Disqus - Latest Comments for Raena

Re: Why do some book publishers seem intent on wandering off a cliff?

RexHammock — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:17:39 -0000

In my post, I linked back to another post that explores those costs -- so no, I don't suspect anything, I know exactly what it costs. It links to the work of Peter Olson, the former CEO of Random House, who breaks down precisely those costs.

I assume he knows what those costs are as well as you or I may know them, as he ran the worlds largest book publishing company for many years. He's the one I'm depending on to inform my understanding of the costs of "a book" vs. the cost of manufacturing and distribution of a physical product -- and the wastes related to current book industry business model.

Re: Why do some book publishers seem intent on wandering off a cliff?

Raena — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 21:03:19 -0000

I quoted the bit I mean: finding authors, editing their stuff, and marketing it. I suspect that you think this costs a whole lot less than it really does.

Re: Why do some book publishers seem intent on wandering off a cliff?

RexHammock — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:51:42 -0000

>Doing all that isn't free, you know.

I don't understand what you mean. When I say charge for something, I mean don't give it away for free. Do I need to explain this again: If a book is not being printed on paper, don't charge me for the printing and paper.

Re: Why do some book publishers seem intent on wandering off a cliff?

Raena — Sun, 04 Oct 2009 03:21:32 -0000

Dear publishers, charge for where you bring value — discovering, editing and marketing great authors.

Doing all that isn't free, you know.

Re: Australian News Corp chief attacks Google, bloggers

Raena — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:39:16 -0000

something of such limited intellectual value as to be barely discernible from massive ignorance.

So he *does* read News' blogs, then...

Re: Hey Raena - Green Avatars for Iran: An Exercise in Slacktivism

Raena — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:52:13 -0000

I really don't agree that your *only* two options are to colour an icon and fly to Iran to chuck bottles at the Government.

Is it really so hard to muster up the words to have an original thought of our own? Surely that shows more evidence of our passion, interest, support, and concern than chucking our avatars at a webapp?

Re: Hey Raena - Green Avatars for Iran: An Exercise in Slacktivism

Raena — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:56:44 -0000

If it's made a genuine difference to someone you know, then awesome sauce; and if it makes a deep difference to you, double sauce.

I'll punt on you being in quite a small minority, though.

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

skellat — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:25:47 -0000

I know. Location doesn't matter. I agree with you that it doesn't sit right.

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Raena — Mon, 18 May 2009 10:46:02 -0000

Aw, thanks for that. :)

I think it's far too easy to underestimate the socialising power of marketing material. It's absolutely true that the vastest majority of people wouldn't look at a particular image and say that they consciously get a message of depersonalisation or whathaveyou from it (see above with Aaron).

The power of suggestion from repeated daily exposure means it doesn't need to be spelt out in black and white.

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Raena — Mon, 18 May 2009 10:38:09 -0000

It's a kind offer to host my 'excellent blog' for free for a year. (I think you made a typo, it should be 'low-traffic and neglected blog' ;) I'm good for hosting right now, but I appreciate the gesture and you strike me as the kind of guy who'd hold to that if I were to take you up on the offer.

However, I think it's kind of short sighted of you to consider only your customers to be your family, though, or worthy of an apology, because you and your company's sphere of influence goes a lot further than that. I mean, Nett's a perfectly good example -- I'm sure you have readers who aren't also NR customers. Hell, I've been known to pick up a copy from time to time. You're on Twitter (are you also the person posting on @netregistry?) and you have a blog, so I can see you're not just some insular company that only communicates via secret insiders-only newsletter. You took the time to come here and to other blogs and respond.

Thinking of everyone I've worked for, I can't think of a single person who wouldn't want their company to be recognised as a leader -- not just in terms of market share or profitability, but also as a thought leader within the industry and a good example of how to do it the right way. You seem like the kind of guy who'd agree with that.

You used the analogy of having a disagreement with a family member versus some random passer-by on the street, but I think there's room in your example there for your friends or neighbours, as well. Your potential customers are more than just passers-by on the street, surely?

You're right, there are much more astonishing things to get angry about (I'm not really angry, just... not happy). Actually a colleague today said something like "I get what you mean, but I see you don't also have a post decrying the way women are depicted in motor racing."

