Talk:Private Eye

The Private Eye Story

Updated according to lots of into from The Private Eye Story. This book is around 20 years old now but I was careful not to include any info which is clearly out of date. Keir 20:42, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is now a lot more accurate but two points remain.

1. The original funding was by Andrew Osmond, not Peter Usborne.
2. Peter Cook did not buy an off-the-shelf company called Pressdram. Andrew Osmond did.

Finally, The Private Eye Story does contain errors as, indeed, any history must. Gareth Powell gp@mail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.180.231 (talk • contribs)

I've cleaned the above unsigned comment up a bit - can anyone confim, though? Stephenb (Talk) 13:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Uganda

I don't know if anyone wants to do anything with this, but "Ugandan relations" was originally "talking about Uganda": one female Ugandan diplomat's explanation some time in the mid-1970s of what she was doing with a man in an airplane lavatory. And, speaking of potentially confusing inside jokes, what about "Baillie Vass" for Lord Home (or is that too long ago to matter)? In any case, it might be worth adding a list of Private Eye's names for the various UK papers. "The Grauniad" has passed into the language, I suppose, but the "Daily Getsworse" deserves a gloss. It seems to me that this article could include (or be supplemented by) a useful reference for those trying to decipher Private Eye without reading it regularly. I don't sound too much like a retired military officer writing to The Times, but I don't want to wade into editing this particular article. -- Jmabel 08:16, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

About Criticism

There is a quote in the Criticism section: "And first they visited upon the city of Jen-in in a terribel plague of fire and brimstone, so that many of the Araf-ites and Hamas-ites were slain, even men, women and children". I don't know if the "terribel" typo is intentional, if so perhaps it should be marked if so (with "[sic]" or something).

Well spotted. My typo. Fixed. –Hajor

I've never seen anything anti-semetic in the Eye or anything which could be construed that way - as far as I can tell they make fun of anyone and everyone. OK, there's the KJV thing, but it's making fun of the whole Middle Eastern thing, not a particular religion. If Private Eye was anti-semitic I wouldn't read it, and it isn't, it's just funny.

Also, maybe I've missed it but shouldn't this article have something about Pseuds Corner and the way the magazine prints all the misprints and "boobs" and stuff in the papers (I've actually got a book of these - i know, i know...) XYaAsehShalomX 20:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pseuds Corner is already mentioned. Stephenb (Talk) 10:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Further to XYaAsehShalomX's comments, I would say that the article's argument that racist attitudes "still occasionally surface" in the magazine and then using a cover from 1971 to illustrate this point seems a touch unfair on the current management. I've only ever read the magazine under Ian Hislop's editorship but would say that while it may have been a problem in the past, it isn't one I've noticed while I've been a reader. Or I don't think I would read it. So shall I change that?

It should perhaps also be mentioned in the article that Jonathan Miller and Private Eye have had a long-running spat, discussed with Sue Lawley on Desert Island Discs a couple of years ago. I don't know the circumstances, but presumably Miller understandably felt hard done by if the magazine had taken a negative stance towards him. All the same, I might add, unless anybody objects, that Miller may not be the most objective of critics. Incidentally I think I've read one reference to Miller in the magazine in the last three years. I may not be particularly observant though.

Would be interested to know others' opinions on the racism thing though - I'd be sad if there was some inherent racism there and because I'm not the subject of it I don't see it. HilJackson 11:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC) (Talk)

Baillie Vass

The reference to Sir Alec Douglas Home arose from a wrongly captioned photograph in a Scotch local paper. A Baillie is a minor official and one such, Mr Vass, was in the news. Unfortunately his caption appeared under the picture of Sir Alec.

