IDB

These photos are not helping me.

gnostic wrote: I am genuinely curious, what is the point of such action? 10 second google search reveals the name of the bar.

This is a public forum where many many people lurk. I personally wouldn't want to be a source of Dan and Phil potentially being hassled or interrupted whilst they are relaxing or not working so if I can prevent that information being posted somewhere that is visited by many then I will.

Like Jesp said, if you have comments or suggestions then please feel free to make a thread. We are always open to different strategies

I love that they're taking a little vacation again, I really didn't think they would this time, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
ps: I just thought that it may be an old pic, who knows with them?

missemma wrote: That place looks stunning, they certainly like sky bars don't they

The place looks amazing, they sure do enjoy their sky bars.

LurkingTrash wrote:I love that they're taking a little vacation again, I really didn't think they would this time, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
ps: I just thought that it may be an old pic, who knows with them?

I was thinking the same thing. It could be an old photo. I haven't seen any fan encounter photos (I've been checking twitter.) so we are not sure where they are exactly. But I guess that's good. All the impromtu airport m&g in AUS are enough for now.

missemma wrote: That place looks stunning, they certainly like sky bars don't they

Phil may be frugal (or stingy as Dan said) but he really does slurge to spoil Dan. That lucky guy.

Diyes_Celine wrote:

LurkingTrash wrote:I love that they're taking a little vacation again, I really didn't think they would this time, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
ps: I just thought that it may be an old pic, who knows with them?

I was thinking the same thing. It could be an old photo. I haven't seen any fan encounter photos (I've been checking twitter.) so we are not sure where they are exactly. But I guess that's good. All the impromtu airport m&g in AUS are enough for now.

missemma wrote: That place looks stunning, they certainly like sky bars don't they

Phil may be frugal (or stingy as Dan said) but he really does slurge to spoil Dan. That lucky guy.

Offtopic: This came to my subscription today. Koalas are dying because of chlamydia.
[YouTube]https://youtu.be/BOCVa5aTSOY[/YouTube] oh no. Dewey.

... that link is ????

Good video but wrong link

Edit: Thanks i'm now watching this video instead of studying ... I mean is one of my favourite videos of Phil

Diyes_Celine wrote:

LurkingTrash wrote:I love that they're taking a little vacation again, I really didn't think they would this time, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
ps: I just thought that it may be an old pic, who knows with them?

I was thinking the same thing. It could be an old photo. I haven't seen any fan encounter photos (I've been checking twitter.) so we are not sure where they are exactly. But I guess that's good. All the impromtu airport m&g in AUS are enough for now.

It's definitely at least a day old picture, because it was posted at around 2-3pm in HK, when the bar doesn't open till 5pm.. I honestly think it was probably from the trip to HK en route to Aus cause I doubt they have the energy to be bar hopping with how ill and tired they both look. So yeah, I think they're probs home in London trying to confuse us

bluebox-away wrote:

Diyes_Celine wrote:

LurkingTrash wrote:I love that they're taking a little vacation again, I really didn't think they would this time, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
ps: I just thought that it may be an old pic, who knows with them?

I was thinking the same thing. It could be an old photo. I haven't seen any fan encounter photos (I've been checking twitter.) so we are not sure where they are exactly. But I guess that's good. All the impromtu airport m&g in AUS are enough for now.

It's definitely at least a day old picture, because it was posted at around 2-3pm in HK, when the bar doesn't open till 5pm.. I honestly think it was probably from the trip to HK en route to Aus cause I doubt they have the energy to be bar hopping with how ill and tired they both look. So yeah, I think they're probs home in London trying to confuse us

I think so too. I thunk the just went back home abd are hiding out.

Winston wrote:

bluebox-away wrote:

Diyes_Celine wrote:

LurkingTrash wrote:I love that they're taking a little vacation again, I really didn't think they would this time, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
ps: I just thought that it may be an old pic, who knows with them?

I was thinking the same thing. It could be an old photo. I haven't seen any fan encounter photos (I've been checking twitter.) so we are not sure where they are exactly. But I guess that's good. All the impromtu airport m&g in AUS are enough for now.

