Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

Old subthreads
Locked
Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my bank manager[/spoiler]

#3661

Post by Lsuoma »

Michael K Gray wrote:Lsuoma, I have a few more sheckels that I wish to shove up your in-box.
Will your original PayPal ID still work?
Thanks. Yes.

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3662

Post by Lurkion »

Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 8146
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3663

Post by AndrewV69 »

And now, something completely different:
(so you think you have issues?)

Why, aged 29, I have decided I'll NEVER have sex again
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... again.html
Lisa Smith, from Buckinghamshire, finds sex 'repellent'
Has had three lovers, and lived with two of them
Wants to find a man with whom she can have a celibate relationship
Will adopt children if she ever decides she wants them
And the followup:

'I'm destined to be a crazy cat lady!' Asexual, 29, who said she'd never have sex again is looking for a man... but admits a celibate relationship is a 'tall order'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... order.html
Vegan Lisa, 29, from Buckinghamshire, who doesn't want kids, hopes to find a man who will embrace her asexuality
Says she wants potential partner to accept cuddling as extent of intimacy
If the man of her dreams wanted sex she would say no. 'I'd feel like I was compromising myself and I would detest them for it'
Since writing for the Mail Lisa has heard from other asexuals but also had spiteful comments like: 'You can't get a man and this is how you cover it up'

Brain Box
.
.
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:53 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3664

Post by Brain Box »

somedumbguy wrote:
nippletwister wrote:
somedumbguy wrote:
16bitheretic wrote:
somedumbguy wrote:That's my free speech talking.
Fair enough, I wasn't saying you shouldn't have a right to say it, I was just pointing out my opinion of such statements. I don't feel that calls for rape or torture have any use beyond just venting of anger or some way of trying to get attention through cheap shock value. I'd certainly never support any real life applications of said wishes, regardless of how much I dislike the person, especially after I've frequently called out and criticized the Catholic Church and the US prison system for their avoidance of responsibility in seemingly systemic problems of unprosecuted rape.
Good thing I don't influence the laws then like Dworkin, MacKinnon, Koss, and Marcotte have.

Somedumbguy:I understand having some rage, dude...but come on, that was shitty wankery. You sound like a cross between a radfem and some of my religious-right-death-penalty-loving relatives. Well, three murders isn't a radfem genocide of all males, but the shittiness is the same. Get help if you're that fucking angry. If we killed every stooge that put forth a harmful idea, we'd have no more new ideas. And you are now in the "harmful ideas" area.
I have to deal with a court system where the norm, the default, the stock policy separates wonderful fathers from their children every day.

Am I angry to what radfems like Dworkin and Mackinnon have done to your courts? You bet. Am I angry as to how Marcotte practices her journalism (that is through terrible lies) you bet.

Am I saying every stooge that puts forth a harmful idea should be killed? Of course not.

Am I arguing that perhaps in some universe they would deserve it.... Hell that's just karma dude.
If you are an example of a "wonderful father" that the court if biased against I would say things are working as intended. You are a baboon, a fool who thinks committing acts of violence against others (i.e. rape) is justifiable since they say things you disagree with. I would say that you must be young and immature but that doesn't excuse the idiocy you have put to text.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3665

Post by decius »

John Greg, like I said I have no wish for SDG to go, but those posts are incompatible both with the fucking law of where I and others live and with shared ethos. So, I was just suggesting to remove them rather than make an idiotic fetish of an abomination sold as free speech.

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 11692
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3666

Post by Lsuoma »

rocko2466 wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!
Saw it in NYC on opening night, and here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. It really is a blast.

Lurkion
.
.
Posts: 707
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:56 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3667

Post by Lurkion »

Lsuoma wrote:
rocko2466 wrote:
Lsuoma wrote: Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
I loved the shit out of that album. Still to see the show!
Saw it in NYC on opening night, and here in Seattle a couple of weeks ago. It really is a blast.
I was in NYC with my missus late 2011. We went to buy tickets, but the only tickets were obstructed view so we thought we'd give it a miss. Hugely regret it! I listened to the album on repeat for like two months straight.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3668

Post by Michael K Gray »

rocko2466 wrote:I was in NYC with my missus late 2011. We went to buy tickets, but the only tickets were obstructed view...
These seats are reserved for the A✝ mental-cripples who claim to be blind-'enhanced'.
Trouble is, they are all such delicate flowers¹ that none of them can ever leave their Gran's attic.
And these misogynistic concerts do not offer the comical trigger-warnings which are their opiate of choice.

