Julia i love you but....

ShoppingTelly

Help Support ShoppingTelly:

B

BurlyBeaR

Registered Shopper
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
5,002
i dipped into various bits of 3 hours of her earlier tonight.

she did an hour of Honora pearls with old lizard chops - no problem. nice black top showing above the desk.

then she did an hour of pilates with Margerine Burgervan (who has the face of a hatchet and the body of a 39 year old) where she treated us to sight of the same top, but legs spread wide open in a pair of zippy leggings. not a good look but passable for pilates, given that crotches have to be shown.

then blow me if she didnt segue straight into the Yummi Tummi girdle hour in the SAME OUTFIT!!! she stood there pontificating about control-panties with her own indiscretions on show (max wall) including a tum that looked like she'd just eaten a roast dinner.

she was even wearing the toe posts... AAAAAARRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH!


Julia you make it VERY hard for me to defend you sometimes....
 
You know, someone started a thread on the Yummi Tummi girdle hour and I saw a bit of that, was going to comment on Julia's Max Wall impression, but decided against it.
I'm not alone then - that's EXACTLY who she reminded me of - Max Wall!
 
i think she has been lulled into a false sense of security with her weight loss. she may be "tiny" (Burgerbar's words) but she is still in her 50;s with twp kids behind her.

cover up jules, please.
 
The issue is, Julia has very slim arms and slender legs but a rotund torso. That's her body shape, so while it is good to play up to her assets, it's not good when there is such a contrast on show. The tummy and slim legs present too much of a contrast.
How Julia dresses and what she dresses in, is her business of course, but I don't think she's got her new body shape clear in her head yet.
 
From a distance looking straight at the camera, she looks absolutely fine, but as soon it comes in closer, or she turns to the side the dodgy look becomes more evident. Her twig like legs don't look as like they're up to supporting her bulky torso. Thing is, she could look really good if she recognised that despite losing weight she still has a few problem areas. Those jeans would look much better on her with a pair of elegant heels, and perhaps a long bodied, long sleeved batwing top with a cut across neckine....NOT a too tight short sleeved top that looks like it's part of a fancy dress outfit and those horrendous shoes...save 'em for the weekend luv!...(if you're not working that is)
 
I find that I watch less and less of the Julia hours,sad to say she seem to bore the ass off me now. I refuse to watch the overzealous gnome :eek: I'm not that keen on the two new presenters, so I seem to watch less and less qvc, it works for me...
 
Methinks La Roberts enjoys the attention she gets on this here forum, so expect her to maintain the "zipped leggings/jeggings/jeans and toe post sandals" look for a good long while to come.

Or at least until people stop commenting on it :wink:
 
Its very apparent she gives little clout to what people think, or she would have married the father of her kids and made them legitimate loooooooooong before now ! Would I like to see my mother on the box proclaiming she had NEVER been married, er NO I wouldn't, so, scant regard for her children's feelings either ! Call me old fashioned, well, yeah I am actually.................. I even like people to say please and thank you too !
 
brissles said:
Its very apparent she gives little clout to what people think, or she would have married the father of her kids and made them legitimate loooooooooong before now ! Would I like to see my mother on the box proclaiming she had NEVER been married, er NO I wouldn't, so, scant regard for her children's feelings either ! Call me old fashioned, well, yeah I am actually.................. I even like people to say please and thank you too !
Click to expand...

I can see the relevance of commenting on her clothes ect but surely it is totally up to her and her partner if/why/when they get married or not. Also not at all sure what marriage has to do with feelings for your children?
 
If anything, it's probably MORE embarrassing to be married to the father of your kids these days than vice versa :nod:
 
Saying please and thank you is good manners toward your fellow humans but a person's domestic or family arrangements is none of my business unless there is something criminal and terrible going on.
The presence or absence of a ring would not influence my opinion of anyone.
 
OMG That is a very old fashioned view in this day and age. I am married but that was my choice but i still find your comments offensive.
 
Offensive and unacceptable seem to be the bywords of today's society. In today's Mail, Judy Dench writes that she is getting angrier as she gets older, and now says what she thinks - I bet few people would challenge her on being 'offensive or unacceptable'. I too am of an age, and I could really let rip on on other stuff that I find "offensive".
 
brissles said:
Its very apparent she gives little clout to what people think, or she would have married the father of her kids and made them legitimate loooooooooong before now ! Would I like to see my mother on the box proclaiming she had NEVER been married, er NO I wouldn't, so, scant regard for her children's feelings either ! Call me old fashioned, well, yeah I am actually.................. I even like people to say please and thank you too !
Click to expand...
I agree with you Brissles. I never wanted kids but if I had it would have been within marriage.
 
I'm 49 and there are a few things I find offensive and unacceptable ~ poverty, cruelty , discrimination and murder being amongst them, but a persons marital status definitely isn't up there
 
can someone actually explain to me why it is so important to have children in marriage? Does it make the partner (on purpose gender neutral as both can stray) stay with you forever to raise children in perfect harmony? What has marriage got that partnership does not? And how does having children in partnership differ from having children in sanctioned marriage? And what marriage are we talking about? Church? Registry Office?
 
Last edited:
Well, one could say, why bother with marriage at all ? lets do away with it, as obviously it serves no useful purpose whatsover ! Attitudes have changed radically over the past few decades, so it makes one wonder why William and Katherine bothered with all that fuss when they could have bred offspring without the formalities. The idea in the first place was to create new life and have "family units" within that relationship. Now its a free for all society, ingrained too far and too deep now to change. Single girls having children in order to gain housing accommodation - that always promotes an outcry.

And a lesser known fact of this free for all, is where a young couple meet at a disco, fall in lust/love, then discover they are related by having the same father ! Incredible - no TRUE, my job in social welfare before I retired, uncovered literally dozens of these relationships which gave untold heartbreak for all concerned. Agreed marriage has little to do with this state of affairs, but is an indication of how far this country has slipped in moral fortitude.
 
Wow if I had a pound for every time the toe posts, zip up leggings, stomach, scrappy hair, never a size small, look at me stuff is mentioned it would have been me picking up the equiv of the euro millions.
 

Similar threads

B
Tales Of Chiswick: Chapter 1. New Beginnings
2
Replies
23
Views
4,518
Weathergirl
Weathergirl

Latest posts

Back
Top