Sindie

I maybe wrong but doesn't Sindie refer to the Independent on Sunday, not the Independent itself. I presume it is also a play on the Sindy doll. Secretlondon 00:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're right, I've fixed it. -- Avaragado 09:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Page 94

Can anyone explain why 94 in particular was chosen as an arbitrary large number in practically every issue of the magazine? Is there a story behind it? -Sewing - talk 20:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It refers to the practice with glossy magazines, where the priority is to set the advertisements in place. The editorial content is then poured into the gaps. This means that major articles come to a sudden and often arbitrary hiatus, and are continued much later on in the magazine. It was not unknown in some publications for articles thus curtailed failing to re-appear later, presumably for lack of space or because somebody forgot. sweetalkinguy 17 Apr 06

On the specific use of 94, it may be a reference to Joseph Haydn's Symphony No94, known as the "Surprise" symphony; Richard Ingrams is a classical music buff - and organist. Only conjecture, no evidence for this.Philip Cross 12:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Explaining every joke in sufficient detail to kill it utterly

There must be a better way to do this, including all the tediously detailed explanations to the last dot of every single joke. Just removing said explanations makes this a much better-written article. Just because someone put them in doesn't obligate us to perpetuate them - David Gerard 16:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Point taken. However, most Wikipedia readers live outside the U.K., so a little background isn't out of order. 134.174.140.40 21:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think David Gerard and 134.174.140.40 are pulling our leg: it isn't funny!Phase4 22:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, we disagree. We can't *both* be pulling your leg.

Polly Filler

I notice that from the newspaper parodies section, Polly Filler is missing. I added it, but don't really know how to describe it, so left it blank for someone who reads the paper more often.

Does anyone know the real-life original of PF? (or at least some of the originals this section draws on?)

I suggest you read Alison Pearson. Only once, mind you

Nit-Picking, Really

Likewise, I can't see 'The Curse of Gnome' listed. I'll leave someone with better words than me to add it.

Andrew Neil

I'd always been under the impression that the "anonymous asian female" in those photos was none other than Ms Dynamite, the RnB performer. Can anybody substantiate this?

I'm pretty sure that this is wrong: "The Eye frequently refers to Neil as "Neill", inspired by the unusual spelling of Pamella Bordes' name."

I have read (must find source) that the Eye spells his name wrongly because it annoys him. --Cunningham 17:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sex!

I've been reading the magazine since the late seventies, on and off. The article suggests that the magazine has always had a diffident attitude towards revealing extramarital affairs. My (probably exaggerated) recollection of the Ingrams era was that half the "news" section was filled with startling revelations about the deputy manager of Borsetshire council highway maintenance department shagging his secretary, or some minor civil servant's brother-in-law being a "poove". A lot of the journalists left when Hislop was appointed editor, and took those attitudes with them - I seem to remember Hislop saying at the time that shagging was no longer news unless there was an extra dimension, and the Great Homosexual Conspiracy was now a dead issue (Simon Regan had a real bee in his bonnet about that). I don't have any sources for any of this, but it's worth digging out. The magazine was occasionally quite uncomfortable reading for a Thatcher-era leftie teenager. --Andrew Norman 13:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Andrew, these would have been non-speaking parts:

the deputy manager of Borsetshire council highway maintenance department shagging his secretary.

Unless your an Archers Anarchist and know better! Philip Cross 20:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Porn link spam

I've removed many links to a pron link that clogged up the top of the page. Begone, spammer of porn!

Idi Amin, and privacy

Ugandan Discussions did, indeed, become part of the language for more than two decades, but it's still not clear that the woman concerned was not telling the truth.

The background to the incident in the plane was the dictator, Idi Amin. He ruthlessly executed, tortured or simply imprisoned all who showed opposition to his rule, and anybody who was in any way critical of him was likely to receive the same treatment. Even occasional attempts at flattery could be mis-interpreted as insurrection, with cruel punishment the result.

So it is perfectly feasible that if someone (the woman was, I believe, a suspected dissident) wanted to discuss his rule in an airplane, they would seek more privacy than you can find in the public seating area. That doesn't mean they were not having sex! - but it does mean that she would have seen the excuse as plausible, not risible.

I discovered this entry while trying to find out where Ugandan Internet cafes are located - specifically, http://www.newswireless.net/index.cfm/article/2308 wireless hotspots.

