keep posting Political diatribe..

and yes we hate GW because we didn't think returning respectability to the White House involved lying, tearing up the Constitution, starting wars for no apparent reason whatsoever, using terrorist tragedies to enrich his friends and family, lying again, watching a city sink then telling us what a great job his friend from horse judging committee is doing to fix it all, spying on Americans, torturing people because they might be terrorists, revoking the right to challenge imprisonment, spying on Europeans, lying some more, firing attorney generals because they aren't focusing on prosecuting left wing opponents, breaking international treaties because they don't fit in with his fanatical religious beliefs, revealing the identity of a CIA agent in charge of tracking loose nukes (and consequently every agent working with her) because he's pissed her husband found and then told the truth, thinks that red phone in his office connects him to God, nearly died of eating snacks and believes that history will vindicate all his crimes - including treason.. oh yes and LYING TO CONGRESS which apparently is why all you righties hate Bill C.

I like the Reg just like it is; leftie politics, clever headlines, and snarkiness alike. And if Messrs. Galanter and "L." don't, they can go take a flying f--k.

Dear Philip Galanter,

you wrote:

> The combination of this phrase and quoting "war on terror" is

> an effective piece of deadly propaganda. It leaves the

> impression the writer agrees with bin Laden and company, and

> views the western claim of self-defense against terrorism as a lie.

The first statement, that the writer agrees with Bin Ladin because he puts the "war on terror" in quotes, is just laughable. If you were up on your history, you'd know that Bin Ladin is a CIA asset, used as a tool by the Bushies to terrorize US citizens and get justification to start the war on terror in the first place.

It is impossible to "defend" an entire nation against terrorism. This war is an occupation and a diversion, and if Bush was truly interested in bringing Bin Ladin to justice, he'd be in Guantanimo already.

The chances of being a personal victim in a terrorist attack is still miniscule compared to other more common threats, such as being hit by a bus when you cross the street. The freedoms we gave up so that Bush could fight an unwinnable war are not worth it.

Seems to me that The Reg carries a good spread of news that interests me, and some that doesn't. However, the demographic for the publication is pretty much by definition smarter-than-your-average-bear IT people, thinkers, people who can see inconsistencies in patterns and systems, and who would tend to apply their insightful minds to the world in general.

Those same smart cookies often distrust your current US president as he's proved himself untrustworthy (as has our PM, don't get me wrong), and so fair game for the occasional sideswipe. Britain also has a history of political humour (although sadly lacking a bit nowadays) with shows like Spitting Image, The New Statesman, Yes Minister, etc. We see politicians not as demigods, but as often self-serving incompetents. If Mr Bush feels victimised, well maybe he should write (crayon? Sorry, couldn't resist) to the register setting the record straight...

My personal politics do not enter the equation, either. The Reg is a technical website, for technical news. If a story has an obvious technical angle then I would be perfectly happy to see the writers take whatever political angle they like. Unfortunately the articles mentioned had no technological angle at all. none. It gets too much. I come here expecting news about technology and IT. Computer stuff. Instead I get a crapload of personal opinions disguised as news.

You have every right to post it. I have every right to stop reading it, and that's exactly what I'm doing. So long, and thanks for all the tips...

...said somewhat sardonically, and yet at the same not without a real comment behind it.

Lads, I realise that Mr Galanter and Frank L. hold differing opinions from yours, but honestly, they were just writing to express a point of view. I'm not sure I get the whole need to be so vehement in one's rebuttal. It sounds just a tad defensive, as in "...doth protest too much, methinks."

(for the correspondents who object to non tech items in the Reg).

Presumably you all know of the sites that will give you only tech articles,

(Techrepublic, tomshardware etc. etc).

Personally I read the register because there is an element of the unexpected and a bit of variety amongst the tech stuff,

plus the humour of course.

What's the problem? just read the techy bits if that's what you prefer.

Have a good one!

The pommie b@sta@rds don't get much right but their humour is 1st rate. Keep it up Reg

is cynicism, spleen and a general air of being a very aggravated Rottweiler (nicest entity one could hope to meet when happy, but by $deity you do NOT want to piss one off). Half the joy of reading is the shouting at the monitor, either in agreement or disagreement. That's why I still watch party politicals; it's good for the soul to scream out the demons once in a while.

Since when have El Reg abused their position as a website by pummeling their readers with political propoganda? They are NOT the web equivalent of Guantanamo, you know. If you don't like what you are reading - well f**k off and read something else. The reason why I rate The Register as one of the best sites on the web is BECAUSE of the technical articles, and BECAUSE of the humour, and BECAUSE they also carry alot of US and UK political articles that would not even register on the scale of other news/tech websites.

And just for the benefit of our US cousins, most of the rest of the world does actually feel that the American (and UK)'s misguided adventure in the sandpit at playtime is one of the worst decisions in history.

