Readers' Letters Doubleclick is agent of Satan

Or not, as the case may be

WinXP IE6 spells death for Doubleclick - and a boost for MSN?
IE6 will not monster our cookies, says Doubleclick
Doubleclick fails in California privacy challenge

It seems that the international cookie conspiracy brigade didn't much like John Lettice and Drew Cullen's recent Doubleclick articles. 'Kb' puts it thus:

I appreciate biz is biz and I understand why sites use cookies, however, as a 12 year veteran of the Internet, your defense of Doubleclick is astonishing and gratuitous.

As a, soon to be, permanently departed reader of The Register, I suggest you change your motto to "kissing the ass that feed it."

Even a cursory glance at John's original piece would demonstrate what his opinion of Doubleclick is. For the record, our relationship with Doubleclick is a classic supplier/customer type thing. That is, we are the customer and Doubleclick is the supplier, i.e. we pay them. Accordingly, we write what we like on our site and Doubleclick handles the ads. End of story.

So, your suggested motto has the wrong company kissing the wrong ass. Pity - we quite liked it. But then again, you wouldn't be around to see it anyway. Bye now.

If, on the other hand, you find yourself actually quite fond of Doubleclick, why not express your love and win a dart board. Yes, that's right - try our competition here

There is more reader feedback on the Doubleclick controversy here

Best of the rest

Doubleclick unleashes forces of darkness
Cookies are the devil's imps

USB 2.0 takes some flak
The whole thing is 'a pile of shit'

Reg English stoned to death
And kicked in the 'nads to boot

Pirates ahoy!
Reader keelhauls illicit CD figures

EC DVD probe beano
Nothing more than an extended jolly?