________________________
¹ "Flowers" may be offensive as they are a plant's sex organs. And, as we know, sex is not a fit subject for the A✝ dinner table, or any table for that matter, except perhaps a table in a brothel.
(Blackadder fans can stay schtum.)

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3669

Post by rayshul »

Hm. I didn't read SDG's posts as an advocation of people going out to attack, and more like a stream of thought of someone righteously fucked off. But I can see why there's legal risk involved there and I'm glad everyone has "stood down" and recognised this.

On a side note I personally use readers-of-Marcotte as a way to find out which people I no longer wish to associate with. I suspect I'm motivated by the fact I have a male (white) child, and that reading those kinds of things or encouragement of that kind of thought process is dangerous to him and his future. I think the views of her and Taslima are utterly abhorrent, however it's my understanding that Al spoke to Taslima and encouraged her to research male rape and its rate of occurrence. I have also definitely noticed more reporting of male rape in the news in recent years.

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3670

Post by rayshul »

Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3671

Post by Michael K Gray »

rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
Not even an acid resistant niqab, or a caustic burkha?
One does not need a pH D in chemistry to understand the benefits of one of these Burqas modelled by a misogynist:
Antacid بُرقع‎

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3672

Post by rayshul »

Michael K Gray wrote:
rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223
This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
Not even an acid resistant niqab, or a caustic burkha?
One does not need a pH D in chemistry to understand the benefits of one of these Burqas modelled by a misogynist:
Antacid بُرقع‎
Hot.

comslave
.
.
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:30 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3673

Post by comslave »

rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3674

Post by Michael K Gray »

rayshul wrote:
Hot.
Yes, I imagine that they would be.

DeepInsideYourMind
.
.
Posts: 681
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 10:43 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3675

Post by DeepInsideYourMind »

comslave wrote:
rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
And very valid arguments in terms of social interactions and general identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban ... e_covering

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3676

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Oh dear, I've been such a misogynist yesterday evening! I dared share the stage with two extremely talented female singers, and I've stollen all their girl power with my maleness.

You wish. I was so ashamed of my vocal performances compared to theirs, I had to refuse payment after the show. This from someone with an already negative bank account balance.

(disclaimer: I seem to still be a bit drunk from yesterday, and wanted to post something so my position as most prolific poster here doesn't dwindle...)

Videos coming soon, in the music topic.

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3677

Post by Steersman »

comslave wrote:
rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
This is, I think, a start:
In December 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Muslim women must remove niqabs in some cases when testifying in court.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niq%C4%81b#Canada

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3678

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.

There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:

1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.

Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:

1. Posting stuff that I am advised will possibly lead to personal legal liability for me. On of my (seven!) sisters-in-law is a criminal trial attorney whom I have consulted WRT the Pit, and will continue so to do. Her decision, as my attorney, informs my decision in every case of potential legal liability. I may or may not decide to discuss specifics in public (i.e. on the Pit), but I will post announcements if possible.
2. Boring my fucking arse off. It's a big arse, so this is not instantaneous. But once it hits the floor, it needs a lot of re-hoisting.
3. Posting stuff that you have been explicitly asked/told not to. I MAY listen to communications here, but I may choose not to respond. If I tell you not to post stuff, the minimum reason is that I don't want you to. In such a situation the following applies:

a) Is your name Lsuoma Californensis? If not, fuck off.
b) If so, are you the Lsuoma Californensis that owns this board? If not, fuck off.

Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
Whay SDG posted was, in my opinion, the first time anyone here has posted anything even close to the sort of rape threats that the FTB crowd claim is a constant feature of this place.
To hell with the silly Steffalump type jokes, SDG's stuff is exactly what they have been waiting for for the past seven months since the forum began.
I don't think we can simply sweep it under the carpet.
You list a set of rules (and despite what people might think of free speech or moderation, it is implicit in the running of a site like this that there must be some rules.)
Is it too much to ask to include a couple of extra rules that have, over time, developed into the norm for behavior on this forum. These are:
Don't make threats of violence against people - including the sort of youtube comment style 'threats' that Watson relies on - which is exactly what SDG did.
Don't doxx people (meaning giving out personal information that is not easily googled, and even if it is, doesnt contain home or work addresses)
This place is like a public bar to a lot of us. We come here to laugh and goof about while catching up on the latest FTB shenanigans. With those stupid rape wishes SDG has done the equivalent of purning up and taking a huge shit on the floor. That sort of behavior - and the failure to condemn that behavior - is exactly the reason why the MRA movement is doomed to remain at arms length from most of us here.
Thanks very much SDG, you complete and utter fuckwit.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3679

Post by Michael K Gray »

comslave wrote:
rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
ATTENTION ALL Citizens of the A+ State!
Citizen ComSlave has expressed the will of the goodthink Kommentariat admirably!
Big Bother admires ComSlave's willingness to change his name to comport with Newspeak, and deny the double-atheism-plus-ungood of personal privacy!

The A+Theism Executive Komittee has decided that the anti-state unthink misogynist dodge of face-coverings are to be countered by placing a Telescreen® in every home.
Thanks to de-rationing and the free market the price of nutrition-free bread has now gone down to eighty-five Roubles an ounce.
And here is good news for state house-persons, the following goods are now in the shops:
Plastic and sawdust elephant night-shirts
Second hand concrete parachutes
Artificial explodable woollen bloomers
Men's self igniting tailless shirts - with anti thunder-sheet attachment.
There are unlimited supplies in the shops!!

We love Big PZ!

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photo ... ture_3.jpg

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]Koala Lovers[/spoiler]

#3680

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

Michael K Gray wrote:For the few animal lovers¹ amongst us:
Thirsty koala follows walker, drinks three bottles of water
Dateline, mid-summer, South Australia, (a bit up the road from here):
A THIRSTY koala has made the rare move of climbing down a tree before following a walker along suburban roads, drinking three bottles of water over an hour.
Woo-Hyang Sun wrote:"I was walking near the Black Hill Conservation Park entrance (when) my husband spotted a koala in a tree," Mrs Sun said.
"We took some photos, and initially the koala looked scared.
"She kept looking at me and looked like she wanted something, so I poured some water in my palm, and the koala drank it at once.
But that was not enough.
As the temperature began to rise, the thirsty koala became even more ambitious.
635361-koala.jpg
After sustaining long eye contact with Mrs Sun's husband for several minutes, the koala succumbed to the prospect of a cool drink of water and climbed down from the tree, not at all phased by her suburban surroundings.
Not only did the koala hit the streets of Athelstone for a leisurely stroll, it almost threatened to get behind the wheel of Mrs Sun's car.
"When I opened the car door, she was poking her head to look inside my car, I guess for more water?," she said.
â‹®
"After she finished the whole bottle, she was waving her hand, I guess, for more water.
"She followed me for an hour and ended up drinking three bottles altogether - definitely the friendliest koala I've ever seen."
Read the whole story with more cute piccies at http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/thirsty-k ... s-of-water

_________________________
¹ Punishable by 5 years imprisonment and a $50,000 fine
And this is probably the reason why the whole of humanity is not doomed yet.

A very pleasant sight on a sunday morning.

Reap
.
.
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: Reno Nevada
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3681

Post by Reap »

Michael K Gray wrote:
bhoytony wrote:There seem to be people here who assume that everybody who is posting on this blog want the exact same outcome as themselves. Sorry, but your goals aren't necessarily the goals of anybody but yourself.
Too true. Nearly a "deepity"
About the only commonality between us is a distaste for hypocrisy.

You are correct. I hadn't stopped to think about what it was on the common side which is interesting and a bit depressing

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3682

Post by Steersman »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Lsuoma wrote:I thought that at some time I would need to post something like this, but it has been longer than I expected.

There are a few things that will get you permanently banned as soon as I find out, with no appeal:

1. Being Mabus posting a la Mabus.
2. Posting child pornography.
3. Posting spam or warez or malware or links to same.
4. Posting if you have already been permanently banned for any reason.

Other things that MAY get you banned, but where the ban may be negotiable, or, if already imposed may be reversed, are:

<snip>

Addendum: this has been a busy night, and I hope that nobody (in alphabetic order Decius, Somedumbguy)will leave the Pit permanently because of it. Tomorrow is a Latter Day.
<snip>

Don't make threats of violence against people - including the sort of youtube comment style 'threats' that Watson relies on - which is exactly what SDG did.

