Be Excellent To Each Other

....what would be your choice(s)?


#1 in my list would obviously be Digital Spy. Allow me to quote from Cunts Corner...




Seriously, staying away from the place isn't enough - just knowing that such wankers exist in the world, breathing the same air as me, makes my blood boil. A POX OF CANCERAIDS ON ALL INVOLVED.



Your turn.

*Bans MarzSyndrome*

Something Awful. It's not even slightly as funny as it thinks it is, and hasn't been even as funny as it used to be (which was a bit funnier) in ooo, at least 5 years.

UK Hippy - I left in disgust after a conversation about right-wing political activism, you know the groups I mean. Various yoghurt-weaving ning-nang-nongers were carping on about the freedom of speech we should afford them as a human right. I tried to explain about the big fight we had a few decades ago about this, and why we had it, and how some speech has been proven in the past t be good for nothing other than having a strong effect on weakened people. Right wing groups in this country don't speak to the masses, because the masses don't care for nor have need of their message. They speak to the disenfranchised, at street level, give them a notion of something worht being active about. Then people get hurt. So you can't let them do it, really.

Come up with a reasoned argument against that, and I'll listen. On there, though, they were just winding me up wiht codshit nonsense. I lost my rag with a couple of people and a flurry of postings followed from all sides. At one point one part of something I said was objected to and removed, which might even have been fair enough if I could remember what it was, but the majority of the post was hacked at by the board's hippy fuhrer and the entire point of my message was changed. I dislike being edited at the best of times, but this was a fucking insult so I left without a word rather than bang my head against an ecologially sound sustainable organic brick wall.

Funnily enough, my mate got me to go on there in the first place, and he knows that lot off there, and the lot of us will be at a festival together in a few weeks. Should be interesting. Particularly becuse my recollection of this business is sketchy, at best. But no, nuke that site.

Also any band's website where the fans are creepy, stalkerish and sycophantic. We've all seen them.

BBC News isa fucking disgrace, and as for 'Have Your Say'...

Yeah, SA's front page (and indeed forum administration) has transcended dire. The most recent amusement being the imposition of 12 character passwords for security, missing that the only previous leak was them being shit. Oh, and it doesn't have search because "We've outgrown it" and it's taken 6 months to even think about getting it back because they won't take the easy route and just upgrade vb, (their version is from 1999), they desperately try to patch it and throw server power at the problem.

It's so bad there's an entire forum (http://sass.buttes.org) and wiki (http://sassclopedia.buttes.org/index.php/Main_Page) devoted to chronicling their corrupt admins and utter incompetence.

Sports forum is still pretty good though.

Their radio forum is pure comedy gold, full of 40 year old virgins who still live at home with their mother who would like nothing more to have Mike Fucking Read doing the Radio 1 breakfast show.

Also Outpost Gallifrey for taking all the fun out of Doctor Who. In the old days we had the Usenet group and that was great until a load of cunts* destroyed it to furfill their own egos. Now OG is run by cunts for cunts.

Also this World Of Cuddles site I keep on hearing about. They all sound like a right bunch of twats.

I've also tired of the RG forum. That place has more bloody repeats than Dave! Yes there is gold in there but the morons asking stupid question need their kneecaps removed.

"DWear RITRO GIMER, I FINK THERE SHulD BE MoRE CovERAGEE fO the GRUNDY NEwBRaiN. IT Had 2 G8 GAMES!"

No, fuck off!

That said Duds, Darren, Craig and a few others still make it worth tuning in because they talk sense, and are interesting. Even if they all end up repeating themselves because people don't listen

That is all. Gosh I'm full of hate today.



* NA Authors.

While SomethingAwful isn't as good as it used to be (the few new game and ROM reviews haven't made me howl with laughter like the old ones did), they still do produce some good stuff if you dig around. SA Storytime was great (a handful of cliched stories from different genres, each with the same main character) and I recently enjoyed Astounding Improbable Science Adventure.

Probably EBaumsworld. Or Guardian Comment Is Free.

BBC "Have your say". Messages posted by hateful cretins who are either full scale trots or live on "Daily Mail Island" with no normal people posting at all.

I would also add the Daily Mail website except I do enjoy popping on there and posting in the comments "Won't someone think of the children?". Gets past the mods on a surprising number of occasions as well.

nevere really been tio Something Awful, but don't what i think is sadder now, SA itself or this SASS, after reading just this page http://sassclopedia.buttes.org/index.php/Lowtax


and would like to kill most corporate website websites who think you're interested in little flashy one liners about their products you can't skip, instead of easy access to the details you're interested in

Too late for myspace?

Although admittedly, when I looked to check for emails the other day, it appeared to have become noticeably less poorly laid out and a bit more stable. Still no doubt full of shite, though.

Oh they're making their point in... well actually quite an SA type way. But having been around SA for 5-6 years now I can attest to a heck of a lot of that pretty damning stuff being true.

Digital Spy justifies its existence with the Premiere List Page. The forums are illiterate cack, obv.

I've sometimes popped into the Digital Spy problems if I've been having trouble with my TV equipment and found it quite helpful. However, you really have to be careful what you read. There are so many people who actually seem to care about whether Sky is better than Virgin and invade the other sub forums to troll for their favourite provider of over-priced shit quality digital TV. Gah.

It's not all bad-the Classic Series bit is mostly fine and the debate section can be completely amazing, as everyone in it seems to hate the rest of the site, but otherwise I know exactly what, and indeed who you mean. It's Jon Blum, isn't it? I think he's the only person on the internet who makes my blood pressure rise whenever I read something by him.

