Media behaviour a few days on
Sacha
the forthcoming royal wedding, it has completely slipped out of the
headlines, TV or radio news etc. and that the comment is winding down and
being moved further into the inside pages. Whoever it was that said the
press would make a great fuss for 24 hours and then it would diminish, seems
to be quite correct!
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
volcaran
The was an interesting observation on the BBC this morning pointing out
that since all has been said ad nauseam, all the papers were conducting
polls to try and create a new angle for a story. Perhaps the editors
recognise the boredom quotient is high.
Sacha
1108222688....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com, "volcaran"
<volc...@aol.com> wrote:
One article I read said that we've had so much "will they, won't they" about
this marriage, that people are heartily sick of the media inflating of the
subject. Colleen Harris's own article said that when working for the PoW
she literally lost count of how many early morning phone calls she received
asking if or when an announcement was to be made, just because some rumour
had surfaced, I suppose.
Some of the media writing is so nasty, so spiteful and so filled to the
gunwhales with old information that it's really quite sickening to see. I'm
quite convinced that they're almost angry that this wedding will close a
lucrative avenue of scandal and speculation for them and that they're
milking it while they can. When the Prince is seen to get on with his work
and Mrs PB is seen to quietly take up some duties of her own, it's not going
to be anything like as much 'fun' for the media.
Q
"Sacha" <sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BE33DCE0.CD88%sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
It's actually an important story as these things go. More important than
Brad and Jen.
>Colleen Harris's own article said that when working for the PoW
> she literally lost count of how many early morning phone calls she
received
> asking if or when an announcement was to be made, just because some rumour
> had surfaced, I suppose.
> Some of the media writing is so nasty, so spiteful and so filled to the
> gunwhales with old information that it's really quite sickening to see.
They are certainly making fools of themselves on a large scale. Much of the
stuff that makes it into print is baloney, created to fill what editors
perceive is a demand. They've run out of solid information and now they're
making it up. The observation by the BBC commentator about silly polls that
have as their real object to keep the ball in the air was right on target..
>I'm
> quite convinced that they're almost angry that this wedding will close a
> lucrative avenue of scandal and speculation for them and that they're
> milking it while they can.
There will always be news stories about Charles and Camilla -- whether real
or imaginary. I don't think the wedding will stanch the flow at all. If
anything, there will be more ink because pictures will now be more
plentiful.
>When the Prince is seen to get on with his work
> and Mrs PB is seen to quietly take up some duties of her own, it's not
going
> to be anything like as much 'fun' for the media.
Don't underestimate the media's ability to entertain itself, and possibly
even others as well. -- Q
Sacha
<quon...@yahoo.comsat> wrote:
Well, I'd hope so! A thousand years of monarchy *should* be a bit more
important than a couple of actors who've been famous and married then
separated over a few years. And IMO one of them has a hairstyle that's a
better actor than its owner.
>
>> Colleen Harris's own article said that when working for the PoW
>> she literally lost count of how many early morning phone calls she
> received
>> asking if or when an announcement was to be made, just because some rumour
>> had surfaced, I suppose.
>> Some of the media writing is so nasty, so spiteful and so filled to the
>> gunwhales with old information that it's really quite sickening to see.
>
> They are certainly making fools of themselves on a large scale. Much of the
> stuff that makes it into print is baloney, created to fill what editors
> perceive is a demand. They've run out of solid information and now they're
> making it up. The observation by the BBC commentator about silly polls that
> have as their real object to keep the ball in the air was right on target..
They're getting as much mileage out of it as they can while it lasts.
>
>> I'm
>> quite convinced that they're almost angry that this wedding will close a
>> lucrative avenue of scandal and speculation for them and that they're
>> milking it while they can.
>
> There will always be news stories about Charles and Camilla -- whether real
> or imaginary. I don't think the wedding will stanch the flow at all. If
> anything, there will be more ink because pictures will now be more
> plentiful.
