The Sunday Times

Derek · 2005-08-03 12:24:13

Did anyone else notice that the site got a teensy tiny mention in the UK newspaper the Sunday Times. One of their columnists, a ghastly novelist called India Knight, was rather dimissive. Anyone interested can find its pretty easily, the papers website is free and easy to navigate. It does make you wonder how she found the site though...

D

Jo · 2005-08-03 19:43:29

@ derek: perhaps you´ll be able to post a link to the papers site in here? THX

ashbash · 2005-08-04 15:16:03

Yes, that's how I found this fantastic place...and yes, she is quite sour about it, and seems to one of those mumsy types who are threatened by or disapprove of women enjoying sex..oh well, I hope she will bring lots more people to show themselves here!

smyth · 2005-08-06 11:35:37

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 76,00.html

Speaking of faces: there now exists a whole website devoted to peoples faces at the moment of orgasm. Click on www.beautifulagony.com and you too can share in complete strangers joyful rictuses. I dont know whether to die laughing or keel over with embarrassment at what some people will do in order to get their little face online. All the pictures are downloadable.
Seriously: whod have a collection of hundreds of strangers orgasmic faces stored on their computer? I am sitting here sniggering as I type, because some of them are so hilarious, but is being howled at really the intention of the people who send in their snaps? If so, thats about the most tragic thing I have ever heard.

She seems not to realise that these "snaps" are actually stills of videos. :)

Last edited by smyth (2005-08-06 11:36:23)

syzygy · 2005-08-06 13:52:06

You're right, Smyth. This woman is truly out of it.

She gets paid to put inaccuracies like that into print? Geez.

Deeper · 2005-08-07 09:48:00

syzygy wrote:

You're right, Smyth. This woman is truly out of it.
She gets paid to put inaccuracies like that into print? Geez.

...so write in to the paper and put her straight!

Iso · 2005-08-07 18:46:01

Deeper wrote:

syzygy wrote:
You're right, Smyth. This woman is truly out of it.
She gets paid to put inaccuracies like that into print? Geez.
...so write in to the paper and put her straight!

Done. Suggested that next time they want to insult people in print and on the web, they should try to not make themselves look like idiots in the process.

salsasalsa · 2005-08-07 23:37:29

Derek wrote:

Did anyone else notice that the site got a teensy tiny mention in the UK newspaper the Sunday Times. One of their columnists, a ghastly novelist called India Knight, was rather dimissive. Anyone interested can find its pretty easily, the papers website is free and easy to navigate. It does make you wonder how she found the site though...
D

That's how I found this great site :-)
India Knight is a frightful little hack, not intelligent enough to grasp how unintelligent she is. Also, repressed and narrow-minded. In short, like most of the ST staff scribblers. Also, not bright enough to see how much free publicity she was giving this site LOL.

PC elmo · 2005-08-11 19:50:46

Iso wrote:

Deeper wrote:
syzygy wrote:
You're right, Smyth. This woman is truly out of it.
She gets paid to put inaccuracies like that into print? Geez.
...so write in to the paper and put her straight!
Done. Suggested that next time they want to insult people in print and on the web, they should try to not make themselves look like idiots in the process.

Is that all?

salsasalsa wrote:

India Knight is a frightful little hack, not intelligent enough to grasp how unintelligent she is. Also, repressed and narrow-minded.

Yikes!!! And I thought the columnist was dismissive!

It's not like there isn't enough from the snippet smyth gave us to criticize her in a content-related, non-ad hominem kind of way. For example, as was pointed out, she didn't seem to realize the submissions are videos. It's also hard not to wonder what exactly the basis is for her assumption that the only response to seeing an orgasm face is to laugh at it. Pointing out THAT bias in a British paper would probably get some attention!

Rather than just say they make themselves look like idiots, I think it's far more productive to point out WHY they look like idiots. That woman definitely does seem off her kilter, but simply calling people names usually only makes the name-callers look bad.

Isn't substance over flaming one of the traits that makes this forum as great as it is? I'd hope that carries over into the rest of the world.

salsasalsa · 2005-08-11 20:40:27

India Knight is a frightful little hack, not intelligent enough to grasp how unintelligent she is. Also, repressed and narrow-minded.

Yikes!!! And I thought the columnist was dismissive!
It's not like there isn't enough from the snippet smyth gave us to criticize her in a content-related, non-ad hominem kind of way. For example, as was pointed out, she didn't seem to realize the submissions are videos. It's also hard not to wonder what exactly the basis is for her assumption that the only response to seeing an orgasm face is to laugh at it. Pointing out THAT bias in a British paper would probably get some attention!
Rather than just say they make themselves look like idiots, I think it's far more productive to point out WHY they look like idiots. That woman definitely does seem off her kilter, but simply calling people names usually only makes the name-callers look bad.
Isn't substance over flaming one of the traits that makes this forum as great as it is? I'd hope that carries over into the rest of the world.

There is nothing whatsoever 'ad hominem' in pointing out that I know, from coming across her ghastly scribblings over many years, that she is repressed, narrow-minded and not very bright: therefore, her silly screeching about this site is not exactly surprising. Also, not realising that she is giving it free advertising is not too intelligent, is it now?

If anything, it's your hysterical and counter-factual attack on me ('simply calling people names usually only makes the name-callers look bad' - I didn't 'simply call her names' but you did 'simply say that it makes me look bad') is ad hominem at its very worst.

Iso · 2005-08-12 05:57:29

PC elmo wrote:

Rather than just say they make themselves look like idiots, I think it's far more productive to point out WHY they look like idiots. That woman definitely does seem off her kilter, but simply calling people names usually only makes the name-callers look bad.

Actually, I did that when I emailed them. I figured the short, short version was good enough in as far as mentioning what I'd done.

miykwhat · 2005-08-12 07:50:13

India Knight has a horribly shallow book called 'On Shopping', which would have sold well over Christmas had it not been for the publisher's distribution centre breaking and not being able to send copies ANYWHERE. Or at least not quickly.
Err, I hope that makes you feel better!

PC elmo · 2005-08-12 16:45:22

Iso wrote:

Actually, I did that when I emailed them. I figured the short, short version was good enough in as far as mentioning what I'd done.

Good for you!
( )

Last edited by PC elmo (2005-08-12 16:45:42)

#1 2005-08-03 12:24:13

The Sunday Times

#2 2005-08-03 19:43:29

Re: The Sunday Times

#3 2005-08-04 15:16:03

Re: The Sunday Times

#4 2005-08-06 11:35:37

Re: The Sunday Times

#5 2005-08-06 13:52:06

Re: The Sunday Times

#6 2005-08-07 09:48:00

Re: The Sunday Times

#7 2005-08-07 18:46:01

Re: The Sunday Times

#8 2005-08-07 23:37:29

Re: The Sunday Times

#9 2005-08-11 19:50:46

Re: The Sunday Times

#10 2005-08-11 20:40:27

Re: The Sunday Times

#11 2005-08-12 05:57:29

Re: The Sunday Times

#12 2005-08-12 07:50:13

Re: The Sunday Times

#13 2005-08-12 16:45:22

Re: The Sunday Times

Board footer