I think you need to parse that one a little carefully, because I’m assuming you’re including those who tick the “object to state” box.
I think it probably balances out with all those people who've given the religious affiliation of their tiny children.
We have an update. Charles Stross has announced he's signed exclusively with Dirty Reader.
Dirty Reader uses advanced NaughtyWords™ artificial intelligence technology to scan a corpus of text and detect the optimum location in which to insert a metric fuckton of cuntybollockspoofacefucknuggets to enliven your reading experience and bring it closer into line with the author's state of mind
I’ve always wondered if that’s actually true, or if Americans just pretended not to know what “wanker” means so they could get away with swearing on TV.
See, now I'm going to have to go find the episode and watch it with the commentary. Oh no...
Although it’s sometimes better when people have to get creative to get one past the censors.
That's like the way they were allowed to say "wanker" on Buffy because it was America and nobody knew what it meant.
But again, a lot the power of that insult is packed into Tom Hiddlestone's delivery of that line. "Mewling" is just as degrading as "quim", the way he says it.
But there’s no way any software’s going to be able to do that for a long time.
Well it'd take actual work, by a person, which took into account things like voice and context. But yes, leaving them out altogether is vastly preferable to using minced oaths, because there's a certain kind of person who uses minced oaths and it's basically Ned Flanders.
Very little actual foul language by today’s standards, but they still managed to convey curses, just by the evocative imagery and tonal intensity.
Because it's not the words themselves that are rude or offensive or whatever, but the intent.
This also goes for shows that use fake swear-words. You never had to be told what 'frack' meant.
If you want to play the Clean Reader game, this column has a by no means comprehensive list of its substitutions.
Brett Lee too
If you overlook those beamers he bowled …
Yeah, I can't remember a moment of Brett Lee's onfield career where he wasn't a stereotypical angry fast-bowler. I remember a couple of high-scoring tight one-dayers against us where he bowled several above-head-height no-balls - either he was trying to scare our batters on purpose, or he couldn't control his bowling under stress.
Off-field, it appears to be a completely different story:
Great that it was shown on Prime so accessible to a lot more people. Hopefully the final will be too.
It is indeed, which is fantastic.
I’m married to an Ozzie. Usually, I support them against anyone else.
My dad was Australian. Half my family is Australian. I understand your situation is completely different.
It may be somewhat traitorous of me to the region and my wife, but I’m going for India today.
Dude. We support NZ, and anyone playing Australia.
And we should not lose sight of the fact that the rain was (mixed metaphor alert) an incredible windfall for New Zealand. Things might have been very different had we been chasing 360 in 50 overs.
It's never great when a result is affected by weather, and SA had been devastated by rain-affected games twice in the past. That said, they knew the rain was in the forecast, and they won the toss and decided to bat first anyway. They could have been the team batting second with the D/L run-rates in their pockets. It was a gamble.
At the beginning of this World Cup, my bet was that we'd be knocked out in the semis. I also thought SA were the best team in the competition as a team - less fragile, less dependent on one or two great players, better attitude which always shows in the field. I did not think we were going to beat them.
I got off the couch for the last over and watched it crouched down behind the coffee table. True story.