Intriguingly, I had no success. Amin, it may be remembered, purged Uganda of all its Asian citizens at the time, and most of them came to Britain. A great many Internet Cafes, in the UK, are owned by ethnic Asians... coincidence?

--Guy Kewney 10:33, 05 Jul 2005

The story I remember involved a British journalist and an African diplomat at a party in London, not on an aircraft. As described in the article, in fact. If I recall correctly the diplomat was not himself Ugandan, and had a reputation for inviting attractive young journalists to discuss African politics with him in private. There's an alternative explanation I found on the web about Idi Amin accusing one of his ministers of having had illicit sex in a cupboard, but it doesn't seem plausible to me. --Andrew Norman 5 July 2005 11:47 (UTC)

A post to alt.usage.english a few years back provides more context: [1]; this roughly coincides with the story as I recall it. I vaguely recall a gloss mentioned by the Eye once, which was the "incident at party" explanation. Shimgray 5 July 2005 14:06 (UTC)

As a very long-time reader of the Eye, I'm absolutely certain that the London party version is correct (at the BBC, I believe). The original quote was "We were discussing Uganda". The airplane story might have come about (or been invented) because Idi Amin actually did divorce a wife for shagging an englishman in a toilet at Orly airport. That's today's juicy gossip for you... El Ingles 19:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Glenda Slagg

For some reason I thought Glenda Slagg was based on (the now defunct) Lynda Lee-Potter - correct me if I'm wrong.

I would'nt be surprised if it was based on Lynda-Lee Potter - the similarities are uncanny.

I believe that it first applied to Jean Rook who wrote in similar style for the Express although Lynda Lee-Potter certainly inherited the role.

Have I Got News For You

Should this be linked somewhere? Maybe it's just the Hislop thing, but I always get the idea it's (or was) an on-screen continuation of Private Eye.

I don't agree. It is indeed "just the Hislop thing" and also the fact that they make fun of people in current affairs, but they aren't unique in that. Many national newspapers, for example, carry cartoons and articles satirising people in the news. GeraldH 10:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Mirror obsession with house prices

Am pretty sure it should be Daily Mail, but an edit earlier by User:Tasc switched it to the Mirror [2] - I've asked the contributer to clarify this change. --Oscarthecat 22:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Contributor has replied "most probably just a mechanical mistake. sorry.". I also am pretty sure the the parody is of the Mail. I'll wait till the morning before reverting (unless someone else does or contributor responds). (Am not competent right now.) --A bit iffy 22:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Now resolved, it's the Mail, bless 'em and their house price obsessions. --Oscarthecat 20:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticism?

About the Jonathan Miller quote (or is it two separate quotes); it seems self-contradictory. If you don't have a point of view I'm not sure you can have as decided a point of view as the one suggested. I'm aware Mr Miller is a smart man and maybe it's consistent to him, or maybe he's remembering his own schooldays, I don't know. Anyway it's not clear to me that he's characterising the magazine rather than English public schoolboys of the period.

Also re the Hirohito cartoon, it is indeed deplorable by modern tastes, but it is now over 30 years old and attacks a wartime enemy and that country's wartime leader at a time when the war was very much remembered, indeed it appeared at a time when there were demonstrations in the UK denouncing that leader as a war criminal. So I think a little context is lacking in the article. A reader of the modern magazine would soon discover that police or other official racism is given the same 'wet towel' treatment as other (not always) defenceless targets.

And back to Miller, is the 'point of view' charge an extract from the same letter that reportedly hung framed on a wall behind the editor's desk, the one that began: "You stupid irresponsible C***S" ?

Maybe that would be a better starting point(?) Seems to better reflect the kind of criticism the magazine gets from those (many and various people) it offends.