It's definitely at least a day old picture, because it was posted at around 2-3pm in HK, when the bar doesn't open till 5pm.. I honestly think it was probably from the trip to HK en route to Aus cause I doubt they have the energy to be bar hopping with how ill and tired they both look. So yeah, I think they're probs home in London trying to confuse us

I think so too. I thunk the just went back home abd are hiding out.

I don't know. The airline they were using allows stopovers with no charge. With how tired and sick they've been, stopping to get some sleep (and break up the trip) and slowly adjust to the time difference may actually be helpful.

I also personally don't consider one bar as bar hopping, it could just have been dinner.

Who doesn't love a "this guy" compilation?

majitzu wrote: ... that link is ????

Good video but wrong link

Edit: Thanks i'm now watching this video instead of studying ... I mean is one of my favourite videos of Phil

Thank you for correcting me. Ugh. What an epic fail. I hate iPhone. My thumb is too big for the keypad.
PS: That's one of my favorite videos together with 'Phil in the Club.' Remember the mom who mentioned D&P on her AUS radioshow? She mentioned in her article. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-27/h ... fmredir=sm

Diyes_Celine wrote: Remember the mom who mentioned D&P on her AUS radioshow? She mentioned in her article. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-27/h ... fmredir=sm

This week I sat watching two dorky, funny English boys of indeterminate sexuality whip thousands of tween and teen girls (and some boys) into a squealing frenzy.

...

Young men like the YouTubers I saw the other night, who are not creepy and predatory online but just silly and kind — two blokes who are confident enough in their masculinity to paint on cat's whiskers, dance in sparkly gear and entertain roomfuls of young girls and old mothers with their sweet, dorky divineness.

Nice enough little read but not sure why she had to bring sexuality into the first line. Did she Google around just to be sure it was indeterminate? Why? It didn't add anything to the article. I don't understand the world sometimes.

fancybum wrote:

Young men like the YouTubers I saw the other night, who are not creepy and predatory online but just silly and kind — two blokes who are confident enough in their masculinity to paint on cat's whiskers, dance in sparkly gear and entertain roomfuls of young girls and old mothers with their sweet, dorky divineness.

Nice enough little read but not sure why she had to bring sexuality into the first line. Did she Google around just to be sure it was indeterminate? Why? It didn't add anything to the article. I don't understand the world sometimes.

I agree; it was unnecessary.

blueapple_x wrote:

Diyes_Celine wrote: Remember the mom who mentioned D&P on her AUS radioshow? She mentioned in her article. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-27/h ... fmredir=sm

This week I sat watching two dorky, funny English boys of indeterminate sexuality whip thousands of tween and teen girls (and some boys) into a squealing frenzy.

...

I know she mentioned Dan and Phil on the radio show, but why bring them up in a serious article about men's view of women? Dan and Phil never discuss women (unless its J-Law, Britney or Sarah Michelle Gellar) and if I didn't know better I'd consider it some form of click bait.

fancybum wrote:

Young men like the YouTubers I saw the other night, who are not creepy and predatory online but just silly and kind — two blokes who are confident enough in their masculinity to paint on cat's whiskers, dance in sparkly gear and entertain roomfuls of young girls and old mothers with their sweet, dorky divineness.

Nice enough little read but not sure why she had to bring sexuality into the first line. Did she Google around just to be sure it was indeterminate? Why? It didn't add anything to the article. I don't understand the world sometimes.

My only guess is that the whole macho thing is often encouraged in boys from a strict heteronormative where the more "masculine " men present themselves as the more hetero they are and that comes with precisely what the article is denouncing, the harm that mindset brings to all. I'd focus more on this quote, "confident enough in their masculinity ", and not so much on the first paragraph one. "indeterminate sexuality" makes more sense at the end of the article imo, like saying these boys aren't trying to show anyone which way the swing by being aggressively masculine, they're just doing their thing and looking happy doing it, with nice positive results for all.
Whether it was "necessary" or not for this article, Idk

visiblelurker wrote:

Winston wrote:

bluebox-away wrote:

Diyes_Celine wrote:

LurkingTrash wrote:I love that they're taking a little vacation again, I really didn't think they would this time, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
ps: I just thought that it may be an old pic, who knows with them?

