Based on the number of emails we receive from irate readers (many of them written in green crayon - not an easy thing to do in Outlook Express), it would appear many people consider The Reg to be variously opinionated, biased, racist, too tough, too weak, political, apolitical, too technical, not technical enough, pro AMD, anti AMD, pro Intel, anti Intel, pro Rambus and anti Rambus.
Here then is the definitive reader's guide to Register editorial policy.
The Reg is racist
We have variously been accused of being anti Canadian, Jewish, Israeli, American, German, French, Taiwanese, South African, Welsh and Russian - not usually all at the same time. Surely such a track record clearly shows we don't really have any favourites, bashing people of all nationalities with exuberant equanimity whenever they do something stupid.
A quick count of venomous emails produces the Reg xenophobe list of the top five hard-done-by races. Here they are in descending order of outragedness:
Canada wins hands-down in the bulk email stakes, mainly caused by a single ill-advised reference to baby seal clubbing (whoops, there we go again).
Any nationalities incensed by their omission from the above list should not worry - your turn will come.
The Reg is pro/anti company X
For any publication to be accused of bias towards a company is by no means unusual. But at The Reg we appear to have made it into something of an artform. Not only are we pro Intel, AMD and Rambus, we are also anti AMD, Rambus and Intel - frequently in the same story.
Of course, the fact that we receive hundreds of 'pro Intel/anti AMD' emails could well be seen as more of a reflection on the number of AMD groupies out there just waiting to be incensed, than proof of genuine bias.
Cruelty to Intel now seems to be socially-acceptable, while taking a poke at AMD is right up there with fox hunting and baby seal clubbing.
And anyone genuinely thinking The Reg is in Intel's pocket should check out some of the internal snottograms circulating within Chipzilla's worldwide PR operation concerning Messrs Magee and Thomas.
But with some companies we will admit to bias - for example, we hate BT, but then so does everyone else, so that's OK. Rambus Inc is currently running a close second (actually it's the investors we can't stand), but while we still get emails complaining of our critical take on that company's litigious nature, we can't remember the last time anyone wrote in support of BT.
The Reg is opinionated and biased
Guilty as charged. If you want to express your opinion, start your own bloody publication. ®