A tart with her tits hanging out
or a slut who is always in rut
or a chick on a search for a dick
that’s entertainment?
A jill who is exists for the thrill
of a john who is always hard-on
or a joe who is raring to go
that’s entertainment?
A maid who is laid by a man she just met
a bitch with an itch to be screwed by a vet
the perv who deserves everything that she’ll get
and you know that she’ll get it
so hard she won’t forget it
A “girl” who is thrown in a whirl
by the boss when he asks for a toss
and she never fails to come across
that’s entertainment?
The whores who don’t wear any drawers
every man’s got the thing she adores
and you know that she’ll take it from scores
that’s entertainment?
The chick loves to lick at a donkey-sized chunk
of the jock with a cock the size of a tree-trunk
who will then spray her with a gallon of “gunk”
She’s not there to have fun too
she’s just there to be done to
Every woman’s got tits like balloons
at the sight of a penis she swoons
if the heroes are hung like baboons
that’s entertainment?
Woman used like inflatable toys
they’ll do anything to please the boys
that’s the fantasy that porn enjoys
Every woman’s a whore
are you really sure
that’s entertainment?
About Me
- Frances will do
- London, England, United Kingdom
- I'm severely visually impaired [so be gentle with my typos!] and have an inoperable injury to my lower spine: apart from that, I'm as miserable as the next person! That's not my real star-sign on my profile, but my dad died on my birthday in 2001, so I now share his
Friday 19 February 2010
Friday 5 February 2010
fight nosy websites!
I just had cause to contact a company via its website to ask a question about a product.
I eventually found the “contact us” button, carefully hidden from casual view; it opened a form, not an email, and I filled out my title and name and then typed out my question and clicked on Send.
The message refused to send because I had not given my street name. I put in a variation of my standard response: “why bother” and Sent again.
It refused to send because I had not told them which city I lived in. I did another gibberish answer and Sent again.
It refused to send because I had not given my postcode. I made up a sequence and Sent again.
It refused to send because I had not given my phone number. I put in a random sequence of numbers and Sent again.
This time it deigned to accept the message.
Now WTF do they want with that extra information? I emailed them, I want an email back. Do they need to know which city, and what part of which city, I live in to be able to do that?
I certainly don’t want them phoning me, or, more importantly, selling on my details to phone spammers.
Why do they think they need to know all this before they’re able to email me back?
Why do they think they have the right to demand that I give them this information before I’m allowed to send them a sodding email in the expectation [hope, really] of getting a sodding email back?
I never give more than the absolute minimum of data on principle (do I have to give my phone number if I want to buy a packet of crisps at a local shop? Do I have to prove where I live to ask someone in the street for directions?).
And also because I don’t see that it’s any of their damn business. If we do a deal and I buy a product from them, then they’ll need my address. If they send me a brochure through the post, then they’ll need my address. In neither case will they need my phone number.
The only data that they actually need are my name and email address. But they do these forms which demand hat you give them everything except your credit card details!
Rebel! Send rubbish answers to impertinent or gratuitously irrelevant and intrusive demands for personal information. I'll probably be on their records as living in “why bother” street in “myob” city with a postcode of N1 0NE and a phone number of 01234567889.
Don’t give the sods any more information than they actually need to be able to deal with your query.
Wonder if there’s a law against demanding unnecessary details in forms such as this? If there ain’t, there should be.
I eventually found the “contact us” button, carefully hidden from casual view; it opened a form, not an email, and I filled out my title and name and then typed out my question and clicked on Send.
The message refused to send because I had not given my street name. I put in a variation of my standard response: “why bother” and Sent again.
It refused to send because I had not told them which city I lived in. I did another gibberish answer and Sent again.
It refused to send because I had not given my postcode. I made up a sequence and Sent again.
It refused to send because I had not given my phone number. I put in a random sequence of numbers and Sent again.
This time it deigned to accept the message.
Now WTF do they want with that extra information? I emailed them, I want an email back. Do they need to know which city, and what part of which city, I live in to be able to do that?
I certainly don’t want them phoning me, or, more importantly, selling on my details to phone spammers.
Why do they think they need to know all this before they’re able to email me back?
Why do they think they have the right to demand that I give them this information before I’m allowed to send them a sodding email in the expectation [hope, really] of getting a sodding email back?
I never give more than the absolute minimum of data on principle (do I have to give my phone number if I want to buy a packet of crisps at a local shop? Do I have to prove where I live to ask someone in the street for directions?).