Hakluyt bean 17:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, have just read this having made a comment further up - apologies for running over well-trodden ground HilJackson 11:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

LGBT to gay rights

As I comment on the articles history page, the term LGBT is contemporary usage and "gay rights" was the then contemporary umbrella term for the movement. It is not usual in conventional texts to use obviously anachronistic terms.Philip Cross 18:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically you are right, Philip. It is always difficult to explain past events and the contemporary reasons behind them to a today audience, and today usage often gets in the way. As far as Private Eye was concerned, many public figures (for example, Noël Coward, Benjamin Britten) were known to be homosexual at a time when you could be locked up for it. Sometimes they mentioned it in their "coded" language (a job for somebody to ferret in the back-numbers and winkle it out) sometimes the language was not coded. Even after it was "legalised", the Private Eye crew still had the sniggering public schoolboy attitude, especially over the Jeremy Thorpe trial. When "gay rights" became an issue, it took most people with that attitude completely by surprise, the intensity and passion of it, and indeed the violence. Today's anti-discrimination industry, which includes "gay rights", is not particularly relevant to the issue back then, the language used, and the manner in which the jolly japes brigade (Private Eye, Monty Python too, if you look) handled it and how inappropriate their outpourings were. It was the same with anti-semitism, and they used to call Lord Constantine, the West Indies cricketer, lawyer and High Commissioner for Trinidad and Tobago "Learie Constantine, the former black man" (the nearest current equivalent of Lord Constantine is probably his fellow-Trinidadian Sir Trevor McDonald).

Guy 23:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Classifieds

Don't suppose anyone can shed light on Capitaine and Sous-Fifre? Anyone with a lot of back issues able to tell when the messages started appearing? 172.213.227.225 01:08, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Pop Scene

Private Eye had lampooned press coverage of popular culture in general and pop music in particular right from its earliest days. What they were getting at was the culture itself, not so much the coverage of it. Maureen Cleave was part of the whole Swinging London thing, along with Ready Steady Go!, mini skirts, Carnaby Street, Mods and Rockers, etc. The pretentiousness of the "heavy" papers in what had hitherto been "tabloid" territory (though few papers were tabloid size in those days) can be dated from the troubles of the Rolling Stones, and the celebrated William Rees-Mogg leading article Who breaks a butterfly on a wheel?, which appeared in The Times in July 1967. You can read about it in The Pendulum Years by Bernard Levin, Revolt into Style by George Melly and, if you can find it as it has long been out of print, Bomb Culture by Jeff Nuttall. Basically, Private Eye was commenting upon Spiggy Topes and The Turds long before the heavy press were, and the article is more accurate as I originally wrote it.

Guy 00:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

User:81.79.178.196 seems to disagree with this edit (numerous reverts etc), I've invited him/her to discuss the problem here on the talk page. --Oscarthecat 09:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I am that user, now logged in. I suppose I think it is POV to refer to a more serious approach to popular culture as "pretentious"; closer to Wikipedia's NPOV policy to simply say that the Eye gang *considered* the approach to be pretentious. I thoroughly agree with Guy's point that they were ridiculing the culture rather than the coverage per se; the Eye gang had no inherent feeling for popular culture, those being the days when most public school people didn't (insert "and if you listen to James Blunt / Dido / Coldplay / Keane it's obvious that they still don't" joke here). RobinCarmody

Robin, I write as one who was reading Private Eye in those days, not to mention the music press and the heavier newspapers. PE coverage of popular culture predated any qualitative assessment of coverage elsewhere. Your edit says they thought the coverage was pretentious and reacted accordingly. In fact their take had been going on before that. Your edit is inaccurate and misleading and an assumption made from hindsight. You can see what I mean if you contrast Pop Scene with the ongoing discredited coverage that the Eye later gave to the internal affairs of the L.S.O. and the man they dubbed the "Ayatollah" Camden. Media discussion of the music scene evolved as "rock" music split away from the "pop" mainstream, and demanded that it be taken more seriously, on a par with classical music and other "arts". Fair enough for a while, but then coverage got engulfed by the same hyperbole as the music. It is a widely held view that coverage became more pretentious as the music did. Most people would agree that there was a gulf between Melody Maker and New Musical Express on the one hand as opposed to Record Mirror and Smash Hits with Sounds in the middle, and the difference paralleled that between the heavies and the tabloids. Late-Sixties Rolling Stone magazine (hard to get outside London) could be very heavy and serious, but not pretentious. On the other hand, in certain circles the very thought that any music that could shift millions of album copies had any right to be considered seriously was considered pretentious in itself. POVs sure enough, but valid ones to the many people who shared one of them.

