December 13, 2009

SPOOKS Controversial Article - What is Your Opinion?

The following recent 'entertainment' article re Spooks has caused some controversy in the RA Universe.  The disagreement among RA fans concerns quotes contained in the article.  Do you believe all the quotes attributed to him are accurate and reflect his actual feelings?  Plain & simply--I do not.  Having had personal experience with 'reporters' in the past, I've learned the hard way that their so-called 'quotes' are often inaccurate and often reflect the spin the writer wants to give the interviewee's words.  What's your opinion? do you really believe Richard responded with a disgusted tone IF he actually said "Oh, Christ" when Nicole Lampert mentioned his large, loyal contingent of female fans?  The writer then added her spin that he tried to muster enthusiasm with his next remark.  Ms Lampert, IMO, deserves to receive negative feedback from those of us who feel she merely tried to include something startling in order to draw attention to her work.  Do you agree? 

Please keep in mind while reading the following article that Richard recently said he takes full responsiblity for what's written about him in interviews despite the fact he can't control a writer's negative spin on his words.

Is Ros facing the Spookiest death of all?……By Nicole Lampert

Last updated at 12:54 PM on 11th December 2009

Every week, the team has to save the UK from death and destruction. Everything is almost impossibly slick, and everyone almost impossibly beautiful. Yet there is nothing predictable about Spooks.

Now in its eighth series, the BBC1 spy drama is as fresh as ever - which may be down to the writers' kamikaze delight in killing off their main characters.

No fewer than nine key characters have been disposed of in the past seven seasons. There have been car bombs, radium injections, piano wire strangulation, plenty of bullets and, oh yes, one character had her head plunged into an industrial deep fat fryer.

Even the indomitable MI5 head, Harry Pearce - the one main character who has so far survived all the culls - appeared to be at risk when he was kidnapped by the Russians at the end of the last series. But to the relief of actor Peter Firth's many fans (apparently, he is the real heartthrob of the show, with bulging sacks of fan letters), he escaped death this time. But this season has already seen Jo Portman accidentally killed by her own colleague, when a bullet meant to stop a murderous anarchist hit her, too. Talk about a bad day at the office.

According to rumour, time may also be up for the show's coolest cookie yet - ice-cold MI5 counter-terrorism section chief Ros Myers. With the series set to end in Christmas week, might it be that Ros finds her goose well and truly cooked? Typically, no one on the show will confirm anything.

Hermione Norris, the actress who plays Ros, did not giving anything away when we met at the Spooks' set in unglamorous Bermondsey. Only in retrospect did I realise she may have been giving me a Spooks- style coded message when she said: 'It's been lovely playing Ros. This is probably the nicest job I have ever done.'

Hermione, 42, was best known for playing cold, middle-class housewife Karen Marsden in Cold Feet before taking the role of Ros in season four of the show. Surprisingly warm in person, Hermione admits she would prefer to be like her Spooks character.

'She's great, isn't she? Wouldn't you like to be like that? Have an answer for everything, go around and shoot people, and know that you'd win. 'She is so contained; she never has any self-doubt. I'd love to be that eloquent and confident and physically able.'

Hermione, in real life, has two children and admits she struggles with her dual life of working mother. 'You're constantly striving for equilibrium as a working mum,' she says. 'It's hard for women, really hard. Men don't have their internal organs ripped out of them every time they leave their kids and walk out of the front door.'

After a 5am rise with her two-year- old daughter Hero, she is in make-up for Spooks by 7am. And then, after a day shooting terrorists, defusing bombs and being the strongest female character on British TV, it's back home for bathtime and stories.

'I could have been blown up, shot down, done really difficult dialogue and the rest of it, but as soon as I get home and my kids are shouting "Mummy!", then everything else is forgotten,' she says.

Richard Armitage, who plays fellow Spook Lucas North, says: 'Hermione is a gift for the show. She has got the gravitas, the intelligence, yet she's lithe and fit.

'We did a shot today where she is sprinting out of a house that has just been blown up. I've never seen a girl run so fast - and she was wearing heels. I was well impressed.'

Richard is Spooks' new leading man after former favourite Adam Carter - played by Rupert Penry-Jones - was blown up at the start of the previous series. Producer Chris Fry says the smooth transition from Adam to Lucas shows just how forgiving Spooks fans are when it comes to killing off their favourite characters.

