Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't Jan Moir the one who pissed off a b3tard over supposedly "hacking Google" or something a while back? Or was that a different Daily Mail reporter. I'm sure I remember something along the lines of a 'Jan Moir is a cunt' thing going on.

To the pic - I see what you did there.

Same initials, could well be an alias.

I thank you.

the b3tan in question was a certain Manic.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I totally told you about my day down there and you totally ignored it :( I hate you AlISTAIR!

so I assumed you had fucked off. It's not my fault you haven't fucked off.

Also, my hair isn't curly, it's wavy.

Ah fuck it, it's curly.

edit: you said "LATERS CURLY". Look, I even checked.

I didn't mean to offend your WAVY hair.

ALINSTR rong!!!1

Duuuuuuuuuude!

In 2000 posts time she'll still be a fucking idiot.

but she'll be a fucking idiot with 2000 extra posts about her.

called Julie Moult

I nicked a few more off the popbitch front page:
newsarse.com/2009/10/16/jan-moirs-career-to-die-of-perfectly-natural-causes/
enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-there-is-nothing-natural-about-life.html
notsowunderbar.blogspot.com/2009/10/why-there-is-nothing-natural-about-jan.html

"clearly orchestrated internet campaign"? Fucking hell. I think for myself, you vacuous cunt, I don't need to be told what to think to fit in with the editorial thrust of my employers.

edit: very well said, by the way.

"I gather a repulsive nobody writing in a paper no one of any decency would be seen dead with has written something loathsome and inhumane."

www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2009/oct/16/jan-moir-stephen-gately-facebook-twitter

*awaits posthumous Daily Mail article linking homophobia to unnatural death*

May I put this in my profile, pretty please?

Jan Moult and Julie Moir are watching you masturbate.

Im pretty sure the Eye ran an article a few months back pointing out that the Mail has fired so many sub editors and feature writers , that various journalists within the company are writing different articles under pseudonyms (I think they have a sports writer who, on the same night , managed to watch England play Croatia at Wembley whilst being in Japan to file copy on Scotland getting beaten by Japan).

Any bets that the intiails JM cover a multitude of worthless homophobic tripe in various columns in that rag of a paper?

That JM Barrie, what a cunt.

Will you never cease your incessant gay-bashing? (obviously not, since then it wouldn't be incessant).

you weren't a nationally syndicated journalist getting paid to write that, though :p

Why do you think the rest of us are still here?

THE HEADLINES TONIGHT:

MUSHROOM OFF OF B3TA SAYS "HOMOPHOBIA IS FINE, AS LONG AS YOU'RE NOT GETTING PAID FOR IT"

you share Ms Moir's sense of logic ;)

Expect to be moderated.

I feel sad because my parents read the Daily Mail. They have done for decades. It's never been a good paper, but ten years ago it wasn't quite as hate-filled as it is now. As far as I know, my parents don't hate anyone. They've certainly never expressed any such sentiments. I think they just really really like Princess Di though.

Actually scratch that, it's a really fucking bad idea.

Oh wait. No. They had a black man in one of their adverts once.

Dangerous that is. Express leads to idiocy, leads to television X. That way lies the dark side.

Except if I actually read newspapers; I'd read the Guardian.

All the broadsheets are pretty good for the actual news. It's only the columns and opinions sections where they really differ. I like a few of the Times' columnists, although I have to balance that against the fact that William Rees-Mogg has a column and he makes my knuckles itch.

but I can't help but think that it's tainted by Murdoch when I read it

But all the broadsheets pretty much report the facts. Like I said, it's only the columns that offer an opinion. I went through a phase for about a year of buying all the broadsheets a few times a week and seeing if there was any significant difference in what news stories they reported and how they reported them. Outside of the columns, that are supposed to be biased, I couldn't see any distinction.

www.b3ta.com/board/9747713 :)

if you buy the Times you are helping to fund MySpace.

I can't remember why I hate William Rees-Mogg so much. He said something in his column once that offended me, but I can't remember what it was - but I remember being furious. Then he irritated me even more with his blanket statements about the new EU constitution - something about Ireland having been forced into it and their referendum being a joke, as if the Irish are all ignorant potato farmers who can't form an opinion of their own.

myspace is helping herald the end of the traditional grip of record labels on the music industry, so I'm not actually that fussed

but you're right, as social networking it's from the devil's arse

Not the record labels. Bands. They all seem to have opinions about things. Which is fine. We've all got opinions. But musicians and actors get to say their opinions on television and people take them seriously. Which isn't fine.

Record labels shitting on bands was the only thing that made it funny.
Don't cry for musicians; of the few who make it into the big leagues vast wealth and no small measure of influence will be theirs. There has to be some downside to the job, otherwise life just isn't fair.

Just as you have to live with the stigma of being branded a homophobe, so they should have to just live with only getting 1p per CD sold.

Oh you just said you can't remember, sorry. I was busy reading about him to find possible reasons. He's kind of pro-drugs, if that helps.

Fair enough.

His daughter is called Annunziata.

No, no I don't think it was. Oh well. It's well established that I hate him now, so there's no going back.

And the only bit of it I read is Charlie Brooker's column.

I don't want any facts getting in the way of my opionions, thank you very much.

I don't read enough papers to know where this places them on the political spectrum.

and always has been, right smack in the centre. No paper is without a political agenda, but the Times seems to have someone representing every political agenda there is, so it seems fair.

even though it's Murdoch owned, it has an editorial committee and a whole host of contributors so he doesn't have his evil mits over it like he does his collection of red-topped comics

but I don't get it :(

:)

BRILLIANT.

I don't get it....

The old ones are the oldest.

and a gay, I find this deeply offensive!

The sign at the other end of Canal Street actually has the letters painted off/over

best of all the streets