Alrighty people. Let's set this straight.

 

"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn."

 

The word is NOT "Condemn". It is CONTEMN. It basically means to forget, and apparently comes from the same root as "contempt". I learnt this in grade 6, and everyone gets it wrong! The ANZAC Day site has it wrong for crying out loud. The Digger History site has it wrong. The Veterans Support and Advocacy Service Australia Inc. site has it wrong. C'mon people, let's get with the program! My congratulations go out to Birds Down Under who got it right. Congratulations to Reference.com! And also to all the other people out there (remarkably few of them are "official" sites) who got it right :D

 

Anyways.

 

Poor Sarah Nickson got the fright of her life yesterday. I put my bracelet in her pocket when a charm thingy fell off (luckily I got it back) coz we were down on the beach. 20 minutes later I went to get it back off her and she discovered there was a hole in her pocket O.O Poor girl she was soooo upset. Anyways I said it was ok and we'd go look for it. Yup, I found it, down the beach, below the high tide mark, about 1m from where I'd originally given it to her ^^ Her reaction? "You found it??! You actually found it?? I looked there!!... of course you found it, you're a Williams!" XD

No Heidi, you didn't sound harsh but I think you missed a few points. The biggest thing I picked up was what you said about Townsville not being up to scratch in the Tourism industry... well I really don't think that's what the article was about. Whether it is or it isn't. And it wasn't just about TOwnsville but about surrounding regions. Heh. And besides, Townsville tourism is picking up remarkably... and honestly, a lot of back packers probably wouldn't hav ea clue. *sigh* *Tourism student shuts up now*

 

And I don't always disagree! Just coz I have an opinion when most of today's society is apathetic...

 

And in relation to " in danger of this being merely a persoanl issue i asked if i wouldve felt the same if it had been an article about soemone that i didnt know my answer: i woulndt be as fired up but i would still feel like i wasnt given the whole story"-- I don't think you can truly ask yourself how you would react had it not been a personal issue in these situations. You  are already in a mood which will probably subconcsiously bias you against the article. Personally, when I read the article, I didn't feel like the Wights were treated unfairly at all. And I entered in to reading it with the mindset that I was reading an article by some scum bag journo who had totally left the Wight's point of view out. And I was proven quite wrong. The reporter reported facts, nothing more. The only biased voice in that article was Wayne Cooper's. And Mr Wight got a remarkable proportion of the article dedicated to his point of view for an article whihc is supposedly suppressing his point of view and twisting things to make him look like the baddie. If the reporter was truly trying to twist things in that direction, he did a pretty crap job of it. For starters, he would have given Mr Wight a lot less "air time", shoved his opinion down the very bottom, used a lot more negative language, and expounded on Mr Cooper's opinion. Which he could have done all of without breaking any ehtical standards or laws- but he didn't. *Journalist student shuts up now :P*

 

And I had to laugh at the comparison to the infamous Harry Potter debate... I just read that again yesterday... quite amusing. Oh well. I got annoyed at it all over again haha ^^ then I got over it 2 minutes later...

 

Well now that you've succeeded in distracting me from my assignment (which I've actually gotten some serious work done on!!) I'm going to go back and do more of it.

 

Oh, and in respect to Paul's comments: please, no generalisations!! "Its human nature to look at the faults in others and journalists do this a lot" No! No no no... SOME journos do that, undoubtedly. But basically journalists report the truth, and the truth is, there are an awful lot of faults out there to report on!

"Whats important is that Christians hold true to their morals and sometimes that means not doing a certain career." Erm, there are very few careers that are ruled out for Christians, and neither acting nor journalism is one of those. You just have to work within your morals, ethics, and beliefs. Whether that means not acting out sex scenes or not publishing defamatory comments about someone.

I got an extension on an assignment that's due on Monday! *dances* I am sooooo happy. It requires communication with a PR company and they are silly and slow in replying, so my lecturer was most understanding and gave me extra time, I just have to let her know how things progress etc. w00t! *bounces happily*

 

I am SO happy.

