Quote: zooo @ April 8 2008, 5:22 PM BSTI wonder how they chose which kid would go 'missing'.
Was she really the cutest one?
Quote: Aaron @ April 8 2008, 5:27 PM BSTIf she is, they really need to examine their gene pool.
Nice one! Let's all have a go at the one definite victim in all this, who happens to be a little girl. Respect! 
That goes without saying. Sadly, you're on a comedy forum.
I can just hear the journos when the story broke.
"What? Young girl missing?! Get me some more info quick!! I want names, family members, and a photo! I'm seeing this on the front page!"
"Here's the picture boss."
"Right . . . Have we got any more Diana stuff?"
Quote: zooo @ April 8 2008, 10:16 PM BSTThat goes without saying. Sadly, you're on a comedy forum.
Get you! Where?
Quote: Seefacts @ April 8 2008, 10:19 PM BSTI can just hear the journos when the story broke.
"What? Young girl missing?! Get me some more info quick!! I want names, family members, and a photo! I'm seeing this on the front page!"
"Here's the picture boss."
"Right . . . Have we got any more Diana stuff?"
That's more like it!
Oh I seee....
I thought you were upset about the child, it was just that we weren't funny enough!
Fair point.
Quote: zooo @ April 8 2008, 10:23 PM BSTOh I seee....
I thought you were upset about the child, it was just that we weren't funny enough!
Fair point.
Nah, I was a bit pissed off about making the kid the victim of the humour, whereas Seefacts didn't. I don't have any problem with making funny stuff about this whole case, just that I don't think it's fair to have a go at the kid.
Quote: Seefacts @ April 8 2008, 10:19 PM BSTI can just hear the journos when the story broke.
"What? Young girl missing?! Get me some more info quick!! I want names, family members, and a photo! I'm seeing this on the front page!"
"Here's the picture boss."
"Right . . . Have we got any more Diana stuff?"
So true, so true. 
Quote: Badge @ April 8 2008, 10:25 PM BSTNah, I was a bit pissed off about making the kid the victim of the humour, whereas Seefacts didn't.
Seefacts didn't make the child any less part of the humour than I did!
Quote: Badge @ April 8 2008, 10:25 PM BSTNah, I was a bit pissed off about making the kid the victim of the humour, whereas Seefacts didn't. I don't have any problem with making funny stuff about this whole case, just that I don't think it's fair to have a go at the kid.
Well, strictly, I was having a go at the parents.
But I still think she's fair game to be honest, at least on a random comedy forum that no one reads.
Quote: zooo @ April 8 2008, 10:28 PM BSTWell, strictly, I was having a go at the parents.
But I still think she's fair game to be honest, at least on a random comedy forum that no one reads.
Quite!
Quote: Aaron @ April 8 2008, 10:27 PM BSTSeefacts didn't make the child any less part of the humour than I did!
This is a joke, right?
Quote: Aaron @ April 8 2008, 10:27 PM BSTSo true, so true.
Seefacts didn't make the child any less part of the humour than I did!
Face facts boss, mine was better.
Face SEEfacts as I call it.
Check mate!
They were both insinuating that the kid was not what people would consider overly attractive. (ie blonde and cute, like Maddie.)
Quote: zooo @ April 8 2008, 10:23 PM BSTOh I seee....
I thought you were upset about the child, it was just that we weren't funny enough!
Fair point.
Well, it is a comedy forum. 
Quote: zooo @ April 8 2008, 10:31 PM BSTThey were both insinuating that the kid was not what people would consider overly attractive. (ie blonde and cute, like Maddie.)
Only paedos find children attractive.
Don't make me strike you with my Daily Mail.