Mark Lester Considers Himself Part Of The Family

via news.bbc.co.uk

So, Mark Lester the ex child star of Lionel Bart's 1968 movie Oliver claims to be the biological father of Michael Jackson's children.

In the prophetic words of the song Mark:

Considers himself at home.
Considers himself one of the family.
He's taken to them so strong.
It's clear they're going to get along.
Considers himself well in
Considers himself part of the furniture.
There isn't a lot to spare.
Who cares?..What ever we've goin we share!

In practical terms Mark raises the distinction between the biological and the psychological. Those of us with less gullible bones in our bodies (ask Mark to check them over) will know that Michael's daughter was grieving because of a strong emotional bond, and that Mark's rather timely claim stretches the belief that there is a reciprocal emotional connection based on a prior biological arrangement.

Now I'd never say Mark's on screen experiences were influencing his actions simply because:

In this life, one thing counts
In the bank, large amounts
I'm afraid these don't grow on trees,
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two

You've got to pick-a-pocket or two, boys,
You've got to pick-a-pocket or two.

Why should we break our backs
Stupidly paying tax?
Better get some untaxed income
Better to pick-a-pocket or two.

Clearly Mark doesn't want his intentions to be misunderstood and that:

A man's got a heart, hasn't he?
Joking apart -- hasn't he?
And tho' I'd be the first one to say that I wasn't a saint...

I'm finding it hard to be really as black as they paint...

So Mark...Where 'ere 'ere 'ere 'ere is love? Surely protecting the children from unnecessary limelight and mawkish intrusion into their father's past would be more appropriate.

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

Archbishop Slams Social Networking

via news.bbc.co.uk

Archbishop Vincent Nichols seems to presume that people are gullible when it comes to the majority of us not grasping the adverse impact of social networking. He warns us all in a rather sweeping generalisation that social networking sites, texting and would you believe it e-mails are undermining community life!.

Now lets just run past that again. Modern society is falling apart because of e-mail?! OK...let me ponder on that for a moment. OK...done that and concluded that it sort of runs counter to the evidence given its contribution to long-distance family life and commerce. The same holds true for all other forms of digital communication.

Of course his conjecture will contains grains of truth, and he draws attention to the well worn fact most social media users have been blogging about for years, the well understood phenomenon of 'social networking friendship'

Now, notwithstanding the extreme cases in any large population, I'm pretty confident that most people who have friended and followed me across Twitter, Friend Feed, Blogcatalog, MyBlogLog and so on don't really consider me to their 'bosom buddy'. The label 'friend' in this context is merely an evolved use of the term for use in a social media sitaution. Sure I'm in touch on a regular basis with a handful of fellow bloggers who I've got to know, and I would consider them my 'friend' in the sense of 'pen-pal', and of course we haven't physically 'met'. Nevertheless I do regard them as a social networking Friend (capital 'F'- proper digital friend) not just a social networking friend (lower case 'f'- digital aquaintance)

Had the Archbishop been commenting in previous decades would he have claimed that having 'pen-pals' was socially dysfunctional.?

In his criticism of 'transient' relationships that cause grief and upset when they fall apart. He seems to be describing the common socio-psychological characteristics of any relationship and somehow blaming a technological medium for when they go wrong!! In social networking Trolls and Flamers are socially and psychologically dysfunctional they are not technologically dysfunctional. They would behave as they did in a family, on street, in a village, in a town because that is how they are!.

The Archbishop has missed his target if he has any cause for concern. The clue is in the title. SOCIAL networking. Its the PEOPLE stupid!. The network is merely the technological medium not the attitude and behaviour of its users.

What about all the people who have found enduring relationships through sites like Match.com and so on? People who have traced lost family and friends through Friends Re-United, People who have found work through LinkedIN?

Instead of patronising us by thinking that he can see issues and problems that people less perceptive than himself the Archbishop is foreclosing the opportunity of social networking to his own vocation. Come on 'Bish, you would like to socially influence people about your attitudes and beliefs wouldn't you?, you'd like bigger congregations hearing what you have to say wouldn't you?. Well...just a suggestion...why not consider delivering your message through the medium that a significant number of people choose to use in the 21st century instead of relying on a social networking technology of the the 1st millennium aka the physical Church building. After all isn't the true meaning of Church really about a congregation of people with similar beliefs NOT the physical place they meet!!

Now here's the question. Archbishop Vincent Nichols...will you be my friend?

Posted via web from Gullibimundi

She Should Have Had 'Gullible' Tatooed On Her Forehead

image credit Daily Telegraph












There are several factors involved with gullibility. One is not thinking through the consequences of one's choices and decisions, another is placing yourself in vulnerable situations that are in the control of unscrupulous people.

Now you may think I'm being harsh when I describe Kimberley Vlaeminck as gullible. However what on earth was going through this pretty girl's mind?

I can remember camping in the South of France and watching travelling tatooists working the bars and beaches. Clearly relying on the 'holiday spirit'of prospects so that they would take advantage of their relaxed and uncritical situation.

That this young woman fell asleep as she had the face art done is surely a metaphor for an uncritical mind. The full story can be read here 56 Stars later

Taking Care of Susan

Reading the runes I'd say that the pressure on lovely and talented Susan Boyle to live up to expectations was self evident in her demenour on the Britain's Got Talent Final.

The news that she has been taken into clinic is yet another example of the use of language to imply that Susan is somehow 'mentally shaky'. This is unfair. Anyone who has had to Reframe the context of their life and their sense of identity knows that this is a challenging and often up-setting experience.

I would also not be suprised in the slightest if the Britain's Got Talent production took and executive decision to take some of the pressure off Susan by massaging the results. This of course is pure speculation, and it could have been a weird sort of 'care effect' by the voting public to refrain from voting to protect their heroine.

Thinking like this is also unfair to Diversity, who I thought were awesome on the night. I was one of the first people to Stumble their Youtube on April 26th 2009. So its very likely that Diversity won outright fair and square.

This just goes to show how the mind works in lots of different situations. Are we gullible in thinking that rocketing to international fame wouldn't cause Susan to need a massive re-think about what is happening to her? Are we gullible in thinking that the type of super hype pressure cooker that is Britains Got Talent won't turn grown men and kids to tears? Are we gullible in thinking that we don't 'fill in the gaps' and create conspiracy theories the instant we only have partial information.

Susan Boyle deserves every ounce of success. She deserves some well earned rest, and she deserves to be taken care of not only by the entertainment industry but by the the Media and the public. Other wise every single one of us deserve to be accused of taking advantage of another human being.

How appropriate that she does a cover of the Rolling Stones Wild Horses. She's certainly riding them!

Living Love In The Public Domain

Being a parent in the socially networked 21st century presents us with some firsts. In the past I'm sure parents heard about their children's bust ups and, of course, were there for the anger and tears, they didn't actually 'live through them'.

I find myself in the weird situation of watching the events unfold blow by blow on Facebook.

I'm witnessing wall messages that are like cries in the dark. Pointed jibes, bravado and all sorts...

What I find curious is that modern youngsters seem to have no inhibitions whatsoever in sharing what is a rather personal event.

Perhaps Facebook has been become a 'cyber-god'? An entity where love/hate messages are left for the god to influence the outcome.

On the other hand maybe its just a way of letting everyone know that 'frankly they don't give a damn'.

My dilemma is...should I comment on the wall or just leave it be? What would you do? Remain a voyeur? Cancel Facebook Account?, remove participants as friends until it has blown over? or join in? Facebookers must be gullible if they don't think people are watching and following...