I was thinking the same thing. It could be an old photo. I haven't seen any fan encounter photos (I've been checking twitter.) so we are not sure where they are exactly. But I guess that's good. All the impromtu airport m&g in AUS are enough for now.

It's definitely at least a day old picture, because it was posted at around 2-3pm in HK, when the bar doesn't open till 5pm.. I honestly think it was probably from the trip to HK en route to Aus cause I doubt they have the energy to be bar hopping with how ill and tired they both look. So yeah, I think they're probs home in London trying to confuse us

I think so too. I thunk the just went back home abd are hiding out.

I don't know. The airline they were using allows stopovers with no charge. With how tired and sick they've been, stopping to get some sleep (and break up the trip) and slowly adjust to the time difference may actually be helpful.

I also personally don't consider one bar as bar hopping, it could just have been dinner.

They don't have to use the same long-haul airline on their return trip

Anyway, I'm thinking that the photo is old, posted to throw the airport stalkers off-scent.

danisnotonphil wrote: My only guess is that the whole macho thing is often encouraged in boys from a strict heteronormative where the more "masculine " men present themselves as the more hetero they are and that comes with precisely what the article is denouncing, the harm that mindset brings to all. I'd focus more on this quote, "confident enough in their masculinity ", and not so much on the first paragraph one. "indeterminate sexuality" makes more sense at the end of the article imo, like saying these boys aren't trying to show anyone which way the swing by being aggressively masculine, they're just doing their thing and looking happy doing it, with nice positive results for all.
Whether it was "necessary" or not for this article, Idk

Hm yeah I could see that, but she should have expanded more on that if that was indeed what she was going for. As it is, it looks like she just wanted to say 'I enjoyed this show and want to mention it in my article but can't really explain why' so it just seems shoehorned in to bookend things and also draw attention to D&P's sexualities for no apparent reason. Your explanation is more interesting and coherent than her end result. 'Journalism'

Re:the article.

First she unnecessarily mentions sexuality for no apparent reason as others have pointed out. But the rest of the article was irritating. She had her heart in the right place but is still stuck in the whole mindset that girls sexuality is dictated by boys sexuality. (ugh it bugs me so much that I can't quote, (mobile, and at work)). This is something I see all over the place. Why is it just boys discovering sex online? Apparently girls are still stuck behind the shed waiting for the boys to come and show them what they found out on the "INTERNET", because us girls never see anything like that online when were are young. (She needs to look at tumblr, or google fanfiction, because jesus...everyone needs Jesus....) She has good points, yes it is becoming more normal for you to see a Dad hugging his crying son, as opposed to telling him to grow up. That's great! Wonderful even, but the whole "boys learn about this (which then in turn dictates how girls learn) vibe " that the article had irked me for some reason. Maybe I am just crabby, or overly sensitive in this dept., or too hasty and should read it again but really...

Am i the only one?

blueapple_x wrote:

Diyes_Celine wrote: Remember the mom who mentioned D&P on her AUS radioshow? She mentioned in her article. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-27/h ... fmredir=sm

This week I sat watching two dorky, funny English boys of indeterminate sexuality whip thousands of tween and teen girls (and some boys) into a squealing frenzy.

...

She makes some very good points about blaming things so easily, reasons behind bad behaviour and actually talking to kids. Doubt the guys would love all of the opening line (I'd say more about how casual it seems about something personal, but after discussing Dan's butt and pants last week that's just hypocritical), still I imagine they'd be glad to be recognised for doing good things.

I see how they seem a bit extraneous to the article just being mentioned in a few lines, but their example illustrates what she's saying about the Internet and being confident in their masculinity so well. There are such entrenched attitudes about things like that, it's great they can be such role models.