@Goatboy: I think the problem is that surpressing right-wing groups can make them seem more attractive simply because it makes what their views and political goals are a lot more vague. I suspect most people who vote for them do so out of a purely visceral response, and that's likely to become more pronounced the less airtime you allow them, as their followers become angrier and more self-righteous and that anger will fuel them. It probably gives them more power in the long run.

That awful BEEX site. Everyone's just so horrid and mean and cleeky. And they keep going off topic when people are trying to have discussions of earth shattering importance but it doesn't seem to matter to them. No. They just want to be horrid and mean and cleeky.

Digg, but only the "new" bits of it. Make it about geek stuff again - I'm fed up with every second topic being about the American election.

I thought the point of Digg was just to collate the stuff that everyone wants to read* - and the American election is, whether we agree or not, a fairly important goings-on at the moment.


*Please note that this understanding is not based on having gone to the site. Ever.

It is, but it started off collating all the tech stuff that everyone wants to read, and as such had a much better attitude.
For instance, back then if someone posted about a new (say) fuel-economic engine, and a commenter asked if it was US gallons or UK gallons, someone in the know would give them the answer, and the original writer of the article might come along and say 'sorry, should have made that clear'.
Now, the answer will be a comment with a rating of -100, with replies along the lines of "Digg is an American site so all the things on it are American" or "If you don't like it, make your own website" (but with spelling mistakes), and it's quite likely that they were talking about UK gallons. But anyway.

OIC. Well, as you were then.

Still - couldn't people just have read The Register instead?

EDIT - ah, I see you've added in some other stuff - sounds ghastly.

Goatboy - If you have the debate in the open, then you can openly take the piss. Banning certain subjects doesn't magically make them go away.

And often does precisely the reverse, I suspect. It's not exactly difficult to provide a good counter-argument to "let's ban multi-racial marriage", so it's probably better just to do that.

But, but, but, the bible says miscegination is bad, m'kay? We should leave it at that and not question God's Word^tm.

Higher domestic abuse rates in mixed-race relationships, too.

Yeah, but that's because black women don't put up with shit, because they're ace.


I think I'll be running away now.

Higher domestic abuse rates amongst poor couples, too. So let's ban them too, while we're at it. All poor people should, by law, be required to marry a rich person. It'd be like a Guilbert and Sullivan show every day!

That is actually a really, really good idea. Long as the rich sods are equally bound, natch.

If you were rich you might end up with Julia Roberts though.

Him and his wife used to lord it over the newsgroup with their acolytes who also spread their message. Bet they are as pissed as hell that they haven't managed to get on the Cardiff gravy train. Bet they are doubled pissed that many of their more talented co-authors from the NA range have been writing for it.

But yeah, he used to make my blood boil as well.

Oh, of course. It wouldn't work, otherwise.

How do you reckon this would play as an election platform if I ran for office?

Is the male:female ratio favourable?

Way to disprove this by being cuntish, there. Anyway, chinnyhill10 beat you to it, so you'll have to pick another one.

In any event, you are forgetting that I have the power to kill websites, as evidenced by my decimation of World of Stuart. It was only through a twinge of unusual pity that I did not simply kill it completely. Ah, yes. Indeed, each of you should bow down before me, for a GOD* walks amongst you.

* I'm not 'God', mind.

My, our threshhold of "cuntish" is continually dropping, isn't it?



I thought he lost a bit more than a tenth of his readership, there?

Probably not. Some people will have to turn gay.

Aren't there more poor people than rich people though? You'd either need some sort of timesharing method, or allow rich people to have harems.

Although we could solve this if we add women who are currently married to rich men into the pool of available rich women. They would, of course, bring 50% of their soon-to-be-former partner's wealth with them.

Also - I want a harem. Well, I like the idea, but I imagine the upkeep would be murder.

But then the men will become only 'moderately-rich men'. It's a house of cards, man!

Okay, then "Chrisish".


No, not if you look at the number of members in total, and the number who are now only on here. I know what words mean and stuff.

Indecent-Proposals-R-Us!

We're not delineating like that. We're drawing a line down the middle, and on one side they're rich, and on one side they're poor.

This will of course need to have half the population on either side of it, otherwise we're back to gheys and harems.

AHAHAHAHA. You so funny. Still, I think "CUSish" works better.

But still - see? This place *is* mean. You big meanie.



Well, we may not have got all of the people who stopped posting there, but from a quick eyeball estimate over the last few months it seems that there are much fewer people posting there than there used to be. There's fewer than 90%, I'm sure. But it was a JOKE, you fool. Hence the winky.

Here, have another winky.

OK - is there further delineation? Can someone just over the line hook up with someone just under the line, or does there have to be a minimum disparity? This policy seems badly thought through.

I've already answered that. One side you're rich, one side you're poor. If you have the bad sense to hook up with someone only just over the other side, then that's your problem. We're offering equality of opportunity here, not equality of outcome. That'd just be downright communist.

Eevery rich person will have to take thirty or forty poor people. I don't mind mine being a bloke. It says "marry" after all, so absence of sex is a given. Plus being able to casually drop a husband into any conversation would be an invaluable anecdotal tool.

Can you move over the line? If you go and buy a tin of beans, moving you under, can you then marry a rich 'un?

Maybe there should be a Korean-style DMZ among the middle earners, who are only allowed to intermarry, to prevent opportunistic crossings of the rich-poor border.

It could create a whole new secondary market in medium-value electrical goods.

Funnier than you, obviously, you've just repeated my joke back to me more or less.

Funnier than you dude.


I take no responsibility for you not understanding what I meant when I say that I decimated the World of Stuart - intentionally too, laughing the whole way through, stealing money from the BMX Bandits' mums and buying new full-price PS3 movie licenses. NOW BOW TO YOUR GOD.

Man, if I had another winky I'd be a porn star who can do rude things to two ladies at the same time.