Guy 21:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've re-edited to reflect your views on this matter. I can't speak for the Telegraph (though I suspect they were the most resistant of all) or the Guardian, but you are right that the Eye's coverage of popular culture, even if it only goes back to 1964 (and *certainly* if it goes back to the very start of the Eye in 1961) would predate any substantial coverage in the Times (the only newspaper of any description to be available online for those of us who weren't around at the time). Apart from the famous high-flown analysis of the Beatles' melodic structures in December 1963 (anonymous at the time, as virtually all Times articles were, but widely acknowledged to have been written by William Mann) there is little of substance before William Rees-Mogg became editor, lifted the anonymity rule, and changed the ethos somewhat (January 1967). In 1964/65, still under William Haley's editorship, they still had adverts on the front page and would have given more time to obscure country funerals of brigadiers and dowagers you'd never heard of than to the Rolling Stones. RobinCarmody

Lord Goodman

What evidence is there to support the nickname "Two Dinners"? There is no mention of this in the Arnold Goodman article, but then that is just a list of birth, death, posts held and honours given. John Prescott is generally known as "Two Jags", or latterly, "Two Shags", but I cannot recall Lord Goodman being similarly nicknamed. Indeed this style of nickname has the hallmarks of a post-Prescott invention, and Goodman had been long dead by then. Although he was prominent in public life, particularly as Chairman of the Arts Council, he was not far enough into the general public eye to warrant a nickname, affectionate or otherwise. True enough he was not very tall and disproportionately wide across the shoulders and was well-known in high-class eateries. Did Private Eye call him "Two Dinners" at all, let alone often?

Guy 16:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

.... Indeed Private Eye called Goodman "Two Dinners" many times. As to the evidence for this sobriquet, I shall now have to drag all my back copies down from the loft. I may be some time. Wish me luck. --Cunningham 18:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Cunningham is quite correct here - I refer the hon. Guy to the quiz in Eye 500 (page 16): "Who are: .. (i) Two dinners;". The answers are in Eye 502 (page 9): "3. .. i) Lord Goodman.". David | Talk 19:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I remembered him being on the cover one week, but I had a quick look here: http://ugandandiscussions.co.uk/ and could not spot it. If you are sure, I defer, by all means reinstate it in the article. I suggest "Solicitor-to-the-rich Lord Goodman, a member of Harold Wilson's circle, was a favourite Private Eye target during the Sixties and Seventies. He was famous as a bon viveur, hence the nickname "Two Dinners", but his alleged reputation for shady dealings meant that he was usually referred to as Lord Badman."

I encountered him in the (substantial) flesh once or twice, and a friend of a friend who worked in his office told us one or two things that even Private Eye would never dare to publish. Guy 20:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have put back in the reference to 'Two Dinners' as someone <narrows eyes> edited it out. Goodman was indeed known as 'two dinners', and often referred to in the Eye as such. <blunt> I think people who don't know what they're talking about shouldn't remove references that they don't recognise. </blunt>

OK, Private Eye is a set of injokes, but if you're going to insist on sources for all of its insults and nicknames, you're just going to prevent them being aired. Most of them were pretty silly personal insults (why else, for example, did Derek Jameson get called 'Sid Yobbo'?).