<snip>
And what evidence do you adduce to support that contention? For instance, how about this statement of SDG’s:
I'd say Marcotte needs a shit ton more rape in her life. Mary Koss, Nasrim Tasleema who say that men can't be raped? Fine, fuck them both. Get raped chickadees. Fuck off AND DIE.
Is that any more of a credible “threat” of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens”?

Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose” and all that ….

rayshul
.
.
Posts: 4871
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 2:00 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3683

Post by rayshul »

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:
comslave wrote:
rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.
The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
And very valid arguments in terms of social interactions and general identification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ban ... e_covering
In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).

Steersman
.
.
Posts: 10933
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 8:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3684

Post by Steersman »

Michael K Gray wrote:
comslave wrote:
rayshul wrote:Recent acid attack. Perpetrator is a woman, apparently. Horrifying story and pictures. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21305223

This sort of thing is why I'm against the niqab, really.

The reason I'm against face covering is that security systems will increasingly rely on facial recongition software to prevent crimes or identify perpetrators. Face covering interferes with the effectiveness of this software. And I don't see why one group gets a pass on face covering.
ATTENTION ALL Citizens of the A+ State!
Citizen ComSlave has expressed the will of the goodthink Kommentariat admirably!
Big Bother admires ComSlave's willingness to change his name to comport with Newspeak, and deny the double-atheism-plus-ungood of personal privacy!

The A+Theism Executive Komittee has decided that the anti-state unthink misogynist dodge of face-coverings are to be countered by placing a Telescreen® in every home.
Thanks to de-rationing and the free market the price of nutrition-free bread has now gone down to eighty-five Roubles an ounce.
And here is good news for state house-persons, the following goods are now in the shops:
Plastic and sawdust elephant night-shirts
Second hand concrete parachutes
Artificial explodable woollen bloomers
Men's self igniting tailless shirts - with anti thunder-sheet attachment.
There are unlimited supplies in the shops!!

We love Big PZ!

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/photo ... ture_3.jpg
Riiight-on there brother Michael!

And aspirins inexorably lead to mainlining heroin and mother’s milk is the straight-and-narrow path to being a Bowery bum on Skid Road!

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3685

Post by Michael K Gray »

Steersman wrote:And aspirins inexorably lead to mainlining heroin and mother’s milk is the straight-and-narrow path to being a Bowery bum on Skid Road!
I only JUST took you off "ignore" to find that, true to form, you are still your vapidly humour-free contrarian self.
Oh well, back to ignore mode, you pointless tape-worm.
That experiment in optimism over experience lasted all of 53 seconds.

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3686

Post by Michael K Gray »

rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
That is basically not true.
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.

Phil_Giordana_FCD
That's All Folks
That's All Folks
Posts: 11875
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 10:56 pm
Location: Nice, France
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3687

Post by Phil_Giordana_FCD »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
rocko2466 wrote:
My fave picture from her post about "men hate woman's bodies" -
http://freethoughtblogs.com/taslima/fil ... having.jpg
That's not a shaving accident, unless the woman (? Proof of gender?) has Parkinson's.

It's clearly self harm, either real or staged: check out the multiple slashes across the heel. Nice idea if you're into that kind of thing: gets nice chafed by shoes, but hidden by trousers, so provides an all-day reminder of how worthless you are while remaining hidden from the public.
I have to ask: did you mean this comment to be sarcastic, or did you fall off the crib in your infancy?

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3688

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Steersman wrote: Is that any more of a credible “threat” of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens”?

Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose” and all that ….
I didn't say SDG made a credible threat. I think, however, he made the kind of idiotic, nasty wowbagger style remark that has always been criticized in the past by the pit.
Is it too much to ask people to show some degree of responibility to the other members of the pit?
You don't post (legal) porn here because that will make the site inaccessible to those viewing at certain workplaces. You don't post spam or warez because it's illegal or timewasting.
If you can't behave in an adult and responsible way in the slymepit then you risk doing something that gets the entire forum closed. Isn't that why both Eucliwood AND that idiot who posted the (similated?) cp picture were banned?

