Just to balance out my last post somewhat...

Just emptied my rubbish and discovered at least 8 magazines bought by my
lovely wife over the past week.

Its about time we highlighted the effect of women reading, predominantly
about other women, in magazines that adds a lot of carbon into our
atmosphere - the collecting of stories about Britney, Victoria Beckham and
losing weight articles, the utter waste of paper and ink that gets involved
in producing such tat that makes even the Sun look good and then the fact
that, should women want something crappy to read once in a while, they could
get a novel out of the library or just read something on the internet and
not only save carbon, but money too.

The way I see it, women are choosing to chop down trees to read about the
latest celebrity gossip, which is not a very good use of the planet's
resources now is it?

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:zzOxk.132375$Ff2.116234@newsfe13.ams2...
> Just to balance out my last post somewhat...
>
> Just emptied my rubbish and discovered at least 8 magazines bought by my
> lovely wife over the past week.
>
> Its about time we highlighted the effect of women reading, predominantly
> about other women, in magazines that adds a lot of carbon into our
> atmosphere - the collecting of stories about Britney, Victoria Beckham and
> losing weight articles, the utter waste of paper and ink that gets 
> involved
> in producing such tat that makes even the Sun look good and then the fact
> that, should women want something crappy to read once in a while, they 
> could
> get a novel out of the library or just read something on the internet and
> not only save carbon, but money too.
>
> The way I see it, women are choosing to chop down trees to read about the
> latest celebrity gossip, which is not a very good use of the planet's
> resources now is it?

Lol.... not guilty.  Don't buy the glossys.  Only ever read 'em if there in 
the doctors waiting room.  Waste of good paper. lol.  I never get newspapers 
either, read the news on the 'net or tv.

To be honest I'm fed up reading about Katie Price's boobs whenever I pick 
one up or even worse Ami Winehouse drunk or drugged up again..... like I 
said, waste of good paper.

JB
x
>
>

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:zzOxk.132375$Ff2.116234@newsfe13.ams2...
> Just to balance out my last post somewhat...
>
> Just emptied my rubbish and discovered at least 8 magazines bought by my
> lovely wife over the past week.
>
> Its about time we highlighted the effect of women reading, predominantly
> about other women, in magazines that adds a lot of carbon into our
> atmosphere - the collecting of stories about Britney, Victoria Beckham and
> losing weight articles, the utter waste of paper and ink that gets 
> involved
> in producing such tat that makes even the Sun look good and then the fact
> that, should women want something crappy to read once in a while, they 
> could
> get a novel out of the library or just read something on the internet and
> not only save carbon, but money too.
>
> The way I see it, women are choosing to chop down trees to read about the
> latest celebrity gossip, which is not a very good use of the planet's
> resources now is it?

Absolutely not! Why can't they reach up to the top shelves and read porn 
magazines and do the planet some good?

> > The way I see it, women are choosing to chop down trees to read about
the
> > latest celebrity gossip, which is not a very good use of the planet's
> > resources now is it?
>
> Absolutely not! Why can't they reach up to the top shelves and read porn
> magazines and do the planet some good?

If you're trying to say that men waste paper too for "questionable reasons",
have you ever seen anyone ever buy a top shelf magazine? And more to the
point, how many shelves are there for men's magazines in comparison to
women's? Much less than half. Statistics show that men "read" on the
internet more than women.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:AE4yk.4073$hr.326@newsfe27.ams2...
>> > The way I see it, women are choosing to chop down trees to read about
> the
>> > latest celebrity gossip, which is not a very good use of the planet's
>> > resources now is it?
>>
>> Absolutely not! Why can't they reach up to the top shelves and read porn
>> magazines and do the planet some good?
>
> If you're trying to say that men waste paper too for "questionable 
> reasons",
> have you ever seen anyone ever buy a top shelf magazine?

Well, the publishers don't print them and the shops don't have them take up 
space for fun, so some people must buy them.

>And more to the
> point, how many shelves are there for men's magazines in comparison to
> women's? Much less than half.

