5'4", 160lb RINGO STARR HAS A POSSE
Or something about Ringo Starr drinking in Los Angeles in the 1970s, with John Peel and The Fugs.
We're not sure what John Glenn will make of it, but NASA's Image of the Day is currently showing a rather unflattering 1960 snap of the seven original Mercury astronauts: NASA's Image of the Day shows seven rather scruffy astronauts dressed as Arabs Well, it's hardly the sort of space apparel available to the modern space …
If thats all it takes to join the terrorists (looking scruffy, bearded, and in self-fashioned survival clothing) I'm going to spend less time outside and more time playing World of Warcraft before I get shipped off to Guatanamo.
Actually, I end up scruffy and bearded when I do that anyway, but also get fat enough that no one will mistake me for anything other than an American.
Seriously, you'd think there might have been a more descriptive title for this story.
I went into a church the other day, and cor blimey, I saw some geeza oo looks just like those fellas in that fota. Blinkin flip oodathunkit - the Church of England is supporting Al Qaeda. Cor gibberly jasmin, i'm all in a paranoid high-strung tizz now. Gonna switch to Catholicism, least in their churches they have the geeza strung up on a cross. Too right, 'angin' ain't good enough for 'is kind.
But 'ang on, something smells like fish, and it ain't those loaves of bread. Aren't terrists identified by their actions rather than appearance?
Hopefully you'll be forwarding the photo to Homeland Security forthwith - they can always be relied on.
I don't think our American allies fully understand their peril. Some really don't understand that every scruffy, bearded ruffian with a good sun tan has not only not had a bath for weeks but absolutely is a terrorist.
So well spotted, I'm sure a fair few of them are still alive and can be immediately shipped off to the appropriate Cuban retirement retreat.
"All in the name of comedy, stop being so goddamn politically correct"
Yep, the kind of comedy Jim Davidson and Bernard Manning spew. Funny stuff, real high brow, groundbreaking originality there.
No comedy is better than comedy done badly.
<<so you're allowed to use sarcasm but the headline writers can't display a touch of irony??>>
First, there is nothing ironic about the headline. Check a dictionary for the definition of irony. Save yourself the embarrassment of malapropism in the future.
Second, there is a vast difference between creating an article on a widely-read news site, and responding to that article, tags or no tags. First, the comment would not have been written if the article didn't take the form it took. Second, comment writers are not professional journalists, with codes of ethics and conduct to uphold. Third, all comments are edited by the staff of the Register, who deemed the comment in question to be appropriate and acceptable.
Ciaran, I wonder if you found the anti-Irish jokes told in England during the period of IRA terrorist atrocities to be 'ironic'.
The essentail feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contridiction between an action or expressions and the context in which it occurs. This headline, if taken as meaning all arabs are terrorists, would appear to be in direct contradiction the general tone El-Reg takes on the "War on terror" as peddled by our government and the mainstream press, and as such I consider it ironic.
I was not intending to imply that your comment was either in-appropriate or un-acceptable, I was merely pointing out that you were using a similar brand of humour to the article.
As for the anti-irish jokes, I can assure you that I take any joke with the intent with which it is delivered.
<<This headline, if taken as meaning all arabs are terrorists>>
The headline is "Mercury astronauts join al-Qaeda?". Your justification for the original use of the word 'irony' does indeed stand on excellent ground for those individuals who believe:
"Mercury astronauts join al-Qaeda?" = "All Arabs are terrorists"
Quite what mindset such an individual has, doesn't bear thinking about. Most others here would interpret the article as a whole, with picture, as "Scruffy bearded people are terrorists".
<<I was not intending to imply that your comment was either in-appropriate or un-acceptable, I was merely pointing out that you were using a similar brand of humour to the article.>>
Your first comment questioned whether it was okay for the 'crikey' comment to use sarcasm, but not for the headline to employ irony. You were clearly asking whether one could be acceptable, yet not another. The 'crikey' comment at no point questioned the acceptability or appropriateness of the article. It extrapolated the interpretation of the article that "scruffy bearded people are terrorists", in a heavily sarcastic way, in the same vein as many other Register articles. If anything, playing the same game implies acceptance of the game.
So your question on acceptability actually came out of nowhere, which suggests that acceptability was very much on your mind at the time.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021