HEY EVERYBODY! Click here to see what you’re getting for Christmas.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Donathius says:

    Uh…I’m officially scared now.

  2. Burgandy says:

    Someone without a filter at work wanna tell me what I’m missing?

  3. Phil Villarreal says:

    That’s actually more than I was expecting

  4. Donathius says:

    It’s the sequence of Jack Nicholson breaking down the door in “The Shinning” except he’s replaced with the Gene Wilder Willy Wonka. He sticks his head through the door and instead of “heeeeere’s johnny!” we get a caption that says “You Get Nothing” in a Willy Wonka-looking font.

  5. Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ) says:

    On second thought, I’d rather have the coal.

  6. Git Em SteveDave loves this guy--> says:

    It needs more “You Lose. Good Day”, IMHO.

  7. nataku8_e30 says:

    Filtered for “criminal activity” …

    • EyeHeartPie says:

      @nataku83: For me too…

      I never thought YTMND was criminal. Well, OK. Some of them are so bad that the creators should be arrested, shot, then hung, then shot again, then defenestrated for good measure.

      • TheFlamingoKing says:

        @Applekid: Does this still apply when there’s no issue raised in the post? Sorry, but 11 words and a link to YTMND is not exactly the type of “issues” I expect to read about when I come to Consumerist.

        I’m with the other posters. We love the Consumerist and want to see it thrive, and most of us feel like it’s not going to do that under Gawker and should be set free anyway. But if the powers that be try to start censoring any posts re: the sale, they’re going to run off a lot of good readers, which in turn is going to make it harder to sell the site.

  8. Ramza69 says:

    Wth psts lk ths, ppl stll wndr why th st s p fr sl? *shks hd*

    • Rhayader says:

      @Ramza69: Wow, are they censoring any mention of the sale? Kinda sad, really.

      Don’t they know we’re on their side?

      • SweetBearCub says:

        @Rhayader:

        If I had the cash, I’d buy the site, just to fire Roz. So far, I haven’t noticed even one good thing come from her presence here. Personal attacks haven’t diminished, attacks against the OP haven’t diminished, nothing.

        Also, FWIW: I used to work at another dotcom company a few years ago, and what was one big sign I noticed before we were forced to close up shop? Automated moderators were placed in private staff areas. It seems to me that Roz’s presence here cannot in any way be good.

        • Rhayader says:

          @SweetBearCub: Yeah, I feel you. I mean, I have no real issue with moderators intelligently keeping hateful or otherwise highly offensive material out of the comments.

          However, between the disemvoweling of Ramza69’s post, and the fact that comments were closed on the “Consumerist for Sale” posting, I feel like they are trying to suppress or censor the community backlash. That goes beyond “keeping it clean” and moves into corporate propaganda territory.

          • Rhayader says:

            @Rhayader: My bad, I guess the “Consumerist for Sale” page just wasn’t loading correctly when I tried to comment yesterday.

            Still though, weird to me that Ramza69 was disemvoweled.

      • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

        @Rhayader: That’d be because it’s against the Consumerist Commenter Code:

        No junk comments
        Your comment should be a meaningful response to the issue raised in the post. Take some time when writing a comment, it’s not a race and you don’t have an edit button. Objections to an editor’s headlines or writing style or a post’s entire existence should be emailed directly to the post’s author. Verboten: “Why is this on Consumerist?”, “tldr”, “Why did they even shop there in the first place?”, “This is a non-issue”, “Slow news day?” “Pwnd” “Yawn”, “First”, “People still ______” (use dialup, eat fast food, breathe air, and so forth), “Old news”, “lol”, “This is why I don’t shop there,” etc.

        • Rhayader says:

          @Applekid: Fair enough, I didn’t even realize that was part of the comments code.

          Of course, how many comments of the “they still do X?” variety have you seen on gawker pages? Seems like a commonly ignored comment code clause to me.

          • jdhuck says:

            @Rhayader: Yeah, Giz got away from that because they are focused on making money. People get banned all the time, but I rarely see anyone get disemvoweled.

  9. humphrmi says:

    Yay! I’m getting a “timeout error” for Christmas!

  10. homerjay- Smiling politely says:

    Well, at least ya got your health.

  11. Bladefist says:

    I’m currently filling out the paperwork to have my Christmas bailed out. I plan on having the best Christmas ever.

  12. MercuryPDX says:

  13. StevePJobs says:

    Actually, this is what you get for Christmas:

  14. juri squared says:

    As my present to the Consumerist commenters, I uploaded the image to TinyPic.

    [i33.tinypic.com]

  15. kamiikoneko says:

    Pretty sure ramza69 was disemvowling himself. People do it all the time.

  16. pb5000 says:

    Finally I would get what I want! NOTHING

  17. ChChChacos says:

    ba-humbug.

  18. oneliketadow says:

    Nt th typ f stry ‘d hv n my blg whn ‘m tryng t sll t, bt h wll.

    • BrianDaBrain says:

      @oneliketadow: Oh for crying out loud people! This is supposed to be funny. As in, a break from the sad day we’ve had around here at Consumerist. No it’s not a consumer-related story, but it still is entertaining!!! Lighten up a bit.

      • Rectilinear Propagation says:

        @BrianDaBrain: Personally, I hate all of the whiny “why is this here” comments.

        Every time they have a funny post at least three different people act as though it’s the worst thing ever.

  19. mac-phisto says:

    thanks, meg. i must admit, i was reluctant to click-thru – i thought you were gonna rick roll me again.

  20. chiggers says:

    The original, with sound:

    [heeereswilly.ytmnd.com]