'Spooks fans are very loyal, and they have been used to key characters being killed off since series one,' he says. 'It helps us keep the suspense going.

'But we know we have to be careful when we do it. We don't do it simply because we want to kill someone off. It's because the actor wants to leave, or we decide we've reached the end of their journey.

'I think the audience sort of expects it, and secretly loves it.

'Adam was the most fancied and loved character on television. The audience didn't like it when he went - but by the end of episode two they were huge Richard Armitage fans.' Richard, who has previously appeared in Robin Hood and the costume drama North And South, also brought his own fans with him - they call themselves the Armitage Army.

But I have never met an actor as ill-at-ease with his good looks as Richard. He murmurs 'Oh Christ' when the subject of the Armitage Army comes up, before trying to muster up a less-than-enthusiastic 'Yeah, it's great to have that kind of support'.

He admits that he hates being regarded as TV totty. ' I am constantly trying to shake it off,' he says. 'But when I started on Spooks and said I wanted to shave off my hair for the role, they said no because it wasn't very attractive. I realised then that that was how they wanted to box me. 'It does annoy me a bit - but I guess that is what television is about. The ladies have it worse.'

BUT as the slickest and glossiest drama on British television, Spooks needs its spies to look good. In fact, the production owes more to 24's Jack Bauer and The Bourne Supremacy's Jason Bourne than anything on British TV.

'In every series, we keep on raising the benchmark and have become more and more slick,' says Hermione.

Surprisingly, for someone who has been so successful on British television, she admits: 'I love American drama. It's the only drama I watch, actually. 'The writing is brilliant, and the production values are amazing. They are streets ahead of us with shows like The West Wing, The Wire and Damages. Phenomenal TV. 'I do think when we do a brilliant drama, it is absolutely brilliant. But we don't do it as consistently as the Americans.'

Spooks is the one show that really does try to keep up with the Americans - which has meant it is a hit show over there, as well as in 45 other countries. As well as its fearlessness when it comes to killing off key characters, the show is also famed for being uncanny when it comes to its predictions. The very first series featured race riots - and on the night it was broadcast it was followed by a news bulletin about race riots.

One series was almost canned for showing London's transport network being bombed by Muslim fundamentalists - an episode which was filmed just two months before reality caught up with fiction in Central London.

Last season started at almost exactly the same time as the world's financial markets went into meltdown - and it was all about the country facing a banking crisis.

'I read an article in the paper last night about India commissioning a new submarine and what this could mean for China and Pakistan - and that was exactly what we were already filming,' says Richard. 'I couldn't believe it. I was gobsmacked. They have some very clever people on this show.

'We are a fictional drama - we go beyond realism - but we do try to keep it truthful. And when it comes to the political truth, I do sometimes think, "Crikey!''.' The storylines were all started over a year ago, and the writers have to try to imagine what will be the big news when the show airs. A big inspiration for them this year was the Naomi Klein conspiracy book, Shock Doctrine, about aggressive capitalism. ‘There is an element of luck,' says producer Chris Fry. 'But we also have a team of extremely bright writers. We are not afraid to change things at the last moment - scripts are always being altered.

'There was recently a deal between America and Russia which we added into a scene just before it was shot. Sometimes we even change things afterwards. We bring the cast back to add in some additional dialogue.

'Yes, we are a drama. Every week, we have a ticking clock and our guys are heroes.

'But we have also learned lessons from shows like 24, where they've pushed the truth too far. We want our audience to watch and think: "That could happen to us tomorrow." '

Seeing as this series has already featured an energy crisis and abduction of the world's most powerful men, we can only hope the writers have got it wrong this time.

Read more:


Aryanne said...

This is not a new phenomenon. This is not the first time he has made such remarks about AA, or he was quoted as saying this. There was such an uproar that some hurt fans wrote to his agency and then Richard wrote an open letter to his fans, explaining it and apologizing. After that, there was even a bigger uproar, questioning the legitimacy of writing to the agency and why they had to hurt RA with writing. There was such a mess at the Imdb RA board that I myself left it, and almost stopped writing on the North and South forum, too.

So, here is another stupid journalist (I am a journalist, too, so I can say this) writing the usual article. You can always tell from the first paragraph of an article about Spooks whether it is worth reading it or not. If it starts with "this is the show where they suddenly kill off the characters" then it is a BAAAD article. Everyone should know by now, series 8, that all actors are on contract, they know when they leave, and those exits are 1. requested by the actors themselves 2. usually well prepared.

