So disappointed in Whoopi today on The View!

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

but I've never been able to watch The View for more than a few minutes at a time. It always sounds like a bunch of gibberish goo to me - everyone trying to talk at one time. None of them seemed to have enough manners to let the person talking finish her sentence before butting in. Everyone things what THEY want to say is of the upmost important.

While I'm on a little mini-rant....Larry King does the same thing. He always has the most interesting guests, but he always butts in with a question before the guest has had a chance to finish the previous sentence. I invariably end up yelling into the TV "SHUT UP AND LET ****** FINISH HIS SENTENCE".

this is television without pity and the link for only The View comments - you have to register to post (which I refuse to do) but it makes for GREAT reading when you have nothing better to do....*lol*

I *heard* that Ellen Degeneres' show might be shown at the same time as The View. Guess what? That's where I'll be headed if that happens!! Love her show and she is just so not controversial and SHE IS SMART!! I think Sherri Sheperd is lacking in the latter area plus 3 comediennes on the panel? I don't think so......

And Barbara Walters needs to leave. A lady always knows when to leave but Baba Wawa just doesn't get it.

DD or DS on how they are raising your grandkids. I don't want a rant on DDILs or DSILs.

I spent the week-end keeping the Grands while mom and dad worked. They do not listen well at all. DGS is ADHD, he is not doing well in school and his behavior (at home, not school) is awful. Like I say they do not mind, and DD and DSIL let it go until they are mad and then they yell and threaten to spank them. The kids know that 9 times out of 10, nothing will happen, so they don't quit.

They do listen to me and their other grandmother, because if we say we are going to spank, we do.

They also do not eat well. They eat, fishsticks, chicken nuggets, pizza bites, peanut butter, french fries, yogart and maybe a few other things.

OK New Englander and Heroes hit the nail on the head. I just wanted clarification that I was not the only person who had this impression. I don't usually go on public forums to vent BUT...........

Four years ago I met a guy who is a firefighter/paramedic/ER tech (on his days off and when I met him he was training police across the nation for Homeland Security in Haz mat response. He is college educated, polite, very well mannered. We have seen each other a few times since I met him and we email and talk frequently. Sounds like a nice guy, right?

The first of Feb he called me and asked me if he could borrow some money for an unexpected property tax bill. He changed jobs and moved to a different state right about the time the housing market started to bottom out. I know in the state I live in if your property is not your principal place of residence your tax rate changes. Soooo long story short...I sent him a cashier's check, he emailed me and called me and said thanks I couldn't have done it without you. Then he started talking about coming to my house and do some work for me to work off some of the money and I was thinking well I really need the money but I thought I would just let that part play out. Then the end of April I emailed him and said I really need to know if you can start paying something on this loan. You guessed it...he has not answered, nor has he called me. Three more emails have gone unanswered. My whole family was police officers and I always held police and fire in high esteem....these are the people who put their lives on the line for us everyday. Boy am I ever stupid.....So anyone have any ideas?

I believe I stopped having themed parties when my daughter was about 11 or 12, but when we went to see family, they took her and me out to dinner or lunch, had birthday cards, cake, or a special meal at home--maybe some money if they could afford to do so. One reason might be the cost of gifts that older children have come to expect, also the fact they become more choosy and harder to please about styles of clothing, as well as "toys." I had a friend who gave her children elaborate Easter baskets until they married and left home...that's what she liked to do--and that was fine! I just could not afford to do what she did for her children, ever, for any occasion.

It's remembering a special day that counts, not the party or gifts; I'm thankful my daughter learned that earlier than some and is passing that viewpoint on to my granddaughter.

I just had conversation with a fellow Sunday School teacher about what GIFTS would be good to give this kids this Christmas. At one point this gal asked her son (12 yrs. old) if he had any ideas what the kids would like to get. His response "gee, mom, I thought Christmas was about GIVING, not getting." Out of the mouth of babes, right? !!

Maybe it's adults who get too hung up on what we do or don't do for gifts, activities, etc. Bet your children are just glad to have a good mom !!

even to the point as to how they have sex and that's ALL going to be revealed on her show tonight. I'm definitely not going to watch. Those 2 make me sick, especially now that she/he is pregnant again and due in June! BW thinks she's doing the world a favor by doing this special report.

The reason it kept its female parts was to have kids. What gets me is they never heard of adoption? Why not adopt? Because they wanted to make money, that's why.

I don't know how many times they pointed out that she is now a legal male on all records, SS#, birth (how'd they accomplish that?), marriage license, medical history, etc. If she/he is a legal male, she/he shouldn't have the reproductive organs. Period.

