Semantics wot makes a man tick

<<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.

RE: Crikey lord oh lummee

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.

Re: Re: Crikey lord oh lummee

<<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'.