We'll see. But the papers don't bother with 'dull and dutiful' much. If
these two are seen to be just quietly doing their job as royals, it won't
fill many headlines, frankly. They'll have to look elsewhere for the
attention-grabbers.
>
>> When the Prince is seen to get on with his work
>> and Mrs PB is seen to quietly take up some duties of her own, it's not
> going
>> to be anything like as much 'fun' for the media.
>
> Don't underestimate the media's ability to entertain itself, and possibly
> even others as well. -- Q
>
Then they'll certainly have to find a new angle. The very briefest glance
at today's Sunday papers shows that virtually every journalist has a
different 'take' on the thing and it's clear that once these two are
married, a lot of ready-made stories that don't require much thought, are
going to die the death.
Jean Sue
sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 2/12/05 11:18 AM:
> When the Prince is seen to get on with his work
> and Mrs PB is seen to quietly take up some duties of her own, it's not going
> to be anything like as much 'fun' for the media.
they'll just turn on William and Harry. Remember, William leaves University
in June and becomes "fair game."
js
Jean Sue
in review section. Since you must pay a fee to see this after today, I am
going to paste part of the article here. It is clear that the author is not
a royal aficionado and repeats some of the rumors but she also has clearly
pinpointed the appeal of the Charles/Camilla marriage to a lot of people.
The URL, to check veracity, is
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/13/weekinreview/13zern.html?8hpib
TROPHY WIFE, REDEFINED
From Diana to Camilla: A Fairy Tale for the AARP Set
By KATE ZERNIKE
Published: February 13, 2005
AFTER the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, some therapists reported that
their couches were full of women who saw themselves in her short and
struggle-filled life, not to mention the ugly unraveling of her marriage to
the prince who turned out not to be Prince Charming.
But now, just in time for Valentine's Day, the British royals serve up a new
fairy tale, in the unlikely person of Camilla Parker Bowles, the "third
person" Diana blamed for the breakup of her marriage to Charles. Now, 35
years after their first flirtation, Mrs. Parker Bowles is the prince's
bride-to-be.
If Diana, with her bulimia, her remote parents and her loveless marriage,
spoke to women of a universal struggle to be unconditionally loved, the
engagement last week of Mrs. Parker Bowles allowed women to believe in the
power of kismet. Her story seemed to say: Stay patient, committed and
supportive, and one day you will get your prince (even if you are
post-menopausal).
Of course, old-fashioned romantics are unlikely to break out the hankies for
Charles and Camilla.
"When you take it back to its core, he did a very unloving thing, and she
was married to someone else, too," said Nora Roberts, the romance novelist.
"How many people are you going to hurt to have what you want? I find that
very selfish, and love and romance shouldn't be selfish."
But however much one might think Charles had been a jerk to Diana, it was
hard not to cheer for the woman he chose over the virgin bride, a woman who
has only grown older and more wrinkled. The 56-year-old prince's fiancée, at
57, is decidedly not a trophy.
"I do feel this is rather satisfactory," said Fay Weldon, the British
novelist who has made a career out of the revenge-of-the-ugly-woman tale
(fiction, of course).
"She's sort of older," she said, "and everybody says she's plain, and
actually she's not, she just doesn't photograph well," surely something
women of any age can relate to. "She held her counsel and kept her cool, and
in the end he married her and the marriage is a happy ending, which no one
is ever sure of any more." Even the British press, never sympathetic toward
the woman Diana reportedly cursed as "the Rottweiler," seemed newly
transfixed by the engagement as fairy tale. After offering sympathy to Diana
loyalists who might have misgivings about the marriage, which is set for
April 8, The Sun wrote in an online editorial Friday: "Many of us have
endured broken relationships or suffered the pain of bereavement and then
found joy again with another partner. If it is right for us, then why should
it not be right for Charles and Camilla, too?"
In fact, the tale of Charles and Camilla seems exactly right for the times,
as fickle baby boomers face their gray years on both sides of the Atlantic.