This is just another crappy article that not only includes one cliche (Spooks kills off everyone) but another (shy RA tired of AA). There are thousands of articles like this. I am ashamed of my profession when I read one of these!

Anonymous said...

If this posts as 'anonymous', it's actually me(RiCrAr)...gremlins might have returned:)

Thanks aryanne, it's great to hear an opinion from someone actually inside the trade. Would the reporters be less likely to simply mimic past articles about RA and his fans IF his supporters would bombard the offending 'reporter' with letters of complaint, instead of whining non-stop on the internet? Isn't it ridiculous for his fans to assume every word written about an interview is true and placed in the correct context in which it was said?

In fact, before this day is over I'm planning to go to the newspaper website(link above) and air my displeasure with Ms Lampert's negative spin on RA's words. This situation has happened often enough that we can be certain RA did not insult his fans. It was the writer who framed his words to sound as though he was disgusted with them.

On second thought, could we possibly play into Ms Lampert's hands by sending a large volume of emails to her newspaper account?? Possibly it will give the appearance to her employer that she has a large number of readers, when in truth she would never have received so many emails if the article was not about RA? Beginning to think the reporters might have a 'method to their madness' when it comes to deliberately putting a negative spin on RA's words. Do they receive positive recognition on the job as a result of the feedback despite the fact they're all messages of complaint?

Need a journalist's opinion on this one:) Isn't it convenient there's one nearby. LOL

Ragtag said...

I always read articles with journalistic dishonesty in mind. Call me cynical but i've heard it said over and over that misquoting and word twisting happens. Plus when you quote stuff the words are said but the tone of the person is not always explained. Basically I just don't really take it seriously.

RiCrAr said...

That's a wise attitude, ragtag. My experience was during a political campaign and the candidate was often either misquoted or taken completely out of context. Reporters today no longer take pride in stating 'the facts, nothing but the facts.'

My concern is that Richard will become so frustrated with this type of careless reporting that he'll decide to switch careers in mid-stream....maybe open a handyman retail warehouse or give dancing lessons:)

Aryanne said...

So, if you need and insider opinion, I can give one - but I have to warn you that I am from Hungary, so I am not totally familiar with British journalistic practice.

I know what might have happened - she was planning to write a story about Spooks, and started with reading a thousand stories that had been written before. There, she already got the preconceptions: sudden character deaths, RA chased by AA, etc. These are the parts that sell the stories, at least she thinks. No matter what happens at the interviews, she will stick to these ideas and write another cliche-idea.

About the letters: if you write it to her, she will feel a bit bad about them and delete them. If she is honest, she will realize her mistake and contact you (I once did that, a commenter warned me about a factual mistake, we started e-mailing and I ended up writing another story from an interview with him). But these are not factual mistakes so I think she will not admit it. You cannot prove that she put a spin on a story, that's too "soft" a claim.

I you really wanted to cause trouble to a journalist (I would hate if someone did that to me), you should contact her editor. The editor would laugh at the first two letters together with the journalist (the reader is never right, or we never admit it, we are not always nice people...). But after the third and the fourth the editor would really start to ask questions to the journalist and check if there was a trouble with the article, and she might have some bad time.

The thing I really do not understand is: why is it good for her? RA will never talk to her again. I always quote everyone word by word, even though most of my interview partners will never read the story as I make the interview in English but write it in Hungarian. And this girl must have known that RA will be able to read the story! Unbelievable.

Could not she find anything else interesting in what he said? Or anything else interesting about Spooks than killing off characters? Come on, I do not think it would have been such a hard job. Gosh, if I had an interview opportunity with RA, I would definitely not ask about AA, and if I did, I would not spin it like this. But as a journalist from Hungary, I think I will never have that chance. Shame on this journalist that she missed her opportunity to ask him some reasonable questions.

bZirk said...

My thoughts are: I DON'T blame him! I'm as sick of hearing about the Army as he is talking about it. Can the journalists give it a rest?! It is so BORING, and what a shame since he's not boring.

RiCrAr said...

bzirk, I agree that it's become a really boring topic. That reporter lacked imagination and simply copied, as aryanne said, previous articles.

Now here's a reporter after our own hearts - in fact she sounds as though she could be one of us:)

>LH Confidential: Secret Agents

Dec 11 2009 by Lorraine Howard, Irvine Herald

SOME men just ooze sex appeal.

