[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: over-reacting(Re: yet do not, i would not go)
JudahM at aol_com wrote:
<snip>
<The beginning of the article started out with her saying something to the effect of "I just think an interview is so trivial after all that's happened." (meaning the terrorist attacks.)>
did she not havea valid point? i mean, i do agree with the triviality of a celebrity interview under any circumstances...but that might just be me being too picky...
<Then she just starts going on and on about her microbiotic diet, and her yoga and how she's stopped drinking, and ever since then when she does her backwards bends in yoga, her liver shifts down into her lower back where it's supposed to be. I mean, who cares about the liver's position? Can we get a definition of trivial please? Then she starts talking about how she can't eat tomato sauce because it is a "nightshade", but some people saw her eating pasta with tomato sauce (oh no a nightshade!).!>
if i may say so, it sounds to me like a bit of sarcasm since she started by saying how trivial the interview seemed:
trivial: triv·i·al (trv-l) adj.
1. Of little significance or value.
2. Ordinary; commonplace.
3. Concerned with or involving trivia
hmm...
it seems to me as though she proved her point nicely, but then, maybe she is dumber than i am and was taking the entire interview serious...i wouldn't know.
<..so she had to justify eating her nightshade. Oh yeah...and she donates "tons of money" to the Robin Hood Fund. She's just so full of herself...people can go on any kind of diet they want, and care about where their liver is, just don't talk about it in an interview like it's something of substance. whew. sorry about that.>
yeah, i'm gonna stop talking now.
---dan
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/