Wow. You have some serious ignorant rage. You have literally seen none of the purported offenses and it's very, very evident by your post.

1. There's no denying that he's rude in that post. He does like to stir the pot. Is it wrong to be rude or is a comedian allowed to be rude in the attempt to get laughs?

2. In no part of the post is there anything attempting to explain away anything-- just a more accurate description of what occurred as evidenced by video, not conjecture and snarling Daily Mail outrage.

3. The only thing held against him that could possibly be considered racist was the thing about Mexicans and even that isn't literally racist. It was prejudicial and stereotypical. They got in trouble like that as they should have. Even the accusation that he used the N-word is baseless because he never used the word. He mumbled a placeholder sound that, if you trained your ear to hear it, could sound like it. And then they tossed that take. And then someone dug it up years later.

4. We still don't know if Clarkson actually hit his producer. Read the investigative report. There was a 30-minute drunken verbal assault and then 30 seconds of an "assault". Assault is an attempt or threat to batter (strike or physically harm). You may be happy grunting over your morning coffee at the lack of genuine information, but the law uses specific words for a reason. In NO PART of the document does it say anything about punching, throwing, kicking, etc. 30 seconds is a long time for a person to be throwing punches on someone who does not fight back and for that victim to leave with only a fat lip.

So, if I take your post as any evidence, that long list of explaining what happened in each of the accused offenses in genuine truth (not shallow, detail-less, outrage mongering), is trolling.

I gotcha. Thanks for the insight.

PS -- If you want to disagree with the factual nature of any of the points, then do so by all means. I'll happily go into more detail and support my assertions with external links.

Like others who responded to my post, I posted with the hopes of finding an Intellimouse replacement. Your post is the first I've seen with a favorable comparison and a make/model. From what I can see, the only major difference is instead of having one button on either side of the mouse, it has two on either side thus making this a 7-button mouse.

Could you confirm?

And wow... a $70 price tag at Amazon.com? That's rough. Do you have a cheaper suggestion?

I'm impressed that you got yours to last so long. I've gone through 5 of them since my first in 2000/2001. In fact, I bought a 3-pack when I heard they were going the way of the dodo. I'm on my last one now.

Le sigh.

Your post is modded "Insightful", but if I could, I would mod it "Dangerously Insightful". If women en masse knew that they could manipulate most men with a sweet smile and some relevant conversation, many of us would be doomed.

Certain positions are allowed to require certain levels of attractiveness. Models, for example. In fact, the "models" reasoning is what allows many casinos to discriminate against thicker women in that they categorize their waitresses as models.

LOL -- And how exactly is this post, explaining the actual events that led to Clarkson's lack of contract renewal, a trollish post?

Please tell me who is getting trolled? This is probably the most literally informative post of this article's discussion.

He's missing the point and still explaining an issue.

RSA doesn't want to promote the objectification of women any more.
Vendors are still willing to objectify women to have a chance at winning business.

So, let's say that hire and train those who would otherwise be hired as booth babes so that they're useful temporary representatives of products and companies. Let's say they show up dressed in business or business casual attire. And let's say a man goes to one of these conferences, see a beautiful woman, finds out she's a knowledgeable associate in the industry, and continues to ogle her for her secondary sexual characteristics while she convinces him to try some products.

Is any wrong done? If so, are you saying that attractive women are not allowed to represent a company or product?

They were more of audacious humor being taken as rude and thus made the BBC look bad. See this highly informative post I made that was quickly down-modded (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=7156205&cid=49345691).

1. Drove a truck in the Arctic circle while having a gin and tonic. (No roads, international waters)
2. Called truck drivers porn-loving prostitute murderers.
3. Called the Prime Minister a one-eyes idiot.
4. Said the BBC was obsessed with hiring Black Muslim lesbians (commentary on the focus on diversity).
5. Told a story about a woman wearing a burka falling over and exposing a g-string and stockings.
6. Called a Ferrari "special needs".

And on and on. Within the context of the character he plays, this is all to be expected. It's all the joke of him being an ignorant buffoon. He plays this character on TV everywhere he goes, but his more intelligent normal self pops out from time to time such as on QI or on some of his specials.

Light
Easy gliding
Replaceable feet/pads
Ambidextrous
5-buttons (2 regular, wheel button, button on either side for thumb and ring fingers)

Basically, I loved my old Microsoft Intellimouse Optical which is no longer available. I killed the main two buttons and the feet/pads on probably 5 or 6 of those over the years. I can't find anything to match that fit anymore.

I said nothing of the UK government (even though the UK government does restrict speech more than the US [http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways]).

My intent (and I apologize if not 100% clear) was to explain that in the UK, there is public outrage for anything that can be considered by some people as rude. For example, in the United States, Rush Limbaugh can say many, many atrocious things throughout his daily radio show. He can even lie. He can intentionally lie to the public without attempting to shock people with audacious humor.

In the UK, however, audacious humor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjIuPSuYSOY) is acted against by the public. People who take offense are empowered by weak-willed companies to silence things they don't like to hear... or more accurately, hear about.

Because most of the people who watch Top Gear do so with the expectation of audacious humor-- for the group's non-PC manner of conversation. Once one person says, "Clarkson said this last night..." all these other people who weren't watching call the Beeb and write them letters saying how offended they are. The few loud offended are then touted as "100% of the motoring public" (to steal from Top Gear) and then apologies must be made.

That's how the UK speech is more restricted than in the US.

I tend to agree. That's what should happen.

But it's not what normally happens. Especially with gravy-train stars.

http://www.ranker.com/list/cel...
http://www.thegloss.com/2014/0...
http://www.celebzen.com/8-cele...
http://www.suggest.com/movies/...

I assert that if Clarkson's audacious humor hadn't offended as many people, this most recent action wouldn't have resulted in his contract not being renewed. Instead, it would have been one of a couple more serious incidents and he'd still be doing Top Gear. He'd maybe pay some big fines, go to anger management, and/or make an official apology, but the BBC would still be riding his gravy train.

You can get away with a lot if you make people big money. If Hollywood isn't a good enough example, try the NFL or NBA.

I'm not the one who said it was a free speech issue. The parent to my comment did.

Context, buddy. Context.

Of course not. But all the other "offenses" were speech and had those other "offenses" not been considered offenses due to free speech, this would have simply been a fight. A damnable offense, to be sure, but not something a gravy-train star would have been let go for.

The "fracas" was the "last straw"... except 95% of all the other straw was Clarkson being rude, not actually harming someone.

No he didn't. His colleague got a bloody lip and went to A&E just in case and to record the injury officially. There's a big difference between "an automobile collision sent 3 men to the emergency room" and "An automobile collision happened. The three men involved took themselves to the doctor afterward."

Very much this. Most Americans don't understand just how restricted speech is in the UK by comparison to the US. The US has concerns about the PC culture, but the UK rides the PC horse like it's running from a posse. The mere mention of someone being offended or people sending in letters to complain require a company or station to react and make prostrating apologies.

The US has shock jocks, audacity humor-- look at what passes for news at Fox News!

Of course, physically assaulting one of your staff is inexcusable and he deserves the storm he gets for it, but the vast majority of his "offenses" are actually just people being offended by audacity humor.