Jenny Ryder Un Official Fan Site Tribute

Jenny Ryder : This Is An Un Official Fan Site Tribute
Jenny Ryder
Porn Queen Actress Superstar

Classifications Criticism can be: directed toward a person or an animal; at a group, authority or organization; at a specific behaviour; or at an object of some kind (an idea, a relationship, a condition, a process, or a thing). personal (delivered directly from one person to another, in a personal capacity), or impersonal (expressing the view of an organization, and not aimed at anyone personally). highly specific and detailed, or very abstract and general. verbal (expressed in language) or non-verbal (expressed symbolically, or expressed through an action or a way of behaving). explicit (the criticism is clearly stated) or implicit (a criticism is implied by what is being said, but it is not stated openly). the result of critical thinking[2] or spontaneous impulse.
Different kinds of criticisms can be distinguished as types using the following criteria: Point of view from which the criticism is made ("in what framework", "from what angle or perspective" is the criticism made). Content of criticism, what it consists of ("what" is the criticism). Purpose, motive, use or function of criticism ("why" is the criticism being raised, what is its aim). Form of criticism, language used or medium of expression (in what "style" or format is the criticism presented). Method of delivery, transmission or communication for the criticism ("how", or by what means, is the criticism conveyed). Type of critic or the source making the criticism ("from whom" criticism originates). Target or object of the criticism (criticism "of whom" or criticism "of what"). Context, place, setting or situation for the criticism ("where" is the criticism being made).

Recipients or audience of the criticism, intended or unintended (criticism directed or addressed "to where" or "to whom"). In dealing with criticisms, usually the most important aspects are who makes the criticism, what the criticism is about, and what or whom it is aimed at. It can also make a big difference though whether a criticism is e.g. communicated in person, or whether it is communicated with a letter or telephone message. For an overview of criticisms from particular political or philosophical perspectives, see Varieties of criticism. For subject-specific information, see the critical pages on art, film, literature, theatre, or architecture. Psychology In general, the psychology of criticism studies the cognitive and emotional effects of criticism, the behavioral characteristics of criticism, and its influence on how people are reacting. Area of study The psychology of criticism is primarily concerned with: the motivation, purpose or intent which people have for making criticisms – healthy or unhealthy. the meaning of criticism for the self, and for others – positive or negative. the effect which criticism has on other people – good or bad. how people respond to criticisms, or cope with them – negatively or positively. the quantity and quality of criticism required to achieve the desired effect or outcome. the form in which criticisms are delivered – effective or ineffective. how people learn to give and receive criticism successfully. the sublimation, repression or denial of criticism. Parents, teachers, lawyers, managers and politicians are often concerned with these issues, because it can make a great deal of difference to how problems are tackled and resolved. The motivation as well as the effect of criticism may be rational, or it may be non-rational or arbitrary; it may be healthy or unhealthy. When psychologists study criticism as a type of human behavior, they do not usually study it "in general" – such a general study is often considered to be more a philosophical concern. Psychologists usually study it in specific contexts and situations. The reason is partly technical (it is difficult to construct and prove universal generalizations about criticism as a human behavior) and partly practical (it is more useful to understand particular behaviors which are of direct practical concern). The most basic rule The most basic "rule-of-thumb" of criticism which psychologists usually recommend is: "Respect the individual, focus the criticism on the behavior that needs changing – on what people actually do or actually say."[citation needed] Rationale The thought behind this basic norm for criticism is: If individuals are attacked for their personal characteristics (for "being who they are") it may be impossible for them to change, therefore making the criticism useless. If it is not actually clear what the person does, or what they are really saying, the criticism may miss the mark. By concentrating clearly and only on observation of what the individual as a matter of fact does or says, it is less likely, that the criticism will be misplaced, confused or misinterpreted; it is less likely, that the person being criticized is being misunderstood. It would be unfair and unjust, not to say irrelevant, to criticize people for something they have not actually done. It would be a false accusation. Inversely, if the individuals are respected with a bit of humor, and due credit is given to their positive intentions as human beings, it is vastly more likely that the criticism will be understood, and taken seriously. And if the criticism is clearly directed only to "what people actually