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]selfish Libertarians[/spoiler]

#3689

Post by Michael K Gray »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Steersman wrote: Is that any more of a credible “threat” of rape than the similar one directed at Watson that virtually all and sundry here and have pooh-poohed as just the complaints of a bunch of “stupid, whiny, witless Baron Munchausens”?

Methinks you might find his other comments along the same line to be equally extreme but hardly credible as actionable threats. “Sauce for the goose” and all that ….
I didn't say SDG made a credible threat. I think, however, he made the kind of idiotic, nasty wowbagger style remark that has always been criticized in the past by the pit.
Is it too much to ask people to show some degree of responibility to the other members of the pit?
You don't post (legal) porn here because that will make the site inaccessible to those viewing at certain workplaces. You don't post spam or warez because it's illegal or timewasting.
If you can't behave in an adult and responsible way in the slymepit then you risk doing something that gets the entire forum closed. Isn't that why both Eucliwood AND that idiot who posted the (similated?) cp picture were banned?
Cue Bhoytony to hypocritically observe that he doesn't give a tinker's toss about your opinion, yet bothers to post an intense selfish rant against it...

Michael K Gray
.
.
Posts: 2480
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2012 2:04 am
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3690

Post by Michael K Gray »

Frankie Boyle:
"A merry-go-round is a just a Sushi-bar for Pædophiles"

clownshoe
.
.
Posts: 206
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:57 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3691

Post by clownshoe »

Michael K Gray wrote:
rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
That is basically not true.
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.
Are you talking about Carnita Matthews? or someone else?
It wasn't a series of crimes, just one (but according to news paper reports had a history of other traffic offences). She was convicted of making a false statement to police in 2010 and sentence to six months in prison. Carnita Matthews then appealed that conviction and it was over-turned, and then she tried to get court costs from the police but was that turned down by the judge. If she was the person in side the burqa (and the apellantt judge could not be sure which is why he overturned the conviction) then she did indeed get away with it because her face was covered.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3692

Post by decius »

Thanks, Lsuoma.

Rayshul, check your PM.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3693

Post by decius »

Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3694

Post by Za-zen »

Breathe deeply and become the chocolate

[youtube]YOn4vg0JIAo[/youtube]

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3695

Post by Jan Steen »

Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:

http://i.imgur.com/8XKpPV4.jpg

If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3696

Post by Dick Strawkins »

decius wrote:Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.
OK, so apparently the comments that SDG originally posted have been edited and his original words were much more in line with the sort of violent rape fantasies that we have collectively condemned.
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3697

Post by Dick Strawkins »

Jan Steen wrote:Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:

http://i.imgur.com/8XKpPV4.jpg

If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.

I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3698

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

didymos wrote:
masakari2012 wrote:I read through that JREF forum every couple of weeks to see what's going on. They had a few good points, which I took away from there. But the Pit is far superior.
It's not about which forum is teh bestest. I posted that because watching an APlusser deploy what is usually a winning SJW tactic and having it go completely awry is pretty funny.
It's the kind of thread Notung should approve of. No profanity, no gratuitous insults, "lively" but hardly acrimonious debate. I see at least one refugee from The Borg found there way there which, AFAIAC, is a still win for the good guys. The 'Pit isn't for everyone, but we're still here. And what would The Borg do for an enemy if we weren't? (That's not really a serious question - they can invent them out of thin air.)

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3699

Post by decius »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
I couldn't agree more.

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3700

Post by Jan Steen »

Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:
Yeah, that sucks. I deeply, deeply and most humbly apologise. :oops:

Jan Steen
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 3061
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2012 3:18 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3701

Post by Jan Steen »

decius wrote:
Dick Strawkins wrote:
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
I couldn't agree more.
Seconded.

