Comments on: Gawking the Gawkers

Gawking the Gawkers

ed — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:17:32 -0800

Gawker and the Rage of the Creative Underclass. In a lengthy and critical New York profile, Vanessa Grigoriadis reveals Gawker to be a place where the employees are miserable, the model has shifted from pay-per-post to pay-per-traffic, and shamelessness (and Julia Allison) is the new commodity. Denton responds.

By: ThePinkSuperhero

ThePinkSuperhero — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:22:17 -0800

Doesn't surprise me to hear that things have changed behind the scenes. I got bored with Gawker somewhere around the 2nd or 3rd editorial staff change. It stopped being relevant and funny (all the funny stuff Gawker used to do is now done by Jezebel, another member of the family); it all seemed in-jokey and mean-spirited. I stopped reading a few months back, and haven't missed it.

By: DU

DU — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:35:04 -0800

I don't know a thing about Gawker or Grigoriadis, but when your opening paragraph is 3000 words in only two sentences, you deserve whatever mocking you get.

By: chrominance

chrominance — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:36:43 -0800

I don't think I want to read this. The first few pages are all about the downfall of traditional publishing, and the FPP implies the rest will be about the crushing work conditions of online publishing, and frankly I'm tired of every industry I take an interest in suddenly becoming a horrific, capricious place where making a living and staying sane lies somewhere between difficult and impossible.

By: nomisxid

nomisxid — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:36:58 -0800

I find it amusing that the original article can call gawker "the MST3K of journalism", while completely ignoring the irony that MST3K only savages movies that were deemed crap in the first place. It sounds alot like a sideway acknowledgement that the NYT folk aren't really doing the noble work of the fifth estate anymore anyways....

By: drezdn

drezdn — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:37:03 -0800

I don't know a thing about Gawker or Grigoriadis, but when your opening paragraph is 3000 words in only two sentences, you deserve whatever mocking you get. Especially if most of it is about you and not the subject of the article.

By: Greg Nog

Greg Nog — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:41:48 -0800

hey look new yorkers are bitching about each other

By: demiurge

demiurge — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:42:07 -0800

I don't care too much one way or another, but the first two sentences of that article only add up to about 716 words.

By: fleetmouse

fleetmouse — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:46:03 -0800

So a New York media property is running a story on another New York media property whose mission statement is to cover New York media? Surely even New Yorkers sometimes get tired of this yorking off...?

By: Reggie Digest

Reggie Digest — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:46:20 -0800

I like that keyboard graphic in that article. If only it were a real piece of hardware so we'd never have to read the name Perez Hilton ever again. Instead, there'd just be a long string of random characters generated by a violent mashing of keys.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:53:35 -0800

Surely even New Yorkers sometimes get tired of this yorking off...? You would think so, but I offer Madison Avenue and Wall Street as prime examples of their unfatiguable yorkability. As you can see, it's not a new phenomenon. Rumor has it that deep beneath the bedrock of the Island of Manhattan, the bedrock itself floats in an ocean of spent yorkings. And if - for whatever impossible reasons - they stop yorking it, the ocean will dry up and the island itself collapses into the Earth.

By: thehmsbeagle

thehmsbeagle — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:56:44 -0800

The people she writes about, and particularly that Gould girl, are so strangely dull.

By: dios

dios — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:58:27 -0800

Gawker stunk after the beautiful, funny, and intelligent Elizabeth Spiers left it. (For those who don't know, Elizabeth is an old Metafilter member, and it be sweet if she commented in this thread so I could crush on her.)

By: chillmost

chillmost — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:01:20 -0800

Ooh, a pissing contest!

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:03:36 -0800

I've met Elizabeth Spiers, Nick Denton and Choire Sicha. They were all very nice, for what it's worth. Nick bought me a beer, Elizabeth solicited a mix CD from me (don't know whether she enjoyed it or not), and Choire told evanizer to try and feel me up. Good buncha eggs.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:09:27 -0800

*Actually opens 1st article. Attempts to read. Turns greenish, closes window.* Eh, what? Blah, blah blah blah. Blah. Hi. USE WORDS THAT MEAN SOMETHING IN A MEANINGFUL ORDER, OK? That shit reads like Timecube, as though it were written by a cereal-box copywriter. BITCH, WHERE IS YOUR EDITOR!? *Opens second article. Winces. Opens "whiny blogger translator" plugin. Translates.* Translation reads: I'M NOT THE ONLY SLIMY JOURNALIST. I DIDN'T START THIS. IT'S NOT MY FAULT. I'M JUST SOME GUY, Y'KNOW? HEY, THEY'RE DOING IT TOO! LOOK, I'M JUST DOING MY JOB! I'M GIVING THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT! WAAAAAA! *sounds of giant rail of cocaine being horked* Wishlist: "Forced Perspective Gun", in which, when used, the target is transported instantly to some far-flung shithole of real human suffering. Target arrives at destination naked, broke and helpless. Treatment is complete when target claws their way home and ceases uttering whiny, gossipy bullshit in any form. (Some targets may require multiple treatments.)

