Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
from the crossed-words dept
This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Stephen T. Stone commenting on the unconstitutional nature of the way Senate republicans have approached a bill stripping MLB's antitrust exemption:
Republican lawmakers: “Fuck cancel culture! Grow some thicker skin, assholes! Stop being so offended by everything!”
Also Republican lawmakers: “We’re cancelling these fuckers because they hurt conservative feelings. Don’t they know that’s illegal?”
In second place, it's an anonymous response to Mastercard's new rules for streaming sites:
Cool. Now do elected officials who knowingly spew rhetoric that leads to an insurrection.
Still seeing that Mastercard logo on www dot tedcruz dot org slash contribute
For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous reply to the commenter complaining about our spam filters:
So funny enough: I've never had a problem posting to TD. I've also never seen someone claim they were getting caught in the spam filters without also seeing them try to fill the comment section with spam. Very strange. I wonder what the correlation could be.
Next, it's yet another anonymous comment, this time responding to the aforementioned first place winner:
If there is one thing they're consistent about its hypocrisy.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Toom1275 with a comment about the fact that Sidney Powell may face sanctions from the Michigan AG:
So it seems "It wasn't defamatory, it was perjury!" wasn't the genius legal claim she thought it would be.
In second place, it's LACanuck responding to the list of banned swear words on Mike Lindell's "free speech" social media platform:
Four words?
I would have thought the four banned words would be 'We lost the election"
For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with one more anonymous response to the commenter complaining about spam filters:
I've never seen someone try so hard to increase engagement and activity on a site he hates so much he cheered someone else's efforts to destroy it.
And finally, we've got another comment from Stephen T. Stone, this time in response to the baffling complaint that one of our posts was "opinionated":
That tends to happen on opinion blogs, yes.
That's all for this week, folks!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Techdirt's spam filter
One of my comments last week triggered the spam filter. That was the first time that happened to me! I don't know why, but I was surprised at how fast it got approved. I just don't get why people complain about filters affecting THEIR content in one breath and insisting sites do more to stop "illegal" and "infringing" content in another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's spam filter
Hypocritical delusion and self-denial would be my guess, the idea that only 'bad' content would be caught/removed and refusal to believe that their content might be considered to fall into those categories by a person or in this case automated filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's spam filter
The "spam filter" only catches ME, usually! They turned it up for a while, as two weeks ago I could hit "Resend" once, and be in. Now, dozens go -- NEVER come out of the alleged "moderation", either -- until apparently an Admin stops the full blocking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You admit to submitting dozens of comments, but you somehow can’t understand how the spamfilter confuses your dozens of identical or near-identical submissions in a short period of time as spam.
dude take your fucking meds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You admit to submitting dozens of comments, but you somehow can’t understand how the spamfilter confuses your dozens of identical or near-identical submissions in a short period of time as spam.
It used to be dozens. In the last few weeks he's ramped it up to hundreds. And he still doesn't seem to understand that all it does is train the filter to better recognize him and his spamming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's spam filter
"The "spam filter" only catches ME, usually!"
Bullshit. At least one in ten comments of mine end up "held for moderation" - because i tend to use language which has flags, I guess. A few hours down the road that comment is usually released from the filter.
You, on the other hand, Baghdad Bob, immediately post another comment on top of your last one, telling the spam filter algorithm to escalate the flagging of your comments since no sane person reacts to a held comment by tossing half a dozen more.
Face facts, you feckless nitwit; Your comments get held because you alone are triggering every red flag set in the usual filter meant to keep out multi-posting viagra salesmen and nigerian princes.
And that's on top of you using Tor exit nodes with ip addresses already flagged as spam origin after the last ten idiots to use those nodes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's spam filter
"And that's on top of you using Tor exit nodes with ip addresses already flagged as spam origin after the last ten idiots to use those nodes."
With apologies to Bizet,
Tor exit node, won't hide your constant spam!
Tor exit node! Tor exit node!
Please, don't flood the comments
with your endless crap
The filters will stop it with a trap
And block your use of that
Tor exit node, so stuff that in your hat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's spam filter
Éncore, éncore! 😁
Tor is the poor man's VPN, after all, and you do get what you pay for. Great to get messages out if you're an arab spring revolutionary or government dissident in a dictatorship, not so much an option if you want to use it to regularly spam a forum asunder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's spam filter
Ditto for me...the spam filter seems a bit more trigger-happy lately, but I can't complain about the moderation.
