what a bunch of tw@s

I visited At Bristol a short while ago, and a highly worthwhile visit it is too; Hazel and I went along at 4pm or so just to fill some time as it was raining, and we ended up getting chucked out at 6pm without having quite got round all the exhibits. We were in the Explore section which strikes me as the most interesting, but each to their own, obviously. It's not cheap, mind you, at something like 9 quid a pop, but there's lots of interesting "hands-on" stuff for overgrown kids like me to amuse themselves with.

My only quibble, and it might seem trivial, is with the logo they've chosen for the whole operation - here it is on the right: seems innocuous enough doesn't it, but have a closer look. You see what they've done? And I say "they" as this is a classic example of something designed by a committee: obviously the original idea was to use the internet/e-mail "at" symbol, but then some sort of horrible fudgy compromise happened and we ended up with the nonsense we can see here. I can hardly bring myself to point out the fundamental absurdity of it, but it is - essentially - this: if the assumption is that the target audience knows what the swirly-tailed @ symbol represents, then the insertion of the extra "t" is superfluous, and more than likely just irritating, and if the assumption is that they don't, then why bother with attaching the swirly tail at all? Is it any wonder I get these terrible headaches?