Wank - Not Just for Fandom Anymore!

> recent entries
> calendar
> friends
> profile

Monday, May 10th, 2004
12:46a - *Head...Desk...Repeat*
Belt0033 posts a rant in Conservativism about how anti-American the liberals are for condemning the actions of U.S. troops against Iraqi prisoners because Sadaam was worse. Wank ensues. Much, much wank.

Apparently, Belt0033 feels that anyone who disagrees with him is a troll, obviously sent from the liberal comm to infiltrate and bring down his ultimately right opinion. Thus, their posts must be screened before OMGsomebodyelseagreeswiththem!!!111oneleventyone!

My favorite highlight: OMGIMSOHIPROFILE!!!!111one!

Still a relatively small wank, but this definitely has the potential to grow.


current mood: *thud*
current music: The Two Towers Extended Edition

(66 comments |comment on this)

2:16a - Mickey vs Michael!
This is a Trickeldown Wank.

Michael Moore Got Miramax (a Disney company) to pay for his new film, Fahrenheit 9/11.

Then he tells the media (specifically, the New York Times) they're censoring him by paying for, then not distributing the film.

However, apparently he admited he knew this a year ago while it was still in production. Note the Washington Dispatch's glee at the NY Time's flub, and the wanking in the comments.

Meanwhile, Michael is still pretending he never admitted this wasn't a surprise.

So, basically, Disney said it would pay for the cost of entire thing, but wouldn't put it in the theaters. Then Michael Moore pisses off Disney by using a deal he knew was in place to manufacture hype.

Over in the LJ comm Liberal, Maxomai wants us to boycott Disney, and they argue over whether it's an indie movie, whether he's overpriced, and whether merely being mostly made up warrants [info]kylebee saying they're a whole 90% made up.

There's been allot of politi-wank recently, huh..?


current mood: *thud*

(33 comments |comment on this)

7:33a - OMG UR A FEMUHNIST U MUST BE TEH UGLEE!!!!111!!!
jsl32 writes:

why do so many posters who complain about the emphasis society places on looking a certain way to be attractive often use highly flattering cam shots as their user icons? surely one wouldn't feel a pressing need to use lighting and angle to disguise presumed flaws in appearance.

by the same token, why do so many larger women use as their icons shots that disguise their true figure?


Lots of responses, but the wank hasn't erupted yet. Waiting for the original poster to return, at which time I suspect there will either be a frenzy of wank or a deleted post.

(6 comments |comment on this)

4:30p - Corset!wank
The [info]corsetry community on LJ is usually pretty low on drama, high on picspam of things people have made/bought recently.

[info]equanimity posts a few pictures of her latest creations - and in comes our troll curious outsider..

There are references to women's supression, questions like But why would anyone put themselves through that?, backhanded compliments: I'm not saying you don't have any talent, because you do you could use it for many better things besides corsets!, and of course statements like:

I think women should be comfortable in their bodies, and not have to suffer so immensely to look good. I just feel doing this to oneself, lowers oneself, you know.

Wank ensues.

It then spills over to another post, and to another journal.

Small and sweet. :)


current mood: annoyed

(36 comments |comment on this)

5:15p
well, something happened here.

And it featured the word 'gaytheist'.

(30 comments |comment on this)


<< previous day [calendar] next day >>

> top of page
JournalFen