And also because I don’t see that it’s any of their damn business. If we do a deal and I buy a product from them, then they’ll need my address. If they send me a brochure through the post, then they’ll need my address. In neither case will they need my phone number.
The only data that they actually need are my name and email address. But they do these forms which demand hat you give them everything except your credit card details!
Rebel! Send rubbish answers to impertinent or gratuitously irrelevant and intrusive demands for personal information. I'll probably be on their records as living in “why bother” street in “myob” city with a postcode of N1 0NE and a phone number of 01234567889.
Don’t give the sods any more information than they actually need to be able to deal with your query.
Wonder if there’s a law against demanding unnecessary details in forms such as this? If there ain’t, there should be.
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Rasberries to Hollywood
Whenever you see a disabled person in a film, you just know two things:
1 – That the disability is going to feature in the story as a plot device, something to move the story along.
Even when a film shows more positive images of disability (for example, Four Weddings and a Funeral) the disability is still used as a plot device; would the wedding scene have been so dramatic if the deaf brother hadn’t had to use sign language?
There might be a token disabled person in a group, just as there are token gays, and as there used to be (?) token women and token blacks: they’re there to show that the film-makers haven’t forgotten the non-white, non-male, non-“normal” members of society.
Disabled people are never shown in films as real people with real feelings, real thoughts, real day-to-day problems, real experiences – who just happen to have a disability.
The disability is always there for a reason – it’s the disability that matters, not the person who has it. You’re not supposed to see the person, just the disability.
2 – That the disabled person will be played by a non-disabled actor.
Disabled people are still not allowed to be real people, as defined by Hollywood.
There’s a John Lennon song: “Women is the nigger of the world” [apologies for the use of that word, but it is the title of the song]. Maybe women have progressed, but the disabled haven’t been allowed to.
In the very early days of theatre, women were not allowed on stage; female parts were played by men because women weren’t real human beings.
In the early days of Hollywood, white men blacked up to play the “comic darkie” because real black people weren’t really human beings, either.
And disabled people are still non-persons. They’re still not allowed in films; they still have to be played by non-disabled actors.
Would a serious film dare to have Joan of Arc or Elizabeth I played by a man in drag?
Would a white man get away with blacking-up to play Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela?
Ah, but women and black people are allowed to be real people nowadays – more or less. The disabled aren’t even allowed the “less” – we still have to be portrayed by non-disabled actors.
I would include the link for the Google search page for “Raspberry Ripple Awards” but it's much too long and isn't clickable anyway: try searching for "Raspberry Ripple Awards" yourself if you're interested.
1 – That the disability is going to feature in the story as a plot device, something to move the story along.
Even when a film shows more positive images of disability (for example, Four Weddings and a Funeral) the disability is still used as a plot device; would the wedding scene have been so dramatic if the deaf brother hadn’t had to use sign language?
There might be a token disabled person in a group, just as there are token gays, and as there used to be (?) token women and token blacks: they’re there to show that the film-makers haven’t forgotten the non-white, non-male, non-“normal” members of society.
Disabled people are never shown in films as real people with real feelings, real thoughts, real day-to-day problems, real experiences – who just happen to have a disability.
The disability is always there for a reason – it’s the disability that matters, not the person who has it. You’re not supposed to see the person, just the disability.
2 – That the disabled person will be played by a non-disabled actor.
Disabled people are still not allowed to be real people, as defined by Hollywood.
There’s a John Lennon song: “Women is the nigger of the world” [apologies for the use of that word, but it is the title of the song]. Maybe women have progressed, but the disabled haven’t been allowed to.
In the very early days of theatre, women were not allowed on stage; female parts were played by men because women weren’t real human beings.
In the early days of Hollywood, white men blacked up to play the “comic darkie” because real black people weren’t really human beings, either.
And disabled people are still non-persons. They’re still not allowed in films; they still have to be played by non-disabled actors.
Would a serious film dare to have Joan of Arc or Elizabeth I played by a man in drag?
Would a white man get away with blacking-up to play Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela?
Ah, but women and black people are allowed to be real people nowadays – more or less. The disabled aren’t even allowed the “less” – we still have to be portrayed by non-disabled actors.
I would include the link for the Google search page for “Raspberry Ripple Awards” but it's much too long and isn't clickable anyway: try searching for "Raspberry Ripple Awards" yourself if you're interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)