I don't like that either, but I don't go to motor racing, don't work in motor racing, don't even have anything to do with automotive stuff. I don't even own a car. Consequently I don't notice it when it happens cause it's not in my face. But this is something that happens in my industry, and happens to me personally. It gets oxygen from me and women like me who notice this stuff because it matters to us.

Thanks for coming by and taking the time to write, anyway. If nothing else I have three interesting new blogs to read. :)

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Raena — Mon, 18 May 2009 10:21:43 -0000

Hey, you've written a lot here and I only have so much time in my head for this issue, so I'll try and break it up with some quotes -- which, again, I'm not doing to take it out of context, just to show you what specific issues I want to try to respond to here.

I'm not saying you didn't bother to read it, but I think when people bring their agendas to something, they're not always joining the dots properly. And you know as well as I do that most people will NOT bother clicking the link, so their impression of my article rests with how you choose to present it.

Sure. I'd do it if I were writing about something on SitePoint, for example, because a lot of people read that and not all of them are going to go ahead and do that (I don't think I'd post about *this* issue there, jsut speaking generally). But over here with my pitifully small readership, yeah, I had a case of the slacks. I'd like to think the five or six people who do read my blog would take the time to do that, but it's true that I should have done it here anyway, because it's the right thing to do.

And I did say that most of it was fine, except for characterising some *pretty moderate women* as hardcore feminists. I'm sure I could have said so louder and I'm sorry that I didn't make that clearer. I'll go and edit the post if you like to indicate this better.

You used lines of mine to suggest that I come from the "opposing team" (so to speak) who just sees all feminists as "extremists" - when, as the part of my article I did paste above shows, is far, far from the case.

I wasn't trying to cast it as the opposing team at all, as I pointed out. Clearly I didn't do a very good job of that. I'm *trying* to say that you have a misguided opinion of what constitues extremism, and what constitutes people in your market.

I find that misleading analysis, I have every right to point out parts that may contradict how you're presenting it as.

Indeed you do. I'm sorry you feel that I tried to mislead. I'd really like to believe that people would go and read it for themselves, and I wouldn't feel comfortable dumping a bunch of your text onto my blog here anyway.

Again, though, this was the only point I took umbrage with and felt like commenting on. Overall it's a really good post. If anything I actually felt better having read about the process you went through in developing the idea, not to mention the fact that you'd taken the time to write about it at all.

And that's not because they're all male chauvinists who enjoyed it, it's because even most of the women aren't so extreme in their reaction to what is and isn't "sexism".

You keep using these loaded words, 'sexism' (I never used that term, did you notice?) and 'extremist/extreme/extremism'. If you don't agree that they're loaded I'm sure you can at least see how they're quite strong -- people don't usually say sexist outside of the context of suggesting that the person is being wilfully sexist, and people don't say extremee when they mean 'not to my liking' -- extremist means WAY left field.

I don't think I can put it any clearer: it's my deeply held belief that it is not extremism to say that women are depicted poorly in IT; it's a fact that is quite noticeable to many people and affects many more.

Most people think that you reading into the pregnant woman's head not being in that shot is just ridiculous projection on your part. I'm one of them. That is just a standard commercial pregnancy shot from medical advertising. It's not saying "This is all you're worth", it's saying "This is about pregnancy which is about - gasp - having a baby inside your stomach"!!! I mean, really.

It's hardly a new idea to talk about reducing women to body parts. Usually it happens with the good old tits and arse, but I'm not sure why a pregnant belly ought to be any different. And yeah, 99.999-infinity% of people don't notice or care about that stuff in advertising, the Gruen Transfer's ratings notwithstanding, but that doesn't mean it's not there, or that one is not entitled to think about it. 99.999% of people don't think about astrophysics either.

Fire up your favourite search engine and search for the phrase body chopping. There's also a video that touchces on the idea and explains it better than I can. I'm sure you'll still think it's silly, but perhaps it'll show you I'm not just pulling the idea out of thin air. (Skip ahead to about 8:20 for the stuff about dismemberment.)

Many women would be offended by your perception of that image - ironically, more than men would be. But I think you were looking for the reaction, by then.

Please don't invalidate my views by characterising it as attention-seeking. It's a pretty cheap shot.

And believe me, if I just wanted to get a reaction, there are easier ways -- like having a little squeal about it on twitter, as an example, or being quite a lot more acid-tongued. if I were really very angry about this, believe me, that would be extremely clear.

