http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z53VThRIJi

I feel like this kid can relate to many here on this site. I'm not sure if I'd go so far to say he "represents the world today", maybe the world tomorrow. Of course, being at that age, I suppose kids like that are the future.from the article wrote:Gilbert, speaking to Entertainment Weekly explains: 'He’s not a transgender character. He’s a little boy. He’s based on a few kids in my life that are boys who dress in more traditionally feminine clothing.
'He’s too young to be gay and he doesn’t identify as transgender, but he just likes wearing that kind of clothing and that’s where he is at this point in his life.'
Hollywood, we've had a problem.moonshadow wrote:I feel like this kid can relate to many here on this site. I'm not sure if I'd go so far to say he "represents the world today", maybe the world tomorrow. Of course, being at that age, I suppose kids like that are the future.
"My future's so bright I've gotta wear shades!", or so goes the song.And in that case, the future looks bright!
I lived though the 1990s as an adult and found Roseann about as funny as Ellen Degeneres or Bill Cosby once he went political. I.e. not.Regarding Rosanne. I must say I really enjoyed the show growing up.
NOT REALLY - - SITCOM is an acronym for SITuation COMedy.crfriend wrote:...SITCOM is actually an acronym (Single Income, Two Children, Outrageous Mortgage). Contrast with DINK (Dual Income, No Kids). Both date to the 1990s.
Actually, that's a portmanteau [0]. However, I split hairs here.Uncle Al wrote:See what a difference in age can do to/for people
NOT REALLY - - SITCOM is an acronym for SITuation COMedy.crfriend wrote:...SITCOM is actually an acronym (Single Income, Two Children, Outrageous Mortgage). Contrast with DINK (Dual Income, No Kids). Both date to the 1990s.
It's a double-header in that regard. Isn't language grand!Your 'definition' was formulated AFTER the 'SITCOM' was introduced in the 50's (Remember, I'm older than you)
I noticed that too. I was inclined to write a comment but figured it was a hopeless cause.skirtyscot wrote:Daily Wail readers come across as unenlightened in the comments. Negativity by the bucket load: "No way am I watching that if he's in it" is the general message. It's quite funny.