The "war on terror" is rightly placed in quotations. How can you declare war on a verb? As for the term US Crusaders, both the US and UK Dear Leaders quote divine guidance and judgement from "Him on High" on an alarmingly frequent scale and the sooner they are both out of office (and preferably in jail), the better.

Lastly, I could accuse lots of people of lots of things, but the Register one-sided? Hardly....

Philip,

What captive audience? You, like Mr Dawson, are free to leave at any point. Or you can limit your reading to articles with which you agree. Any time you find yourself reading something that challenges your established beliefs you can just say "Woah Nellie!" and look away. <Alt>-<Left-arrow> will even allow you to page back without running the risk of glimpsing something challenging out of the corner of your eye.

By the way, the phrase "War on Terror" has been challenged since its invention because it's a ridiculous concept. You can't cry foul when people ridicule the ridiculous. Like Cliff said, we're among the people who are less likely to wear the wool quietly.

And Reg: Keep up the good work. All of it. Even the political diatribe. Just make sure that there's a right to reply, so that anyone who feels they have good reason to disagree with your views can air those reasons.

"The pommie b@sta@rds don't get much right"

Haven't you ironically got an extra 'a' in the middle there?

Yours,

A Pommie B'stard.

oh dear, those poor sensitive souls...

-invade a country under false pretenses, bomb extensively, occupy the place for years, fail to rebuild effectively

-fail to provide basics like electricity, sanitation, safety and security

-spend well over 300 billion US dollars and counting

-openly engage in war profiteering, graft, cronyism and corruption

this is all good.

-voice an unflattering opinion of a US foreign policy, a policy based on fear-driven aggression and blind conservative ideology

this is bad.

please continue printing news and opinions about things that impact the lives of all people in technology-related activities. according to the 10/80/10 principle, whatever you do, 10% of the readers will love it, 10% will hate it, and 80% will just play along (the exact numbers may vary, but the trend is constant).

whiners deserve abuse.

I think I just woke up.. what was that?.. who said what?.. we invaded another defenseless 3rd world country?

Are the political comments you make IT related?

Actually most seem to be. ID Cards - related, dodgy activities over telecommunications - related, automated immigration controls that don't work - related, RFID passports with poor security - related, this list goes on.

Sure there's the occasional bit that isn't - but as it's funny who cares?

Gay squirrels, cows and flamingos are hardly IT related, but again who cares?

Sure we hate GW, but doesn't everyone, deep down, hate GW?

Even conservatives do because as outrageous as we think he's been, amazingly they don't think he's been outrageous enough.

The most blatant profiteering, politically polarizing and abuse of power ever seen in a US Presidential administration, and they think he hasn't gone far enough.

But the reality is most of us don't just read the Register for IT related stories, we admire the satirical twists, the occasional relevant-to-our-lives political commentary and of course the coverage of critical issues such as RoTM and Captain Cyborg - not to mention the activities and scientific study of gay squirrels, cows and flamingos.

Ace or Epic as they used to say - Right On and Groovy as others once uttered.

While I can see that those of a more conservative political viewpoint might be upset by some of the stories, I think the fact that the Labour Party and Tony Blair receive much of the same treatment does show a certain amount of objectivity here.

I'm not sure, but I don't think some of the critics realise these represent Britain's equivalents of a left wing leader and the Democrat party.

The sentence I found so objectionable was this -

" Emissaries from the European Parliament arrived in Washington today with a message of restraint and fairplay for US crusaders in the "war on terror". "

It was the combination of scare quotes around "war on terror" along with the straight use of the phrase "US crusaders" that is so reprehensible.

Why? Because, as I noted, that phrase is very popular among the likes of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They use it as short hand for the theory that, like the crusaders in the middle ages, the US is out to simply kill Muslims because they are Muslims.

This, of course, is the big lie being spread throughout the Islamic world. That the Register would put more stock in portraying the US as "crusaders" than the US as fighting against terrorism makes them complicit in spreading this big lie.

Further, the main point of my letter is ignored here. And that is that the Register has no particular claim to political expertise, and that good journalistic practice is to clearly designate and separate political reporting from political opinion.

By not doing this the Register also demonstrates a lack of professionalism in its reporting.

And if you haven't noticed the steady one-sided political drumbeat emanating from the Register...well you just haven't been paying attention.

We love The Register exactly how it is. It is a British publication and quintessentially British. The so called "War on Terror" is actually a pretext for asserting US dominance in the Middle-East and Central/South Asia and securing oil supplies for the future. Us Brits can see through the lies and propaganda, even though we might not be able to do much about it. Can these pesky American neo-cons stop whining and so something productive instead like go jump off a cliff. The world has enough problems without certain countries creating more. And if you don't like the coverage on El Reg then piss off elsewhere.