You said you had no problem when you saw the stand (before you got pumped up by the feminist reactions you read) - but that image was a huge poster (hung twice) at that stand, and you didn't seem to find it so confronting or objectionable.

Actually, I did. As I said:

But I’d visited the booth on Tuesday, and spoke to one of the male nurse dudes, and I’ll tell you I honestly did have a sense of feeling a bit icked out at the booth.

At the booth. I had a feeling of being icked out at the booth. I was uncomfortable with it.

I only wrote about it after the fact because I found it interesting that it had been discussed at all (not "pumped up", as you put it), and for whatever reason occurred to me at the time I felt compelled to share what i felt. If anything, I tend to *undervalue* my gut instinct about things like this; I was kind of surprised anyone else had bothered to raise it at all.

And look, I know that the male dominance in the IT world must make it extremely uncomfortable for the women involved in it, at times. I know there would be legitimate cases (those REAL "booth babes" at the show made me ill).

Yeah. I only saw the red pants girls in passing, and I didn't feel especially compelled to take note of who it was.

I'll agree it's a bit rude for the chatterboxes to only discuss yours and not the others. If you know who the owners of that booth were, feel free to share and I'll give you my solemn promise that I will write them a pissy email.

It's also entirely possible that yours is the tallest poppy; there were a lot of low or no-profile exhibitors there.

I guess what I'm trying to show is that even low-level stuff like this contributes to the problem. It's nowhere near as bad as putting 'kiss' on some chick's lycra-clad arse.

Don't get so hung up on your hang ups, that you can't also see cases where things are not examples of what you hate or fear in life.

I get what you *meant* to do, which was to be cheeky and funny. I still feel that this campaign is an example of unconsciously creating an experience that isn't welcoming to women. I *don't* think this campaign, or even your post, is an example of overt and deliberate hostility. I'm not even super-furious about what happened, just a bit disappointed.

Look I'm sure you're heartily sick of reading about it and I have to go to bed. But I do think it's good thing that you and the others took the time to respond to me and others. I'm especially pleased to see you chose to do this as good old-fashioned comments as distinct from a 140-character ten-second brainfart. Thankyou for visiting and responding, I really mean it.

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Larry Bloch — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:31:14 -0000

Can we describe stereotypes adequately without using stereotypical language?

Sure, describing staged photo's requires less diplomacy than talking about real people - I agree. And I'm not kidding myself, the dude is a captain of industry and the lady is clearly intended to be exactly what she is portrayed as.

I suppose I'm uncomfortable with an argument that says "don't treat women as sexual accessories" at the same time as calling them bimbo's and fluff. The language is degrading and I would think counter productive to the entire argument, which is that all people should be held in equal esteem, without preconceptions as to their status, role or respectability.

This is partly what makes some women say things like "you need toughen up, girls", because the language itself perpetuates a victim mentality that many women and men reject.

And I was wrong to use your quote as an example - I wasn't pointing to you specifically - or anyone for that matter.

In the end, I hired three your girls to do a job for my company - which they did admirably. And I know I don't really need to protect them because they had a ball and totally enjoyed themselves, but in the wash up I take exception to anyone treating any of my employees with that sort of disrespect indicated by the demeaning language used. And no, I don't believe the role we provided for them "asked for it". That is my reference to an assault victim.

I think we all want to live in that post-modern world where these suspicions of underlying motivations and unconscious culpability are seen for what they are - the human condition where no insult is intended and none is taken because we all understand where it comes from and are comfortable with it, not threatened by it.

Feminism will need to come to terms with that post modern world, because more and more people already inhabit it. Wars that are won are mostly not won unambiguously, but what is unambiguous is that feminism has won women the right to equality they did not previously enjoy. Certainly not universally, certainly not accepted by all, but nonetheless, the right to equality is now undeniable. There may be skirmishes left, but it is an art to know when to stop fighting because the war is won. You don't want to empower the reactionaries.

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Raena — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:13:28 -0000

That's a good thing to mention about language.

You'll note I tried to avoid using the words "booth babe" in my post to describe the nurses; it's certainly loaded. I also chose not to use the word 'sexist'; it's a word that's ordinarily used with an accusatory tone and usually implies a deliberate decision, and I don't by any means want to imply that NetRegistry did it deliberately.

