Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
 Offline
Posts: 36319
|
 |
« Reply #270 on: Saturday, March 26, 2011, 23:29:21 » |
|
Had to 'unfollow' the helpfindsian twitter thing because the person posting the updates appears to be enjoying the attention too much.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Jamiesfuturewife
Cats is nature
Offline
Posts: 11649
|
|
« Reply #271 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 07:28:21 » |
|
Was it the part where she invited people to follow her personal twitter account then tweeted about how she was so thrilled so many people wanted to follow "little old me"??!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36319
|
|
« Reply #272 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 07:41:42 » |
|
Yes exactly that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Luci
Offline
Posts: 10862
Fatbury's Stalker
|
|
« Reply #273 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 10:12:22 » |
|
Likewise - seems like an attempt to get more followers as people are only following that feed as they care about Sian as opposed to what that individual does in her personal life.
That annoyed me too.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Don Rogers Shop
|
|
« Reply #274 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 10:18:40 » |
|
The one on Twitter to be fair isn't the same one as on facebook
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Luci
Offline
Posts: 10862
Fatbury's Stalker
|
|
« Reply #275 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 10:20:48 » |
|
I know - the one on Facebook is Heidi Jarcozy.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
axs
naaarrrrrppppp
Offline
Posts: 13469
|
|
« Reply #276 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 10:22:44 » |
|
Had to 'unfollow' the helpfindsian twitter thing because the person posting the updates appears to be enjoying the attention too much.
Likewise. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Simon Pieman
Original Wanker
Offline
Posts: 36319
|
|
« Reply #277 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 10:23:26 » |
|
I know - the one on Facebook is Heidi Jarcozy.
Or something like that innit |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
shady
Offline
Posts: 1200
Free the Etuhu one!!
|
|
« Reply #278 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 10:26:38 » |
|
Was it the part where she invited people to follow her personal twitter account then tweeted about how she was so thrilled so many people wanted to follow "little old me"??!
Gee, thank feck I never joined Facebook |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
tans
You spin me right round baby right round
Offline
Posts: 25317
|
|
« Reply #279 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 10:27:13 » |
|
Charged now.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
shady
Offline
Posts: 1200
Free the Etuhu one!!
|
|
« Reply #280 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 10:28:25 » |
|
Charged now.
Good, though I think that was a given. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Bennett
No Comment
Offline
Posts: 9532
|
|
« Reply #281 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 10:30:56 » |
|
Good, though I think that was a given.
agreed, he must've been an ace guesser unless he played some part in hiding bodies |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
This is the water.
And this is the well.
Drink full and descend.
The horse is the white of the eyes and dark within.
|
|
|
pauld
Aaron Aardvark
Offline
Posts: 25436
Absolute Calamity!
|
|
« Reply #282 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 10:59:37 » |
|
Was it the part where she invited people to follow her personal twitter account then tweeted about how she was so thrilled so many people wanted to follow "little old me"??!
Jesus Wept. This is the problem with the Facebook/post-Diana over-emoting in public, it attracts ghouls and no-marks with egos to push. On a similar note, nice to see Halliwell's sister cashing in on the front of the Sun yesterday. Fucking appalling. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
DiV
Has also heard this
Offline
Posts: 32487
Joseph McLaughlin
|
|
« Reply #283 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 11:56:26 » |
|
Let's not get the fantastic work of the women behind the facebook group mixed up with the person on twitter.
Out of interest and not being a twitterer who is the egomaniac behind it?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Peter Venkman
We don't need no stinking badges.
Offline
Posts: 59693
Things can only get better
|
|
« Reply #284 on: Sunday, March 27, 2011, 12:05:52 » |
|
Not very likely, they said this afternoon the remains were of a young woman and that she had disappeared from Swindon between 2003 and 2005. Both rule out Linda Razell
Very strong runour coming out of the investigation is that it IS Linda Razzell as he couldnt remember exactly when he disposed of the body (not much difference between 2002 and 2003) and that early reports of it being a young woman were slightly innacurate, after all Mrs Razzell was only 41 at the time of her disappearance, not exactly old. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Only a fool does not know when to hold his tongue.
|
|
|
|