do" that is wrong, instead of "who they are", it creates possibilities, options and choices for doing something different and better. They can't change who they are, but they can change their actions. Because people's sense of dignity is secure in this case, they are better able to respond to the criticism, and indeed do something about it. The critics may just want to provoke or vent a bit of hostility, but it might backfire, because the people criticized may make a nasty response. The nasty response may "prove" to the critics, that the criticism was justified, but the critics have brought this on themselves, they have produced their own nastiness. It is easy to do, but may be difficult to live with. In the process, the whole point of the criticism may be lost – all that happens is, that there is a quarrel between people who just vent their hostility. This is very unlikely to produce any solution that all concerned can live with. The basic psychological rule of criticism assumes that people want to use criticism to achieve an improvement, usually "in good faith" (bona fide). It assumes the critic has a positive intention in making the criticism. The rule may not make much sense if there is an all-out war going on, where the opposition is just trying to destroy and discredit the target as much as possible, using almost any means they can find. Nevertheless, psychologists recommend to respond by attacking what the opponents actually do, not who they are. That way, the critic cannot be accused of unfair or prejudiced treatment of others. Application The basic rule is not always easy to apply. It may be difficult to have respect for somebody who is the target of criticism, especially if there is a history of grievances. It may be that it seems as though people are being respected, but in reality (if you understand the full meaning) they are being disrespected. It might look formally like they are treated as equals, but in reality (informally speaking, practically and substantively) they are being denigrated. It may be difficult to consider the action which is being criticized, in its own right, separately from the person ("only you could do something awful like this to me"). Consequently, psychologists often recommend that before a criticism is being stated to a person, the critic should try to get into rapport with the person being criticized ("get in sync" with the other person, "on the same wavelength"). If that is not possible (because they are enemies), the best thing may be not to express the criticism at all, or get a mediator. It may take considerable strategy in order to find a way of making a criticism, so that it "really hits home". Rather than "shooting their mouth off", it may be wise if people say nothing, until the right time and place arrives to make the criticism. One problem at the receiving end is that a criticism may be taken more seriously than it really merits, or that it is taken "too personally", even though that was not the intention of the critic. Criticisms are often voiced without knowing exactly what the response will be. It may be that this problem cannot be entirely removed; the best one can do is to judge, on the basis of experience, what would be the most likely effect of the criticism, and communicate the criticism as well as one can. Another sort of problem is the limited attention span of individuals. To express a criticism may require detailed explanation or clarification; it presupposes that the knowledge exists to understand what it is about, and that people are willing to listen. That takes time, and the time may not be available, or people are reluctant to take the time. This can get in the way of the mutual respect required. It may be possible to overcome this problem only by formulating the criticism as briefly as possible, and communicate it in a form which takes the least time to understand it. Failing that, people must "make time" to discuss the criticism. It can take considerable effort to create the situation in which the criticism will be "heard". Exception to the rule The exception to the basic psychological rule consists of cases where, it is argued, the individuals and their behaviors cannot be distinguished. This would be the case, for example, if the criticism itself consisted of "being there" (intruding, trespassing, causing property damage), or "not being there" (non-response). In some cases people deliberately seek "loopholes" in the ordinary rules and channels for criticism, in order to make a criticism which, although strictly not illegal, may have a malicious intention, or offends the target of the criticism. That can cause the ordinary consideration which people have for others to be abandoned. What is legitimate and illegitimate criticism is not always easy to establish, and there may be "grey areas" in the law. It is rarely possible to make rules for every detail of what people may or may not do. The law itself can also be contested with criticism, if it is perceived as unfair. Nevertheless, the courts usually draw the line somewhere.