EdwardGemmer
.
.
Posts: 496
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 2:15 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3702

Post by EdwardGemmer »

I've always thought of FTB as like Dwight from the Office, full of weird inane rambling that THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE ABOUT! The Slymepit gets to be Jim and take the role of pranking them at every opportunity.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3703

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

Dick Strawkins wrote:
decius wrote:Dick Strawkins, check your PM please.
OK, so apparently the comments that SDG originally posted have been edited and his original words were much more in line with the sort of violent rape fantasies that we have collectively condemned.
Part of the reason I post here is because I found it the one place in the online atheist community where people were taking seriously the problem of hypocrisy.
There is a line to be drawn in the sand here.
Bad taste jokes about someone being a fatty are juvinile and silly.
Calling for people to be raped is so far over the line that I am seriously wondering whether we have been set up.
The alternative, and probably closer to the truth is that we have some crossover with the MRA community who don't seem to take this sort of shit seriously.
I suggest we do take it seriously.
I didn't see SDG's original flameout (and don't wish to, but I'll take the Big L's word for it), but I'm going to strongly disagree with all of his violent phantasies.

I don't believe they are serious threats any more than Rebecca's set of messages or the "butterfly tagger" nonsense. We can laugh them off and point out the hypocrisy of the FTBorgers but it doesn't do any good to start sending the very messages they have shown they will treat as a threat. I don't care if it was the red wine, red bull or red mist talking, it was unneccessary, unpleasant and dumb.

In theory, I don't like to see restrictions on what people say or how they say it but, obviously, there have to be some. Given the opposition will not hesitate to stoop to any level to shut us up, giving them the opportunity to do so is daft. It was the same with Eucli- there doesn't have to be any substance to the allegations, but making them can get the site shut down until they are investigated and, eventually, chucked out. Afterwards, of course, you become "that hate site that was dealing pr0n to little girls" (cue colon), and that shit can stick, even if it is totally disproved.

So this is my pub too, but if I haven't got enough sense to stop myself from doing things that will get it closed down (even temporarily), I shouldn't be surprised if the landlord wants to keep his license and boot me out on the keister.

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3704

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

Paul Fidalgo drinks the Koolaid. http://freethoughtblogs.com/nearearthob ... nd-listen/
Not a very interesting read, as it's just a retreat of the usual A+ mantra, and the A+ remoras glom on pretty quickly. Notung shows up and tries to be reasonable and, er, skeptical, so you can guess how that went.

The A+ers seem to spend more time on FTB than on their own forum safe space, only going back there to tell each other how they commented before the 'Pit did, and *group hug*.

So with CFI continuing to throw skepticism under the bus, and PZ and Jen also wanting to renounce skepticism, will CFI become the Centre for Feminist Ideology? I wonder how the rank and file feel about that?

AnonymousCowherd
.
.
Posts: 1708
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2012 2:49 am
Location: The Penumbra of Doubt

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3705

Post by AnonymousCowherd »

clownshoe wrote:
Michael K Gray wrote:
rayshul wrote:In Australia there were a series of crimes by someone in a burkha, as well as a court case where a woman had attacked a cop (I think! memory hazy) but could not be convicted because she refused to remove her burka. Therefore it was impossible to identify her. There's a lot of fuckery that goes on with this sort of thing (down with this sort of thing!).
That is basically not true.
In a case where a burka-wearing female was pulled over by Aussie cops for dangerous driving (by dint of obscured vision), she elected to take the case to court, rather than pay the fine. Her defence was based on Religious Privilege trumping state laws. In Australia!
If I remember rightly, her defence was dismissed, and the fine & demerit points upheld.
Are you talking about Carnita Matthews? or someone else?
It wasn't a series of crimes, just one (but according to news paper reports had a history of other traffic offences). She was convicted of making a false statement to police in 2010 and sentence to six months in prison. Carnita Matthews then appealed that conviction and it was over-turned, and then she tried to get court costs from the police but was that turned down by the judge. If she was the person in side the burqa (and the apellantt judge could not be sure which is why he overturned the conviction) then she did indeed get away with it because her face was covered.
Mathews was lucky. The original offence was a traffic one (which stood), but then "someone" with their face covered made a claim that the traffic Police had made her remove her covering and was therefore a racist. That complaint was found to be untrue and she was sentenced to a fine and six months porridge. This was appealed and she got off the false complaint charge, but had to pay her costs. The judge refused those costs (and they were more than court costs) because he thought another judge might reasonably have convicted her! The State government immediately extended Police and others powers to demand removal of face coverings for ID purposes, so it likely won't happen again. There have since been huge protests by helmeted "youths" outside the Church of Laterday Motorcycle Couriers.

Za-zen
.
.
Posts: 2683
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:39 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3706

Post by Za-zen »

Cfi is a joke.

