Urvogel said:The horror comic book article is just terrible. I was expecting an interesting treatise about the rise of horror comics and the creation of the Comics Code, but instead it was just an 8 page rant about how everyone in government is an idiot. Ad hominem attacks, literal insults, book shilling, the lot.
Then I got to the end and realised why- it's written by the guy who wrote that godawful gang stalking article in FT305!
FT, please stop publishing this guy's work. It's utter garbage, terribly written, and I've always thought FT had higher standards than that. It just reflects bad on FT on a whole, and it's certainly not going to attract new readership if that's the main article of the mag!
tonyblair11 said:ramonmercado said:Urvogel said:The horror comic book article is just terrible. I was expecting an interesting treatise about the rise of horror comics and the creation of the Comics Code, but instead it was just an 8 page rant about how everyone in government is an idiot. Ad hominem attacks, literal insults, book shilling, the lot.
Then I got to the end and realised why- it's written by the guy who wrote that godawful gang stalking article in FT305!
FT, please stop publishing this guy's work. It's utter garbage, terribly written, and I've always thought FT had higher standards than that. It just reflects bad on FT on a whole, and it's certainly not going to attract new readership if that's the main article of the mag!
But did he have anything to say about farmers?
You should consider having the sense of humour bypass reversed.
spam
tonyblair11 said:ramonmercado said:tonyblair11 said:ramonmercado said:Urvogel said:The horror comic book article is just terrible. I was expecting an interesting treatise about the rise of horror comics and the creation of the Comics Code, but instead it was just an 8 page rant about how everyone in government is an idiot. Ad hominem attacks, literal insults, book shilling, the lot.
Then I got to the end and realised why- it's written by the guy who wrote that godawful gang stalking article in FT305!
FT, please stop publishing this guy's work. It's utter garbage, terribly written, and I've always thought FT had higher standards than that. It just reflects bad on FT on a whole, and it's certainly not going to attract new readership if that's the main article of the mag!
But did he have anything to say about farmers?
You should consider having the sense of humour bypass reversed.
spam
I have a good sense of humour. It is still spam. When a poster makes the same reference over and over and spans the entire fucking board, then it is spam.
tonyblair11 said:Definitions are not necessarily opinions.
spam
spam/
noun
noun: spam; plural noun: spams; noun: Spam
1.
irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients.
unwanted or intrusive advertising on the Internet.
"an autogenerated spam website"
2.
trademark
a canned meat product made mainly from ham.
verb
verb: spam; 3rd person present: spams; past tense: spammed; past participle: spammed; gerund or present participle: spamming
1.
send the same message indiscriminately to (large numbers of recipients) on the Internet.
tonyblair11 said:Spam and name calling. I'm sorry that you cannot understand that using an inside joke that "only" you get over and over technically is spam.
escargot1 said:
CarlosTheDJ said:
gncxx said:I read one of her spanking books once, my goodness it was repetitive.
Urvogel said:The horror comic book article is just terrible.
liveinabin1 said:I agree about the horror comic item. It didn't seem to tell me anything about them really.
The horror comic book article is just terrible. I was expecting an interesting treatise about the rise of horror comics and the creation of the Comics Code, but instead it was just an 8 page rant about how everyone in government is an idiot. Ad hominem attacks, literal insults, book shilling, the lot.
Then I got to the end and realised why- it's written by the guy who wrote that godawful gang stalking article in FT305!
FT, please stop publishing this guy's work. It's utter garbage, terribly written, and I've always thought FT had higher standards than that. It just reflects bad on FT on a whole, and it's certainly not going to attract new readership if that's the main article of the mag!