Dismal stuff
Tuesday, September 16th, 2003 02:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caddymanNow this is a bit rum and potentially worrying - or would be if it wasn't crap. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
serratia posted this up on her journal and so, being the sheep I am, I couldn't resist.
Apparently my writing style is only 54% male; maybe I should use words like 'phwoar', 'knockers' and 'chuff' more often.
It appears thatserratia's style is more masculine than mine and also her hubby's.
God knows who writes these algorithms.
Anyway, in the spirit of investigation, I typed in one of my female friend's user name into the thing and she came out 67% male, which proves that the whole thing is tosh. Because I am a gentleman (and I've just looked inside my shirt to check), I refuse to name names.
update
It seems that the mere act of writing 'phwoar', 'knockers' and 'chuff' has added a couple of percentage points to my masculinity. Expect to see more such references, and fewer to pink pinafores as I assert my blokedom.
serratia posted this up on her journal and so, being the sheep I am, I couldn't resist.Apparently my writing style is only 54% male; maybe I should use words like 'phwoar', 'knockers' and 'chuff' more often.
It appears that
serratia's style is more masculine than mine and also her hubby's. God knows who writes these algorithms.
Anyway, in the spirit of investigation, I typed in one of my female friend's user name into the thing and she came out 67% male, which proves that the whole thing is tosh. Because I am a gentleman (and I've just looked inside my shirt to check), I refuse to name names.
update
It seems that the mere act of writing 'phwoar', 'knockers' and 'chuff' has added a couple of percentage points to my masculinity. Expect to see more such references, and fewer to pink pinafores as I assert my blokedom.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-16 06:16 am (UTC)That's all bollocks innit.
;)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-16 06:19 am (UTC)But yes, it is bollocks.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-16 06:25 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-16 06:37 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-16 06:58 am (UTC)Anyway, it probably won't work. It means something quite different to our American chums so wouldn't have the required effect. And I'm dashed if I'm writing any really naughty words.
ermm...
Date: 2003-09-16 09:37 am (UTC)Re: ermm...
Date: 2003-09-16 09:50 am (UTC)Re: ermm...
Date: 2003-09-16 04:22 pm (UTC)Re: ermm...
Date: 2003-09-16 04:25 pm (UTC)No, honestly. ;-)
Re: ermm...
Date: 2003-09-16 04:38 pm (UTC)