Fidago got henpecked on twatter a couple of weeks ago, for daring to agree with someone who refused to swallow the koolaid. Humpty dumpty rebuked him for not being an ally, as there were bigger things at stake..... Yeah that's a cfi ED, oh the lolz.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3707

Post by Pitchguest »

Michael K Gray wrote:Frankie Boyle:
"A merry-go-round is a just a Sushi-bar for Pædophiles"
:lol:

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

never heard the melody till I needed the song

#3708

Post by Apples »

Violence wishes/fantasies -- obviously out of bounds (regardless of Lsuoma's actions). Bad PR, inhumane, bad skepticism, not interested. Fat-shaming of public figures who are brittle, privileged, anti-skeptical hypocrites: bad PR, poor taste, juvenile, mean, still think it's funny.
untitled5.JPG
(17.61 KiB) Downloaded 201 times

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3709

Post by decius »

A friend of mine needs some Pit help. She's a very talented singer, whose career will immensely benefit if her advantage in this poll could be restored.
She has been ahead for days, but not it appears that results are being pharyngulated and she's suddenly down.

Please cast your vote for Anna Haas.

http://nashville.thedelimagazine.com/snacks

Submariner
.
.
Posts: 1127
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 11:05 pm
Location: Florida, US of A
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3710

Post by Submariner »

c) Rebecca's page of hate, as you correctly identify, has no examples of real threats, just hate speech, trolling, abuse, etc
I did an analysis of the page of hate a few weeks ago:

The hyperlink to the page of hate was the word "hundreds" sandwiched between harassment from and atheists.

There were at the time 325 comments total.

268 of the comments were authored by the four "stalkers" 325-268=57 57 +4 (stalkers) = 61 people

Of the remaining 57 comments 39 were terrible hate speech type comments. 8 were personal comments ( I think you're ugly, i don't like your hair, etc)

2 were reasonable disagreement ( one by Mykeru).

One saying she was the Ann Coulter of the left.
One I can't even figure out.

Even granting all the comments I found reasonable that's only 61 individuals.

Reap
.
.
Posts: 630
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2012 10:27 pm
Location: Reno Nevada
Contact:

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3711

Post by Reap »

Jan Steen wrote:Deeply disappointed that Stephanie Zvan failed to include my photoshop of her:

If you look closely you will see that it's her face. It's a still from The Wicker Man, a thriller about a radfem society :) . She'll have to admit that I didn't make her look bad; not physically, at least.
None of mine did either...:(
and I gave her SPECIAL POWERS
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V0SEYyeEkws/U ... sychic.png she should be thanking me

I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair

windy
.
.
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:41 am
Location: Tom of Finland-land

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3712

Post by windy »

So, I'm not sure what happened, but apparently SDG posted something that crossed a line. Guys, don't do that! (for realz this time)
Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:
No, the face paint lady is the equivalent of Lord Summerisle ("Sister Summersisle" in the remake) and is played by Ellen Burstyn. Your wank material should be safe.

And no photoshop could not possibly insult the original as much as the incredibly shitty remake did, so no need for apologies, Jan Steen- using a scene from the remake was a nice touch IMO.

[youtube]e6i2WRreARo[/youtube]

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3713

Post by Apples »

Reap wrote:I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair
And of course creative caricatures that satire the hypocrisy/craziness without relying on juvenile insult are a sure win. "Crucifixion Plus (Restored)" is pure genius. "Crazy Cunt Lady" is more borderline but reminds me so much of Ophelia that I can't even think about it without giggling. Jan's "Wicker Man" shoop is subtle but effective.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 4024
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3714

Post by Pitchguest »

decius wrote:A friend of mine needs some Pit help. She's a very talented singer, whose career will immensely benefit if her advantage in this poll could be restored.
She has been ahead for days, but not it appears that results are being pharyngulated and she's suddenly down.

Please cast your vote for Anna Haas.

http://nashville.thedelimagazine.com/snacks
Since I've never heard of Anna Haas, I'm not sure it's fair for me to cast my vote. But she needs little over 20 votes to surpass the other one. The poll ends today.

decius
.
.
Posts: 1365
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:08 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3715

Post by decius »

Since I've never heard of Anna Haas, I'm not sure it's fair for me to cast my vote. But she needs little over 20 votes to surpass the other one. The poll ends today.[/quote]

Try this sung tribute to her grandma. She's good.

