Posts tagged as:

Pamela Anderson

There’s not much of Pamela Anderson we haven’t seen, thanks to a couple of grainy sex tapes that proved very popular with lonely swine all those years ago. Yet, oddly, there’s something very likeable about Pammy.

Is it because she’s self-deprecating? Probably not. You’re into the whole ‘boobs’ thing aren’t you?

Well, less pleasant than the female form, squeezed into a high-cut horror-bikini is skidmarks. That’s right. Skidders. For some reason, Pamela has entered the Big Brother house, now that all the other celebrities have gone, and promised to leave a skidmark in there. We have no idea what she means, but it doesn’t sound very hygienic.

Read More >>>

Pamela Anderson is an absolute saint. Why? Because she wants to help the world make sweeter love. How is she doing that? She’s made some stockings that are ‘historically pleasing’ as well as being indestructible.

What a woman!

See, when people make tights, the primary function is to either keep a woman’s legs warm or, indeed, hide the fact that they couldn’t be bothered shaving their legs. However, these are Pamela Anderson stockings! They are designed for making love! Love on a boat with a gigantic rock star member flung up you while you nearly crash into the rocks beneath the water! But how historically pleasing are they? Would historical figures like Genghis Khan like wearing them? Or Pol Pot?

Read More >>>

Hey pervs! Think about Pamela Anderson’s boobs for a moment. Got a picture of them in your head? That’s right – they’re the ones that mysteriously float half way up her torso, defying gravity like globules of milk in zero-gravity.

Now imagine them spattered with salty fluid. No. Not that kind of fluid you filthy urchins! We’re talking about great salty tears.

That’s right. Here comes the distressing news that Pamela Anderson cried and threw-up all over the place when she first posed for Playboy.

Read More >>>

If Pamela Anderson says something is horrifying, then you’re advised to believe her. Why? Well, here we have a woman who has had sex with some of the ugliest humans alive (Kid Rock, Tommy Lee and Brett Michaels) and worked for a prolonged period with David Hasselhoff.

And so, when she’s not appearing in panto with a bunch of no-marks in Britain, she’s off to Israel to push a political agenda. That sounds sensible doesn’t it? We all know damn well that this part of the country is not the most stable in terms of politics.

Still, at least she’s getting paid loads of money to prance around while she competes in Israel’s version of Dancing with the Stars. Read More >>>

10 - THE GREATEST VIDEO OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS, NUMBER ONE…

9 - Who wants to make people out of acorns? – Craftjr

8 - Oh Pamela Anderson. Ick – AmyGrindhouse

7 – OLD BOOZE – Asylum

6 - THE GREATEST VIDEO OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS, NUMBER TWO…

5 - Seven awesome things about a Celine Dion magazine cover - BestWeekEver

4 - Giant, slow-motion popping bubbles – Geekologie

3 - Ronnie Corbett’s Supper Club sounds AWESOME – WatchWithMothers

2 - Warning: you will never be able to unwatch this – Warmingglow

1 - THE GREATEST VIDEO OF THE LAST FIVE YEARS, NUMBER THREE…

The calibre of this year’s Dancing With The Stars is so high that we’ve barely mentioned Pamela Anderson.

Kate Gosselin? Yes. Buzz Aldrin? Yes. That reality show pilot idiot who got kicked off last week and doesn’t even have a Wikipedia page? Yes. But not Pamela Anderson. This is either because Dancing With The Stars can afford to book stars big enough to can eclipse Pamela Anderson, or it’s because Pamela Anderson isn’t very famous any more and we don’t particularly like to dwell on the image of her dancing – an image of a bright orange warped Lionel Richie Hello-style sculpture of 1990s Pamela Anderson being dragged around the stage by an alcoholic self-loathing puppeteer.

But anyway, it’s all too late. Last night Pamela Anderson left Dancing With The Stars for not being That Girl From The Pussycat Dolls Who’s Obviously Going To Win Dancing With The Stars. Basically.

Read More >>>

Finally, after years of constant disappointment, Dancing With The Stars has booked its first real celebrity.

Kate Gosselin. We’re so excited! We’ve waited so long for someone to inject some genuine celebrity glamour into Dancing With The Stars, and it looks as if Kate Gosselin is going to be the woman to do it. Obviously by ‘genuine celebrity glamour’ we mean ‘witless screeching about how hard her life is’ and ‘up to 23 simultaneous terrible haircuts’, but it’s more or less the same thing.

Sadly, though, Kate Gosselin isn’t going to be the only contestant to appear on this year’s Dancing With The Stars. Some old duffer called Buzz Aldrin is also going to take part. Apparently he’s walked on the moon, whatever that is. Hey Buzz, back the hell off! This is Kate Gosselin’s time to shine, you hear?

Read More >>>

10 - Dyson’s Air Multiplier: clearly amazing, but its explanation doesn’t half make us feel thick – YouTube

9 – Pamela Anderson in her knickers. You know, FOR ONCE – AmyGrindhouse

8 - And now, the most genuinely gruesome thing you will see all day - Geekologie

7 – All the best Windows 7 news you could ever want, if you want it – Interestment

Read More >>>

Look Kids, It’s Some Hollywood Stars Doing Panto!

by Josh Burt

For those who don’t know what Panto is, it’s like a really rowdy play at the theatre, where babies are allowed to weep hysterically throughout, old men have permission to shout racist slurs at the soap opera actors, most of whom casually blurt out crudely masked sexual references in front of an auditorium mainly comprising [...]

6 comments Read more >>>

Top 26 Sexiest Women Of The 1990s

by David Schwartz

The 1990s certainly has a lot to answer for.

Any decade responsible for The Spice Girls, Ally McBeal, New Labour and the return of Manchester United needs to take a long, hard look at itself. But the nineties was also a force of much good. It brought us TV shows such as South Park, The Simpsons, Baywatch, The X-Files and Seinfeld.

OK, so technically Seinfeld and The Simpsons began just before 1990, but this no time to get bogged down in technicalities. We are only dealing with sweeping generalisations today.

68 comments Read more >>>