And it does seem to catch the posts where I hit "submit" accidentally and prematurely, which is good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirt's spam filter
Because they're not very smart, do not have a good understanding of how computers work, and lack the intellectual curiosity to learn or the humility to listen to other people who explain it to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Techdirt's spam filter
"Because they're not very smart, do not have a good understanding of how computers work, and lack the intellectual curiosity to learn or the humility to listen to other people who explain it to them."
This is why sysadmins of old tended to take the Abigail Oath. There's always going to be that one screaming moron demanding action which ends up causing themselves more harm than anyone else. And refuses to listen to reason. Eventually they often get their way. In Baghdad Bob's case he's multiple times called for legislation whose first and most seriously stricken victim would be himself, for example.
He's really the living proof of the old adage that if you think everyone you meet is an asshole it turns out there's only one asshole - you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's spam filter
I used to tell the motherfucker, "Hey, set up a Wordpress blog; it's not hard to do and you'll learn a lot." Something as simple as that would go a long way toward disabusing him of some of his bizarre illusions about how comment systems work.
But nah. Dude's willing to spend more hours a day on Techdirt than I do at my actual paying job, but spending a couple hours setting up a blog is just a bridge too far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Techdirt's spam filter
"But nah. Dude's willing to spend more hours a day on Techdirt than I do at my actual paying job, but spending a couple hours setting up a blog is just a bridge too far."
That, and I suspect he knows damn well he'll be the only one screaming like a madman in whatever empty void he sets up. Like every other entitled shitwit with convinced they're God's Gift To Humanity for no particular reason he needs an audience, if for no other reason than to satisfy some deeply rooted masochistic urge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When
An idiot like me can make comments and not get blasted, its not so bad of a site.
In the old internet is was really fun, trying to find the SITE you made a comment on, that was 3-4 servers away, inside that 1 section, that you found just yesterday. After wondering the net looking for it, for the last week. And we didnt have browsers that could SAVE the link to that last location. YOU had to remember How you got there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When
Don't tell me, let me guess.... you were using Lynx, but no one told you how to access Archie, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: When
I think you overestimate the age of Lynx. It's a comparatively newfangled browser.
I guess there are not that many people around these days for whom "Internet site" was once associated with Gopher...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: When
"I think you overestimate the age of Lynx. It's a comparatively newfangled browser."
Compared to what, Netscape? Lynx has been around the block enough times to be considered one of the old ones. I still recall when Lynx was one of the few ways to surf the net without getting a purple monkey trying to "befriend" you every other page you opened.
I normally associate the word "browser" with HTTP. I think most people do. The gopher protocol and its precursors are pure FTP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: When
Checked with Wikipedia and it would appear that I did Lynx injustice based on my personal history with text-mode browsing: I've encountered it comparatively late (as others fell by the wayside) but it would appear that it has been around since Gopher times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: When
Yeah, Lynx became incredibly popular among us old-timers back when html designers had just started learning the tricks up pop-ups/unders and iterative frames, turning normal browsing into molasses, even on a T1 link. I remember a guy in the same comp society I was in built a webpage containing an infinite number of recursive frames, just to show one glaring weakness of most browsers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: When
Loved my C64 and the old BBS's.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So...the top insightful comments are mocking republicans, vilifying a republican, mocking another commentator, and mocking republicans again. Hmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hmm indeed. It's almost like they're doing easily mockable stuff, or something ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If out_of_the_blue doesn't want other readers calling him out for spamming the comments, he could start by... simply not spamming the comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who is this " out_of_the_blue" -- asks no one ever!
Because are ONLY the AGING regulars here. You guys have gone through middle age on this tiny little site, seeing it diminish daily!
Just today noted that has been TWO WEEKS since saw a new account. I may have missed a few, but clearly the appeal of cess is low, which along with trumpeting how the "spam filter" wrongly catches everything -- and my adding that mine never come out, it's viewpoint discrimination -- clearly, Techdirt keeps doing what doesn't work. So, YAY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please seek help for your obviously long-untreated mental illness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Because people put your original pseudonym in the search bar and see for themselves what kind of user you are - and I imagine most of them aren't impressed.