"I think it's a great postmodern romance," said Barbara Dafoe Whitehead,
co-director of the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. With
Viagra, the high rate of second marriages and the columnists in AARP
magazine offering advice on love the second time around, Ms. Whitehead said,
"the idea that one is on a romantic quest until we reach the grave is now
part of the love and marriage story in America."
js
newnomV2
They won't have to look far for a new angle. Critiquing Camilla's clothes,
how she's doing at the job, comparing what she does to what Diana did, etc.
These are angles that couldn't be fully pursued before, but now there's no
bar. Nobody can plead that she's just a private citizen any more. Then
there's reporting on the state of the marriage itself. Whether this stuff
will sell papers is, of course, a different story. But I think somebody's
bound to have a try.
Peggy
Sacha
Sue" <jea...@bookschlepper.com> wrote:
They may well do that but they'll have to watch their step a bit. William
is very popular, Harry a little less so because of his behaviour. But
they're still seen as young men trying to lead relatively normal lives.
Harry will be in the army, we hope and that should keep him too tired to get
into mischief. What William will do remains to be seen but I don't think
he's going to be bounced into many royal duties even yet. Of course, that
in itself could lead to a lot of criticism.
Sacha
YYKPd.30092$by5....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com, "newnomV2"
<newn...@netscape.netx> wrote:
Oh dear, I suppose you're right. Maybe I'm just reflecting my own feelings
on the matter but I am really, really bored with the way so much of our
press trivialises our information. I'm sick to the back teeth of the
Beckhams and Liz Hurley and Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt, so to me,
treating the royals as if they were just there to make a Roman holiday fills
me with contempt for press standards. If they do something genuinely
scandalous or awful or silly or interestingly barmy, fair enough but to
snipe on this constant, nagging, whining, school-bully sort of basis is
just tedium to the nth degree. And I have the feeling that I am not alone
in wishing papers would go back to reporting news, instead of trying to
manufacture it.
Jean Sue
sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 2/13/05 11:55 AM:
> Oh dear, I suppose you're right. Maybe I'm just reflecting my own feelings
> on the matter but I am really, really bored with the way so much of our
> press trivialises our information. I'm sick to the back teeth of the
> Beckhams and Liz Hurley and Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt, so to me,
> treating the royals as if they were just there to make a Roman holiday fills
> me with contempt for press standards. If they do something genuinely
> scandalous or awful or silly or interestingly barmy, fair enough but to
> snipe on this constant, nagging, whining, school-bully sort of basis is
> just tedium to the nth degree. And I have the feeling that I am not alone
> in wishing papers would go back to reporting news, instead of trying to
> manufacture it.
The Philadelphia Inquirer had a piece on Friday about how the European media
stressed what Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was wearing on her recent
tour... and wondering why no one brought that about about Colin Power!
It's the same all over....
js
Wull
Tyrone would not have been amused, >:)
Wull
Q
But Brad and Jen are over, and we're still hearing about them.
> >
> >> Colleen Harris's own article said that when working for the PoW
> >> she literally lost count of how many early morning phone calls she
> > received
> >> asking if or when an announcement was to be made, just because some
rumour
> >> had surfaced, I suppose.
> >> Some of the media writing is so nasty, so spiteful and so filled to the
> >> gunwhales with old information that it's really quite sickening to see.
> >
> > They are certainly making fools of themselves on a large scale. Much of
the
> > stuff that makes it into print is baloney, created to fill what editors
> > perceive is a demand. They've run out of solid information and now
they're
> > making it up. The observation by the BBC commentator about silly polls
that
> > have as their real object to keep the ball in the air was right on
target..
>
> They're getting as much mileage out of it as they can while it lasts.
What do you mean, "whil it lasts?" As long as there are pictures or "close
friends" there will be always be a story to fill the empty pages..
> >
> >> I'm
> >> quite convinced that they're almost angry that this wedding will close
a
> >> lucrative avenue of scandal and speculation for them and that they're
> >> milking it while they can.
> >
> > There will always be news stories about Charles and Camilla -- whether
real
> > or imaginary. I don't think the wedding will stanch the flow at all.
