Invisible Roberta and Rallo Tubbs (Nothing to do with The Simpsons)
Finally, an invisible non-Simpsons cartoon characters: I did 5 edits making invisible to Roberta Tubbs and a edit making invisible to Rallo Tubbs. Both characters are from Family Guy and its spin-off The Cleveland Show:
This is NOT a troll post, please don't put me "Naughty Stepped" for this.
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 18:28,
archived)
This is NOT a troll post, please don't put me "Naughty Stepped" for this.
Pervert :(
This is Invisible Anthonyb3ta70100. (Nothing to do with The Simpsons)
Finally, an invisible non-Simpsons cartoon character.
This is NOT a troll post, please don't put me "Naughty Stepped" for this.
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 18:40,
archived)
Finally, an invisible non-Simpsons cartoon character.
This is NOT a troll post, please don't put me "Naughty Stepped" for this.
It's been like 10 years since I logged in last time
And you, sir, is still made of serial killer material :P
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 19:08,
archived)
I'll admit to not really knowing what this is, or what it's for.
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 19:19,
archived)
Remember the reception we gave back in the day to users who posted new threads and ran, and never interacted in the comments?
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 22:44,
archived)
Won't someone think of the struggling bonusless bankers this winter?!?
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 13:10,
archived)
Terrorist Corbyn's fault that we're going to be out of gas and all either dead due to the twindemic or out on strike.
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 15:50,
archived)
You can be all of those things plus also collateral damage while walking past a school just minding your own business
Worst Magic Eight Ball ever
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 17:42,
archived)
Don't worry, the bombs launched by senile mashed potato brains will land somewhere else.
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 17:42,
archived)
Trump and Boris will both be back in again in a few years and then we can all carry on WINNING again
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 17:45,
archived)
Damn you!
Just when I was feeling hopeful.
Well at least their entertainment value is high.
( ,
Mon 3 Oct 2022, 17:54,
archived)
Well at least their entertainment value is high.
"Holy regionalism Batman! We've been captured by the evil Grant Wood!"
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2022, 20:46,
archived)
So Batman dresses to the right
And Robin dresses to the left.
I never knew!
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2022, 21:21,
archived)
I never knew!
No kidding...
Been in Prague since last Monday and I think, despite my best efforts, there's still some beer left in the city...
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2022, 19:31,
archived)
well I like it
maybe swap the yellow pants for gorn tunic material?
( ,
Sat 1 Oct 2022, 19:26,
archived)
I thought it was Gillian Taylforth
it's Trump isn't it?
ETA checked the file name, got it now
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2022, 21:38,
archived)
ETA checked the file name, got it now
Interesting hypothesis.
I wonder if there's a temporal element? What period of time spent Alligator Shitfucking might be required?
( ,
Sat 1 Oct 2022, 21:09,
archived)
I'm writing to add my voice to those who have spoken positively of Mr. Richie's leadership in this matter. God Bless You Mr. Richie Sir!
( ,
Sat 1 Oct 2022, 22:52,
archived)
2 months old
The free-speech wing of the Conservative party is lining up against the βfundamentally misdesignedβ online safety bill as the government rushes to pass the legislation before the House of Commons breaks up for the summer.
The backbencher David Davis said of the flagship bill: βWe all want the internet to be safe. Right now, there are too many dangers online, from videos propagating terror to posts promoting self-harm and suicide.
βBut the billβs well-intentioned attempts to address these very real risks threatens being the biggest accidental curtailment of free speech in modern history.β
Davis, who had a speech questioning vaccine passports taken down from YouTube, argued the billβs requirements on social media companies to come up with terms of service to restrict βlegal but harmfulβ content mean they will βinevitably err on the side of censorshipβ.
Davis said: βItβs simply acceptable, in my view, to target lawful speech in this way,β arguing the bill would create new categories of speech that were βlegal to say, but illegal to type: itβs both perverse and dangerous to allow speech in print, but not onlineβ.
His criticisms mirror those of the Tory leadership hopeful Kemi Badenoch, who described the bill as βlegislating for hurt feelingsβ, to the chagrin of the culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, who defended it as focusing on βthe protection of children and young people from some of the serious harms they are vulnerable to when onlineβ.
The Tory backbencher Nick Fletcher called for βstronger protection for free speech in the digital public squareβ than the bill provides, adding that βwhatever we might think about Donald Trump, it cannot be right that he was banned from Twitterβ.
Opposing the bill for Labour, the shadow culture minister, Alex Davies-Jones, warned that despite the billβs vast remit, it would fail to provide meaningful safety online, since it overlooks smaller websites almost entirely.
She said: βCategorisation of services based on size rather than risk of harm will mean the bill will fail to address some of the most extreme harms on the internet.
βWe all know that smaller platforms such as 4chan and BitChute have significant numbers of users who are highly motivated to promote very dangerous content. Their aim is to promote radicalisation, and to spread hate and harm.β
Davies-Jones and Davis also criticised the βundue powerβ the bill places in the hands of future culture secretaries, who will be able to add new clauses to the code of conduct that the regulator Ofcom will expect websites to follow. Davies-Jones said: βThis is not a normal approach to regulation.β
The bill has returned to parliament with a number of government amendments, including a requirement for tech companies to shield users from state-sponsored disinformation that poses a threat to British society and democracy.
