I thought it was 40 replies (before this one and stevie's, as this is #43, so if you don't count the thread start, this is the 42nd).
You clearly didn't count your one. Which you should've done, really, because when anyone other than you reads it, it'll already be as a reply, saying "#41" in the corner.
Anyway, you're only right to a point. I can't exactly class Joanne alongside Lucy as a "girl" - can I? That'd be doing Lucy a great injustice. It'd be like calling a horse "Barney the Dinosaur." Literally. Oops. That was dead and buried. Until now. Sincerest of apologies to thou'st, Barne...Lucy. Please know that everything I say is in jest, as those with jestful ways know. A bit silly of me to say "please know," and then imply that you can only "know" if you've "jestful ways" within you. Because, if you don't, you're buggered. Which would be a shame, in many ways.
The Official "Ways in Which it Would be a Shame" List:
1. I would like you to know what I know. Informing others, and being able to share knowledge, is how people grow. Without knowledge, the lack of knowledge of others would not be apparent, and therefore would be unlaughable at. Case study: umdiddly (1988-present). Information correct at time of writing, and in the future too, as the chances of him actually learning something in school are low, because he feels discriminated by his teachers. As a side-note, funny how the word "discriminate" would imply the uncriminalisation of something. Surely a good thing? Criminiating against someone, to me, looks the right word. You commit crime. So you criminate. Discriminating would be the opposite, hence cleansing the person. Anyway, on to rule two.
2. Watch this space.
Nifty. Is. Back. Officially. These rants can only get funnier from here, rest assured.
Where's the gyaldem at? Hollaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa at'cha boy. Or smething™.
Note: The ™ signifies the recognising of the spelling mistake/typo that precedes it. OK?