I feel sorry for the kids. They will be so confused because they are going to tell them as soon as they're old enough to speak and/or understand.

OAKLAND, Calif., May 31 � For Mary Kalin-Casey, it was never about her cat.

Monty the cat was visible in a photo showing a street in Oakland.

Ms. Kalin-Casey, who manages an apartment building here with her husband, John Casey, was a bit shaken when she tried a new feature in Google�s map service called Street View. She typed in her address and the screen showed a street-level view of her building. As she zoomed in, she could see Monty, her cat, sitting on a perch in the living room window of her second-floor apartment.

�The issue that I have ultimately is about where you draw the line between taking public photos and zooming in on people�s lives,� Ms. Kalin-Casey said in an interview Thursday on the front steps of the building. �The next step might be seeing books on my shelf. If the government was doing this, people would be outraged.�

Her husband quickly added, �It�s like peeping.�

Ms. Kalin-Casey first shared her concerns about the service in an e-mail message to the blog Boing Boing on Wednesday. Since then, the Web has been buzzing about the privacy implications of Street View � with varying degrees of seriousness. Several sites have been asking users to submit interesting images captured by the Google service, which offers panoramic views of miles of streets around San Francisco, New York, Las Vegas, Miami and Denver.

On a Wired magazine blog, for instance, readers can vote on the �Best Urban Images� that others find in Street View. On Thursday afternoon, a picture of two young women sunbathing in their bikinis on the Stanford campus in Palo Alto, Calif., ranked near the top. Another showed a man scaling the front gate of an apartment building in San Francisco. The caption read, �Is he breaking in or has he just locked himself out?�

Google said in a statement that it takes privacy seriously and considered the privacy implications of its service before it was introduced on Tuesday. �Street View only features imagery taken on public property,� the company said. �This imagery is no different from what any person can readily capture or see walking down the street.�

Google said that it had consulted with public service organizations and considered their feedback in developing the service, which allows users to request that a photo be removed for privacy reasons. A Google spokeswoman said the company had received few such requests.

For instance, Google worked with the Safety Net Project at the National Network to End Domestic Violence, which represents shelters for victims of domestic violence nationwide, to remove pictures of those shelters. �They reached out in advance to us so we could reach out to our network,� said Cindy Southworth, founder and director of the organization.

Not everyone believes the service raises serious privacy concerns.

�You don�t have a right to �privacy� over what can be seen while driving the speed limit past your house,� wrote a Boing Boing reader, identified as Rich Gibson, in response to Ms. Kalin-Casey�s complaint. Others dismissed her as a crazy cat lady.

Edward A. Jurkevics, a principal at Chesapeake Analytics, a consulting firm specializing in mapping and imagery, said that courts have consistently ruled that people in public spaces can be photographed. �In terms of privacy, I doubt if there is much of a problem,� Mr. Jurkevics said.

Still, the issues raised by the service, thorny or merely funny, were perfect blog fodder. The hunt was on for quirky or potentially embarrassing images that could be found by wandering the virtual streets of the service.

There was the picture of a clearly identifiable man standing in front of an establishment offering lap dances and other entertainment in San Francisco. The site LaudonTech.com showed an image of a man entering a pornographic bookstore in Oakland, but his face was not visible.

Others pointed to pictures of cars whose license plates were clearly readable. One pointed to images captured inside the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel, a controversial location for photography in this high-security era. On Lombard Street in San Francisco, various tourists who had come to photograph the famously curvy street were photographed themselves.

Google said that the images had been captured by vehicles equipped with special cameras. The company took some of the photographs itself and purchased others from Immersive Media, a data provider.

�I think that this product illustrates a tension between our First Amendment right to document public spaces around us, and the privacy interests people have as they go about their day,� said Kevin Bankston, a staff lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital rights group. Mr. Bankston said Google could have avoided privacy concerns by blurring people�s faces.

Back at her apartment, Ms. Kalin-Casey acknowledged that plenty of information about her � that she manages an apartment complex, that she was an Editor at the film site Reel.com � is already easily accessible through Google and other search engines.

�People�s jobs are pretty public,� she said. �But that doesn�t mean they want a shot of their sofa on Google.� She has asked Google to remove the image of her building, which was still online as of Thursday evening.

When a reporter first arrived to interview her, Monty the cat was visible in the window.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01private.html?em&ex=1180843200&en=83156047690c5c2c&ei=5087%0A