Wibbs wrote: » What little writers get from selling film rights might surprise you. For an option on a first time writer script that may or may not be green lit and is still in development? If she even got five figures into her hand so far I'd be surprised. Very. When you read headline like "100,000 quid for first script" that's only the marketing hype. It could well be "5000 quid for option, 10,000 for first draft and so forth until flic is finished and that all might add up to a hundred grand". The promotional deal will get in a few quid, but again not nearly as much as people may think and certainly not in a tiny market like Ireland and even here she'd not have that much market recognition. If you look around at "media people", men and women, you tend to find that they end up married/cohabiting with "ordinary" people, with "ordinary" jobs, jobs that pay.
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » Its interesting the note how quickly the feminists turn on another who disagrees with them. I'm no fan of Niamh Horan, but she gets some really bad heat from folks like Una Mullally for having a majorly different opinion.
mzungu wrote: » To be fair, while I'm sure a few of her compatriots here and across the pond might have said that all men are rapists, I don't think she has ever said those words exactly, or made a direct accusation like that. Instead, what has been implied is that men are colluders and thus they share some of the responsibility for the actions of others, therefore it is up to them to fix it. Both are absurd standpoints, but to my knowledge she has only expressed the latter (in the documentary).
Wibbs wrote: » Translation: "there is no smoke without fire". Brilliant. *slow handclap*
RayM wrote: » More like: "There was a fire before, in the exact same place, so people are more willing to entertain the idea that the smoke is coming from another one." Maybe we should just agree to disagree...
Wibbs wrote: » No. No way am I letting you off that easily.
RayM wrote: » God, that's terrible. What am I going to do?
ivytwine wrote: » Yeah by that logic you'd say "well a woman once lied about being raped, so we won't take this woman's allegation of rape seriously." Don't you see any indication of a double standard here? Equality between the sexes means equal treatment, no double standard for anyone.
RayM wrote: » I just happen to think it's not impossible that the Facebook group in question existed. I've already said why I don't think it's impossible. I'm not really interested in having an argument about it. I'm sure the sky won't fall in if we just agree to disagree.
Venom wrote: » If such a Facebook group existed there would be proof due to how the internet works. I would imagine the Guards contacted Facebook who would have a record of such a group.
RayM wrote: » I don't think the Guards were involved at any point. An internal investigation was carried out by UCD and Facebook wasn't contacted.
Wibbs wrote: » So in your mind "women I'd like to shift" is the same "fire" as revenge porn?
Sweetemotion wrote: » Was any evidence found?
RayM wrote: » As I said in an earlier post, nobody came forward and therefore no evidence was found.
Wibbs wrote: » I ask you again… But basically we're back to "no smoke without fire" because it suits your "feminist" politic.
Wibbs wrote: So in your mind "women I'd like to shift" is the same "fire" as revenge porn?
Venom wrote: » Or maybe, just maybe it was because of the fact it was total BS from the start
RayM wrote: » WTF are you, Wibbs? Jeremy fucking Poxman? Seriously, what's wrong with agreeing to disagree? Christ, why does everything have to be an e-cock waving contest? The rumours I heard (absolutely unsubstantiated, but in UCD itself) were that the aforementioned Facebook group (if it existed, and I fully accept that it may not have) wasn't set up as a "revenge porn" group or anything like that. It was a "lads group" or whatever, generally similar in tone and content to the original publicly viewable group, but private and closed to public view. And some of the posts allegedly contained photos of girls whom members claimed to have been with. Any more questions, m'lud?
RayM wrote: » At no point have I dismissed that possibility.
CaptainInsano wrote: » I would call it an overwhelming probability.
RayM wrote: » Thank you for your opinion, caller. Ok, who have we got on line two?
Sweetemotion wrote: » Thank fuk your opinion is finally being see what for what it is.
RayM wrote: » Which is...?
Sweetemotion wrote: » You're a victim.
RayM wrote: » You're not making sense. A victim of what, exactly? Strange thing to randomly call somebody.
Sweetemotion wrote: » A victim of your own self importance.