It obviously didn't work very well because you, Jonathan and Aaron have all come back firing with comments that you didn't mean it and you meant it to be lighthearted. I get the message. I can see that, really I can. I'm just trying to point out how there are unintended consequences of using certain symbols.

Confession time: I did actually use the words 'booth babes' to tell a colleague that I'd seen them while wandering past (in fact, it was probably something along the lines of "Hey, there are totally booth babes over there!") which I accept is unfair, and with the benefit of taking the time to think about it I'm quite sorry I said so.

On the other hand, 'booth babes' itself is a concise shorthand to describe chicks at a booth who are there to stand out, as it were. We all find ourselves hobbled by preconceptions; for my part, I've been to enough events where there are chicks 'on display' whose only function is to hand you a flyer and pout for the camera. It's usually the right assumption to make. In your case it was not. Don't get me wrong, that's a good thing.

Thinking of that photo, sure, the girl on his lap *might* be a self-made millionaire, in much the same way as the pregnant woman *might* be the Prime Minister. But are these interpretations really the first thing that would come to mind to you? Really *really?* Marketing shorthand, remember.

That's not to mention the fact that the man is the one who's the focus of that photo -- he's facing the camera, he's the one wearing the symbols of success in business (suit, cigar) and she's the one who's 'slipped in to something more comfortable.'

I don't mean to get all Art Interpretation 101 or anything, but given that so much of this conversation revolves around stereotypes and marketing, it's hardly irrelevant to talk about it.

And yeah, I used those words to describe *the trope this image suggests* -- words that match the stereotype behind the image. Describing a concept depicted in a photo, especially one that is likely a staged stock photograph, is very different to me describing a real person. It'd be more accurate if I'd posted a picture of your nurses and said "Wahey, check out these bits of fluff."

And I'm sorry, but describing a *symbol* in a *staged* photo (again, not a real person) is miles away from accusing a real live sexual assault victim of being partially to blame. It's practically nothing like it, in fact.

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Raena — Mon, 18 May 2009 07:12:34 -0000

Stephen, it doesn't matter whether it's done worse elsewhere. (It was even done worse right there at CeBit.) It still doesn't sit right with me.

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Aaron Darc — Mon, 18 May 2009 06:00:06 -0000

Look, I think the twain won't ever meet here, at the end of the day! Lol So we could go on and on and on.... however...

I'm not saying you didn't bother to read it, but I think when people bring their agendas to something, they're not always joining the dots properly. And you know as well as I do that most people will NOT bother clicking the link, so their impression of my article rests with how you choose to present it. You took a few sentences and placed them out of context, yes. You used lines of mine to suggest that I come from the "opposing team" (so to speak) who just sees all feminists as "extremists" - when, as the part of my article I did paste above shows, is far, far from the case. You also suggest that I'm someone who is oblivious to gender issues, and that is far, far from the case (as my article also makes clear - as do my other work, which the article then links to within the article). I do concede that you mentioned that the rest of it "didn't bother you". But shucks! What good is that when you don't even mention what that is (as a counter-action to what you found objectionable) and then you seem to misunderstand what I'm saying in the parts you present. I find that misleading analysis, I have every right to point out parts that may contradict how you're presenting it as.

The irony is that I think most of the women who reacted so angrily to this are themselves guilty of lumping everyone together, because they implicitly (or sometimes, more directly!) suggest that anyone who does not agree with their particular kind of feminist view can not be a feminist or is a sexist, and I totally reject that (as do many feminists on the topic of our stand). To the thousands of people who read my work (I do national radio, and my former website had over 80,000 hits a month - this current one of mine gets around 20,000) the suggestion that I am a suitable target for this debate is just ludicrous. And I think some have now realised that (would have been nice to have thought about things more before some of those people were so happy to fire off for media), so now it's a backtracking "but it wasn't intentional, we admit that". But intention has everything to do with it, it's the fundamental premise of communication.

What you're really talking about when you speak of "intention" is really subjective perception (totally different thing), and what I'm saying in my article is simply that yours is the minority (it's not that we don't give a shit about you, it's that many more people responded positively to the campaign than negatively). That's a fact. The campaign was a success. Don't get me wrong, I sympathise with you - I'm a minority, too - but it's still a fact. And that's not because they're all male chauvinists who enjoyed it, it's because even most of the women aren't so extreme in their reaction to what is and isn't "sexism". people actually took from it exactly what we "intended". This campaign is not objectively sexist - it's sexist to a small group of people, based very much on what governs their perception. And as long as some of those points are based on such extremities, the majority of people (including women!!) will react completely opposite to how you want them to, and that may even negatively impact your cause in future (if it's truly to make changes, and not just revel in its own collectivism). You must make your arguments carefully, or you will try to persuade people with an argument they can't relate to.