 

In other news, there are a bunch of us from my Writing for Print subject who are having a whinge on our LearnJCU discussion board about how journalists- and even journalist students- are labelled among the public. Now, I understand there are some total scumbag journos out there, but it's so annoying how we are labelled as soon as people hear the word "journalist".

1) We are just doing our job

2) If it weren't for journalists, the public would just be an ignorant mass. Great way to run elections there.

3) Yes, we talk about negative news, but we also talk about positive news. I mean, that's the point of the media.

4) Yes, maybe some people's lives are "ruined" by the media and journalists. But a) that may be a scumbag journo and b) if someone's life is ruined by a journo exposing their corruption or whatnot, they've been asking for it.

 

It's also kinda crap how journalist students are at the bottom of that pile, too. Not only are we one of "them", but we have only recently voluntarily added ourselves to that number. But wait- there's more! Not only does the public despise us- but so does the rest of the profession! Ok, ok, so that's an exaggeration. Most other journos and PR officers out there are very accommodating, but there are a few (like the lovely "Totally Wild" lady) who actually appear to view us as competition and so are as unco-operative as possible! And yes, being a journalism student I realise I just committed defamation and could be sued by any female employee of "Totally Wild" but I really don't care, and if they want to use their time constructively, they won't care either.

 

Anyway.

 

Although, you realise you must have some degree of power when fully grown men go running in the opposite direction when you want to talk to them. (No, that didn't happen to me.)

 

So that's my rant.

 

And hopefully I've provided Joel with some procrastination material ^_^

Mary had a little lamb

His fleece was white as snow

And everywhere that Mary went

The Lamb was sure to go

He followed her to school one day

Twasn't even in the rule.

He made the children laugh and play

To have a Lamb at school.

And then the rules all changed one day

Illegal it became

To bring the Lamb of God to school

Or even speak his name.

Everyday got worse and worse

And days turned into years

Instead of hearing children laugh

We heard gun shots and tears.

What must we do to stop the crime,

That's in our schools today?
Let's let the Lamb come back to school

And teach out kids to pray.

---------------

 

And yes, I realise this is American and this isn't happening in Australian schools... yet.

 

 

Conversation between Condolezza Rice and George Bush...

(We take you now to the Oval Office.)

George: Condi! Nice to see you. What's happening?

Condi: Sir, I have the report here about the new leader of China.

George: Great. Lay it on me.

Condi: Hu is the new leader of China.

George: That's what I want to know.

Condi: That's what I'm telling you.

George: That's what I'm asking you. Who is the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes.

George: I mean the fellow's name.

Condi: Hu.

George: The guy in China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The new leader of China.

Condi: Hu.

George: The Chinaman!

Condi: Hu is leading China.

George: Now whaddya' asking me for?

Condi: I'm telling you Hu is leading China.

George: Well, I'm asking you. Who is leading China?

Condi: That's the man's name.

George: That's who's name?

Condi: Yes.

George: Will you or will you not tell me the name of the new leader of China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir? Yassir Arafat is in China? I thought he was in the Middle East.

Condi: That's correct.

George: Then who is in China?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir is in China?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Then who is?

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Yassir?

Condi: No, sir.

George: Look, Condi. I need to know the name of the new leader of China.

Get me the Secretary General of the U.N. on the phone.

Condi: Kofi?

George: No, thanks.

Condi: You want Kofi?

George: No.

Condi: You don't want Kofi.

George: No. But now that you mention it, I could use a glass of milk.And then get me the U.N.

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: Not Yassir! The guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi?

George: Milk! Will you please make the call?

Condi: And call who?

George: Who is the guy at the U.N?

Condi: Hu is the guy in China.

George: Will you stay out of China?!

Condi: Yes, sir.

George: And stay out of the Middle East! Just get me the guy at the U.N.

Condi: Kofi.

George: All right! With cream and two sugars. Now get on the phone.

(Condi picks up the phone.)

Condi: Rice, here.

George: Rice? Good idea. And a couple of egg rolls, too. Maybe we should send some to the guy in China. And the Middle East. Can you get Chinese food in the Middle East?