Really? Have you forgotten motor, keep fit, hunting, body-building, model 
engineer, "male"  etc magazines? And when I worked I knew a few men (bit 
questionable but they purported to be men) who read OK and Hello magazines.

 Statistics show that men "read" on the
> internet more than women.

Cobblers! You just made that up!
Men don't "read" on the internet, they watch porn. Go into any Waterstones 
and women out number men about 2 to 1.

I've just looked up books sold in the UK in 2006 v 2007. The Publishers 
Association state that books sold by volume in 2007 were 5.5% higher than in 
2006. The whole idea that the internet is for "reading" is crap. It's useful 
for finding out information but as for reading "online" a magazine or book 
it's rubbish. I subscribe to a couple of magazines from the States for 
trading. They email them to get to me quickly but it's impossible to read 
them comfortably on my pc. So I print them off and read them at leisure 
where and when I want to. I defy you to name one book you have read on the 
internet. It's difficult enough to plough through the long ulk thread up and 
running at the moment.

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:AcOdnaCUyv9NUFXVnZ2dnUVZ8j-dnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:zzOxk.132375$Ff2.116234@newsfe13.ams2...
>> Just to balance out my last post somewhat...
>>
>> Just emptied my rubbish and discovered at least 8 magazines bought by my
>> lovely wife over the past week.
>>
>> Its about time we highlighted the effect of women reading, predominantly
>> about other women, in magazines that adds a lot of carbon into our
>> atmosphere - the collecting of stories about Britney, Victoria Beckham 
>> and
>> losing weight articles, the utter waste of paper and ink that gets 
>> involved
>> in producing such tat that makes even the Sun look good and then the fact
>> that, should women want something crappy to read once in a while, they 
>> could
>> get a novel out of the library or just read something on the internet and
>> not only save carbon, but money too.
>>
>> The way I see it, women are choosing to chop down trees to read about the
>> latest celebrity gossip, which is not a very good use of the planet's
>> resources now is it?
>
> Absolutely not! Why can't they reach up to the top shelves and read porn 
> magazines and do the planet some good?

Do you "read" porn? :-)

JB
x
>

"Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
news:AcOdnaCUyv9NUFXVnZ2dnUVZ8j-dnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:zzOxk.132375$Ff2.116234@newsfe13.ams2...
>> Just to balance out my last post somewhat...
>>
>> Just emptied my rubbish and discovered at least 8 magazines bought by my
>> lovely wife over the past week.
>>
>> Its about time we highlighted the effect of women reading, predominantly
>> about other women, in magazines that adds a lot of carbon into our
>> atmosphere - the collecting of stories about Britney, Victoria Beckham 
>> and
>> losing weight articles, the utter waste of paper and ink that gets 
>> involved
>> in producing such tat that makes even the Sun look good and then the fact
>> that, should women want something crappy to read once in a while, they 
>> could
>> get a novel out of the library or just read something on the internet and
>> not only save carbon, but money too.
>>
>> The way I see it, women are choosing to chop down trees to read about the
>> latest celebrity gossip, which is not a very good use of the planet's
>> resources now is it?
>
> Absolutely not! Why can't they reach up to the top shelves and read porn 
> magazines and do the planet some good?

Oh and with my height (even in heels) I cant reach anywhere near the top 
shelf! :-)

JB
x
>

"JB"  wrote in message 
news:j8KdnVOx5PInyVTVnZ2dnUVZ8qPinZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Toooldtocare"  wrote in message 
> news:AcOdnaCUyv9NUFXVnZ2dnUVZ8j-dnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:zzOxk.132375$Ff2.116234@newsfe13.ams2...
>>> Just to balance out my last post somewhat...
>>>
>>> Just emptied my rubbish and discovered at least 8 magazines bought by my
>>> lovely wife over the past week.
>>>
>>> Its about time we highlighted the effect of women reading, predominantly
>>> about other women, in magazines that adds a lot of carbon into our
>>> atmosphere - the collecting of stories about Britney, Victoria Beckham 
>>> and
>>> losing weight articles, the utter waste of paper and ink that gets 
>>> involved
>>> in producing such tat that makes even the Sun look good and then the 
>>> fact
>>> that, should women want something crappy to read once in a while, they 
>>> could
>>> get a novel out of the library or just read something on the internet 
>>> and
>>> not only save carbon, but money too.
>>>
>>> The way I see it, women are choosing to chop down trees to read about 
>>> the
>>> latest celebrity gossip, which is not a very good use of the planet's
>>> resources now is it?
>>
>> Absolutely not! Why can't they reach up to the top shelves and read porn 
>> magazines and do the planet some good?
>
> Oh and with my height (even in heels) I cant reach anywhere near the top 
> shelf! :-)

