"Anne Burgess" <anne.andesite> wrote in message
news:ygqa
>
> TBTN!
>
> Is this the death-knell for the Crippen electric carving knife?

Undoubtedly. I fear also for the Steve Irwin swimwear range.

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 08:01:29 -0000, "Siderius Nuncius"
<matron.nuncius> wrote:

>
>"Alex" <alexkoval> wrote
>
>Or the stylish and practical Eichmann range of showers and ovens?
>Or the recently developed Bagdhad programme for the treatment of Downs'
>Syndrome?
For some reason SId deserves a BTN while the previous ones don't in my
opinion.

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:09:16 -0000, "Alex" <alexkoval>
wrote:

>
>"Jim Easterbrook" <nospam> wrote in message
>news:meuk
>
>Only if I can mention the (child sizes only), Beverly Allitt nurses outfit,
>complete with realistic syringe.
>
Oh well, I'll mention the Bobbit scissors then.

Geoff B wrote:
> "Steve Brooks" boggled...
>
>> I'm stunned. There must have been some fairly senior staff involved in
>> choosing the name. And yet it appears not one of them had even heard about
>> the book.
>
> Gracious !!! I hope this sort of moral outrage won't force them into
> withdrawing the marvelous range of 'de Sade' riding crops . . . . .
>

And Halfords will have to withdraw the "Diana" seatbelt range.

badriya wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 08:01:29 -0000, "Siderius Nuncius"
> <matron.nuncius> wrote:
>
> For some reason SId deserves a BTN while the previous ones don't in my
> opinion.

Well, I have accepted another BTN in the thread.

However, I do think the whole thread deserves a BUMRA nomination.

badriya <badriyavv> wrote in
news:u6s8q3drhggbfj0optumj5c2btp1gu7356:

> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 08:01:29 -0000, "Siderius Nuncius"
> <matron.nuncius> wrote:
>
> For some reason SId deserves a BTN while the previous ones don't in my
> opinion.

I agree. I applaud the other efforts, but only Sid's two contibutions
triggered my DBTN.

Marjorie <dontusethisaddress> wrote in
news:13q8sco7gvpn66d:

> Geoff B wrote:
>> "Steve Brooks" boggled...
>>
>>> I'm stunned. There must have been some fairly senior staff involved
>>> in choosing the name. And yet it appears not one of them had even
>>> heard about the book.
>>
>> Gracious !!! I hope this sort of moral outrage won't force them
>> into withdrawing the marvelous range of 'de Sade' riding crops . . .
>> . .
>>
>
> And Halfords will have to withdraw the "Diana" seatbelt range.

But she wasn't wearing one. The only person in that car who did wear a belt
was the one that survived. A point that has clearly not been made often
enough, given the number of people I see still not wearing seat belts.

Steve Brooks wrote:
> [..]
>
> I'm stunned. There must have been some fairly senior staff involved in
> choosing the name. And yet it appears not one of them had even heard about
> the book.
>

It's not credible that they could choose that name by coincidence. There
are lots of cutesy names that are fashionable among little girls, but
AFAIK "Lolita" is not one of them.

Someone senior must have known exactlly what they were doing, and hoped
that the name would appeal in a subliminal way to parents who see their
young daughters as an exended projection of their own sexuality.

And what's all this "Playboy" stuff about? I recently overheard, with
some bewilderment, a group of three teenage (maybe 15-year-old) girls
boastfully listing all the Playboy merchandise they had - the duvet
cover, the bag, the tee-shirt, etc etc. Why do young girls want to
identify themselves with a brand that promotes nude pinups, and views
women as playthings and sex objects? And who buys them all this ghastly tat?

In article <13q8subpb1agk6f>,
dontusethisaddress says...
>
> And what's all this "Playboy" stuff about? I recently overheard, with
> some bewilderment, a group of three teenage (maybe 15-year-old) girls
> boastfully listing all the Playboy merchandise they had - the duvet
> cover, the bag, the tee-shirt, etc etc. Why do young girls want to
> identify themselves with a brand that promotes nude pinups, and views
> women as playthings and sex objects? And who buys them all this ghastly tat?
>Adolescent girls looking for anything which isn't pink?

Jim Easterbrook wrote:
> Marjorie <dontusethisaddress> wrote in
> news:13q8sco7gvpn66d:
>> But she wasn't wearing one. The only person in that car who did wear a belt
> was the one that survived. A point that has clearly not been made often
> enough, given the number of people I see still not wearing seat belts.

Yes, I know, that was the point. It wouldn't be worth including in this
Bad Taste section if she had.

Marjorie <dontusethisaddress> wrote in
news:13q93m7ou60a385:

> Jim Easterbrook wrote:
>
> Yes, I know, that was the point. It wouldn't be worth including in
> this Bad Taste section if she had.

Ah yes, of course. I'm being a bit dim today.

Marjorie wrote...
>Steve Brooks wrote:
>> [..]
>> I'm stunned. There must have been some fairly senior staff involved
>>in choosing the name. And yet it appears not one of them had even
>>heard about the book.
>
>It's not credible that they could choose that name by coincidence.
>There are lots of cutesy names that are fashionable among little girls,
>but AFAIK "Lolita" is not one of them.
>
They might as well have had a range of pink and purple bedroom stuff and
called it "My Little Tart".

Martin Clark wrote:
> Marjorie wrote...
>> Steve Brooks wrote:
>>> [..]
>>> I'm stunned. There must have been some fairly senior staff involved
>>> in choosing the name. And yet it appears not one of them had even
>>> heard about the book.
>>
>> It's not credible that they could choose that name by coincidence.
>> There are lots of cutesy names that are fashionable among little
>> girls, but AFAIK "Lolita" is not one of them.
>>
> They might as well have had a range of pink and purple bedroom stuff and
> called it "My Little Tart".

One of the chain stores had a range of underwear for young girls called
"Little Miss Naughty".

On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:37:15 -0000, Plusnet <not> scrawled in the
dust...

>In article <13q8subpb1agk6f>,
>dontusethisaddress says...
>>
>> And what's all this "Playboy" stuff about? I recently overheard, with
>> some bewilderment, a group of three teenage (maybe 15-year-old) girls
>> boastfully listing all the Playboy merchandise they had - the duvet
>> cover, the bag, the tee-shirt, etc etc. Why do young girls want to
>> identify themselves with a brand that promotes nude pinups, and views
>> women as playthings and sex objects? And who buys them all this ghastly tat?
>>
>>
>Adolescent girls looking for anything which isn't pink?

But it _is_ pink - and black from what I've seen.

In article <8e0aq3tr7lkevrfqkiksib0tgoupu2a5a5>,
spam says...
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 15:37:15 -0000, Plusnet <not> scrawled in the
> dust...
>> But it _is_ pink - and black from what I've seen.
>
Another illusion shattered.

I notice a 'trend', like :-
pink for .... just about anything aimed at females &
spectacles with tiny lenses shaped like letter boxes &
phobile moans small enough to be a choking hazard for babies.

I then comfort myself in the knowledge that that particular silly idea
has run it's course & the reaction will now set in, but no, things get
pinker & smaller & .....

The world's gone mad I tell 'ee.