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:20:17 -0800

Nearly five years ago, in December 2002... They didn't exactly invent the blog Nor, to be more precise, did they approximately, vaguely, or even sorta invent the blog. I don't even care about that shit and I know that. Ahhh, the web: allowing people who don't matter, matter... if only to other people who don't matter. Learn a trade, you wannabe hacks. ... a real piece of hardware so we'd never have to read the name Perez Hilton ever again. Until that day, not typing his name may help the situation, Mr. Part-of-the-Problem!

By: rusty

rusty — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:20:19 -0800

Wow. I made it through the first seven paragraphs, all of which should have been cut, and just assumed that the rest should have been cut too so I could stop reading. Seven pages of that?

By: aramaic

aramaic — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:23:10 -0800

Choire told evanizer to try and feel me up You, sir, are my new Enemy Of The Week. (Note: transposing weak for week is not permitted. Apologies, I know it's tempting.)

By: disillusioned

disillusioned — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:28:49 -0800

When I was writing for Gizmodo, I was making $500/month as an intern. My editor was making around $3,000 and it was supposed to be traffic-driven, with the opportunity for bonuses through some bizarre scheme dreamed up by Lockhart Steele where you would only grab the bonus if the traffic held up through the next month. (So that January where we went gangbusters with Paris Hilton cellphone pics and got TONS more hits than normal meant nothing to my editor since most of the boost fell off the next month.) During this time, Gizmodo.com was pulling down about (rumor goes) $75,000 a month in advertising revenue. This was over a year ago; the site is 4 times as popular now. This is what allowed Jason Calacanis to pull Peter Rojas away from Nick early on. Calacanis offered him equity. So Peter bailed like the Titanic and ended up making absolute bank when Cala & co. sold Weblogs, Inc. to AOL for ~$25 million. Nick also forbade bylines, unless there was a feature piece. He wanted things like The Economist, where we spoke with the voice of the publication. But in reality, he wanted to kneecap the ability for an editor to truly make the publication their own and potentially run away with it—something I understood after Rojas left him without ANYone manning the helm of their fastest growing property for two weeks. They have bylines now, though, and I think they've shifted their payout format, but I really don't know. Nick's theory was always that if not you, there are plenty of others who can write like you for less. So why shouldn't he maximize his profit margins and use them to grow the business? He makes sure everyone's at least fed, though it was a bitch to get them to pay for us to cover events like E3. ("This is coming out of your bonus.") Yeah, that's the same as covering our HUGELY-traffic-increasing trip for you. (I think they ended up paying for it in total after all, but still a dick suggestion.) I really hope Nick is paying percentages out, but as a business owner myself, I know why you wouldn't want to. It's hard work building up popular properties, finding talent who can speak with the voice you want, investing in all of the advertising/design/etc and getting the buzz built up so that your blog network is worth the $35M it is today. It'd just be nice to know if that sold and you had edited one of the popular properties for more than a year, that you might see a piece of that. Also, Gawker isn't a place, really. Everyone lives everywhere. (The company, not the blog itself of which I suppose they may show up to an office.) Brian Crecente who edits Kotaku is in Denver, Brian Lam is in New York, etc, etc. It's only miserable in that it takes a LOT of work to crank out 24 pieces of interesting, relevant, pithy content in a given day without wanting to kill yourself. And for Gizmodo, that writing about cell phones every day for six months might make you want to choke a bitch. I learned more under my editor than I could have possibly paid for, and it's good to have on the resume. Hell, I'd probably go back and work again, or maybe find a place with revenue sharing or based on advertising, since I know some bloggers who pay on those schemes. But it was fun and nice to be a 19 year old getting published to 250,000+ people.

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:41:19 -0800

I like Deadspin (run by Gawker); it's just too bad the tech people keep f'ing it up...

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:42:52 -0800

Is this something I would have to be an over-privileged white person from NYC to care about?

By: Skot

Skot — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:43:31 -0800

God, I miss Spy Magazine.

By: user92371

user92371 — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:45:34 -0800

The people hurt each other with words, but they are paid poorly.

