Re: Re: @Obviously!

(The real woman may or may not have been your mum)

Re: Can I just clarify something?

Well, we've had the red top for a while now.

Re: @Obviously!

Because he has been intimate with a real woman.

Next question.

Re: I thought Lester was British.

A 'tasked' is a small wading bird found in marshes and estuarys in the UK, noted for its distinctive chest markings which resemble the face of Elsie Tanner off of Coronation Street.

Next question.

Re: Except even your short list . . .

'Spinster'? So, when do you move from 'unmarried girl' to one of those in that universe? Can younger women not refer to themselves as 'Ms' for neutrality?

I mean, I'm genuinely curious.

Re: Nope.

But petitions are easily dismissed. Individual letters show that people care enough about an issue to write.

Standard letters may be noise, yes, but individual letters or emails are another matter.

Re: @AC

'Positive discrimination' tends to refer to the favouring of an already-favoured group, and it gets thrown around all over the place to no one's advantage.

But let's not get into this, huh? The whole thing wearies me to the extent that I wish I didn't have a gender at all. It seems incumbent on me as a woman to constantly justify or explain any perceived advantages or favouritism, and to take a load of abuse around such issues and others in meek good humour lest I be accused of being one of those humourless victim-complex feminists or misandrists (this last being a disgusting accusation).

And I am tired. And I can't be bothered. You can all fight it out amongst yourselves from now on. I've been picking people up on their dodginess and nastiness here for three years and I'm about done because I don't think I've achieved anything. But then, nor have you, collectively. It's all good fun though isn't it?

Re: Yes, attractiveness is a distraction,....

Hey, it's your right to show your arse if you want to. Far be it from me etc etc.

I'm watching you, though.

Re: "every single person on this planet has done some sort of minor expense fiddle at some stage"

How do you fit through doors with that halo, man?

Re: To clarify ...

It's an important distinction.

Re: Donning my politically incorrect hat for a moment

Twat.

Re: @-gate

Why do you lot get so exercised about this perfectly acceptable shorthand? I've said it before, but you try writing headlines for a week and then you'll realise the value of these conventions.

Re: Still a bit unresolved though?

Nothing posted on Your Freedom will be taken seriously. Write to your MP instead.

Re: Interesting insight into the mind behind the company.

tl:dr

Re: Parachuting dog / Parascending donkey???

Berk.

Re: don't want to get into an argument with one in the field of journalism, but..

That's a subhead.

Re: Think of the laptops...

That's the real issue here.

Re: what ho? This daily wail style of articles with...

A 'byline' is an author's name. You mean a headline. This is a slightly cheeky headline which I can't believe has thrown so many of you into a tailspin.

Re: This

I've got a great idea - let's all get over it!

Re: (untitled)

Ooh! CONTROVERSIAL!

Re: *shiver*

"Look at me, Damian!"

Re: @Sarah

Oh yes, for me it's like Groundhog Day except that Groundhog Day is funny.

Re: Wrong Wong?

Check the link to the original story.

Re: I must be being slow

We did it for you, Flugal. We did it all for you.

Re: Or not

Well, you can't have one. So nyah to *you*, sir.

Re: This article is a honeypot

If it is a honeypot, what does that make you?

Re: a 5 second makeover of a press release is not "news"

I'm accepting this so Drew can respond, but must you be so rude?

Re: one fatal flaw

I have no say as to new icons. You could just try saying 'meh'. That should work.

Re: Why are Register articles written so as to include arcane Brittish words and phrases?

Yes. Next question.

Re: More work for boffins?

>if you will

I won't.

Re: why block it

You meant 'tenets'.

The rest of you - I've immediately and simulataneously thought of all possible permutations of the joke on 'religious tenants', and none of them are funny, so don't bother.

Besides it's nowhere near as good as the berk the other week who thought 'disciples' was spelt 'decibels'.

Re: Fruity Plurality

No. It's a brand name. This affects the plural form.

I love my job. No, I do.

Re: Not convinced.

Well, it's obvious nature doesn't want you to breed, then.

Re: It's called a Criminal Conspiracy

Yes, it was horrendous, and it was also a one-off. And er, 'the Brits' didn't do it. Some of the police did.

Don't be so smug. I don't know where you're from but I try to keep xenophobia and other such off-colour nastiness off the threads so I'd appreciate your not adding to it. Cheers.

Re: Meeeeooooow!

>But I agree with you.

Well then. Don't you 'meeeeeoooow' at me.

Re: android and iosx

Mmm. Do you want to talk about it, DEAD4EVER? I sense a certain hostility in... everything you ever say.

Seriously though. Behave please.

Re: Er. . . so wot?

And yet look how much time and effort you put into posting a comment to explain how little you care about this person you've never heard of.

You're a special kind of smartarse.

It appears today is Kick A Commentard Tuesday for me. Anyone else want some? Alternatively, you could just stop being annoying.

Re: "Boffins"

Oh shut up.

Re: ET

That means you are old.

And have no soul.

QED.

Re: Boffins?

We always say 'boffins'. When has the Mail ever said 'boffins'? What's it to yer?

It always amuses me when commentards shake their heads sadly and say they expected so much more of us. Why? Surely you should know us by now. Don't try to change us, baby.

Re: Nice!

Good grief. Stuff White People Like is a very silly, very flippant blog. It isn't 'racist'. Please preserve the gravitas of this very loaded and serious word for actual instances of bigotry. It serves us all to do this, and same goes for 'sexism', 'homophobia' et al.

Thanks.

Re: Makes sense.

I'm colour-blind. This makes me *special*. It's a sign of intelligence, you know... cough.

I wouldn't know about it if I hadn't failed those dotty tests. It only affects me in that I can't see the numbers in those dotty tests, and I can't be a pilot (just like the kid in Little Miss Sunshine). And I occasionally can't tell if something is yellow or green. But that's about it.

Red does have an effect on people - it draws the eye. Wear red, get looked at - get red in photos or designs and they will get looked at. It wouldn't surprise me if they discovered all sorts of other stuff about it. Like, teens have moved on from iDosing to staring at red things until they experience a "high".

Re: Orwell wasn't warning about the use of technology

Yes indeed. Because contrary to popular belief, not everything in the world ever is 'Orwellian'.

Re: Why the title is required, and why it must contain letters and/or digits?

Hey, has anyone got a pertinent xkcd link? I for one would like to see one.

Re: @Sarah

Well, good for you, but I'm just saying there's a certain attitude that emerges in these threads and while it may not be your own, all these comments tend to add up to something bordering on the unpleasant.

Re: Why bother risk others?

Ladies and gentlemen, a round of polite applause for AC who has never made a stupid mistake in his life.

Re: Non-specific but undeniable example

This argument has now reached the top three of the most annoying, tedious, cyclical Reg thread arguments. Can you resolve it once and for all or just give it a goddamn rest? You may have good points (nb the operative word being 'may') but it gets perilously close to woman-bashing the longer it goes on.

There should be a gender-issue equivalent of Godwin's... Dorkins'? The longer a gender-related argument goes on, the greater the chance of someone invoking Andrea Dorkins?

(NB No I don't bloody agree with her.)

Re: I second Sarahs request....

That's an interesting way to illustrate a double standard, No, I will not fix your computer.

Re: Sex offenders register?

*Ten*? Dude. I think that merely reflects quite poorly on the judge, who should have looked a bit beyond the photo and questioned what sort of idiot couldn't tell a ten-year-old from a 16-year-old after talking to them for any length of time.

Re: sexual equality...hmm

Yes, thank you for that. Give us an example?