I know you ascribe to the John Smith/Whatever/MyNameHere/horse with no name school of "defending yourself by outing yourself", but here's an honest tip: stop being such a predictable fucknugget and maybe nobody would bother insulting you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: who is this " out_of_the_blue" -- asks no one ever!
A) SHOW that the claimed on-topic dissent is "spam". That doesn't mean just any opinion you don't like.
B) Who says that's not useful, for the dissent, to get you monkeys off topic to trivial? That's helpful to show the actual level of discourse here, and why no one reasonable comments!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The comments you get through the filter aren’t spam in and of themselves. The dozens of comments you admit to submitting before you finally get one through, on the other hand…
Don’t you ever get tired of posting all these self-owns?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: who is this " out_of_the_blue" -- asks no one ever!
Without the false premise that your comments have ever been "on-topic dissent," the rest of your lie falls apart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The Devin Nunes memo thread.
The Content Moderation on Vaccines thread.
Don't try to play the citation, blue. You'd lose so hard, they'll have to come up with a new SI unit for how owned you'd be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do stupid shit, win stupid prizes. And a large part of the republicans consistently do stupid shit more often than any other group. And mocking another commentator, that commentator is a troll that has shit-posted here for 10 years and who has a meltdown every time his posts gets stuck in the spam-filter.
Now, is there anything else you have problems with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"the top insightful comments are mocking republicans"
Let me know when you find a democrat willing to say that their opponents are a cabal of satanist cannibal child traffickers led by anthropomorphic lizards wearing human skin masks and using jewish space lasers. I guarantee that most sane people will be mocking those people too.
Yes, republicans are being mocked and heckled, because the republican party as a whole has turned into a farcical shit-show of malicious clowns using bad dystopian fantasy as a description of factual reality.
The clown in the ring who points at the audience and demands they laugh at the ringmaster or horse wrangler as much simply adds to his act of being a clown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I have little doubt that you'll find them among Democrats as well. It's just that they aren't elected into leading and representative positions.
The problem is that Republicans have made a few deals too much with the devil.
"Granted, we don't originally stand for racism, but racist voters can make the difference to maintaining majorities".
"Granted, we don't originally stand for raving lunacy, but raving lunatic voters can make the difference to maintaining majorities".
And frankly, if we get to eventually find a significant ratio of satanist cannibal child traffickers anywhere, the Republican party will make them an offer they would be silly to refuse. Because nobody else would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have little doubt that you'll find them among Democrats as well. It's just that they aren't elected into leading and representative positions.
Which is kinda damning of the current republican party as it would indicate that traits that would be deal-breakers for a democrat candidate like being batshit insane and/or racist are kept hidden by those that might have them, even as they are seen as positives or at the very least not negatives for republican candidates such that little if any effort is made to hide them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Actually, "SDM", that's the cabal claiming to be Repubs.
This is what's known as propaganda, specifically to make your enemies look crazy, and then smug little netwits can point to it and try to discredit the perfectly ordinary views associated with it. Old trick that you have to pretend is false too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Several Republican lawmakers have signaled their support for QAnon, notably Marjorie Taylor-Greene. The party has yet to make them disavow that support. Show me one instance of the Democrats allowing one of their own to support QAnon without reprimand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Several Republican lawmakers have signaled their support for QAnon, notably Marjorie Taylor-Greene."
And let's not forget their latest CPAC. You could probably excuse as unfortunate coincidence the golden Trump statue, OR the fact that the speakers were trumpeting a message of "lebensraum" and "Lügenpresse", loudly proclaiming that liberals in power would mean oppression, tyranny, and the irretrievable breakdown of law and order (between the lines; "Bad Black Men and Mexican Rapists are coming for your women") OR that they delivered these messages standing on a stage carefully designed as the winged odal rune - the official symbol of the American neo-nazi party.
