Snark/rant

[Darren996]

Just another test wrapped test snark.

[Darren996]

Wrapped FireFox after a long period of inactivity! 

[Sibling Chatty]

NEW SNARK FOR OLD, NEW SNARK FOR OLD!!

I would like to loudly and vociferously snark today against bio-parents that choose to be TOTAL SCREAMING ASSHOLES just because they can.

I have mentioned our neighbor's Down Syndrome granddaughter. VERY high functioning, quite educable, and extremely funny. (She's got excellent timing. This kid could do standup.) Her Mom has had custody since Bio-Dad filed for divorce on her 2 month birthday, claiming that "A damaged child HAS to be the fault of YOUR side. MY family is genetically PERFECT."

The kid is ten. Her step-Dad is the ONLY Daddy she knows. He's raised her, cared for her, clothed, fed, educated (He pays out the kazoo for an exceptional private school that teaches both kinds of 'exceptional students' as well as 'average' ones. She's in some classes with very advanced children, and dammit, she keeps up!) her and as far as he's concerned, that's HIS child. He truly cares about this kid, and evidently has already set up trusts to provide WELL for her when both he and her mother are gone.

The sperm donor NOW wants joint custody. HE wants to be able to see her, to have her visit HIS family. Now, this is the guy that started off, 2 months ago, saying that Step-Dad was sexually abusing her. (BULLSHIT, and quickly proven.) NOW, he wants joint custody?? One of his sisters just had her first child. It's a girl with Down Syndrome. Evidently, he wants to PROVE to his sister that the child CAN be "OK" if taken care of properly.

This is the killer. His sister contacted my neighbor's daughter, mother of my 10 year old friend. She doesn't want to raise her child. She's offered to allow Kate and her husband to adopt the baby. No strings. She doesn't feel up to the challenge, and her husband's threatening to leave, much as her stupid-ass brother did 10 years ago.

May I have permission from my Siblings to just go and beat the holy hell out of some people?? Both bio-Dads, no matter which, as they need it, slightly out of the new Mom, and just because they need it, the US Executive Branch at large??

The thing that sorta makes me feel hopeful? Kate and her husband have already contacted the lawyers to see about adopting the baby. She wasn't able to have any more kids, and this will give their daughter a sibling that is genetically related, a cousin/sister.

However, I STILL need to beat the hell outta some people...

[Bluenose]

Dearest Sibling Chatty,

Of course you can go and beat the living daylights out of some a-holes that really need it.  You seem to have made an excellent case for these creeps to be on the receiving end of such an action.

BTW, give GW one for me and David Hicks while you're at it too, OK?

Sibling Bluenose

[Sibling Chatty]

Thank you.

I'll be installing new spikes in my bat...

[Griffin NoName]

Deeply horrified by what ITV (a Brit TV channel) have managed to do to Jane Austin. So far they have butchered Emma and Mansfield Park. There needs to be a law about not messing with Austin.

The rant part is that I feel compelled to keep watching to see what a mess they make of the remainder.

[beagle]

Motorised her?

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

Deeply horrified by what ITV (a Brit TV channel) have managed to do to Jane Austin. So far they have butchered Emma and Mansfield Park. There needs to be a law about not messing with Austin.

I totally agree.  Jane Austin's writings should be left in their original form... otherwise, what will be left for the insomniacs who don't respond to strong drugs?   

[Swatopluk]

Motorised her?

Drat, I wanted to do a similar joke!

[beagle]

It's product placement gone mad. It'll be Buick Rogers in the 25th Century next.

[Griffin NoName]

In terms of Billy Piper playing Fanny, you are right about product placement gone mad. I could swear there was no Tardis in the original text.

[beagle]

I hope they've updated the text a bit.
Groups of women endlessly discussing the size of men's estates and generally ogling them is deeply offensive in these days when men are more than mere trophies and sex objects.

[Griffin NoName]

I trust you are not forgetting the Austin heroine. They always reflect the distasteful nature of such in favour of smouldering eyes and unavailability. And as everyone knows, the eyes are the window to the soul.

The main way they have updated the text is by cutting out large and important chunks to make it fit into a 2 hour slot.

They were also attempting to be topical, focusing on Fanny's dislike of the slave trade, though why she disliked it is not discussed.

[beagle]

I'm a bit rusty on dates, but I believe large numbers of young women did wear those elliptical abolitionist badges representing a vertical cross-section of a slave ship showing where slaves were chained. It was one of the early popular "ribbon"-type campaigns, so it might not entirely be back-dated political correctness.

[Griffin NoName]

Fanny's objection is in the original text.

It was the fact that it wasn't cut out with all the other aspects of the text which make it great literature that were cut out that annoyed me.

It was also totally out of character for the version of Fanny that Piper was portraying, who basically scampered around looking pretty.

Chopping texts up is an art. Good directors, interesting directors, etc. Mangling for prime time concerns me. Is the mangling of great literature justified if it means it appeals to the masses? (Actually, I doubt if this particular mangling even appealed to the masses. ) It might have come over better as an animated cartoon.