Hmm, would be nice though watching you try! :-)

> >And more to the
> > point, how many shelves are there for men's magazines in comparison to
> > women's? Much less than half.
>
> Really? Have you forgotten motor, keep fit, hunting, body-building, model
> engineer, "male"  etc magazines? And when I worked I knew a few men (bit
> questionable but they purported to be men) who read OK and Hello
magazines.

I did say "in comparison". Women's magazines outnumber men's by far!

>  Statistics show that men "read" on the
> > internet more than women.
>
> Cobblers! You just made that up!

Sorry, but it is true. Women read more fiction. Men read more non-fiction.
Where's the greatest source of non-fiction on the planet? On the internet.
Men read all the time on the internet - news, sport, computer related and
general techie stuff, etc...
Women apparently use social networking sites more.

> Men don't "read" on the internet, they watch porn.

That too!

> Go into any Waterstones
> and women out number men about 2 to 1.

Probably because their men are out working! Anyway, you know women like to
shop more than men! But seriously, as above, women read more fiction and
probably more in general, but my point was that men read on the internet
more than women, which apparently is true.

> I've just looked up books sold in the UK in 2006 v 2007. The Publishers
> Association state that books sold by volume in 2007 were 5.5% higher than
in
> 2006.

Interesting, I was googling the subject earlier and I came across an article
that suggested that people are generally reading less. At least in terms of
fiction. Less newspaper column space is now being given to book reviews
because apparently reading books is no longer as hot as it once used to be.
Sadly.

> The whole idea that the internet is for "reading" is crap. It's useful
> for finding out information but as for reading "online" a magazine or book
> it's rubbish. I subscribe to a couple of magazines from the States for
> trading. They email them to get to me quickly but it's impossible to read
> them comfortably on my pc. So I print them off and read them at leisure
> where and when I want to.

Perhaps that more to do with your age.

> I defy you to name one book you have read on the
> internet.

Believe me or not - I'm not joking - I read Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from
Underground whilst at university on Project Gutenberg because I couldn't get
hold of a copy of it in time for my seminar! I read the whole thing. Its not
too bad (if you are used to staring at a monitor all day!). But I get your
point. The internet is for reading - but short things likes news and other
articles, reviews, commentary, wikipedia length pages, etc, not books.  But
women's magazines typically contain short tat (with lots of pictures) too
and I'd like to see more of that available on the net to prevent all this
crap being printed out on paper all the time.

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:nVjyk.95$Fa6.79@newsfe25.ams2...
>> >And more to the
>> > point, how many shelves are there for men's magazines in comparison to
>> > women's? Much less than half.
>>
>> Really? Have you forgotten motor, keep fit, hunting, body-building, model
>> engineer, "male"  etc magazines? And when I worked I knew a few men (bit
>> questionable but they purported to be men) who read OK and Hello
> magazines.
>
> I did say "in comparison". Women's magazines outnumber men's by far!
>
>>  Statistics show that men "read" on the
>> > internet more than women.
>>
>> Cobblers! You just made that up!
>
> Sorry, but it is true. Women read more fiction. Men read more non-fiction.

What a hell of a sweeping generalisation! They might do in your circles but
not in mine. In fact when there were many women on here a few years back
they would have duffed you up for that one. JB won't, even though she is an
avid reader, she is too polite. But if you remember Rai, I can imagine her
response. First word would have begun with "F"!
Ffs, we have had men on here boasting "I don't read books!"

> Where's the greatest source of non-fiction on the planet? On the internet.