If
> > anything, there will be more ink because pictures will now be more
> > plentiful.
>
> We'll see. But the papers don't bother with 'dull and dutiful' much.
This isn't quite dull and dutiful. It has a dimension that the usual d&d
stories lack Those who favor the marriage will want front-row seats to
"happily ever after" and those who oppose it will be combing the entrails on
a daily basis looking for signs of trouble.
>If
> these two are seen to be just quietly doing their job as royals, it won't
> fill many headlines, frankly. They'll have to look elsewhere for the
> attention-grabbers.
I don't think Camilla will draw the same sort of crowds as Diana once did,
but I think she will draw crowds nevertheless. A lot of people are curious
and interested.
> >
> >> When the Prince is seen to get on with his work
> >> and Mrs PB is seen to quietly take up some duties of her own, it's not
> > going
> >> to be anything like as much 'fun' for the media.
> >
> > Don't underestimate the media's ability to entertain itself, and
possibly
> > even others as well. -- Q
> >
>
> Then they'll certainly have to find a new angle. The very briefest glance
> at today's Sunday papers shows that virtually every journalist has a
> different 'take' on the thing and it's clear that once these two are
> married, a lot of ready-made stories that don't require much thought, are
> going to die the death.
I agree that they're scraping the barrel, but every day brings a snippet of
fresh information about the wedding . We still can speculate on the guest
list, members of the wedding party, wedding dress, marriage performer, food
and drink at the reception -- and compare it with the other one.
Plus, there are still thousands of people who still haven't been interviewed
by the press on their opinion of the Prince and his intended.
-- Q
>
Sacha
Sue" <jea...@bookschlepper.com> wrote:
A lot of that went on here when women started presenting the news. There
were grouches that they were not 'right' to read out sports reports, for
example and the remarks on what they wore.....! Admittedly, women's
clothes do give more room for variation and 'creativity' than the old collar
and tie stuff but it was an extraordinarily trivial reaction by those who
thought women news readers trivial!
Sacha
<quon...@yahoo.comsat> wrote:
Oh no they're not (and look out behind you!) Just yesterday in the
supermarket I saw some magazine headlining "Brad wants Jen back". They are
just SO not over...... ;-)
>
>>>
>>>> Colleen Harris's own article said that when working for the PoW
>>>> she literally lost count of how many early morning phone calls she
>>> received
>>>> asking if or when an announcement was to be made, just because some
> rumour
>>>> had surfaced, I suppose.
>>>> Some of the media writing is so nasty, so spiteful and so filled to the
>>>> gunwhales with old information that it's really quite sickening to see.
>>>
>>> They are certainly making fools of themselves on a large scale. Much of
> the
>>> stuff that makes it into print is baloney, created to fill what editors
>>> perceive is a demand. They've run out of solid information and now
> they're
>>> making it up. The observation by the BBC commentator about silly polls
> that
>>> have as their real object to keep the ball in the air was right on
> target..
>>
>> They're getting as much mileage out of it as they can while it lasts.
>
> What do you mean, "whil it lasts?" As long as there are pictures or "close
> friends" there will be always be a story to fill the empty pages..
While it lasts as in 'before the marriage'. Then they become 'respectable',
the new Duchess is protected by the Palace machinery etc. etc.
>
>
>>>
>>>> I'm
>>>> quite convinced that they're almost angry that this wedding will close
> a
>>>> lucrative avenue of scandal and speculation for them and that they're
>>>> milking it while they can.
>>>
>>> There will always be news stories about Charles and Camilla -- whether
> real
>>> or imaginary. I don't think the wedding will stanch the flow at all.
> If
>>> anything, there will be more ink because pictures will now be more
>>> plentiful.
>>
>> We'll see. But the papers don't bother with 'dull and dutiful' much.
>
> This isn't quite dull and dutiful. It has a dimension that the usual d&d
> stories lack Those who favor the marriage will want front-row seats to
> "happily ever after" and those who oppose it will be combing the entrails on
> a daily basis looking for signs of trouble.
