It doesn't sound like nit picking to me...in fact, you just saved me the trouble of having to type that all out myself. Thanks, bloodwts!

Whenever I have something critical to say, I like to try something called "lift and level" - wherein I compliment, then critique. In that spirit...
This was an awesome list. Seriously. There's this weirdo part of me that loves to read something that makes me want to simultaneously laugh and growl. Kudos.
However, I'm with Kibey here. I'm confused about the Aussie Ho-Ho-Ho issue. I think snopes.com has done a pretty good job of dispelling the idea that the movement to change that phrase was sparked by some kind of "derogatory to women" reason. It seems pretty clear that the only reported motive for the change was simply to make the experience more pleasant for younger children.
I'm thinking the Daily Telegraph link you sourced might be one of (if not THE) article Snopes uses. But your citation is a weak support at best, and mostly only serves to contradict your own claim. The first few paragraphs of the article is comprised of quotes from a couple Westaff Santas who have either been fired or have quit. Then the remaining bulk of the article contains direct information from both the Westaff agency accused of introducing the change and two different department stores who actually use the Westaff Santas - and all of these various representatives say the same thing:
- No, "Ho-Ho-Ho" was NOT found to be offensive to women.
- Nor was "Ho-Ho-Ho" mandated to be replaced by "Ha-Ha-Ha"
It seems that the entire thing was started because Westaff gave a training session on identifying and relating to different needs of children. Santas were advised to lower their voice and maybe use the softer-sounding "Ha" if a child looked startled or frightened.
The more sensational aspects of #9 are not supported by your source - but I notice you said "Westaff relented only after the story broke nationally..." Does that mean there was some additional press prior to the Telegraph's 15 Nov 2007 article? (Because I could easily see that fluff piece being damage control by Westaff's PR sect.)
Oh, yeah - damn...what a fine list though! I particularly enjoyed "Master and Slave." Keep up the great work, xilebat!

By my count, there is currently only ONE Brett Easton Ellis novel on this list ("The Rules of Attraction") - though there is another three-name author. Was there possibly another version of this list posted sometime between the 10th and today that included an additional Easton work? If so, I'd like to check the cache - I love reading the pre-edit postings of LV lists...

Holy crap - this is my all-time most favorite comment on LV...ever. Much respect, RocketTube, for achieving what others obviously find impossible: acidly leveling another user's comments while still maintaining intelligence and an overall firm grasp on the English language. Any other person would have said, "U ARE MORON, KIMBAR!!!" Yet, you chose: "...you've spewed nothing but jaded bullshit right back at what you'd consider to be just that."
Classic.
Even though you personally didn't buy into most of this list, you just couldn't sit there silently after reading such a baseless and imperious comment. No, you opted to throw in your caustic two cents, which had the unexpected outcome of brightening the fuck out of my day. Seriously...thank you.

In that case, I believe that the True Blood vampires are basically immune to HIV/AIDS (they can only be carriers.) However, there one communicable virus that can damage them - they called it "Hepatitis C." It could be passed vampire-to-vampire or human-to-vampire (no mention was made of vampire-to-human possibilities.) While it was not always fatal to the vampire, it did weaken them significantly and leave them very vulnerable to outside attack. This fictional virus was mentioned very early in the first season and I don't remember it ever being touched on again.

I can not believe that I am walking around with that much useless TV vampire trivia in my head. Now I'm sad.

Oh My God. What happened to ENGLISH?

(I know this was posted quite a while back, but I'm just now reading this list and its comments.)
I think the fact that "most of the criminals who are sent to jail are in the lower bracket of IQ tests" isn't so much an indicator of an individual's likelihood of successfully planning crime, executing it or evading justice - I think it says more about the motives behind crime in the first place. Those with higher natural intelligence or aptitude for knowledge are the ones more likely to find steady and profitable employment (or other legal means of income.) Those with the lower IQ scores may be earning less, or struggling to make ends meet. The more impoverished areas of the US (my country) also have lower educational standards (No Child Left Behind my ass - what a load of...) that do nothing to advance the lives of those who happen to have been born there. If a big part of your life is centered around the worry and stress associated with just trying to GET BY, I could see how it would be tempting to want to take a seemingly easier way out. In some situations, the drive may move beyond "temptation" into an almost necessity.
And this is to say nothing of the community and social aspects that tend to go hand-in-hand with these demographics.
(I could talk about this all day - clearly.)