And Spooks star Richard Armitage is one of them.

It makes the world of espionage a very exciting one for me.

And I know I would be the world’s worse spy –- before I know it my mouth would have run away with me.

I’m nosy and like challenges but I don’t think it would be long before the interrogator would have cracked my secret, especially if it was Mr Armitage, who really just oozes manliness.

I bet Jane Austen would have seen him as a serious contender for her Mr Darcy. I know I would love to see him in a pair of breeches.

One look into those sultry dark eyes and I would be sure to be a traitor in a heartbeat – what a shameful admission to make.

It certainly is a highlight of my week during the bleak winter months.<


Nat at RA FanBlog said...

My impression:
RA's "Oh Christ" comment was probably in response to her bringing up his "Army of followers." Not because he dislikes his fans, but because he's sick of reporters always commenting about it... just like the circus. He's probabably thinking, "Old news, lady!"

Ragtag said...

Hehe, it's just dawned on me that he may have been taking the opportunity for a bad pun/joke. "Followers", "Christ"...get it? Get it? Do you? Do you????? OK I'll stop now.

Some of you are probably rolling your eyes and 'oh christ' ing by now too. : )

RiCrAr said...

LOL...well, some of us are prepared to follow him anywhere, if given the chance:) It's the last part that's tricky.

Nat, I'm surprised other actors haven't by now latched unto a catchy label for their fans as well. Maybe Damon's Dominion, Clooney's Crusaders, Daniel's(Radcliffe) Divisions, Pitt's Platoons, DiCaprio's Darlings. Wonder if it would cause reporters to constantly focus on their fan base in the same way as Richard's?

Sue said...

I don't think Richard should play into the journalists hands and comment in such a way. He must remember that they will use this remark in any article they print. I don't believe that his reaction was totally directed at the interviewer either, but was also something to do with the subject matter i.e. the Armitage Army. There was so much trouble between various fansites (not that I know exactly what it was all about, due partly to Richard's cryptic messages) but I do honestly believe that he is more than a little pissed off with the internet community. He stopped sending messages so he must have had good reason for this, thus his OTT reaction. Richard is very foolish and immature to react in such a way. It's not the first time and I doubt it will be the last. He's also made remarks such as "when shit drops to the floor". Not how he should behave during interviews and I don't care if these comments were taken in or out of context, he shouldn't be using language like that, it's not a professional way to conduct yourself.I'm not against swearing but I expected more of Richard. I'm not criticising him (much) but he really needs to work on his interview techniques and learn to guide the journalist in the direction he wants to take the interview.

He is a very foolish boy and needs to grow up.

bZirk said...


According to my daughters, Christian Bale fans have a name that is well known: Baleheads.

As for what Richard said or didn't say or how he said it, I don't care. I want to read about him and not about us -- interesting as we all are. :D

Anonymous said...

Sue, in all honesty IMO Richard has reason to be less than thrilled with some of the childish behavior between his different fan groups. My impression is that 'some' of them have in the past tried to capture his attention by sending pleas for him to intervene in their disagreements. Naturally a person can take only so much of that sort of juvenile behavior. The fact he needs them in order to maintain his successful acting career must make the situation that much more frustrating on his behalf. I sincerely believe the majority of his fans do not act like immature whining females, but there's a significant enough number that it convinced him it would be wise to install an effective firewall(his agent) in order to maintain a neutral appearance and thereby contain somewhat their complaints to him.

That said, he chose to be an actor and must therefore learn to take the good with the bad, same as every other profession.

I agree gross language isn't wise for anyone in the public eye - a performer should be aware of the nasty impression foul language leaves on the fans he probably would most want to keep, and I strongly doubt the latter are the women who send him their panties:) More likely it's those who crashed the BBC board in their enthusiasm for his sterling portrayal of John Thornton.


RiCrAr said...

bzirk, maybe RA fans should take advantage of the journalists attention in some way that would result in more offers of quality roles for him? How could the attention from reporters be put to good use by Richard's admirers? We need to have a brain-storming session on that one.

IMO, if all the reports of Christian's nasty temper are true, his fans should be called

bZirk said...

It would just be great if the journalists could just get over the image of the "army" being women alternating between drooling and their ovaries exploding.

Ragtag said...

