Wednesday, 9 February 2011

BREAKING NEWS! A celebrity wears clothes!

Bit short of things to write about today. Perhaps I should turn this publication into a less frequent occurrence. I decided to have a looksie on the great provider of accurate and frightfully important knowledge, MailOnline.

Apparently some woman called Mischa Barton has put on a pair of tight trousers and knelt down. Yes, that's right. The Mail has literally written a story about a celebrity wearing clothes. Barton isn't exactly a big house-hold name either, unless you watched The OC. And let's face it. Who did? 

So here, not only has the Mail reported on this woman doing the shocking and unusual thing of covering herself, but they've also called her fat because what can only be described as the tiniest bit of skin has overspilled over the waistband of her trousers. Only the caption to this rather unfortunate picture claimed she was "bursting" out of her trousers. 

I also found this about Mark Zuckerberg being stalked. The founder of Facebook has become a victim of real life stalking by an avid admirer who bombarded him with many emails and even sent him and his sister hand written notes and on one occasion, some flowers. Zuckerberg has since filed a restraining order on his stalker's arse after the man was arrested whilst approaching Zuckerberg's house. 

Once I had finished reading the article, my attention promptly found some of the comments that the readers had posted in response to this publication. Comments such as:

Clever people don't never go on facebook though Im on it a bit, I admit but Im unusual.
I beg to differ. I use Facebook quite a bit - and I would perhaps dare to call myself clever; at least cleverer than the average Mail reader. See, I even used a semi-colon correctly. I digress, anybody who puts the words "don't" and "never" next to each other is clearly on their way to be a budding Neurosurgeon.

Caught in his own net. Now he knows what other people have to put up with.
Or perhaps don't never have to put up with if they set their privacy setting properly and only have real friends on their immediate network. Then you don't have to worry about your privacy.

What comes around goes hundreds hundreds of people every year get stalk on face book mm not a good adverticement
Ouch. Clearly not a fan of punctuation, suffixes, conjunctions or even the concept of quantity. 500million people use Facebook. It's an absolute relief that only (what I'm assuming he meant) hundreds and hundreds of users become victims of stalking in any degree through this site.

And my personal favourite:

"What comes around goes hundreds hundreds of people every year get stalk on face book mm not a good adverticement" - karl wood, southampton With all possible respect, if you can't even spell "facebook", what makes you think you have anything of value to contribute to a discussion about it? People get stalked in the street, not a great "adverticement" for town planning, but we still have towns... "Maybe it will help Mark Z to consider more carefully the effect that Facebook has on lives..." - Dave, Leeds Why should he care less? If you don't like it, don't use it, or build your own (that's what I'm doing). It wasn't built especially for you, and nobody ordered you to use it, did they?
 A man who thinks that he is higher on the horse than the two other people he is quoting, then makes himself look stupid by forgetting silly little things like readability - and saying he spelt "facebook" wrong, when it's a proper noun, and therefore spelt Facebook. Or perhaps some other method of breaking the quotes from the comment he has made about it. Like a hyphen, or a full stop. Or maybe the use of the 'return' key. Happily, however, he does understand how to use an apostrophe. But with more rhetoric coming from this man than Sarah Palin, I don't think he has knowledge about any other ways of writing critique. Try sarcasm. Or making jokes. Maybe add suggestions? Or taking a look at this blog.

Whilst reading a quality paper, I must say I am sick of reading about the woman who is suing a Plastic Surgeon for £54million because he left her with a 'monster eye' and a facial twitch. Read the full story here. She should get fuck all. Granted the surgeon himself may have been a bit dodgy, but is this a good enough reason, if there was one, as why vanity surgery is stupid - and it serves her right to be afflicted with this problem. I have absolutely no doubt that she looked totally normal before the surgery. And I have absolutely no sympathy for this idiot who clearly had too much money to spend.

Another thing I heard on the news this morning was that Clegeron (or Camegg) is going to start charging parents who use the Child Support Agency a £300 fee per year. Critics have called it child tax. I call it punishment for not having a traditional Conservative family. Westminster claim that it will cause parents to stop using it and will encourage them to sort out child support privately. Which is fair enough, but those that rely on this service the most are those that are generally the worst off in society. Am I missing the point when I say that the whole idea of a government service is for it to be free? Clearly the Tories skipped over this memo because it helps the disadvantaged.

Fucking draconian philistines.

Also, I will leave you with these two articles concerning junk food. One is from a half decent newspaper, the other from the Mail. Can you guess which is which?

Junk food diet could damage your child's IQ.

Junk food beneficial for your diet.


  1. I quite enjoyed the comment left by 'higher on the horse' guy. Lol. Leave him be! Pick on the more obvious morons some more!

    I'm gonna guess that the Mail have decided junk food is good for us just to cause controversy... and because they're idiots. Though both headlines sound are very much their style. x

  2. The actual headline that the Mail published about the former junk food story was "Junk Food diet hits a child's IQ".