There is also a demand aimed at heavily encrypted messaging services, calling on tech companies to use their βbest endeavoursβ to deploy new technology that identifies and removes child sexual abuse, and exploitation content, which critics fear could effectively ban secure messaging in the UK.
( ,
Sat 1 Oct 2022, 15:53,
archived)
The free-speech wing of the Conservative party is lining up against the βfundamentally misdesignedβ online safety bill as the government rushes to pass the legislation before the House of Commons breaks up for the summer.
The backbencher David Davis said of the flagship bill: βWe all want the internet to be safe. Right now, there are too many dangers online, from videos propagating terror to posts promoting self-harm and suicide.
βBut the billβs well-intentioned attempts to address these very real risks threatens being the biggest accidental curtailment of free speech in modern history.β
Davis, who had a speech questioning vaccine passports taken down from YouTube, argued the billβs requirements on social media companies to come up with terms of service to restrict βlegal but harmfulβ content mean they will βinevitably err on the side of censorshipβ.
Davis said: βItβs simply acceptable, in my view, to target lawful speech in this way,β arguing the bill would create new categories of speech that were βlegal to say, but illegal to type: itβs both perverse and dangerous to allow speech in print, but not onlineβ.
His criticisms mirror those of the Tory leadership hopeful Kemi Badenoch, who described the bill as βlegislating for hurt feelingsβ, to the chagrin of the culture secretary, Nadine Dorries, who defended it as focusing on βthe protection of children and young people from some of the serious harms they are vulnerable to when onlineβ.
The Tory backbencher Nick Fletcher called for βstronger protection for free speech in the digital public squareβ than the bill provides, adding that βwhatever we might think about Donald Trump, it cannot be right that he was banned from Twitterβ.
Opposing the bill for Labour, the shadow culture minister, Alex Davies-Jones, warned that despite the billβs vast remit, it would fail to provide meaningful safety online, since it overlooks smaller websites almost entirely.
She said: βCategorisation of services based on size rather than risk of harm will mean the bill will fail to address some of the most extreme harms on the internet.
βWe all know that smaller platforms such as 4chan and BitChute have significant numbers of users who are highly motivated to promote very dangerous content. Their aim is to promote radicalisation, and to spread hate and harm.β
Davies-Jones and Davis also criticised the βundue powerβ the bill places in the hands of future culture secretaries, who will be able to add new clauses to the code of conduct that the regulator Ofcom will expect websites to follow. Davies-Jones said: βThis is not a normal approach to regulation.β
The bill has returned to parliament with a number of government amendments, including a requirement for tech companies to shield users from state-sponsored disinformation that poses a threat to British society and democracy.
There is also a demand aimed at heavily encrypted messaging services, calling on tech companies to use their βbest endeavoursβ to deploy new technology that identifies and removes child sexual abuse, and exploitation content, which critics fear could effectively ban secure messaging in the UK.
I like this because it's like a text ladder, there are rungs of text to climb up, or climb down, as desired.
( ,
Sat 1 Oct 2022, 18:33,
archived)
I read it! VPN-related stocks a potentially profitable short-term UK investment, I think that's what you're saying, right?
( ,
Sat 1 Oct 2022, 19:15,
archived)
re: this bit - they're finally gonna block the Daily Mail?
"The bill has returned to parliament with a number of government amendments, including a requirement for tech companies to shield users from state-sponsored disinformation that poses a threat to British society and democracy."
( ,
Sun 2 Oct 2022, 5:44,
archived)
At least Splinter had a dressing gown but his boys would keep running about in the nude
Also they well fancied April, who didn't seem too bothered by the possibility of a mutated penis popping out from behind a plastron at just the worst moment
( ,
Sat 1 Oct 2022, 19:47,
archived)
Might do a SATIRE with Kwasi's face on a Creeper and a nice house with "UK Economy" written on the front
Take that, Tories!!!
( ,
Fri 30 Sep 2022, 19:11,
archived)
haha!
Near, Far,
You caaaaaaan't drive your car,
Because Petrol is so fucking expeeeeeensive
( ,
Fri 30 Sep 2022, 14:36,
archived)
You caaaaaaan't drive your car,
Because Petrol is so fucking expeeeeeensive
is he holding an invisible thunderbolt?
or doing the NescafΓ© bean shake thing?
or trucker's horn salute?
( ,
Fri 30 Sep 2022, 14:56,
archived)
or trucker's horn salute?
I like right at the end where the bike starts to jump away from her
( ,
Fri 30 Sep 2022, 2:54,
archived)
Just like Pee-wee Herman,
When she stood up she just said," I meant to do that"
( ,
Fri 30 Sep 2022, 15:06,
archived)
Yep. Mucking about with the logo of a show that finished 15 years ago. Bloody Hell.
No wonder he was so grumpy though
( ,
Thu 29 Sep 2022, 22:20,
archived)
shush
It's a beautiful baby and it looks very hungry right now. I think you should feed it
( ,
Thu 29 Sep 2022, 19:14,
archived)
This is all perfectly normal, because other countries have money too. There's no problem, and if there is it's Putin's fault. There's no need to change anything.
See, perfectly coherent, I understood every word of it.
( ,
Thu 29 Sep 2022, 17:54,
archived)
The woman who lives in the radiator
has got a single question about mortgages and the energy crisis.
( ,
Thu 29 Sep 2022, 18:14,
archived)
I normally think babies are ugly
But this one has always looked so cute to me
( ,
Thu 29 Sep 2022, 19:11,
archived)
« Older messages | Newer messages »