Would eat all of them for breakfast.

"I don't get it, I read this for the computer software news, and BOFH. What is newsworthy about some blonde bimbo no one ever heard of going nuts? It's not as though it was Paris"

Why is it that whenever a non-IT article is posted, we got numerous twatdanglers who question why the article is here? Why is it that these idiots are too stupid to note that this is in the Odds & Sods section, specifically Bootnotes? Perhaps most importantly, why do they read the article at all (and then bitch and moan about it)? It's not like the article's title was hidden from them. It's not like this article was titled "The Quantum Effects of Network-Enabled Communication Devices and the Uses Thereof".

Simply put, if the article's title leads you to believe that you won't enjoy reading the article, then DON'T CLICK ON IT. El Reg has a long and proud history of authoring non-IT-related articles that most of its reader base find amusing. I, for one, do not want that to change.

Oh...

You meant *that* Paris...

Simple. Those of us geeks who had to make a living with brains enjoy reading about it when the people we never had a shot at and whose only salient skills turned out to be "I'm pretty, look at me" end up imploding. I should have thought the tech/IT angle was obvious.

>Why is it that whenever a non-IT article is posted, we got numerous twatdanglers

Call it tradition or an attempt to garner the sort of response you had.

If you want more tech/IT news and only that news then read slashdot. I read the Reg because I have a life outside of computers!

"Cosmetic surgery is unnecessary. It's invasive and it distorts the self-image. Operating on anyone is morally dubious -- operating on someone with a documented emotional disorder is negligent."

Not sure I agree with you there old chap.

Firstly it will depend on the elective surgery itself (there is a big difference between say a boob enlargement and a boob reduction, not to mention things like laser eye surgery, tattoo removal* etc.) and then it will depend on the reason for said surgery.

As an example, IMHO, if you take a woman who wants a boob enlargement (even if she already has nice tits) because she has emotional / psychological issues with her perceived lacking in the funbag department and you refuse to allow her the treatment then I think it would just make things even worse.

I am aware that if someone who wanted surgery went ahead then it might not solve her problems and she might go looking for the next thing to "fix", but knowing at least 7 women who have had tits enlarged and 2 who have had them reduced, and all happy with the results, I am not sure this would necessarily be the case. Either way if she is really depressed at having "small" knockers and she is refused a "treatment" that she believes will solve this then she is much more likely to be even less stable for the refusal than if it were allowed.

I would agree with some form of counselling before agreeing to cosmetic surgery but as the clothes horse in question already had "a documented emotional disorder" then it is likely something had already been done regarding this. If not then surely the negligence lies with the body that identified the emotional disorder and failed to do anything about it.

*I grew up with a lad who was a bit of a stupid rebel in his teens and accordingly he had "Fuck You" tattooed on his forehead and a great big fuck off swastika tattooed on his arm. When he grew up he realised this was a bit silly and tried to fix this by wearing long sleeves all the time and changing the "F" to a "B", the "u" to a "o" and the "c" to another "o". This did not work obviously (he was always getting asked what "Book You" meant and why they should get themselves "booked" and indeed in which book this should occur and you cannot hide a tattoo forever) so he saved up until he could have them removed.