Tongs: Do you agree this page would be better called LaurenHarries? Or is there some reason why it should remain JamesHarries? It's amazing how often people read this page and how linked it is from the rest of the web.
- It's mainly about James Harries at the moment, but presumably over time (the media willing) it will become more about Lauren Harries. I don't feel any need to change it, especially not if it's as popular as it is at the moment.
WikiFact?: Within days of this page going up, it is now the 6th (formerly 10th) Google result for the search term Lauren Harries and is by far the most frequent SearchString on the TongsWiki. [-si]
- In other news, why are so many people searching for Lauren Harries?
- "the parents come across as fraudsters who have possibly damaged their children beyond repair." Surely this is the job of parents, no? As Philip Larkin so memorably wrote, 'they fuck you up, your mum and dad'. The process of growing and developing a personality (a dying art these days) could be said to be a fucking up of the 'innocent' state into which we are born (if genetic predisposition cannot be said already to have started that process). Who knows what pleasingly foetid fetishes the hapless blunders of one's parents might become. It is impossible to grow unfucked up: fucked uppity is change and change is life. To 'repair' a child would surely be to meddle further, and they won't thank you for it, freeloading ingrates. Is not the 'Garden of Eden' a metaphor, nay, a paean to the decay of innocence and the burgeoning of unhealthy development in twisted ways? So, good for James and Lauren and their parents, say I (though we draw the line at actual fucking up: that may be pushing the point too far).
Surge in readers, 21 June 2005
Note to readers: there is suddenly a huge amount of interest in this page, and we'd love to know why. Please could someone drop us a line at IWannaEditTheWiki@gmail.com and let us know. Thanks! -- TheTongs
- Hi SiBen, I think the latest rush might have something to do with this: [1] I didn't see it but I must say, she's looking good these days. Kemal to win! Lots of love, ferkel.
- Frki is correct. Kath Gibson writes to say:
- "I think I may know why there is a sudden upsurge in hits. The Big Brother 5 website has mentioned that Lauren will be a guest on the 'Big Brother's Big Mouth' show tonight. I picked it up from there and knew that her face was familiar so I Googled her. Your page comes pretty high on the results. Hope this helps. Kath"
- Thanks Kath - a shame we missed it!
- I will try to find it on the internet, to show at the screening of Little Lady Fauntleroy.
User 198.209.226.130 writes to say "lauren is still hot to me. i want to give her a test drive lets [see if] she got any miles on her prrrrr."
- The Tongs couldn't agree more, Prrrrr. The great beauty of the grey area that is Lauren's gender is that both men and women can find her staggeringly beautiful. Indeed, women can be wholly satisfied by her lingering manliness, whilst men can be wholly satisifed by what Sir Loyd Grossman has already described as 'Lauren's deep and beautiful grey area'.
Another user writes to say "Best wishes to Lauren. I for one would love to see her achieve her dreams of being a TV star.Why not, she may not have any particular talent, but then again neither does Keith Allen.I see her as an all round entertainer.Good luck Lauren for the future!"
- The Tongs disagree here. Lauren has cabinet after cabinet of priceless antiques all of which scream about her talent. But thanks for the input.
A user (originating from an IP registered with Associated-Rediffusion, the production company of the Little Lady Fauntleroy documentary) writes to say hello:
It might have been nice to credit the documentary Little Lady Fauntleroy with doing the research you here try to pass of as your own. Listed simply as a 'television appearance' is a bit rich seeing as it was this programme which highlighted the fake degrees, their self-created university, the mother's role in Lauren's sex change etc etc. This article is in fact nothing more than a summery of the documentary being passed off as your own work (with several errors and omissions - the name of the college, that it is Lauren's father with the Yorkshire pudding record etc) In addition the quote "the parents come across as fraudsters who have possibly damaged their children beyond repair" is just lifted from a review of the documentary itself. Pretty shoddy journalism topped off with a snide comment insinuating that the documentary you relied on was a deliberately nasty piece of work.
- Well, we never really set out to be journalists here, but I believe the page was written before we saw the documentary. And my personal belief is that the documentary was conducted without much respect for its subject. Maybe the other tongs have other points of view. Tongs?
- I think the page was cobbled together from three or four sources, including internet chat room comments, older press articles and a review of the documentary. It is intended to grow through time, assimilating more information and becoming a single Harries resource. If the commentator wishes to credit a specific entity they are welcome to do so (this is a wiki). However - taking their last point - Associated Rediffusion might like to note that their documentary was a thoroughly nasty piece of work and to my mind exposed the interviewer as an extremely unpleasant man with a short temper and little to commend him as a professional journalist.
- For someone who agrees with us, [see here], and a letter about the review [here] from the woman herself.