Can we have a Wanker's Corner?

[onebatmother]

Hello.

It's been noted in the past that there are some pretentious wankers amongst us who like to discuss some general subjects (eg.Porn, Religion) in a fairly, erm.. academic manner, and that this sometimes seems to intimidate and/or infuriate other posters.

There doesn't seem to be an easy solution to this problem: there's no doubt that people really do feel intimidated and that it might prevent them from posting on a subject that concerns them. It also must feel hijack-y at times.

At the same time, it's hard for the Wanker's to be told that they mustn't post anything that might intimidate.

Would it be possible to have a special place, with very hard chairs to keep us awake, that we may call our own?

He;s saying please don't jizz on my face.

he is not, there is no j formation in that open mouth

Connoisseurs of late night digital TV will know that Big Cook and Little Cook host another show on one of the laddish channels, the script for which (probably written by a computer, as surely no sentient human would) goes something like this:

Scantily-clad nymphet enters stage left
BC (or it may be LC): Cor! What a picture of pulchritude you are! How pleasing your physionomy!
LC (or BC, interchangeably): Phwoar!

Now there really must be enough here for a seminar on inter-textuality in BCLC and this other show.

There is something Wayne's World about either BC or LC (don't know which is which).

FioFio - Are you suffering from short term memory lorrsss? Here is the dirty little wanker thread

See post

By FioFio on Tue 24-Jun-08 12:55:11
dirty little wanker

I realise it was a joke

noted Fio

MadBAd - really?? Is that really true? bloody hell, yes, to an intertextuality seminar. My contribution will revolve around the extent to which masculine sexuality is perceived to be undermined by contact with infants; and the concomitant desire to infantilize the objects of their 'desire'.

FioFio my dear - this is all just fannying about. Please don't worry - just silliness.

re: my post of 20:53

you see? when you see it come out of the blue like that, it does actually make even I think, "What a wanker."

OBM - Yes, it really is true.

Alas, I've only seen it when channel-hopping - when I paused, agog and aghast, to check that it really was BC and LC - so can't give details. My version of the script (above) was somewhat sanitised; the programme itself was both infantile and lewd. I was amazed that the BBC would allow its children's TV presenters to disport themselves in such a way - think of all those sacked Blue Peter presenters of yesteryear - but I guess the difference is that BCLC is made by a production company and so there is no contractual relationship between BC, LC and the BBC. LC has also made a documentary for BBC3 called 'Fark Me, I'm Ginger'. Such varied careers.

'... make even me think...'?

"me think 'what a wanker'" doesn't work though.

Night all.

why not?

bcs the second part of the sentence is "i think, what a wanker". The previous bit surrounds and describes that sentence. And that sentence would not work if it was 'me think, what a wanker'

There is a much neater way of describing this, sorry.

ie "'I think, what a wanker'" is the most important grammatical element of the sentence, and it could stand alone. The rest describes or relates to that sentence.

Agree to differ. Was a v dull point for me to make anyway. N'night.

Yes, have a wankers' corner. ON the understanding that anyone who's naughty on other threads has to take the next turn at mop 'n' bucket duty.

it makes me think

not it makes I think

Are we allowed to report people to Wankers' Corner? I feel a need to tell tales.

bloody hell!
What was I thinking - of course, me is the object of the thingy. Der. Sorry silkworm.

Would would be ar eportable offence, stuffit? Posting without due care and erudition?

lol no there's never any danger of that