The British Library. The internet is the greatest source of trivia.

> Men read all the time on the internet - news, sport, computer related and
> general techie stuff, etc...

I don't! If I want news I watch BBC 24, Channel 4 News and Newsnight. If I
want Windows help I go to Microsoft. I don't sit here everyday reading about
techie stuff etc. I sit here to try and make some money. A computer is a
tool, not some "gaming station", at least not for anyone with an IQ >than
their age. Anyone who sits on a pc "surfing the net" is brain dead and
doesn't know why he should or how to improve his knowledge beyond the
superficial!

> Women apparently use social networking sites more.
>
>> Men don't "read" on the internet, they watch porn.
>
> That too!
>
>> Go into any Waterstones
>> and women out number men about 2 to 1.
>
> Probably because their men are out working!

A bit cheeky seeing as you only post during the day. I don't get the
impression you are retired.

>Anyway, you know women like to
> shop more than men! But seriously, as above, women read more fiction and
> probably more in general, but my point was that men read on the internet
> more than women, which apparently is true.

"Apparently" and "probably" ? No facts, just opinions!

>
>> I've just looked up books sold in the UK in 2006 v 2007. The Publishers
>> Association state that books sold by volume in 2007 were 5.5% higher than
> in
>> 2006.
>
> Interesting, I was googling the subject earlier and I came across an
> article
> that suggested that people are generally reading less. At least in terms
> of
> fiction. Less newspaper column space is now being given to book reviews
> because apparently reading books is no longer as hot as it once used to
> be.
> Sadly.

It is sad and demonstrates the risk in googling. The Sunday Times Cultural
Review just gets bigger every year.

>> The whole idea that the internet is for "reading" is crap. It's useful
>> for finding out information but as for reading "online" a magazine or
>> book
>> it's rubbish. I subscribe to a couple of magazines from the States for
>> trading. They email them to get to me quickly but it's impossible to read
>> them comfortably on my pc. So I print them off and read them at leisure
>> where and when I want to.
>
> Perhaps that more to do with your age.

It's nothing to do with age, more commonsense and convenience, as anyone who
has tried to read a 100 pages of Adobe would agree.

>
>> I defy you to name one book you have read on the
>> internet.
>
> Believe me or not - I'm not joking - I read Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes from
> Underground whilst at university on Project Gutenberg because I couldn't
> get
> hold of a copy of it in time for my seminar! I read the whole thing. Its
> not
> too bad (if you are used to staring at a monitor all day!). But I get your
> point. The internet is for reading - but short things likes news and other
> articles, reviews, commentary, wikipedia length pages, etc, not books.
> But
> women's magazines typically contain short tat (with lots of pictures) too
> and I'd like to see more of that available on the net to prevent all this
> crap being printed out on paper all the time.

Notes from Underground is only a 100 pages or so. Try Crime and Punishment,
Anna Karenia, and War and Peace. No chance! Don't suppose you have read them
though, as you are a man and they are fiction!

> > Sorry, but it is true. Women read more fiction. Men read more
non-fiction.
>
> What a hell of a sweeping generalisation! They might do in your circles
but
> not in mine. In fact when there were many women on here a few years back
> they would have duffed you up for that one. JB won't, even though she is
an
> avid reader, she is too polite. But if you remember Rai, I can imagine her
> response. First word would have begun with "F"!
> Ffs, we have had men on here boasting "I don't read books!"

All I ever stated was three points - 1) Men read more on the internet. 2)
Women read more fiction. 3) Men read more non-fiction.

I can definitely say that women read more "in general" than men. Don't
believe me, google the stats...

> > Where's the greatest source of non-fiction on the planet? On the
internet.
>
> The British Library.

Which is partly online, don't forget.
Cumulatively, the internet has far more non-fiction than any other single
institution outside of it, by its very nature.

> The internet is the greatest source of trivia.

That too.

