I can't believe I was the first to vote for "A bunch of aggro loner twats"

is "A respected technology news website".

Now I was going to tick this box, but I'm genetically, morally and intellectually unable to agree with anything in the Wail, so had to go with one of the other entries.

Surely you're the dog I wag?

I want to click about 7 of these, and at least 3 don't fit (so all of the above isn't good either).

Given that these are not mutually exclusive (i.e. your readership could see you as an unethical, comically angry, online lesbian magazine website), I think you need to use checkboxes instead of radiobuttons to get a better and more concise survey ^H^H^H^H^H^H ^H^H^H ^H^H^H^H ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ^H^H^H^H^H^H (sorry, forgot we're in Web 2.0 now) richer and more compelling experience.

And you forgot to add the Paris Hilton fan club website choice...

"Functionally an ad-banner trolling site who will publish any rubbish if it'll get clicks, and best ignored. (Senior Wikipedian David Gerard)"

Well, I've never clicked an ad. After years of internet exposure, my retinas and brain filter out adverts on websites. And judging by the decline in pay-per-click, so has everyone else's retinas and brains.

I find it amusing that Mr Gerard makes that comment considering the amount of unsubstantiated and inaccurate one-sided gumpf on Wiki. (Okay, okay, so they have cleaned up their act of late).

Is David Gerard the one person who's voted for his description?

" Functionally an ad-banner trolling site who will publish any rubbish if it'll get clicks, and are best ignored. (Senior Wikipedian David Gerard) 0% (1)"

Hey, David Gerard voted!

I now feel dirty.

Biting the long tail that feeds Web 2.0

Unashamed that the Daily Mail called them respected

Unashamed that the Grauniad calls them ever-excellent

A site full of scurrilous children's toy-abusing vapid heiress-obsessed [MS|Apple|O'Reilly's bunch of badgers|Sadville|Jimbo Wales' clique of "experts"|Edit this description]-baiting memoclastic climactic sceptical articles and not enough BOFH.

Tech tabloid (Me.)

Seriously. You're "The Nerd's Daily Mirror."

... who will publish any rubbish if it'll get clicks, and best ignored? That's not very specific, is it, Mr Gerard?

And when do we get the poll helping us to decide exactly what Andrew Orlowski is?

Outed after all this time.

The name seems rather close to Glenda Slag (Private I). It would seem the Grauniad is desperately trying to assure its readers how working-class and street-wise they aren't.

am not a Lesbian.

Andrew Orlowski articles rarely do. I assume he owns elReg or part of it. I don't read past the first page on his articles because he doesn't let me comment on them.

How about you do actually rebrand, 'Biting the lesbian that feeds IT'

Click back, then vote again ftw

Scandal-mongering sweatshop where wannabe technology journalists are expected to file numerous stories each day regardless of whether they know what they are talking about (but nevertheless achieving a pretty good success rate) run by people whose utter cynicism towards the powers-that-be in the technology industry is a refreshing change from most other sources and whose sense of humour - while not to everyone's taste - makes for a likeable and readable (if often not spellchecked) online magazine for nerds and Paris Hilton watchers of all ages, most of whom are savvy enough never to click on a banner-ad (which begs the question "how does The Register cover its costs?").

Why are you being selective with the comments el reg? My earlier post contained no nasty words you don't print on your front page yet it didn't appear here ... you seem to be proving the point I made in my post ..?

Minus the wikitard's comment.

Phorm actually accused El Reg of being unethical. "Pot, kettle, black" doesn't even approach my feelings about that.

"Why there are no comments permitted alongside the highly dubious "if you use the pirate bay you are supporting a Neo-Nazi" article?"

Because it's an Andrew Orlowski article and he's always wrong but doesn't like to hear it so doesn't have comments enabled on his articles. If you check most of his controversial articles you'll find the same. This is undoubtedly where the Wikipedians comment about The Register being a click-whoring troll site comes from because he does produce an awful lot of trolls and then prevent people pointing out how factually incorrect he nearly always is. I mean, this is a guy that thinks that 3 out of 5 selected Japanese scientists = nationwide consensus. His comment policy is in contrast to say Lewis Page, who is still nearly always wrong, but credit to the guy he at least gives you chance to point out why in the comments.

But anyway, your post distracted me from what I was going to point out here. The Daily Mail comment is perhaps more telling than many may think. The Register itself has been guilty of slagging off the Daily Mail but in recent years it's become so similar in style it's no suprise the Daily Mail has praised it.

I think the Daily Mail praising The Register says more about what it's become than it is a compliment, it's effectively official recognition by the Daily Mail itself that The Register has become as shit as it is.

Still, The Register has one thing going for it- it does at least break some stories, it's just a shame that when it does it doesn't break them in a manner that's useful reading. It at least gives you an overview of the breaking news though even if the substance is like a big steamy pile of horse turd though.

If only there was some care at The Register to return back towards it's roots, the distinction between it and a collection of personal blogs of clueless trolling teenagers is shrinking daily.

As one of the people who Ms Kiss called an "aggro loner twat" as well as a "twatty commenter", can I just ask El Reg to stop muscling in on my territory? This is no way to treat one of your long term lesbians. Er, readers.

not impressed with the selection, I think you could have trolled harder.

I suggest "private-eye-liner virtual universe"