I didn't pick up on what Winston said, but that's also pretty crucial. Treating boys and girls differently like that is so ingrained, it's the sort of thing people don't realise they're doing.

blueapple_x wrote:So something funny happened at a tatinof show:

Someone recorded an ISG bit where Dan basically threw a bit of shade at people who copy Phil without crediting lol.
http://www.instagram.com/p/BJphlqoDYj5/
or
http://mangamaniacalex.tumblr.com/post/ ... m-the-part

The absolute hypocrisy from them (especially Dan) regarding other people copying the 7SC and not crediting Phil is still going strong I see. Like y'all didn't completely steal the concept from an already existing game you had played before.


And yeah, not sure about Deppy's relevance in an article about teaching boys how to respect women. Like yeah blah blah masculinity and heteronormativity blah blah, all fine in an article about the subject I guess but why get D&P in there? Weird article in general tbh, it had good intentions but it kinda missed the mark.

Sorry thts part of my irritation. She means well. But it is so ingrained in her/ society that a whole hell of a lot of people miss it. Why do boys a girls need to be treated differently while growing up? We're all people. Why should boys gave to learn how to treat WOMEN and not just treat other human beings? Women are not these weak helpless creatures that society had lead us to believe. Even if it is subconscious.

blueapple_x wrote:

fancybum wrote:

Young men like the YouTubers I saw the other night, who are not creepy and predatory online but just silly and kind — two blokes who are confident enough in their masculinity to paint on cat's whiskers, dance in sparkly gear and entertain roomfuls of young girls and old mothers with their sweet, dorky divineness.

Nice enough little read but not sure why she had to bring sexuality into the first line. Did she Google around just to be sure it was indeterminate? Why? It didn't add anything to the article. I don't understand the world sometimes.

I agree; it was unnecessary.

+1

The article itself was good and it showed them in a positive light which is nice. Not sure what their sexuality had to do with it though!

I think that article was rather beautiful, and it fills me with a lot of warmth to think that Dan and Phil were put at the centre of something so thoughtful and positive. The fact that someone who's very much on the outside looking into the world they've created and can see a lot of the value I personally connect to it, too - that means a lot, maybe even more than I can put into words as I am both exhausted and still somewhat in holiday mode.

As far as mentioning their sexuality goes - why not? It's a piece of information, she doesn't speculate, just states a fact about the public perception it, in a far more unbiased way than most people talk about it. And it does entirely fall in like with an article about unrooting toxic masculinity from our world views and learning to accept ourselves as complex humans regardless of gender identities, because a lot of that is indeed pionereed by queer people, so it feels like an entirely fitting piece of info to put in, to imply there are questions without pointing fingers.

There is not an embargo on talking about their sexualities, and nor should there be one.

phamnotof wrote:

I think that article was rather beautiful, and it fills me with a lot of warmth to think that Dan and Phil were put at the centre of something so thoughtful and positive. The fact that someone who's very much on the outside looking into the world they've created and can see a lot of the value I personally connect to it, too - that means a lot, maybe even more than I can put into words as I am both exhausted and still somewhat in holiday mode.

As far as mentioning their sexuality goes - why not? It's a piece of information, she doesn't speculate, just states a fact about the public perception it, in a far more unbiased way than most people talk about it. And it does entirely fall in like with an article about unrooting toxic masculinity from our world views and learning to accept ourselves as complex humans regardless of gender identities, because a lot of that is indeed pionereed by queer people, so it feels like an entirely fitting piece of info to put in, to imply there are questions without pointing fingers.

There is not an embargo on talking about their sexualities, and nor should there be one.

Oh wow I must have missed all the comments rallying for a sexuality-embargo, whoops. All I saw were a few questioning the necessity of mentioning it when she didn't actually do anything with the information/insinuation after putting it out there. Kind of like in the Sunday Times article where the topic also served no purpose and Dan specifically said he didn't want to discuss it and it shouldn't matter. That article wasn't in any danger of being considered beautiful though, so I guess the context matters?

We live in a society that celebrates a narrow definition of masculinity, yet we know few men actually fit into it.