By: tommasz

tommasz — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:45:57 -0800

If the purpose of that article was to somehow elicit my sympathy or interest, it failed spectacularly. I didn't finish the first page, let alone click through all seven of them. Nevertheless, I suspect there's really a story here, it's just that this particular author isn't the one to tell it.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:48:59 -0800

Choire told evanizer to try and feel me up You, sir, are my new Enemy Of The Week. It's true, he did.

By: blucevalo

blucevalo — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:03:27 -0800

Once upon a time, everything used to be better than it is now. News at 11.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:10:45 -0800

Their graphic artist needs to learn what a .png file is.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:19:41 -0800

but when your opening paragraph is 3000 words in only two sentences, you deserve whatever mocking you get. -- DU I don't care too much one way or another, but the first two sentences of that article only add up to about 716 words. --demiurge Only if by '716' you mean '114', According to Word's word count. And the first paragraph as a whole is 214 words. And It's not difficult to read at all, broken up with lots of punctuation and quotation. So if you're having trouble parsing it, you only have yourself to blame.

By: loquacious

loquacious — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:27:57 -0800

So if you're having trouble parsing it, you only have yourself to blame. Hey, that's it! I'm the idiot! It all makes so much sense, now. No, delmoi. The problem is that there's nothing to parse. Every time I try I keep getting a divide by zero error.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:29:39 -0800

lizs, lizs to the blue courtesy phone please.

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:45:02 -0800

I 9827; New York(ers)

By: Mick

Mick — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:45:23 -0800

bah

By: ericb

ericb — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:13:41 -0800

...on a most basic level, [Gawker] remains a blog about being a writer in New York, with all the competition, envy, and self-hate that goes along with the insecurity of that position. How many people outside of this clique of Manhattan writers actually care about the details of their lives...and for that matter even their names? They come across as bickering and chattering high-school students, each hoping to be named 'most popular' by the yearbook staff at the end of the year.

By: digaman

digaman — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:21:37 -0800

A minor quibble: the one word missing from Grigoriadis' piece is "Suck." With a capital s, as in the late lamented website. Not only did Suck invent the blog, it also invented Gawker's brand of snark online -- yes yes, Spy, Alexander Pope, bla bla bla. Not that there's anything wrong with Denton copping the Suck vibe. It was so right for the Web, someone had to do it. In fact, he did it by hiring from the source itself, in the person of Ana Marie Cox, Wonkette 1.0.

By: mckenney

mckenney — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:22:24 -0800

This essentially is a New Yorker writer saying "boo hoo hoo, Gawker made fun of my family, and they're all mean and Nick Denton is a jerk, you guys!" What a petulant, long-ass article.

By: jayder

jayder — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:23:15 -0800

I couldn't believe how little money Gawker was paying, when they paid per post. The article says that they paid $12 per post for twelve posts a day. Who are the idiots that would work for that? I live in a city where the cost of living is half of what it costs to live in Manhattan, and I would laugh at anyone who paid that little. Is this another example of grown-up college graduates who are working in publishing jobs while still being subsidized by Mommy and Daddy?

By: wuwei

wuwei — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:30:39 -0800

Yes.

By: gummi

gummi — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:30:41 -0800

Just spied on Facebook: not an exact quote "If I'm still working at Gawker next year, please reach through your monitor and slap me." True story.

By: digaman

digaman — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:46:33 -0800

This essentially is a New Yorker writer Not quite. It's New York magazine, not The New Yorker. No wonder you thought the article was "long-ass."

By: mckenney

mckenney — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:21:27 -0800

Whoops.

By: fedward

fedward — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:03:42 -0800

Didn't Nick Denton and Rick von Sloneker pull a train on Polly Perkins? Or was that just a composite?

By: jayder

jayder — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:30:25 -0800

The interesting thing about journalistic blogs like Gawker is the balls it takes for people like that to affect such a tone of sneering and condescension. It reminds me of times when you go into a nice clothing store, and you're treated condescendingly by the shirt salesman. You graduate Phi Beta Kappa, have a couple of graduate degrees, have a nice, professional job, and you're treated condescendingly by someone who sells shirts for a living. Same thing with Gawker. The blog is filled with this vicious, sneering tone at various media moguls, big-name actors, founders of prominent literary magazines, etc., and the sneering is being done by people who are being paid $12 per post. (But that's not to say I don't enjoy reading it.)

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:39:40 -0800

You graduate Phi Beta Kappa, have a couple of graduate degrees, have a nice, professional job, and you're treated condescendingly by someone who sells shirts for a living. But it's really gratifying for the shirt seller.

