View previous topic | View next topic

Filth

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

MatC
312604.  Tue Apr 08, 2008 9:51 am Reply with quote

I don't understand that bit about ladybirds; do they have something to do with buggery? Do we have film?

I was once nominated for an Edgar for a story that had the word "Buggers" in the title; I've got the certificate upstairs, with the title made out in very nice calligraphy, and I must admit (although bugger hasn't really been a rude word in this country for most of my lifetime) I still chuckle every time I dust it.

 
suze
312615.  Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:02 am Reply with quote

Good Lord! I always thought AOL sucked (which one is allowed to say), but I never realised quite how conservative the organization was.

I hope there are no human biology forums hosted on AOL, because among words which are "unconditionally vulgar" and may never be used are "genitalia", "semen", "urination", and "vagina".

We are also told in so many words that to say "Jenny is an ass" is forbidden. So it's just as well that she isn't really.

 
MatC
312623.  Tue Apr 08, 2008 10:10 am Reply with quote

You know, that ladybird thing is intriguing ... everywhere you look, there’s the Marian explanation of why they’re called “lady” but no-one thinks to explain why they’re called birds instead of beetles, which is surely altogether more baffling.

If we could find out, we could have a question “Why are ladybirds so called?” and as soon as one of the lonely swots on the panel starts off with the explanation about the BVM, we klaxon him and Stephen says “No, no - everyone knows that boring old stuff, I want to know why they're called ladyBIRDS?”

And it links to Feathers, too.

 
dr.bob
313032.  Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:21 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
Good Lord! I always thought AOL sucked (which one is allowed to say), but I never realised quite how conservative the organization was.


I echo your astonishment. Apparently the word "tit" is unconditionally vulgar, which must make discussion of ornithology a bit of a minefield.

Likewise "pussy", which leads me to assume that there are no AOL web pages dedicated to a particular 70's sitcom starring Molly Sugden.

You're also not allowed to say "cock" (ornithology again), "dick" (discussion of Batman companions, or anyone else called Richard), "fags" (this smoking ban is getting out of hand), or even "submissive".

All I can say is thank fuck not every website is so pissy about bad language.

 
MatC
313047.  Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:34 am Reply with quote

Oi, shit-wanker - watch your dirty mouth!

I’ve always thought that USian prissiness is a fascinating and thoroughly QI subject - hilarious, silly, important, frightening and astonishing (yes, all the Five Main Elephants), and that we should devote some time to Roosterism in general.

We’ve discussed aspects of it before - cocks, I seem to remember - but perhaps it’s now approaching critical mass?

 
eggshaped
313921.  Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:17 am Reply with quote

The Merseyside village of "Lunt" is considering changing its name due to vandals who have continuously defaced the town's signs.



s: Telegraph 09/04/2008

 
eggshaped
316564.  Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:06 am Reply with quote

Not usable I suppose, yet:

A 15 minute tape supposedly of Marilyn Monroe performing f-for-fellatio on an unidentified man has been bought for $1.5 million.

Apparantly, J Edgar Hoover was obsessed with the film, and went to great lengths to try to prove that the man in the film was JFK, but was unable to prove it.

Quote:
Joe DiMaggio once tried to buy it from the collector for $25,000 but "he would not part with it," according to FBI files on Monroe that are available on the FBI Web site.


Reuters

 
MatC
316632.  Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:45 am Reply with quote

Fifteen minutes?

 
MatC
324402.  Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:43 am Reply with quote

US servicemen stationed in Britain during WW2 - knowing little or nothing of the hardships of war - complained that the British women they dated had rotten teeth (toothbrushes were very difficult to obtain) and that they smelt: the soap ration was tiny, and running hot water was not often available; people had to choose between washing their bodies or their clothes, when they had the opportunity to do either. Perfumes had become almost entirety unobtainable following the fall of France.

However, one innovation did begin during the war - the arrival of deodorants. One advert of the time, aimed at women in the forces, read as follows:

Quote:
Girls who “Go to It” should remember THE GREATER THE STRAIN THE GREATER THE RISK OF UNDERARM ODOUR. Use Liquid ODO-RO-NO For Complete Underarm Protection.
In two strengths. Regular (lasts for seven days). Instant (Three days).


Love the idea of a deodorant that lasts for seven days ...

S: ‘London 1945’ by Maureen Waller (John Murray, 2005).

 
Ian Dunn
675360.  Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:16 pm Reply with quote

It has been discovered that not only is there a huge load of rubbish in the Pacific, but there is also one in the Atlantic.

The recently discovered load of rubbish, let's call it the "Atlantic Trash Vortex", has a density of 200,000 pieces of debris per square kilometre.

Source: BBC

 
Zebra57
675439.  Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:20 pm Reply with quote

and in space

 
zomgmouse
675558.  Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:53 am Reply with quote

All this about Filth and not one mention of John Waters. You are guilty on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity!

 
monzac
675559.  Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:55 am Reply with quote

... of assholism?

 
zomgmouse
675561.  Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:57 am Reply with quote

"You stand convicted of assholism" but "You are guilty on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity"

 
Flash
775605.  Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:55 pm Reply with quote

Flash wrote:
Been there. done that:
Q: What's the biggest load of rubbish in the world?
F: Fresh Kills, NY
A: The Pacific Trash Vortex

In the E Series, regrettably. And incidentally we think "twice the size of the continental United States" may be a mythlet in the making as some sources say that but others say "the size of Texas".


Quote:
An Oregon State University researcher has found that the media has been exaggerating the size of the "Great Garbage Patch" found between California and Japan.

Angelicque White, an assistant professor of oceanography at Oregon State University, has studied the "Great Garbage Patch" and all of the media stories surrounding it, and concluded that most media reports have grossly overestimated the size of this garbage patch. ...

White says that the media has exaggerated the size of the "Great Garbage Patch," making claims like the oceans are filled with more plastic than plankton, or that the patch is twice the size of Texas and has been growing tenfold each decade since 1950.

"There is no doubt that the amount of plastic in the world's oceans is troubling, but this kind of exaggeration undermines the credibility of scientists," said White. "We have data that allow us to make reasonable estimates; we don't need hyperbole. Given the observed concentration of plastic in the North Pacific, it is simply inaccurate to state that plastic outweighs plankton, or that we have observed an exponential increase in plastic."

Studies show, according to White, that the actual area of the "cohesive" plastic patch is really less than one percent of the size of Texas. She said the best way to look at it is to compare the amount of plastic found with the amount of water its in.

"If we were to filter the surface area of the ocean equivalent to a football field in waters having the highest concentration [of plastic] ever recorded, the amount of plastic recovered would not even extend to the 1-inch line," said White.

White also noted that the claim about the amount of plastic growing tenfold every decade is false. This goes for the Atlantic Ocean as well, which, according to White, hasn't increased in plastic since the 1980's.

http://www.dailytech.com/Oregon+State+Researcher+Says+Media+Grossly+Exaggerated+Garbage+Patch+Size/article20570.htm

Retractions Special! (and you won't often hear me say that)

 

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group