They'll be pushed. Not only have these two waited years to marry, Mrs PB
isn't that interested in a high profile for herself. It may not be modern
but it appears (and we'll see if it transpires) that she really wants no
more than a supporting role.
>
>> If
>> these two are seen to be just quietly doing their job as royals, it won't
>> fill many headlines, frankly. They'll have to look elsewhere for the
>> attention-grabbers.
>
> I don't think Camilla will draw the same sort of crowds as Diana once did,
> but I think she will draw crowds nevertheless. A lot of people are curious
> and interested.
As Jonathan Dimbleby said, if that happens they will see what a nice woman
she is and form their own opinion over time. She's not going to court it -
she never has.
>
>>>
>>>> When the Prince is seen to get on with his work
>>>> and Mrs PB is seen to quietly take up some duties of her own, it's not
>>> going
>>>> to be anything like as much 'fun' for the media.
>>>
>>> Don't underestimate the media's ability to entertain itself, and
> possibly
>>> even others as well. -- Q
>>>
>>
>> Then they'll certainly have to find a new angle. The very briefest glance
>> at today's Sunday papers shows that virtually every journalist has a
>> different 'take' on the thing and it's clear that once these two are
>> married, a lot of ready-made stories that don't require much thought, are
>> going to die the death.
>
> I agree that they're scraping the barrel, but every day brings a snippet of
> fresh information about the wedding . We still can speculate on the guest
> list, members of the wedding party, wedding dress, marriage performer, food
> and drink at the reception -- and compare it with the other one.
>
> Plus, there are still thousands of people who still haven't been interviewed
> by the press on their opinion of the Prince and his intended.
> -- Q
>
That's why I think they're milking it while it lasts. We've had the
shock/horror/support/indignation/thankful/ about time/indifferent/ articles.
Now we'll move on to the 'what will she wear' articles. In fact, yesterday
or the day before, somebody writing for the Times gave her opinion on
various designers and decided that Vivienne Westwood would be wonderful and
no plunging neckline.........that must have taken all of 15 minutes to churn
out.
I'm surprised to think there's one person left in Britain who hasnšt
delivered an opinion. As to the wedding itself time will reveal the detail
but I must be peculiar in that I can't get worked up about it. I'm
genuinely glad they're marrying but I don't think this is going to be some
public spectacle with a public holiday, fireworks and the whole fanackapan.
It might be televised and it might not; it might be large but probably not;
it will certainly be a crowd-puller on the day, in the location.
Jean Sue
wrote on 2/13/05 3:48 PM:
> Plus, there are still thousands of people who still haven't been interviewed
> by the press on their opinion of the Prince and his intended.
Oh, Lord. Are we going to hear from each and every one of them??????
js
Jean Sue
there is nothing very exciting about a couple of middle-age people. The
media even lost interest in Elizabeth and Philip when they were 55-75 and
only recently rediscovered these surprisingly active antiques.
And, of course, there is Zara and Peter and William and Harry and Beatrice
and Eugenie....
js
Susan Cohen
Have you gone potty?
Susan
Q
"newnomV2" <newn...@netscape.netx> wrote in message
news:YYKPd.30092$by5....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
I agree that the papers will continue to write about Camilla and Charles,
even if they have to resort to printing Camilla's cookie recipes. I think
that married or not, Camilla and Charles are far more interesting than
William and Harry. The people who find those boys interesting don't even
read newspapers. -- Q
>
> Peggy
>
>
Sacha
<quon...@yahoo.comsat> wrote:
I should think that William will get a lot of attention when he starts royal
duties and then those people *will* buy newspapers. After all, Diana
amassed quite a newspaper-reader following when she was the age of her son.
yD
d&d
stories lack Those who favor the marriage will want front-row seats
to
"happily ever after" and those who oppose it will be combing the
entrails on
a daily basis looking for signs of trouble."