But not all of the above at once. Reasonable doubt is well out the window. The republican party as a whole has become a disgrace of the kind we normally only see in failed nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Actually, "SDM", that's the cabal claiming to be Rep
"This is what's known as propaganda, specifically to make your enemies look crazy, and then smug little netwits can point to it and try to discredit the perfectly ordinary views associated with it."
That's a neat trick. Making republican senators and congressmen coming out on open camera supporting Qanon and one blabbing openly about jewish space lasers.
Next you're going to tell me the people storming the capitol and taking selfies of themselves committing assault and sedition were just antifan agents who'd been masquerading as white power militia for twenty years, right?
Here's a hint, Baghdad Bob. When your "explanation" requires the existence of mass mind control to make any sense then you're on thin ice.
Also, I hate to break it to you but those views which republicans have pushed lately; that black people are a lesser race who doesn't need the same treatment white people get; that constitutional freedoms are optional; that property owners shouldn't be allowed to set their own rules as to who gets to comment on their platform; that judges and courtrooms should declare an election invalid out of hearsay - these aren't "perfectly ordinary views". They're calls to abolish any semblance of freedom and justice, nothing else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most people tend to have a poor view of hypocrites, adults who act like petulant children, and hypocritical adults who act like petulant children. If they don't want to be mocked then they can stop acting in a manner that makes it more than justified.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There you go again, you cancel cultist. You hypocrites have no problem with a woman who thinks she is entitled to be a man. But when you encounter a schooled person who thinks they are entitled to be an idiot, you tell them to stop acting in that manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And Poe's Law strikes once again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Frankly, I have no idea how U.S. satirists manage to make do. Probably canned groans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
" I have no idea how U.S. satirists manage to make do."
They don't.
Saturday Night Live had to stop their usual presidential parody. They used to dress someone up as Bush, Obama...but with Trump they could only give up because no matter how insane they tried to make him sound his next tweet usually made their parody look reasonable in comparison.
Bill Maher cried out in bemused exasperation "I can't keep up! Comedy can't keep up!...".
John Oliver tried - valiantly - but had to admit there's nothing he can do which makes Trump and the current GOP look worse than the parodied party themselves did.
Pretty sure Trevor Noah was the only one to comb home a few victories over Poe's Law, but he had to go the distance. Try looking for "trevor noah trump african president" on youtube. You'll find a four year old video and a followup I recommend looking at.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All of that is exactly why I gave up on watching political satire until after Joe Biden was sworn in. Now watching John Oliver is fun again and doesn't feel like we're in a script written by William Shakespeare and Mel Brooks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It appears your definition of 'cancel' means "disagree, mock, refuse" etc. So it seems you are claiming to be a "cancel cultist" yourself.
If that's really how you want to self-identify, you are, of course, welcome to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most people aren't so hypocritical as to label their opponents nuts and impute false charges to half the country. You, though, have NO problem demonizing anyone even slightly disagreeing -- and then from what you know is false, claim you're justified in suppressing them! YOU are using the exact tactics of Nazis / Communists, and doing so knowingly, and smugly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republicans aren’t most people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Republicans aren’t most people." -- Exactly!
I state that the problem is "most people". You agreed that the "Republicans" aren't the problem, silly kid.
LOGIC FAIL. Usually does with you and Maz reply to me, get bent out of shape, literally can't see straight, just try to make ANY answer to divert.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Republicans aren’t most people." -- Exa
And that working browser session suddenly stopped, but "Resend" got it in.
The amazing "spam filter"? Or Admin action out of sight? -- The latter. Happens frequently to me, and the tactics are doubtless applied to make the less persistent give up -- to keep Techdirt uniformly wrong!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stop using Tor and stop spamming comments, and maybe the spamfilter won’t recognize you as a spammer, you spammer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There once was an out of the blue
Who hated the process of due
Each post that he'd made
Was DMCAed
And shoved up his ass with a screw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Most people aren't so hypocritical as to label their opponents nuts and impute false charges to half the country."
The way the republicans did over the last four years and the last election specifically, you mean?
"You, though, have NO problem demonizing anyone even slightly disagreeing -- and then from what you know is false, claim you're justified in suppressing them!"
The way the republicans and most of the alt-right have used as standard tactic since day one, and you are trying right now?
"YOU are using the exact tactics of Nazis / Communists, and doing so knowingly, and smugly."
