waitingman | Gratuitousness... no... Gratuitosity... no... Ummm...

Just came home tonight & fired up the 'web, as one does, to see who we declared war on in the time it takes to shut down, turn off at work & commute to the 'Manor.

My home page is the Sydney Morning Herald website & their lead story this hour or so carried this image:

The accompanying story was about a record-breaking gathering of bikini-clad girls on Bondi Beach, forming the name of a popular women's magazine. But as you can see, the name of the magazine is incomplete in their photo...

Smelling a bit of media rivalry/jealousy (the SMH is owned by Fairfax Media)), I went to news.com.au & sure enough, their lead story was accompanied by this photo... & a gallery of close-up shots (this is a Murdoch site, after all):

As you can see, the magazine's accepted abbreviation is shown in full.

So my questions are: Why run the story if you're not going to provide all the facts? Given that the whole story was to do with an ad for a rival media empire, why not just ignore it? Is the SMH site just pandering to statistics that show more men use the 'net than women ~ so may as well give 'em something to look at before they (f)log on to the Ralph/FHM sites?

And a further question: Am I really interested in such a debate, or is it just an excuse to post pictures of girls in bikinis?

In other news, I survived a day at work surrounded by lots of tradesmen & renovators, without getting a single scratch!!

I'll drink to that!!!

Oh... & I'll drink to this news too!!!!!!!!

Cheersh...