Most people think that you reading into the pregnant woman's head not being in that shot is just ridiculous projection on your part. I'm one of them. That is just a standard commercial pregnancy shot from medical advertising. It's not saying "This is all you're worth", it's saying "This is about pregnancy which is about - gasp - having a baby inside your stomach"!!! I mean, really. How many expecting mothers - who that kind of material is aimed at - do you think storm out of their doctor's office, outraged, because there's a shot of a pregnant woman on her leaflet that reduces her identity by not showing her face?!?!? Not many. 99.99999999999% of women would never find that remotely offensive. I think many women would find it comforting that it's portrayed at all (as so many critics have pointed out, usually women are not even bothered relevant enough to include beyond being a sex object - we did). You clearly see motherhood as being a symbol of the patriarchal view that a woman's role is to pop out babies. But don't let that muddy your perception of pregnancy or motherhood to such a point where you project upon an image like that. Motherhood should be a choice, but it's a beautiful thing that can very much exist outside of your rejection of sexist views on women's roles. Many women would be offended by your perception of that image - ironically, more than men would be. But I think you were looking for the reaction, by then. You said you had no problem when you saw the stand (before you got pumped up by the feminist reactions you read) - but that image was a huge poster (hung twice) at that stand, and you didn't seem to find it so confronting or objectionable.

And look, I know that the male dominance in the IT world must make it extremely uncomfortable for the women involved in it, at times. I know there would be legitimate cases (those REAL "booth babes" at the show made me ill). How do you think I feel? I remember my first day at NR - I walked in and thought "Oh, that's right - digital companies are full of men!" I was nervous, I was worried, I actually tried to tone myself down!! And in the end, I realised I was wrong. I was just bringing my fears - the resonance of my own unfortunate experiences of collective male mentality - and projecting them all over them. If someone had a bad morning and seemed grumpy, I would worry they had a problem with me. And I eventually realised I was wrong. And that's a good thing. Don't get so hung up on your hang ups, that you can't also see cases where things are not examples of what you hate or fear in life. I wish many of the critics of this campaign could learn the same lesson.

Throughout all this, everyone from NR (and we're all different, as Larry has pointed out - how refreshing that a CEO puts that forward!) has continuously made the effort to engage this debate - even on blogs like this one (where we're now well and truly away from the commercial world of media, etc, which other companies would see as having no relevancy to a national demo who are in the hundreds of thousands). I think that shows they very much do care about this issue, or they'd be happy to let it go and enjoy the benefits of the publicity. Donna probably wouldn't find that in many other IT companies, whether they advertised with nurses or not.

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Raena — Mon, 18 May 2009 03:10:05 -0000

Aaron, I read all of your post, and I'm sorry you think I didn't read it properly or couldn't be "bothered", but I don't feel the need to paste a five hundred word excerpt from your post when people are perfectly able to click the link and read it for themselves. In fact, you'll note I said your post was reasonably fine, except for the part I quoted.

Your comment (and the other NR folks in here come to think) reads as if you think I'm saying that you did this deliberately. I'm not saying that at all; not once did I say anything like that. In fact I even say a couple of times that I think it's unintentional. It sounds as though you feel quite put out by the fact that some people have chosen to characterise it as a deliberate act on your part. I don't think that's the case at all. I'm sorry if you think I meant that.

My problem with what you wrote there was twofold. The first problem is that you're tarring everyone who doesn't like that you did with the same brush by saying "our detractors" and "extremism" in, more or less, the same breath. If that's not what you meant, then fine, but I'm sure you can see how it reads that way. And yeah there were a few people who were getting quite worked up and being extremely shrill, but equally there were others (even in the cesspit that is Twitter) who were being quite moderate. It's not accurate to say that *everyone* who had something to say about it was being a dick.

I noticed you mentioned that you're reasonably new to that end of the market so maybe the idea hasn't come up for you before, but the way women are portrayed isn't always positive (even when it's not intended), and it's a very real and legitimate problem for women in the industry. It's not extremism, not at all.

