[Terry]

Elvis meets The Beatles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4EG8fs3dCs

[Terry]

@panda12 wrote:

@terry wrote:

@panda12 wrote:

@terry wrote:

@anc wrote:

Soz Tedwood, but Panda makes me :lol:

Tedwood? :roll: :roll:

I was reading about the time Elvis met The Beatles and how nobody took a photograph of it. What a real faux pas that was!

No one took a picture because the meeting was inside Graceland and no media were allowed.

The meeting was in Los Angeles.

No. It was at Graceland.

They only met the once and it was at Elvis’ mansion in Los Angeles.

[Terry]

@panda12 wrote:

@terry wrote:

You wouldn’t get tired of looking at this lovely lady;

Is that Cheryl Cole?

No.

[Terry]

You wouldn’t get tired of looking at this lovely lady;

[Terry]

@panda12 wrote:

@terry wrote:

@panda12 wrote:

Proof Terry reads the Daily Mail!

And what is that supposed to mean..?

Well, Terry dear boy, you have admitted you read the Daily Mail.

And as Martin has decided to re-direct your link to the source of the original pic, then I guess that means you’ve been rumbled.

And your point is what exactly..? :-k

[Terry]

@panda12 wrote:

@terry wrote:

@anc wrote:

Soz Tedwood, but Panda makes me :lol:

Tedwood? :roll: :roll:

I was reading about the time Elvis met The Beatles and how nobody took a photograph of it. What a real faux pas that was!

No one took a picture because the meeting was inside Graceland and no media were allowed.

The meeting was in Los Angeles.

[Terry]

@panda12 wrote:

Proof Terry reads the Daily Mail!

And what is that supposed to mean..?

[Terry]

@jen_jen wrote:

@terry wrote:

@jen_jen wrote:

I did not lose the discussion, I opted out of it when you lost the capacity for debate and began resorting to personal attacks.

You opted out because you were getting your a rse kicked.

I made one comment and you stopped debating and got personal…there wasn’t even an element of debate. If someone making personal comments at me equates to “getting my arse kicked”, well what can I say…you seem to get yours kicked a lot, though not by me.

@terry wrote:

The thing I dislike about all of this is the little clique that you, wordsworth and panda are a part of.
And your answers are always so smug and righteous. And then you pat each other on the back at your smugness.

Oh not the old “clique” chestnut, please. :roll:
You have several people, not just myself, panda and Words, that disagree with your point of view. That does not make us a clique. But I see you’re getting personal again…why?

@terry wrote:

Neither one of you has a valid point to make, but that’s not my problem..it’s yours .

What you mean is that none of us has a point to make that agrees with your view. If it doesn’t fit with your point of view, it is invalid. Well enjoy talking to yourself Terry as with that approach you’ll find that pretty soon few, if any, will want to debate with you and the only people who will respond will be those that want to goad you.

Well, you’ve said your piece jen x.

And I hope it makes you feel better.

[Terry]

@tinks wrote:

@terry wrote:

@tinks wrote:

@terry wrote:

@tinks wrote:

@terry wrote:

@tinks wrote:

the photo’s still up then? :roll:

:-s

[-o< Give me strength…

say what you want but after a few phone calls made ……you are definately walking on dodgey ground……..at the very least the children’s faces should be blurred out……….you are not above the law Terry whatever you believe yourself to be.

I know the law with regard to photogrpahy, but please give me your interpretation of it.

I work in school and I am totally aware of parental permissions that have to be sought to display pictures of children on the net ………terry at the end of the day you can post pics like that as often as you like on whatever sites you like………..but if I was a parent of one of those children I would be seeking legal advice about what you have done ………you should delete that pic.

Legal advice on what grounds..?

On the grounds that you don’t have consent to post their child’s picture

If you have parental consent for every child in that photo to post their pic on this site then its not a problem………but i very much doubt you do ……….no one should post pictures of children on the net because they ‘can’ whether they are a photographer or not………to be quite honest you appear to be goading me and i’m not up for that……….end of thread for me terry.

I’m not goading you,

but you’re confusing law with political correctness.

[Terry]

@tinks wrote:

@terry wrote:

@tinks wrote:

@terry wrote:

@tinks wrote:

the photo’s still up then? :roll:

:-s

[-o< Give me strength…

say what you want but after a few phone calls made ……you are definately walking on dodgey ground……..at the very least the children’s faces should be blurred out……….you are not above the law Terry whatever you believe yourself to be.

I know the law with regard to photogrpahy, but please give me your interpretation of it.

I work in school and I am totally aware of parental permissions that have to be sought to display pictures of children on the net ………terry at the end of the day you can post pics like that as often as you like on whatever sites you like………..but if I was a parent of one of those children I would be seeking legal advice about what you have done ………you should delete that pic.

Legal advice on what grounds..?

[Author]

Posts