That's the whole thing about injokes: they're injokes. Like it or lump it. --Garrick92 13:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough : if we agree that PE did occasionally refer to him as 2 dinners, then it should remain in there. --Oscarthecat 20:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism

I think too much is made of the accusation of anti-semitism; other than in references to Private Eye of the distant past (e.g. by Jonathan Miller). The Telavivagraph joke was only made once or twice and clearly in reference to Barbara Amiel's frequent support for Israel in her column). And why is Private Eye's spoofing of Middle East politics to be regarded as specifically anti-semitic rather than, say, anti-Arab? Ben Finn 23:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a spell during the Seventies when Private Eye was indeed anti-semitic and right wing. In keeping with the times it often made comments which nowadays would be considered derogatory and racist. For example, they used to describe the distinguished Trinidad cricketer, lawyer and diplomat Lord Constantine as "Sir Learie Constantine, the former black man...... Guy 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Snipcock and Tweed", anyone? Rhinoracer 16:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Blimey! that is an obscure bit of anti-semitism if ever I saw it.. but it explains a lot. I'd always wondered why the title characters in that cartoon are creepy, scary bogeymen.. And not at all the observant, entertaining, and amusingly sarcastic characters they may otherwise have turned out to be.

I guess this also explains why contemporary Protestant White English culture is glorified in strips like 'Yobs', and it's actions and politics reported in such glowing terms on almost every page.. EasyTarget 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Private Lies

Does anyone remember that in the ?late 1980s a one-off issue of a magazine called Private Lies, a critical parody of Private Eye, was widely distributed in the UK? (I bought a copy in a supermarket thinking it was the real Private Eye, as it had a very similar cover.) Oddly, I don't recall Private Eye (or any other media) making any reference to it at the time! I assume it must have been published by Murdoch or Maxwell to be able to get such widespread one-off distribution. Ben Finn 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

If you still have it hidden away amongst the family relics and heirlooms, it is worth about £5 to a collector, depending upon condition. Guy 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Too long?

Though this article contains much excellent information, it is too long, and (as a result) a bit disorganised. However I have no particular suggestions as to how to shorten it. With some rework I think it could achieve Featured Article quality. Ben Finn 12:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The article is much too long. It is also repetitive. Various bits are too brief, they are written by PE regulars who seem to assume that all the readers are also PE regulars and know all about it, and it must be confusing for readers who are not fsmiliar with the magazine. Ben is right, it does seem to be assembled at random in places, but I guess that is the price you pay for an open-access encyclopædia. It is also patchy, the Sixties seem well covered, but there are gaps elsewhere. If you download it for printing, it runs for about 16 pages, depending on how large you set the font. It needs to be cut up into sections and converted into a suite of articles. Some of the content from the discussion page should be there too. I am capable of doing it, but I reckon it would take me several full-time days to do it properly, and I have a living to earn. One big problem is that many of the articles to which it links are very patchy, the one about Mohamed Fayed for a random example. That means I would be forever off at a tangent beefing up other articles and I reckon that would double the time needed at least. However, by the same token, readers of articles about people and institutions who feature frequently in Private Eye might well find a useful alternative angle in moving on to the PE article to see what it says there. Another point is that there is a great deal of scope for original research (proscribed under the rules) and you could end up with the definitive account of PE in any medium. As a tangent, in the context of your post about Private Lies and also Mohamed Fayed, very little is in the article about PE's attitude to Punch, and nothing about Fayed buying it to run against PE as a spoiler at great expense, let alone discussion of Fayed's ambitions as a press baron. Guy 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Time to start breaking up the article

The article is currently too long. The most effective way to reduce the length is to have a short "master" article and several subsidiary articles. As a first step, I have created a new article Private Eye (Recordings) and, unless there are violent objections, I will cut this section from here and paste it into the new article. The section lends itself to a new article, it is self-contained, of little relevance to the bulk of the article, and is a relatively late addition. On the other hand, it is a very useful piece, it collates together much information obtainable only with difficulty elsewhere, and is a good example of what Wikipedia is about. Guy 13:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Lord Gnome

As I recall, the name of this organ's publisher came from a speech by Harold Wilson attacking the 'gnomes of Zurich', ie Swiss bankers supposedly behind a run on the pound Rhinoracer 16:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia being Wikipedia, we have an article on that - Gnomes of Zürich. I'm not sure if I've ever seen anything asserting a link between that and the "proprietor", though... Shimgray | talk | 20:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)