> > Men read all the time on the internet - news, sport, computer related
and
> > general techie stuff, etc...
>
> I don't! If I want news I watch BBC 24, Channel 4 News and Newsnight. If I
> want Windows help I go to Microsoft. I don't sit here everyday reading
about
> techie stuff etc. I sit here to try and make some money. A computer is a
> tool, not some "gaming station", at least not for anyone with an IQ >than
> their age. Anyone who sits on a pc "surfing the net" is brain dead and
> doesn't know why he should or how to improve his knowledge beyond the
> superficial!

Hmm, I think you probably know that some of that is quite wrong.

> >> Go into any Waterstones
> >> and women out number men about 2 to 1.
> >
> > Probably because their men are out working!
>
> A bit cheeky seeing as you only post during the day. I don't get the
> impression you are retired.

Nope. Does 3am count as the day too?

> >Anyway, you know women like to
> > shop more than men! But seriously, as above, women read more fiction and
> > probably more in general, but my point was that men read on the internet
> > more than women, which apparently is true.
>
> "Apparently" and "probably" ? No facts, just opinions!

No - facts. Google them!

> >> The whole idea that the internet is for "reading" is crap. It's useful
> >> for finding out information but as for reading "online" a magazine or
> >> book
> >> it's rubbish. I subscribe to a couple of magazines from the States for
> >> trading. They email them to get to me quickly but it's impossible to
read
> >> them comfortably on my pc. So I print them off and read them at leisure
> >> where and when I want to.
> >
> > Perhaps that more to do with your age.
>
> It's nothing to do with age, more commonsense and convenience, as anyone
who
> has tried to read a 100 pages of Adobe would agree.

You'd never get a job in IT!

> >> I defy you to name one book you have read on the
> >> internet.
> >
> > Believe me or not - I'm not joking - I read Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes
from
> > Underground whilst at university on Project Gutenberg because I couldn't
> > get
> > hold of a copy of it in time for my seminar! I read the whole thing. Its
> > not
> > too bad (if you are used to staring at a monitor all day!). But I get
your
> > point. The internet is for reading - but short things likes news and
other
> > articles, reviews, commentary, wikipedia length pages, etc, not books.
> > But
> > women's magazines typically contain short tat (with lots of pictures)
too
> > and I'd like to see more of that available on the net to prevent all
this
> > crap being printed out on paper all the time.
>
> Notes from Underground is only a 100 pages or so. Try Crime and
Punishment,
> Anna Karenia, and War and Peace. No chance! Don't suppose you have read
them
> though, as you are a man and they are fiction!

I'll have you know that even though, yes, I am a man, I have read Crime and
Punishment and Anna Karenina. War and Peace I use as a door stop, but I may
read it one day if I've got nothing better to be doing, but I doubt that!
Which probably sums up quite nicely why men don't read as much fiction as
women!

<nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message 
news:cmFyk.22476$W17.14332@newsfe28.ams2...
>> > Sorry, but it is true. Women read more fiction. Men read more
> non-fiction.
>>
>> What a hell of a sweeping generalisation! They might do in your circles
> but
>> not in mine. In fact when there were many women on here a few years back
>> they would have duffed you up for that one. JB won't, even though she is
> an
>> avid reader, she is too polite. But if you remember Rai, I can imagine 
>> her
>> response. First word would have begun with "F"!
>> Ffs, we have had men on here boasting "I don't read books!"
>
> All I ever stated was three points - 1) Men read more on the internet. 2)
> Women read more fiction. 3) Men read more non-fiction.
>
> I can definitely say that women read more "in general" than men. Don't
> believe me, google the stats...

Google the stats? Lol! I don't believe stats. I don't believe inflation is 
4.4%, I don't believe house prices are down 10% according to the Halifax or 
up 0.3% according to the FT. I don't believe women read more fiction than 
men! I do believe in my experience men are more stupid than women and I 
believe exam results for kids "prove " that.