There are so many constitutional ramifications to this, plus Charles's
future status as Supreme Governor" (is that the right title?) of the
Church of England, that more than just the press and gossip lovers will
be talking about the situation past, present and future. iirc wasn't
the Queen in talks with the Church about the monarch's position as
'head' of the Church of England. I'm curious about the Archbishop
'blessing' the civil ceremony marriage and would expect a certain
amount of discussion within the Anglican community. And this will
surely open the way for the many non royals whose adultery broke up two
marriages, to question any denial by their 'local' vicar.
yD
Sacha
1108402206.3...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "yD"
<yaffa...@aol.com> wrote:
But Annie! Have you *really* not read anything about this online, at least?
The discussion has taken place, of course and it would appear that the
church is in agreement that this wedding takes place within the guidelines
of the Church of England. All these talks have gone on for many months.
The only dissenters from that are the very rigid Reform group who are not, I
think, actually getting anywhere and are quite small in number and real
influence.
Whatever you read from PK about the idea of this wedding having come up only
since the PAC enquiry can be dismissed. It's nonsense, of course.
IF there is a problem with the wedding now, it appears to be as to whether
it will be legal, given the constraints upon the royal family with regard to
civil ceremonies of marriage. OTOH, the option of going to be married in a
civil ceremony in Scotland is open to them.
Q
The fact is that a person can go a long way with an infectious giggle. I
think that was at least fifty percent of Diana's charm. Like Julia Roberts,
Diana had an uncanny skill at expressing joyfulness.
Maybe William should practice giggling in front of a mirror if he wants a
quick route to popularity. Sourness certainly won't get him anywhere. -- Q
Jean Sue
quon...@yahoo.comsat wrote on 2/14/05 6:24 PM:
> The fact is that a person can go a long way with an infectious giggle. I
> think that was at least fifty percent of Diana's charm. Like Julia Roberts,
> Diana had an uncanny skill at expressing joyfulness.
>
> Maybe William should practice giggling in front of a mirror if he wants a
> quick route to popularity. Sourness certainly won't get him anywhere. -- Q
I'm not sure giggling works for men.
js
Susan Cohen
Yes, he might be mistakenly thought of as gay.
Susan
Sacha
<quon...@yahoo.comsat> wrote:
She had that much overworked word 'charm' in bundles and so did the Queen
Mother at a younger age than most people here remember her. I remember
someone who knew her telling me that the QM had the gift of making the
person she was talking to feel as if they were the only person she *really*
wanted to be with right then and I think Diana had the same gift.
>
> Maybe William should practice giggling in front of a mirror if he wants a
> quick route to popularity. Sourness certainly won't get him anywhere. -- Q
>> --
I dare say he'll get there in the end and I can't blame him for wanting to
hold on to privacy for as long as he can. But there are mutterings already
that it's time he started and that at his age, his father etc. etc. He
could also stop doing that peering out from under the fringe thing his
mother did. A young woman could get away with it, I'm not sure a young man
built like a rugby winger can!
Q
"Jean Sue" <jea...@bookschlepper.com> wrote in message
news:BE36C3C6.2B3AF%jea...@bookschlepper.com...
Then he needs to study the behavior of Brad Pitt, or George Clooney.
Nowadays, they can teach people the damnedest things, so I'm sure that
somewhere, he can get lessons in savoir faire. Whatever Diana's
shortcomings may have been, she had finely-developed skills at being
ingratiating. When most news reports about a person include the word
"incandescent," it suggests that that person could use a semester or two in
charm school. -- Q
>
> js
>
Jean Sue
quon...@yahoo.comsat wrote on 2/15/05 9:24 AM:
> When most news reports about a person include the word
> "incandescent," it suggests that that person could use a semester or two in
> charm school. -- Q
I've seen so many people besides Charles being referred to as "incandescent"
that I now suspect it's simply a popular word in the news rooms. I can
hardly wait until they move along to the next trend: luminescent, perhaps,
or aboil (something truly old-fashioned). I'd prefer something Dan-Ratherish
myself: "madder than a duck caught in a cactus in the desert" or "more upset
than the laundry basket after the tornado blew through."
js
quon...@yahoo.com
"Madder than a wet hen," is one my mother-in-law used to use. I think
it's a keeper, but somehow I can't see Fleet Street cottoning to it. --
Q
>
> js
Sacha
1108482699.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "quon...@yahoo.com"
<quon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
That's one we use in England, too and I love it - it conjures up a powerful
image.