Says the only regular on TD aside from Shel10 and Restless94110 to push traditional nazi tactics and keywords on Techdirt for about ten years now.
Truly, with you people it's always "Every accusation, a confession".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[Projects facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consider this proposition: You have more of a problem with Republicans than you do with us because they’re saying the quiet parts out loud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kids, THANKS for making your alleged "filter" front-page focus!
So long as potential dissentiing commentors learn that the inviting plain HTML box is actually censored out of sight, that's FINE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kids, THANKS for making your alleged "filter" fron
Looks like you missed your alarm for your meds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Kids, THANKS for making your alleged "filter&am
Sheesh. This childish phrase.
Doesn't just look like you're a trivial idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Remember the times when you claimed Hilary Clinton would get arrested, blue?
There's a trivial idiot around here, and it's not the person you replied to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dissent doesn’t get people flagged. Spamming comments and trolling does. Stop acting like a spammer and a troll, and you won’t be treated as one. How do you still not understand this concept?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It doesn't on normal sites, "A. Stephen Stone!"
Anyone new, IF were any, can read the comments that are "hidden", and see they're perfectly ordinary and mild, well within other sites.
It's only Techdirt that can't stand ANY dissent, and only Techdirt LIES that it's not censoring those to the silly limits of what Maz chooses: disadvantaging let yet still leaving, his usual insane ineffective half-measure.
Techdirt won't leave dissent in view because its corporatist views can't stand ANY dissent. It's the most ideologically uniform site I've ever run across.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It doesn't on normal sites, "A. Stephen Stone!"
BESIDES THAT: HOW AM I GETTING IN NOW THROUGH THE ALLEGED "SPAM FILTER"? HUH?
How come I CAn get the same text in if persist? -- It's because an Admin lowers the level, stops blocking all. No one ever contradicts this. You don't know and the site won't say, but I have experience that sums up to that conclusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It doesn't on normal sites, "A. Stephen Sto
Soo, you are admitting to liking (or even, desperate to be in) environments that you perceive as hostile to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't on normal sites, "A. Ste
Are you admitting it IS hostile?
I'm a first-level paladin. I go where the smart don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't on normal sites, "A.
First-level paladins may not be as squishy as say, a first-level wizard, but they're still quite squishy. You probably should have invested more points into your Wisdom and Intelligence stats, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weird how he detracted points from Charisma, too. Like, he’s in negative numbers there, even.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably has a -5 or more to his Charisma modifier (which is a very bad thing if one is a paladin).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not that it was necessary, but thanks for admitting that you're not smart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't on normal sites, "A.
"I'm a first-level paladin. I go where the smart don't."
Except that you don't have a code of honor, no sense of justice, and no divine calling guiding your steps.
You're just the drunk delusional hobo ranting incoherently from out of the bottom of whatever's in your brown paper bag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even a rapist can make their victim “consent”.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You would know, "A. Stephen Stone"!
It's this kind of idiot hyperbole that has run off ALL the reasonable people.
I bet yourself has literally run off HUNDREDS of people. And Maz too craven to tell you to shut up, as any decent site would, instead of trying to stop all dissent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's funny that you think your own personal end goal is something worth projecting onto everybody else, when you and every other copyright cocksucker were the ones praying on your knees for Shiva Ayyadurai to destroy this website.
Have a DMCA vote, fuckface.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: It doesn't on normal sites, "A. Stephen Stone!&
How come I CAn get the same text in if persist?
It's part of the conspiracy to keep you typing or copy/pasting. Hundreds of us are in on it. We all have control of the Gate. That's what we call it. It's our secret code name for the filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: It doesn't on normal sites, "A. Stephen
*nods* El Psy Kongroo, brother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"That tends to happen on opinion blogs, yes." -- YOU ADMIT IT!
You kids don't even grasp what you admit! So long as seems to respond, you write it. -- Then trumpet it as if doesn't show you in bad light! SHEESH.
This is FUN, that's why I do it! Just have to take it right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "That tends to happen on opinion blogs, yes." -- YOU ADMIT I
Only assholes use that excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And people who enjoy having their balls crushed as an expression of sexual release, but hey - this is the "love wins" era after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]