[youtube]5eKo-sVd4mc[/youtube]

mikelf
.
.
Posts: 315
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:34 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3716

Post by mikelf »

decius wrote: Try this sung tribute to her grandma. She's good.
Indeed, she is. However, the fact that Della Mae has only gotten 16 votes in that poll is an absolute crime.

And reinforces my decision to eschew the Nashville country/bluegrass music scene in favor of those in Austin, Boston, Chicago, and Seattle.

Gumby
Pit Art Master
Pit Art Master
Posts: 5543
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:40 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3717

Post by Gumby »

Apples wrote:
Reap wrote:I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair
And of course creative caricatures that satire the hypocrisy/craziness without relying on juvenile insult are a sure win. "Crucifixion Plus (Restored)" is pure genius. "Crazy Cunt Lady" is more borderline but reminds me so much of Ophelia that I can't even think about it without giggling. Jan's "Wicker Man" shoop is subtle but effective.
I still think this is the best one yet:

http://i.imgur.com/lODAS.jpg

katamari Damassi
.
.
Posts: 5429
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:32 am

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3718

Post by katamari Damassi »

DeepInsideYourMind wrote:
16bitheretic wrote:
somedumbguy wrote:As has been pointed out, some people deserve death. So the people don't deserve death is bullshit. (Bin Laden, Hitler, Stalin, Taliban at Bamiyan)
Those were all wartime enemy combatants and leaders of hostile enemy armies. We generally don't in any civilized society condone most killing, but in times of war and military conflicts we make exemptions because of the nature of organized armed conflict. But even in times of war we tend to think that rape and torture of captured enemies is a human rights violation, because we are part of cultures that have moved beyond primitive barbarism.
So don't police my speech and don't put words in my mouth, other wise, I will tell you to get fucked and die.
Criticizing what you've posted here is not policing your speech, it's also an exercise of free speech in an open forum. You know, marketplace of ideas and all that.
America has the death penalty, so do many countries in the world ... who doesn't condone killing?
The death penalty can be contextualized as the state or society killing in self defense. Morally I have no problem with that, though I am against capital punishment only because the justice system(at least in my country)is so seriously flawed that I wouldn't trust it to accurately determine guilt.
NOBODY deserves torture or rape. That sort of eye for an eye thing is the province of religion and isn't that what we want to get away from?

Dick Strawkins
.
.
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:34 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3719

Post by Dick Strawkins »

windy wrote:So, I'm not sure what happened, but apparently SDG posted something that crossed a line. Guys, don't do that! (for realz this time)
Dick Strawkins wrote:I recognized the allusion - and I was going to complain to you about it.
Even though it's from the remake, the character you've painted as Svan is, I think, the same as the character called 'Willow' in the original 1973 movie, where she was played by the incredibly sexy Britt Eckland.
The dance scene in the pub bedroom is one of the most erotic scenes ever in a mainstream movie.
Well it was, until you done that photoshop.
Now I'll never be able to watch it again without thinking of Svan.
:twisted:
No, the face paint lady is the equivalent of Lord Summerisle ("Sister Summersisle" in the remake) and is played by Ellen Burstyn. Your wank material should be safe.
It's too late!
I've already made the connection in my head!
I can't take the risk!
Damn you, brain, you were meant to be my friend!

:doh:

Apples
.
.
Posts: 2406
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:39 pm

Re: Now sponsored by [spoiler]my dick[/spoiler]

#3720

Post by Apples »

Gumby wrote:
Apples wrote:
Reap wrote:I think we hit too close to home....at least I did with the hair
And of course creative caricatures that satire the hypocrisy/craziness without relying on juvenile insult are a sure win. "Crucifixion Plus (Restored)" is pure genius. "Crazy Cunt Lady" is more borderline but reminds me so much of Ophelia that I can't even think about it without giggling. Jan's "Wicker Man" shoop is subtle but effective.
I still think this is the best one yet:

http://i.imgur.com/lODAS.jpg
I think of it every time PZ climbs on a pair of soapboxes to say "We're winning - there are no American tanks in Baghdad" or nips at the heels of another skeptic or public figure who dwarfs him in influence/integrity.

Locked