Susan Cohen
> On 15/2/05 15:51, in article
> 1108482699.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com,
"quon...@yahoo.com"
> <quon...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Madder than a wet hen," is one my mother-in-law used to use. I
think
> > it's a keeper, but somehow I can't see Fleet Street cottoning to
it. --
> > Q
> >
> That's one we use in England, too and I love it - it conjures up a
powerful
> image.
Of what? How mad is a wet hen?
Susan
Q
Hens are certainly nasty. I used to keep chickens. Very aggressive little
brutes. -- Q
Susan Cohen
Really? So they weren't chicken?
Susan
Sacha
<Quon...@yahoo.commeilfaut> wrote:
They're horrible things - very cruel but then so is much of nature.
Jean Sue
sa...@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk wrote on 2/15/05 11:28 AM:
I don't know. Makes me want to go out and pour water on a chicken to see
what happens.... besides chicken soup. ;)
js
Sacha
"Jean Sue" <jea...@bookschlepper.com> wrote:
Oh come now! The latter is just MEAN! I kept chickens (no cockerel) for
the eggs quite a number of years ago. They were horrible creatures -
picking on one and literally tearing the feathers out of it. Never again.
But we did grow beautiful potatoes on their run a year or two later!
quon...@yahoo.com
These particular hens didn't have to contend with much in the way of
nature. They had a lovely yard, the best of food and complete freedom
from predators. But they would attack anybody who entered their ambit.
I've seen news stories about people in New Jersey being attacked by
wild turkeys. We have them here, too, but not enough to be a nuisance.
Yet. -- Q
Susan Cohen
> Sacha wrote:
> > On 16/2/05 3:26 am, in article
> 4212bcac$0$67318$45be...@newscene.com, "Q"
> > <Quon...@yahoo.commeilfaut> wrote:
> These particular hens didn't have to contend with much in the way of
> nature. They had a lovely yard, the best of food and complete
freedom
> from predators. But they would attack anybody who entered their
ambit.
>
> I've seen news stories about people in New Jersey being attacked by
> wild turkeys. We have them here, too, but not enough to be a
nuisance.
> Yet. -- Q
I think you've been drinking too much Wild Turkey.
Susan
Karen Sexton
It's funny no one ever says, "Mad as a wet rooster". My mother's
parents had both; roosters are particularly nasty- worse than some
dogs.
KS
Jean Sue
quon...@yahoo.com at quon...@yahoo.com wrote on 2/16/05 7:01 PM:
> Sacha wrote:
>> On 16/2/05 3:26 am, in article
> 4212bcac$0$67318$45be...@newscene.com, "Q"
>> <Quon...@yahoo.commeilfaut> wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>> Hens are certainly nasty. I used to keep chickens. Very
> aggressive little
>>> brutes. -- Q
>>>> --
>> They're horrible things - very cruel but then so is much of nature.
>
> These particular hens didn't have to contend with much in the way of
> nature. They had a lovely yard, the best of food and complete freedom
> from predators. But they would attack anybody who entered their ambit.
>
> I've seen news stories about people in New Jersey being attacked by
> wild turkeys. We have them here, too, but not enough to be a nuisance.
> Yet. -- Q
Must be birds in general: geese and peacocks are horrible.
js
quon...@yahoo.com
Swans are also very nasty. Ducks are nice, though. I had a few ducks
when I had the chickens. Ducks make good-ish pets, although they have
their limitations. Some of the talking birds make good pets too --
with emphasis on "some." -- Q
>
> js