Buer wrote: » Language evolves naturally. When we call them actors, then we'll call them actors. Until then, forcing people to abandon a completely normal and accetable word like actress is silly, to my mind. A term like manageress has faded out from our lexicon naturally.
pickarooney wrote: » While the term may be disfavoured the requirement for makeup is a far more insidious vestige IMO.
Interested Observer wrote: » For actresses or for women in general? Everyone in a film wears makeup. Including all the men.
pickarooney wrote: » I meant ladies who work in aeroplanes. I've actually no idea what the current job title is!
irishbucsfan wrote: » Postman Pat, I think
Interested Observer wrote: » For actresses or for women in general? Everyone in a film wears makeup. Including all the men. Edit - if not actresses then don't mind me. If it's air hostesses then the likes of Emirates have all sorts of rules over appearance that their staff must follow, think there's a height requirement, etc.
irishbucsfan wrote: »
Stheno wrote: » Does your diagram mean most people are thick?
thomond2006 wrote: » Well, time to stay off TV until May.
dregin wrote: » Radio is worse.
thomond2006 wrote: » Radio too. It's going to be awful.
dregin wrote: » The sooner the likes of the Iona Institute are forbidden from spreading their ****e until they disclose their sources of funding, the better. Having to endure them on Radio 1 is soul destroying.
thomond2006 wrote: » The other side is just as guilty. NWCI receives taxpayers' money and campaigns on the repeal side. It's a very bad look and I'm surprised the pro-lifers don't make a bigger deal out of it.
dregin wrote: » The other side being the government? They tend to have their sources of income fairly well advertised.
Deleted User wrote: » It's an unusual debate in that both sides feel they have a moral high ground and both sides have elements that hate the other side for their beliefs. It's going to be massively divisive and for an issue with so many grey areas it really tends to polarise people to one extreme or another. Either way I'm taking absolutely no part in the debate. If needs be I'll install one of those filter apps to remove the noise as we move towards May.
irishbucsfan wrote: » It means people who don't understand cryptocurrency probably shouldn't be betting their house on it! EDIT: It's actually specifically referring to buttcoin, which is a subreddit where people track the trials and tribulations of people getting absolutely wrecked by betting on dodgy cryptos.
dregin wrote: » Mostly completely unrelated, I bought my first chrome extension yesterday. It embeds the prices of a product across all of Amazon's sites in the page you're looking at. Pretty interesting to see some of the massive differences in one place.https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amazon-price-compare/lpioecjgaljbjbpnjjnbnhonfalgcnle?hl=en
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dd23f423fe14831a2a84d9f17c825ecc.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