'Hm so to preface this article about male emotions and healthy expressions thereof, I'll specify that the two men that can be looked to as an awesome example of this probably aren't straight. Do I have any conclusions to draw from that? Anything to explain why that matters? Nah'.

And based on what has she come to that conclusion? 'Wearing cat whiskers and dancing in sparkly gear'? From watching the show? We can infer all kinds of wonderful things from what we think she meant, as people familiar with Dan and Phil already. But for the people just reading the article who have no clue about them (including the author herself who couldn't even remember Phil's name when speaking on the radio), what are they going to infer from the article? Because it's not going to be that sexuality doesn't matter. If it didn't matter it wouldn't have been mentioned at all.

Leaving the lines about being comfortable with their masculinity while doing things outside of the narrow definition she mentioned would have sufficed. But the very first line needs to tell the reader that their sexualities are indeterminate, something that wouldn't be a consideration were they straight. 'Get a load of these straight guys off YouTube sharing their feelings and wearing shiny jackets'. Would that really have been included were they unequivocally straight? Maybe if she had actually touched on sexuality at all at any other point in the article. But she didn't. So why include that descriptor right at the beginning? To first set them apart.

Is that not what she intended? To have the reader question their sexualities based on their non-stereotypical actions and interests as men? Because without actually spelling it out for the reader, that's all I'm inferring from it. And that does nothing at all to combat toxic stereotypes or help anybody.

fancybum wrote: Oh wow I must have missed all the comments rallying for a sexuality-embargo, whoops. All I saw were a few questioning the necessity of mentioning it when she didn't actually do anything with the information/insinuation after putting it out there. Kind of like in the Sunday Times article where the topic also served no purpose and Dan specifically said he didn't want to discuss it and it shouldn't matter. That article wasn't in any danger of being considered beautiful though, so I guess the context matters?

1) Whoops? I've offended you enough that you need to 'whoops' me? You'd think I'd have targeted you personally rather than made a very generic comment that was obviously using hyperbole. But yes. I did sense some indignation in people's reaction to her bringing up their sexualities that extends outside of mere criticism of her journalistic skills. Specifically your “I don't understand the world sometimes“ read as somewhat upset with her bringing it up, but I can of course just be mistaken there. Add that to an already existing tumblr-esque culture of people flipping their lid every time D&P's sexualities are mentioned, and my embargo comment was born.

2) Speaking of journalism, stating opinions as facts is rather a no-go. The off-handed sexuality comment (it's quite literally one word) serving no purpose in this article is an opinion. I, for one, don't share it. I think it's answering a question a reader might have while reading this specific article about D&P, which makes it worth putting in. That's what you're trained to do as a journalist, trained to serve the reader who's going in with little to no information.

3) The article itself was inspired, as the text states, by news of a website that encouraged online stalking of Australian girls. So putting D&P as 'bookmarks' on either end of the piece definitely served a purpose, too, as it created a contrast between the worst of online culture and the best of it, which is what TATINOF celebrates and what she perceived D&P as being a part of. As the author explained, too.

4) Demanding answers is a lot different than stating that we don't have any right now. And anyway, the code most journalists go by is only steering clear of sexuality rumors when the people in question are underage, the Sunday Times article biggest issue (in my opinion) was the tactless and insensitive way it was written and the superior tone the writer user rather than the fact she asked. And of course context matters. When has context not mattered?

5) Pioneering expressions of gender and masculinity that exist outside the status quo is a part of the male queer culture. D&P aren't pioneers, but assuming they're not straight, they're a part of that, and that's not stereotyping, that's context. Which, yes, does matter. As does the context of the writer being in her 40s at least and offering a not entirely regular, outside of the phandom POV on D&P, which is bound to shape how she talks about them.

6) Just as a personal note, she saw TATINOF. TATINOF makes a lot of less than demon fans of them question their relationship status. That might just be why she tried to get the information, and having acquired it (or the lack of it, anyway), felt like it might serve as a fine tibid of background info. That's generally my process, anyway.