>
>> > Where's the greatest source of non-fiction on the planet? On the
> internet.
>>
>> The British Library.
>
> Which is partly online, don't forget.
> Cumulatively, the internet has far more non-fiction than any other single
> institution outside of it, by its very nature.
>
>> The internet is the greatest source of trivia.
>
> That too.
>
>> > Men read all the time on the internet - news, sport, computer related
> and
>> > general techie stuff, etc...
>>
>> I don't! If I want news I watch BBC 24, Channel 4 News and Newsnight. If 
>> I
>> want Windows help I go to Microsoft. I don't sit here everyday reading
> about
>> techie stuff etc. I sit here to try and make some money. A computer is a
>> tool, not some "gaming station", at least not for anyone with an IQ >than
>> their age. Anyone who sits on a pc "surfing the net" is brain dead and
>> doesn't know why he should or how to improve his knowledge beyond the
>> superficial!
>
> Hmm, I think you probably know that some of that is quite wrong.

Not at all. "surfing the net" is a trivial exercise. To acquire knowledge 
you have to study, it takes years. You can see it on here, experts in the 
superficial everywhere. Post a new subject and up they pop, everyone is an 
expert via Wikipedia. Having said that there are genuine experts here, 
Hatter on IT, also originality and angst that I admire, JackH on the 
internal combustion engine and IT, Brian Reay on maths and teaching, Harry 
on local government, English grammar and general knowledge, "Brooksie" on 
humour and politics, Not Today on Elliott Wave theory, Vince on miscarriages 
of justice, and others I apologise for not mentioning. You do not become an 
expert except of trivia by "surfing the net".


>
>> >> Go into any Waterstones
>> >> and women out number men about 2 to 1.
>> >
>> > Probably because their men are out working!
>>
>> A bit cheeky seeing as you only post during the day. I don't get the
>> impression you are retired.
>
> Nope. Does 3am count as the day too?

You are either an insomniac, on the night shift and skiving, or incapable of 
realising that posting a reply to me does not compare with reading War and 
Peace.

>
>> >Anyway, you know women like to
>> > shop more than men! But seriously, as above, women read more fiction 
>> > and
>> > probably more in general, but my point was that men read on the 
>> > internet
>> > more than women, which apparently is true.
>>
>> "Apparently" and "probably" ? No facts, just opinions!
>
> No - facts. Google them!
>
>> >> The whole idea that the internet is for "reading" is crap. It's useful
>> >> for finding out information but as for reading "online" a magazine or
>> >> book
>> >> it's rubbish. I subscribe to a couple of magazines from the States for
>> >> trading. They email them to get to me quickly but it's impossible to
> read
>> >> them comfortably on my pc. So I print them off and read them at 
>> >> leisure
>> >> where and when I want to.
>> >
>> > Perhaps that more to do with your age.
>>
>> It's nothing to do with age, more commonsense and convenience, as anyone
> who
>> has tried to read a 100 pages of Adobe would agree.
>
> You'd never get a job in IT!
>
>> >> I defy you to name one book you have read on the
>> >> internet.
>> >
>> > Believe me or not - I'm not joking - I read Fyodor Dostoevsky's Notes
> from
>> > Underground whilst at university on Project Gutenberg because I 
>> > couldn't
>> > get
>> > hold of a copy of it in time for my seminar! I read the whole thing. 
>> > Its
>> > not
>> > too bad (if you are used to staring at a monitor all day!). But I get
> your
>> > point. The internet is for reading - but short things likes news and
> other
>> > articles, reviews, commentary, wikipedia length pages, etc, not books.
>> > But
>> > women's magazines typically contain short tat (with lots of pictures)
> too
>> > and I'd like to see more of that available on the net to prevent all
> this
>> > crap being printed out on paper all the time.
>>
>> Notes from Underground is only a 100 pages or so. Try Crime and
> Punishment,
>> Anna Karenia, and War and Peace. No chance! Don't suppose you have read
> them
>> though, as you are a man and they are fiction!
>
> I'll have you know that even though, yes, I am a man, I have read Crime 
> and
> Punishment and Anna Karenina. War and Peace I use as a door stop, but I 
> may
> read it one day if I've got nothing better to be doing, but I doubt that!
> Which probably sums up quite nicely why men don't read as much fiction as
> women!

It certainly does sum it up quite nicely. To say you will read War and Peace 
if you have got nothing better to do sums it up very nicely indeed! lol