Ant_
Premium Platinum
Yeah I must have a miss spent youth, as I thought of merkin as well
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
She's fairly good looking, pity about the last few stories she's written
Yeah I must have a miss spent youth, as I thought of merkin as well
Not so much a misspent youth. It probably proves that we havent quite grown up yet!
Well that figures, her stories didn't hold water did they?A firkin is a 9 gallon (40.5 litre) barrel, sometimes used for holding butter.
Well that figures, her stories didn't hold water did they?
Not too sure why everyone seems so uptight about what has been reported.
If it's fact (& I've no reason to believe it isn't) then all the journo has done is her job, that of reporting the facts.
Yeah, it might seem trivial, but the journo has only told the truth ie: it was up on YT, it was pulled, it contained nudity.
So let me get this straight, and this is not reteorical. This HS "reporter" that some are defending, found out that there was a raunchy video from 1996 (Year of the Dog doco?) which can be purchased anywhere (JB Hifi etc..) and tried to make a You Tube story out of it early this morning? (The Age didn't report it).
Only to have the HS pull it from there website home page today without any clarification? What's the bigger story here, Melbourne journos not doing their research on old aired docos, that she hasn't seen and were probably made when she was a kid? Is this fairdinkum or a hoax?
I noticed there is no retort or apology to our club in todays HS paper or on their website......nice.
Thres a couple of of Food Recalls and Safeway catalogue misprint apoligies, buit that is it. I hope the club have spoken to this "journo".
Not too sure why everyone seems so uptight about what has been reported.
If it's fact (& I've no reason to believe it isn't) then all the journo has done is her job, that of reporting the facts.
Yeah, it might seem trivial, but the journo has only told the truth ie: it was up on YT, it was pulled, it contained nudity.
What was reported was a deliberately disclosure of only part of the story (albeit truthful) to sell newspapers.
If she was reporting the facts she would have stated that the YouTube vision was out of commercially available and produced documentary called the "year of the dog".
Although who would have bought a paper to read about a piece of vision that they already had seen or new about.
bordering on libelous IMHO
Was it in the paper or just online?
Was it in the paper or just online?