![]() |
Little Miss Irked
|
Re: Little Miss Irked
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 11667033)
|
Re: Little Miss Irked
Now that I've given it a second's thought, the thread title is, itself, misogynistic. The marital status of the subject isn't relevant. The subject isn't known to be physically small so the "Little" in the title seeks to diminish her standing as a person. Mind, I see nothing discriminatory about the "irked", irked seems like a well balanced and moderate stance, perhaps "hissy" would have fitted the context better.
|
Re: Little Miss Irked
Nice dress though.
<edited. Sorry, was a bit big and playing havoc with people's displays.> |
Re: Little Miss Irked
That would have been better thumbnailed as an attachment :)
|
Re: Little Miss Irked
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 11667104)
That would have been better thumbnailed as an attachment :)
|
Re: Little Miss Irked
Originally Posted by Shard
(Post 11667168)
Yes, I'm IRKED that my iPad is now going crazy trying to display the thread.
|
Re: Little Miss Irked
1 Attachment(s)
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 11667104)
That would have been better thumbnailed as an attachment :)
|
Re: Little Miss Irked
Originally Posted by jimf
(Post 11667298)
Like this?
Too late for the other one now I guess. |
Re: Little Miss Irked
Charlotte is, however, looking improved in her Telegraph photo. Not quite up to Myleen Klass' political standard, but heaps above Russel Brand obviously.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 10:56 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.