Dubstepforum.com

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... -poor.html

Pretty bad even for the Daily Mail. Or maybe it's elaborate satire or something

Those kunts are too thick for satire...but still,

Pregnant Kim Kardashian almost spills out of tight workout gear as she heads to the gym alone... while Kanye West lives it up in Paris

saw a comment somewhere saying that they're probably just trying to create another samantha brick style thing to sell papers/get site visits, seems pretty plausible given their general lack of morals

They put things like that in there specifically to cause 'twitter storms' and the like in order to get people onto the site. They're very good at it too, the website makes a load of money, no small part due to stories like that which exist only to outrage. I try to mostly avoid the Mail's website completely these days.

There was a really interesting article in the New Yorker a while ago that looked into the Mail's strategy: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all

double post

I have calculated I would need to earn at least £300,000 now — a sum quite beyond most journalists — to enjoy the luxury to which I had once become accustomed. I’m not exaggerating when I confess whenever the doorbell rings at my rented flat in North London, I worry if it is the bailiff.

Jesus

meanmrcustard wrote:They put things like that in there specifically to cause 'twitter storms' and the like in order to get people onto the site. They're very good at it too, the website makes a load of money, no small part due to stories like that which exist only to outrage. I try to mostly avoid the Mail's website completely these days.

There was a really interesting article in the New Yorker a while ago that looked into the Mail's strategy: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all

It's a tabloid, designed to sell over-excited shite. It's pretty fucking nasty

wack
why r u reposting it

She looks like a tnuc.

meanmrcustard wrote:They put things like that in there specifically to cause 'twitter storms' and the like in order to get people onto the site. They're very good at it too, the website makes a load of money, no small part due to stories like that which exist only to outrage. I try to mostly avoid the Mail's website completely these days.

There was a really interesting article in the New Yorker a while ago that looked into the Mail's strategy: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... ntPage=all

Really interesting article, thanks!

incnic wrote:wack
why r u reposting it

Ban

ban?

awwwww, poor woman, hold on a second while I break out my tiny violin

try living on next-to-fuck all you posh tnuc. I say burn the witch and give her 'pittance' to the masses

incnic wrote:ban?

SNH 'ban'

The Daily Mail is one of the few papers that are profitable online. They do this by getting people who hate the Mail to read the Mail by posting intentionally scandalous or provocative articles.

DO NOT FALL FOR THE OKEYDOKE

Internet users should not post links to the Daily Mail if they don't want to take on part of the blame for their continued existence. If you have to post an article, copy and paste it.

test recordings wrote:

incnic wrote:ban?

SNH 'ban'

m8 ur gonna get banned lol

To be fair to the daily mail, It is pretty upsetting that these people cant afford to buy loubatnons and gukki.

Maks me cry evry tim.

one thing I will say on the subject of this article is that while it's obviously ridiculous, at the same time it's all relative.

I'm sure nearly everyone here as at some point moaned about how poor they are, I know I have. Yet there are people who would look at what every single one of you have and wouldn't be able to comprehend ever having as much.

It's not the point of the article, but what we should take from it is that we should be thankful for what we have. As shit could always be a lot worse.

[/hippie]

i have 2 tonne to last me 2 weeks and i'm losing sleep about it


ARGHGHGHHGHHGHH

meanmrcustard wrote:one thing I will say on the subject of this article is that while it's obviously ridiculous, at the same time it's all relative.

I'm sure nearly everyone here as at some point moaned about how poor they are, I know I have. Yet there are people who would look at what every single one of you have and wouldn't be able to comprehend ever having as much.

It's not the point of the article, but what we should take from it is that we should be thankful for what we have. As shit could always be a lot worse.

[/hippie]

Of course it's all relative - to how much you spend! You can earn no money but live without it, or earn 100k and throw it all down the drain on cars and Waitrose.