The second problem is the assumption that we 'extremists' have nothing to do with your market. I mean, look at Donna, above, who *is* a customer and *does* agree with me. And I'm sure you know from reading above that I'm certainly not a paying customer, but I'm absolutely in your demographic -- to dismiss the concerns of people like us as 'haha, not my problem' is shortsighted and frankly pretty naive.

Again, if we're not the kind of people you meant, then fine. But it didn't read this way at all.

Thanks for stopping by.

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Raena — Mon, 18 May 2009 00:41:24 -0000

Oh, I'm sure of it. Context changes a lot about what a particular message means or implies, too. Like I said, those posters or the nurses out of context are OK, but together... not really.

IT generally has a major image problem and I'm glad you want to address that.

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Jonathan Crossfield — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:56:35 -0000

It is actually that question of ' unavoidable' I want to explore. I am sure the answer is more grey than that and there will always be a spread of views just as there will always be a spread of perceptions from both genders and both sides of the debate (cause they are not necessarily the same thing).

Our intention was to present a fun, engaging, cheeky (yes, of course), light-hearted and irreverent face for our brand as we are actively fighting against the cold, generic marketing and images IT has largely become lumbered with. IT doesn't have to be all suits and ties, all zeroes and ones, all jargon and complexity. IT is a tool to achieve non IT goals, nothing more, and we are striving to put the human face and the emotion and the fun back into it.

Gosh, I love marketing almost as much as I love media deconstruction and cultural psychology! ;-)

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Larry Bloch — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:29:40 -0000

Raena, I think its clear that you need to take out I strongly disagree with the general sentiment. Period. I never said that from a customer it's cool, just that I'm more sensitive to the opinions of customers.

My customer service ethic is a little akin to how we treat family. If you're a customer of Netregistry, that in and of itself differentiates you from the rest of humanity to me and changes the degree to which I will insist on my perspective. If a family member supports a view, you treat that with more consideration than someone on the street having a disagreement with you. You may be a little more willing to accept that you have caused offense. It's just that, nothing more, nothing less.

if you're a Netregistry customer, my ears, eyes and heart are always open to you. Raena, if you want an apology from me, I urge you to become a Netregistry customer and I'll be happy (er) to oblige ;) . In fact, I'd be happy to host your excellent blog free for a year if you do switch.

Look, I'm being light-hearted. I recognise that some have taken offense to our marketing and that's unfortunate and unintended - I don't want to disparage or deny the very real issues of sexism that underlie those opinions. But really, I think there are far more extreme and interesting things to rail against. I'm frankly quite amazed that we've got this much oxygen on the issue.

But on the whole, my view is that the so called Naughty Nurses and the Netregistry CeBIT stand were pretty tame, clearly not designed to put anyone down, were very effective and widely supported by male and female attendees. And the publicity has been fantastic for Netregistry and has resulted in a deluge of new business from people who connected it - male and female. Just read the blog comments on sites like http://www.news.com.au/technology/story/0,28348...

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Raena — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:26:45 -0000

Thanks Jonathan. I'm looking forward to reading what you come up with. :)

I certainly don't think you *meant* to stereotype, but it happened nonetheless. Explaining it away as an unfortunate side-effect also makes it sound like you think it might have been unavoidable, though, which is probably what I should have written instead of "doesn't have a problem".

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Raena — Sun, 17 May 2009 23:02:53 -0000

Larry, it's frankly disappointing to me that you'll strongly disagree with this sentiment if it's a non-customer says it, but it's cool if it's someone who's putting cash in your pocket.

Why does it have to be any more or less valid coming from a paying customer? How about your potential customers? Why would that even matter, anyway?

Re: Hey Raena - There's more to NetRegistry's naughty nurses

Raena — Sun, 17 May 2009 21:51:50 -0000

Yes, hello.

Re: Hey Raena - The Wonderful World of Unicode

Raena — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:58:16 -0000

Hee :D

Re: RAE STREET - I’m not sure if it’s because I lack a sense of...

hoorae — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:09:49 -0000

GOOD POINT. Future career in spice harvesting, do you think?

Re: RAE STREET - I’m not sure if it’s because I lack a sense of...

Raena — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 20:56:16 -0000

If you walk without rhythm, you won't attract the worm.