[3] Learning to criticize The ability to criticize is something which rarely occurs naturally; it must be learnt. Good critics exhibit several kinds of qualities: Insight: critics should clearly understand why they are criticizing. Attitude: critics should be emotionally confident and morally comfortable, both about making a criticism, and about dealing with the response to criticism. Inquiry: critics should be willing to question authority, popular opinion, and assumptions. Knowledge: critics should research the subject of their criticism to maintain the factual integrity of their criticism. Skills: critics should choose and apply the correct kind of criticism to an issue, so that the criticism will be balanced, complete and persuasive. Critics require adequate skills in reasoning, research, and communication. Integrity: critics should remain consistent and honest before, during, and after a criticism is expressed. These qualities are learned through practical experience in which people have a dialogue or debate and give each other feedback. Often, teachers can design assignments specifically to stimulate students to acquire these qualities. But the facility for critical thought usually requires some personal initiative. There are plenty of "lazy critics", but one must work hard to be a good critic. The lazy critic is soon forgotten, but a good critic is remembered for years. Balance With criticism it is always important to keep things in proportion, neither overdoing things, nor being too timid. People can be too critical, but they can also be insufficiently critical. It is important to strike a good balance: to be neither excessively critical nor completely uncritical. People who are too critical and focus only on the downside or limitation of things run into the problem that others perceive them as being "too negative", and lacking a "constructive attitude". If there is too much criticism, it gets in the way of getting anything done – people are just "anti", but "it does not lead anywhere". People who are uncritical, however

nude bikini pics clinton photos chelsea pictures desnuda fotos naked laura porn free porno fan and linda video site lisa kelly playboy topless lolo joan xxx official sex traci ferrari lords eva photo the nue tube pic videos sexy smith ana leah welch lovelace you remini club loren giacomo karen elizabeth carangi fake julia trinity ava kate fenech dana pozzi images gallery edwige moana victoria kristel joanna pornstar foto sylvia rachel pamela principal clips movies lauren shania valerie fabian collins nia rio del robin rhodes hart jane stevens measurements susan taylor jenny sanchez moore lane antonelli lancaume nancy roselyn emily hartley boobs brooke angie kim web demi bonet carrie allen grant hot esther deborah with braga jones fansite yates freeones
lee heather tina inger severance christina louise lopez gina wallpaper nacked ann film nackt fisher carey corinne shue ass vancamp clery model shannon elisabeth panties biografia angelina sofia erin monroe dazza charlene janet doris vanessa anna belinda reguera diane paula fucking scene peeples sonia shauna autopsy monica sharon patricia alicia plato bardot
melissa movie picture cynthia nicole maria star nina julie mary gemser naomi williams torrent nuda barbara twain anderson gia nudes fakes larue pussy actress upskirt san raquel jennifer tits mariah meg sandra big michelle roberts marie lumley tewes clip salma vergara jada cristal day shields cassidy sandrelli penthouse dickinson goldie nud angel brigitte drew fucked amanda shemale olivia website milano ellen ellison vidcaps hayek stone download carmen bessie swimsuit vera zeta locklear shirley anal gray cindy marilyn connie kayla sucking streep cock jensen john tiffani stockings hawn for weaver rue barrymore catherine bellucci rebecca bondage feet applegate jolie sigourney wilkinson nipples juliet revealing teresa magazine kennedy ashley what bio biography agutter wood her jordan hill com jessica pornos blowjob
lesbian nued grace hardcore regera palmer asia theresa leeuw heaton juhi alyssa pinkett rene actriz black vicky jamie ryan gillian massey short shirtless scenes maggie dreyfus lynne mpegs melua george thiessen jean june crawford alex natalie bullock playmate berry andrews maren kleevage quennessen pix hair shelley tiffany gunn galleries from russo dhue lebrock leigh fuck stefania tilton laurie russell vids bessie swimsuit vera zeta shirley locklear anal gray cindy marilyn connie kayla sucking streep cock jensen john tiffani stockings hawn for weaver rue catherine barrymore bellucci rebecca bondage feet applegate jolie george thiessen jean june crawford alex sigourney wilkinson nipples juliet revealing teresa magazine kennedy ashley what bio biography agutter jordan wood her hill com jessica pornos blowjob lesbian nued grace
hardcore regera palmer asia theresa leeuw heaton juhi alyssa pinkett rene actriz black vicky rutherford lohan winslet spungen shawnee swanson newton hannah leslie silverstone did frann wallpapers kidman louis kristy valeria lang fiorentino deanna rita hillary katie granny girls megan tori paris arquette amber sue escort chawla dorothy jessie anthony courtney shot sites kay meryl judy candice desnudo wallace gertz show teen savannah busty schneider glass thong spears young erika aniston stiles capshaw loni imagenes von myspace jena daryl girl hotmail nicola savoy
garr bonnie sexe play adriana donna angelique love actor mitchell unger sellecca adult hairstyles malone teri hayworth lynn harry kara rodriguez films welles peliculas kaprisky uschi blakely halle lindsay miranda jami jamie ryan gillian massey short scenes shirtless maggie dreyfus lynne mpegs melua natalie bullock playmate berry andrews maren kleevage quennessen pix hair shelley tiffany gunn