It's funny how these things take on a life of their own. Personally i reckon some people easily jump to conclusions about badly quoted lines and misinterpreted words. You can only really say if you were actually there, and even then its your word against anothers. I don't expect to get to know RA from these articles. The video interviews from RH, N&S, and that hallowed Vulpus Libris session are what i base my personal opinion of RA on.

And EVEN THEN, i dunno, there's something else, a quality that seems to stand out from his performance and effort in N&S that says more about him than most of these interviews. I love that he loved that role, and made it so nuanced.

bZirk said...

"And EVEN THEN, i dunno, there's something else, a quality that seems to stand out from his performance and effort in N&S that says more about him than most of these interviews. I love that he loved that role, and made it so nuanced."

I love this comment because it gets at my feelings.

Anonymous said...

Yes, lovely words ragtag. I agree - Richard's description of the way he approached the JT role, in particular constantly referring to Gaskell's every word, demonstrated his deep-felt desire to reflect as accurately as possible a character he insightfully said "had lived on a page for 150yrs." Those particular words of RA's touched my heart. It was as though he felt he held a delicate antique in his hands and wanted to treat it with the consideration it deserved.


Twinkling Moon said...

@Nat, I felt exactly as you said....he's probably tired of having reporters asking him the same questions (i.e. the Armitage Army, the circus/zoo, whatever, we get it, animals were involved in Budhapest, sp?, anyhow, I'm sick of hearing about it, how can he not be?)

Having said that, I also think RA kinda sets himself up for this. I mean, he doesn't want to talk about anything personal (I haven't even seen a pic of him with his family anywhere, even big hollywood stars bring their fam to redcarpet events, date or no date. I think it just adds to their human side) and, well, there's only so much a reporter can ask about whatever current project he's working on. I think he's going to have to loosen up a bit when it comes to the "personal stuff is hands off" approach. It doesn't have to be about his love life (although I know it is a topic of great interest among his fan base) but there is so much other stuff that makes up a person, i.e. likes/dislikes in everything from food to books, to what makes him laugh, what causes he might support, what's his family like etc...I mean there are alot bigger actors who also want their privacy respected but understand the public's interest. I mean, just check out all those crazy magazines in the supermarket aisle. RA doesn't have to deal with any of that craziness, so I think if he's just sick of basically doing different versions of the same interview he's just going to have to be willing to talk about more stuff or become a better actor and hide any feelings of frustration he's got from those types of interviews. Hope I didn't upspet anyone with my comments, just my thougths (and I still am a RA fan!)

Nat at RA FanBlog said...

TM, I'd also like to know more about RA's likes/dislikes, family, etc. Not just because it would be interesting, but knowing their background gives us insight to what helped mold them as a person and actor.

If RA really is annoyed with his online legion of fans, I hope he masks it better in the future. I haven't paid too much attention to the hype, but there's always the possibility he is tired of it. (If so, he chose the wrong profession!) Like bZirk, I prefer to read articles about him, not us fans... and there are so many other great articles, as mentioned by Ragtag. :)

Anonymous said...

As far as RA's family...believe his mother in particular would be horrified to have the slightest spotlight on her private life. IMO it's not by accident Richard is such a private person. During one interview he did mention his parents, and said they were such humble human beings that he as a normal rebellious teen was annoyed by there unassuming attitude towards life. In fact, he'd buy outlandish clothes in order to deliberately go against his instinctive grain to follow their lead and not draw attention to himself. His comments about his parents personalities convinced me their admirable humility is the reason they spawned such a pleasant and unique individual as RA.

If he did open up and talk more about himself, I'd enjoy hearing about the challenges he's overcome in his professional life. Although, here again he has often expounded on his approach to the Sir Guy character. More than once he mentioned he found it exhilarating, an emotional release, and great fun to defy the usual rules of polite society whenever as Guy he threatened, harrassed and otherwise caused mayhem for the villagers and outlaws alike:)

He's given so many interviews over the years I believe RA has actually already told us numerous details about himself. To me, it's the reporters themselves who lack imagination - if they can't find something more unique than the circus or his fans to elaborate on about a man like Richard, they've really chosen the wrong profession:)


Sue said...

