b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 9747761 (Thread)

# Personally,
I think she is worse than Julie Moult, so should be upgraded to Cunt.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:08, archived)
# Sounds fair to me.
Jan Moir is a Cunt.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:11, archived)
# Do you know who else is a disgrace?
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:17, archived)
# If he has any sense he will gather what dignity he has left
and announce his decision to retire from public life.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:22, archived)
# I hope so!
The man is a menace!
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:23, archived)
# It's about time something was done.
Someone tell twitter.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:29, archived)
# I don't have a twitter,
but I will totally join up if you tweet me!
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:30, archived)
# Julie Moult is just an idiot.
she doesn't understand the internet. That in itself is no sin. Pretend like you do when you have an audience of people who take you seriously is. It's still not as bad as saying Stephen Gately was bummed to death and he deserved it (or words to that effect).
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:23, archived)
# But you, down the board,
implied that everyone in the entertainment industry is a junkie.

/stokingthefireblog ;)
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:25, archived)
# No,
I was saying that if you are going to jump to silly unfounded conclusions, that one has more mileage to it and that people in the entertainment industry are more likely to encounter drugs than the average man on the street. That doesn't mean that they all use drugs, or that even most of them use drugs. I see what you're doing.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:28, archived)
# How?
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:31, archived)
# I read the papers
I know what these celebrity parties are like. Everyone's doing coke off Fiona Bruce while Sophie Ellis-Bexter is hosting a gangbang in the corner and William Rees-Mogg stares in through the window forlornly as the snow starts to fall.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:32, archived)
# I wish I could go to one.

(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:45, archived)
# YOU WEREN'T THERE MAN!
YOU WEREN'T THERE!
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:45, archived)
# Yeah, but it's a social contract innit?
Being included in sweeping generalisations that stop just short of people saying you were bummed to death and deserved it is part of the price they pay for fame.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:47, archived)
# That does raise an interesting debate.
Does one, by virtue of being famous, which, up until recently meant you were "good" at something, preclude the right to privacy? And myself, as a member of the public from having privacy from their some times sordid antics?
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 19:51, archived)
# Oh I'm all in favour of privacy.
But I think we have the right to make sweeping generalisations about celebrities. It's different when you start targeting individual celebrities. I'd say it's okay for me to say they're all snorting coke 24/7. It's not okay for me to say that Connie Huq is snorting coke 24/7. You see the difference.

It comes down to the whole 'rock star' mythos. I don't want to live in a world where there aren't some people living a wild coke-fueled life at celebrity parties, even though it's not a lifestyle I'd want to live. But I don't need to know the identities of the individuals involved. It's enough comfort to know that, in a gloomy world of recession and such, someone is having a rollocking good time somewhere, even if it's not me. To me, that's their social function.
(, Fri 16 Oct 2009, 20:02, archived)