 47 years of life, and tried to hit 4 but the 4th was too fast for me to catch. The last time I physically hit someone was when I was 15.
But I can get angry and I can shout and rant with the best of them.
I also scared the crap out of my wife once by putting my fist through a piece 3.6 metre gib that we were trying to hang on a sloping ceiling, it fell and broke and I relieved my frustration by punching it.
My wife had never seen me punch anything and seeing me get violent really did scare her. It did feel awefully good to kill that bloody piece of gib board but I really should have considered the effect it had on her to see me release frustration in that way. In short - it was NOT OK.
The ads resonated with me and yes my behaviour has changed since.
Oh and my wife isn't scared of me and we did get the ceiling gibbed eventually - after a break and a new plan.
-
men have poured out their feelings of utter frustration and helplessness at the behaviour of their partner goading them towards violence
The thread only hit page three before getting one of these posts? Yeesh.Cut him a little slack Danielle. I don't think it was meant as "she provoked me so I had to beat her".
I think part of the issue is that people need to learn how to deal with frustration in a way that doesn't involve violence or abuse. That's one reason I find the ads so compelling, they identify precisely the point above, that yes you will get frustrated in a relationship and yes you will get angry but abuse and violence are not acceptable ways of dealing with that frustration.
Frustration will occur in relationships. I think what he's saying is that a lot of men seem to have no way of dealing with frustration other than violence. That is the helplessness of it, not that "they were provoked" but instead that "they have no tools for dealing with frustrating situations".
-
There are two ad campaigns on TV that regularly make me cry.
The first is John Kirwan's series as the face of depression and mental illness in New Zealand. They are compelling ads and from personal experience I know how much of what he says is true. The ads are designed with careful thought to try and help those needing the help,
and that is good .
The second is the "It's not OK" series. Again the ads are well crafted, the message is clear, the voices and faces carry so much feeling in the words they deliver. But what makes me cry is that it's needed at all in New Zealand. The ads try very hard to help those at risk (men) to avoid doing harm to others,
and that is good .
What make me angry about Ralston's drivel is that it seeks to avoid addressing a real problem. By attacking the campaign Ralston is also trying to deny the problem of domestic violence by males on females in society. To put it another way Ralston want us to hide away from the harm that is being done to our families,
and that is evil .
Ralston selectively quotes research and distorts and ignores the data collected in many countries as well as New Zealand disgusts me. I find it very hard to understand why someone would want to undermine the work being done to reduce domestic violence.
I personally think the ads are wonderful. They show that New Zealand is slowly but surely growing up as a culture and we are starting to take responsibility for our actions. Russell and the others who gave their time should be commended.
-
Without wishing to moan about pay TV.
I think it is pretty well accepted that having a sport on free TV does increase participation both in players and spectators. There are examples in Britain where the shift to and from free TV has had strong effects on participation.
The question is, does the money the sport gets from pay TV outweigh the loss of participation?
For Rugby the problem seems to be more about restrictions on when games can be played. If we could get afternoon rugby we'd get better skills displayed and probably bigger crowds. How much does NZRU lose when they play a game at 2:30 pm as compared to 7:30 pm?
Cricket doesn't have that problem. For cricket it's simply a cost benefit equation. Does the game benefit more from having freeTV coverage and a gain in public involvement or are the dollars from payTV still too great to allow that to happen?
Personally I'm kinda hoping for a time when tests are on FreeviewHD and payTV can hang onto the ODIs and 20/20s.
-
I am all about the mondegreens
Thank you so much Danielle. I learnt a new word and I just love some of the examples.
I am so going to use Haffely, Gaffely, Gaffely, Gonward next time we charge into battle. Which should be tonight.
-
... Asha Bhosle, the famous Hindi singer immortalised in the title of Cornershop's 'Brimful of Asha'
Thank you so much for that Russell. I have always struggled with that lyric thinking I can't possibly be hearing it correctly.
-
Nice video Ben
I particularly liked the Lou Vincent cameo as the scoreboard boy