Posts by Sarah Bee

Re: 2) Female ejaculation is an ‘abhorrent’ depiction

I like that you're an amazing stud but are far too modest to tell the internet about it.

Re: OK the biggest problem here...

I doubt very much that there's a lot of correlation between consumers of cartoon child porn and consumers of real child porn. People have different preferences - some are going to prefer the cartoon stuff, it'll be their thing, and it doesn't mean that they're going to 'progress' to the real nastiness. Some are going to go that route, inevitably, but making that assumption/projection in all cases is ludicrous, and dangerous.

Re: Re: I meant chipped!

(I'm actually laughing at that suggestion. Not outwardly, of course. But on the inside I am roaring with mirth. Proofreading comments? I would be here for TWELVE millennia...)

Re: Neither dude nor dud

NINE. By God.

Re: Funny to reject my last (joke) comment...)

Yes it does, Andus. Generally my own rule of thumb is that if it makes me slightly uncomfortable, moderately irritated, or inclined to run screaming into the street brandishing a machete, it gets rejected. You and everyone else just have to accept that there's a chance your hard work won't see the light of day on these pages.

You lot are being especially difficult today.

Re: Srsly?

Good lord, that's the internettiest comment I've seen in quite some time.

Re: What's the difference?

Pfft.

Re: YES! FINALLY!

Haha!

Ha!

This pleases me. This pleases me no end.

Re: it angle?

Let me give you my considered response to that in terms you'll immediately understand.

FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Re: WASP KILLER

Yeah, you guys could really use a break.

Re: I am more worried by the deleted posts

OH MY GOD!

It's just moderating, Mark, I only wish it were as exciting as CENSORSHIP.

Re: Bad Science

We know who Ben Goldacre is, ta, and that story was from last November so I don't see the need for a hat tip here. But thanks.

Re: greedtards?

I think in this context the suffix '-tard' has become akin to '-phile', as in 'showing fanatical interest in/devotion to'. Or just to indicate membership of a collective mindset. Like commentards. The original meaning has been discarded. Or um, distarded.

Anyway, there's plenty of offensiveness around these parts but I don't really feel that's still a source of it. Bubba jokes are still the bottom line for me (yes, I said 'bottom', please be quiet).

Gary F 1

Wow, you're all heart, aren't you. Sheesh.

Re: We all pay whether we see the adverts or not

Loads, probably. Why don't you have a think?

I rely on advertising for my job, in the end, whether I like it or not. This is the case for many people. It's objectionable, yes, but it's thoroughly integrated, and all the smug ad-blockery posturing in the world won't change that. Sorry.

Re: Two Backs?

I think Shakespeare probably meant any position. There are still two backs involved, no?

Anyway, I think half you beasts don't deserve a second back, on the basis of your comments.

Re: lol

We'll wait with bated, mint-smelling breath, Lionel.

Re: I've had enough of this...

"Now, there's no need to resort to violence."

"Ah, sure there is." *thunk*

Really, Richard 39? A 2x4? You haven't considered just, like, forgetting about it and continuing to live your life? Just a thought. It's a lot less labour-intensive.

Re: Backspace

Yes. And it is annoying and I wish the offenders would stop it. I've tolerated it till now but I might just start rejecting it. What's wrong with <strike></strike>, anyway?

Re: May I recommend...

Montezuma is indeed best.

Re: So?

'Spat out at me' is an awfully aggressive-sounding phrase that doesn't quite marry up, in my mind, with the actual process of clicking and reading required for you to absorb this story.

I could work here for a thousand years (and god knows some days it feels like I have already) and I'd never get to the end of you IT-angletards. I can't even be arsed to explain our editorial policy any more - in future, I'm just going to make this sort of droning noise in the back of my nose and leave it at that.

Re: RE: D'oh

Of course it's not by design - at least not all the time. It's an occupational hazard for a girl - you can't always tell what's going to be see-through under different lighting, and you often assume black covers everything. Also, some women are just berks who don't learn.

Re: Excellent article!

What do you mean, 'recently'? We have a long and proud tradition of tabloid garbage.

Seriously, though, it's always been a broad church here and will continue to be.

Re: @Jemma

Oh, play fair, EA, that's not even universally bad grammar. C'mon.

Re: funny with whats the relevance

Commentard hordes, you know what to do.

Re: You go too far Mr Spleen!

Titanic has many faults but it's a staggering cinematic acheivement overall.

Also, I'm slightly disturbed by that commenter's apparent desire to see horrible torture inflicted upon Meg Ryan.

Re: Turning a new page in human evolution

They are both descended from apes, obviously.

beavering

They could just call it Standing On Coyotes' Necks After They've Chewed Their Own Feet Off Digest, but that might be a bit long.

Re: Are you taking the p1ss?

My experience suggests otherwise. I had a Vitara for a year or so - it was about 15 years old when I got it and nothing ever went wrong with it, it was as solid as anything. It only failed its MOT on rust. It was a brilliant and totally reliable car.

So ner. Oh and less of the hysterical semi-racism, please. What is it about the internet that makes everyone so angry?

Re: Imagination

So, film is an intrinsically inferior medium to the book, Peter?

Come on, have a go, I feel fighty today.

Re: Dopey words

Automated deelies to find most popular icons? No. We don't care. Bye!