I wonder if it's a coincidence that they're reached peak Guardian at the same time they've started going cap in hand to readers. Almost as if they're saying "Look! Look at the unmitigated *******s we're having to publish to pull in more readers as our business model falls further down the ****ter! Help us!"
I would actually like to chip in to contribute to their generally very decent sports coverage, but am prevented from doing so by the prospect of supporting stuff like that. Is there any way of explaining this to them?
For instance, this chap's complaint about being made to feel like a scrounger because of his disability is very sad and everything, but - due to being banned - I'm unable to satisfy my deep-seated urge to ask whether he is perhaps perceived as a scrounger due to having short arms and deep pockets
I don't suppose someone else with an account on there would do it for me? :-(
I would actually like to chip in to contribute to their generally very decent sports coverage, but am prevented from doing so by the prospect of supporting stuff like that. Is there any way of explaining this to them?
They're sacking Mike Selvey from the cricket coverage.
When discussing this BTL, I pointed out that we were being denied reading Selvey so we could pay for more articles about how stock cubes or barbecues are racist. People agreed with me that this is wrong.
09-14-2016, 12:55 PM
Sir C
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult
Just make another log in, ffs.
I'm on my 4th or 5th.
I seem to have become quite adept at not being moderated and have never been banned.