|
|
Saturday, June 5th, 2004
|
4:32p - vintage_sex has been oh-so drama free lately...
I guess it couldn't last.
Barely coherent model posts picture of herself to ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif) vintage_sex (since edited, but there's a link to the original photo). People are annoyed. The poster explains that she made a mistake, but won't remove the post because she likes chatting with the people responding.
Netspeak and a flood of angry comments, yes, but what brings it up a notch over regular ol' drama must be the OP insisting that she is is soon-to-be famous and all around above this, and taking the time to bring the light of self-awareness. Now, I tussled a bit with her in a previous post, so I wondered if I should throw this all off to ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif) i_wank, but I can't say I'm dragging it here because I'm carrying a grudge... she is a little bit objectivily amusing, isn't she? Right?
Oh, or just mock me if you feel like it. Also, bonus dictionary.com wank!
Edited to add: As the name implies, this community is not worksafe.
current music: Cheb Khalid - Alech Taadi (21 comments |comment on this)
|
9:21p - A little bit of everything
The Dilbert feed seems to attract all kinds of wankers, today being a classic. I'd link to specific examples, but the whole thing is just drenched in spooge. There's wank over the first post, furrywank, accusations of homosexuality and paedophilia, the appearance Godwin's Law, plus half a dozen people shouting 'Godwin's Law'. In fact, I think there's only one or two non-wanky comments in the whole damned thing.
current mood: energetic (5 comments |comment on this)
|
|
|
|