When you read some of the older interviews, such as the "Beau with a bow" where he talked about losing his virginity (I bet his mum could have died when she read that!) and also talking about his girlfriend who was a dancer and who had worked with him in Cats he didn't seem that private a person. In a very recent interview he says that his love life has been quite "sparse" and yet in one interview he explains how he finds it difficult not to "stray". He must have an awful lot of self control in that case then if his love-life has been a bit thin on the ground. He seems to give conflicting accounts of himself and I wonder what the true picture is. Did Richard try to create an interesting image of himself in earlier interviews or is that the truth and the "sparse" love-life false? It doesn't seem to add up to me. Consistency please Richard in future interviews and no "Oh Christ" or "shit dropping to the floor" if you don't mind!

bZirk said...

I think a collection of interviews over a period of years of anyone could seem to be inconsistent if for no other reason than interviews are through the eyes of various people. Plus, an individual's perspective isn't static. All of this is why celebrities have publicists so that the same litany is given consistently and thereby steers the journalists to create a consistent image.

I don't know RA's history with respect to representation, but chances are good that he didn't have this when he started, and heck, for all I know he's not that keen on perfecting some sort of homogenized image now. He's just being himself, being candid. It's refreshing IMO.

Frankly, I can't help but think of all the comments I've made on the web over quite a few years. If someone were to google all of them, I would probably sound inconsistent.

As for the profanity, maybe it's not the classiest thing to do, but frankly, I've laughed when I read it. Truly, I've thought it was funny and have not been insulted by it at all. Maybe I should be insulted? Oy vey.

RiCrAr said...

I've read the article where Richard talked about nature toying with men in that it constantly causes them to have feelings of 'wanting' to stray, BUT he quickly added that he's always felt someone was watching over his shoulder and insisting that he "do the right thing." Actually, IMO his feeling reflects the fact he had healthy, responsible parenting and respects their opinions. Therefore, when mum & dad taught him 'the right thing' for a young man to do is not carelessly flit from flower to flower, he internalized the lesson and reminded himself whenever necessary.

Recently in the same interview when he mentioned his long-time girlfriend had moved out, he added that he's only recently started to blossom in matters of the heart. Interesting remark but not unexpected from a man near 40yrs old. It's about time he tastes a variety of flavors to make certain which one really is his favorite...will chocolate be his final decision?:)

Sue said...

I believe that Richard has been so engrossed in furthering his career that love has had to take a back seat. If it hadn't it might have meant him choosing between sticking with acting or working at something else in order to put food on the table for a wife and kids, not an ideal situation either way and there would always be a "what if" and regrets.Often actors marry and find the stress of separation due to working away tears a couple apart (especially if they are both in the acting business) not an ideal situation for kids stuck in the middle. I think he weighs things up very carefully and is probably afraid to commit knowing the problems it may cause, not to mention heartache. However if he did meet someone he truly cared about all that stuff would go out of the window. He obviously hasn't met someone whom he's had intense feelings for otherwise he would be tempted to compromise.

RiCrAr said...

That's so true, Sue. If Richard meets the girl of his dreams he'll no doubt be ready to settle down, raise a family and find satisfaction on many levels besides his current laser beam focus on his career.

Wonder what would be unique about 'the girl of his dreams'??...when a guy has a plethora of females throwing themselves at him, what could possibly make one female stand out in the crowd:) Possibly a professional chef with advanced dancing skills:) Who knows...that 'special something' is in the eye of the beholder, right? They definitely know it when they see it.


bZirk said...

Yep, it's definitely in the eye of the beholder. But how about someone who is grounded and completely comfortable in their own skin, and who really appreciates aesthetics?

RiCrAr said...

"and who really appreciates aesthetics"...what do you mean bzirk?

Possibly a woman who appreciates his good looks?...but isn't that what he finds offensive when reporters rudely insinuate he's a success solely due to his appearance?

Richard seems to have an eye for raven-haired beauties - black hair, ivory complexion. He's made complimentary remarks about British chef Nigella Lawson who fits that profile, and also has generous feminine curves in the right places:)


Or do you mean someone who appreciates his artistic bent as an actor and golden vocal chords along with all the other assorted goodies?

She'll definitely need to be a thoroughly confident female who won't be rattled by the fact legions of other women have designs on her partner. By 'completely comfortable in her own skin' were you referring to a high degree of confidence?

RiCrAr said...

LOL...meant to do that:)

...have faith you'll piece it back together.

All I want for Christmas is a modification option:)....and Richard.

bZirk said...

LOL! A modify option would definitely be great.

Yes, I meant someone who is confident and appreciates his artistic bent. I don't think anyone is going to have a problem appreciating his "beauty." :D