By: ghastlyfop

ghastlyfop — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:58:25 -0800

USE WORDS THAT MEAN SOMETHING IN A MEANINGFUL ORDER, OK? Wow, look who's talking! You really had that much trouble with the article, snarky mcsnarkalot?

By: loquacious

loquacious — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:29:53 -0800

Wow, look who's talking! You really had that much trouble with the article, snarky mcsnarkalot? No, not really, but it reminds me of something I read the other day. That, and Gawker seems to summon unexplicable rage and evil every time I manage to blunder into it.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:11:45 -0800

Original post, if not offered yet. My question: what's wrong with hippies and Burning Man? You prefer fashionistas, investment bankers, and war? I suppose that's NYC ... "New York is a city for the rich by the rich, and all of us work at the mercy of rich people and their projects," says Choire Sicha, Gawker's top editor (he currently employs a staff of five full-time writers). "If you work at any publication in this town, you work for a millionaire or billionaire. In some ways, that's functional, and it works as a feudal society. But what's happened now, related to that, is that culture has dried up and blown away: The Weimar-resurgence baloney is hideous; the rock-band scene is completely unexciting; the young artists have a little more juice, but they're just bleak intellectual kids; and I am really dissatisfied with young fiction writers." Sicha, a handsome ex-gallerist who spends his downtime gardening on Fire Island If you're an ex-gallerist who spends his downtime gardening on Fire Island ... you're fucking rich! Whining about feudalism as it provides you a luxurious lifestyle seems gauche. I think the days of freelance writers are just about over, depending on the strength of the advertising industry. I mean, what happens when everyone starts using AdBlockPlus? That Lessing op-ed was horrible too. I think I gots me a case of the Mondays now. ... Then again, I've never heard of Julia Allison, and I don't have to write in NYC. The day is looking up ... "It's just such a weird cross between being an artist and working in a sweatshop ..." "It's kind of like you're in jail and you have feelings about the color they paint the walls." Hard to feel much sympathy for these people who don't understand the experience of any full-time job. Semi-interesting article, but it goes absolutely nowhere, and the end is what? Of course, this is the first thing I've read by Vanessa G...

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:31:36 -0800

Sarcasm and machinegun-like blasts of snark isn't honesty, it isn't some great equalizer in the war between the haves and the have nots. It's comedy for bullies and idiots.

By: digaman

digaman — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:44:24 -0800

> It's comedy for bullies and idiots Wait, I thought that was US foreign policy.

By: foxy_hedgehog

foxy_hedgehog — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 18:57:31 -0800

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:28:43 -0800

For those of you who haven't clicked through, the writer of the piece gets all hot and bothered when Gawker goes to town on her and her husband...for pimping out their love story to the New York Times "Vows" column. Apparently she only wants positive coverage of her private life. Or she could merely be taking umbrage at a flurry of undeserved cheap shots by strangers who seem infuriated to the point of scorn that she rated a minor mention in a society section puff piece. At least Gawker has encouraged me to drop douchebag from my vocabulary, as it seems to be the put-down of choice voiced by anonymous online douchebags.

By: kittens for breakfast

kittens for breakfast — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 19:39:18 -0800

Apparently she only wants positive coverage of her private life. Wow, that sounds so totally unreasonable, except for the part where it sounds unreasonable, because actually it really sounds kinda reasonable. And really, making a stranger the object of your ire because s/he made the news in some incredibly minor way -- and the ired one, it goes without saying, did not -- seems vaguely stalkerish and pathetic. I get the impression some people need private lives of their own.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:34:46 -0800

Denton responds. Except that he doesn't. Respond, I mean. All he does is try to paint his little empire as representative of a new online wave we're all part of, which, to him, apparently means he doesn't have to address the specific criticisms of the way he treats his employees, or the way Gawker writers play off "old media" while whoring themselves out to the highest old media bidder as soon as they get the chance, or the moronic insults Gawker aimed at the 4-year-old son of Neal Pollack (to choose just the most obvious examples mixed in among the verbiage of that NY Mag piece). Where exactly did Denton "respond" to any of that?

By: jason's_planet

jason's_planet — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 22:41:12 -0800

Why should I care about a bunch of inconsequential needledicks who can't get real jobs as journalists and who spend their days mocking and berating those who can?

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:25:07 -0800

Is Gawker something I'd have to enjoy unpleasant but 'attractive' people bitching about each other in order to read? [/echochamber] I don't know, jonmc's upthread awschucksification aside (and I'm also all about the can't-we-all-just-get-along, my friend, and I've got anybody's back if they buy me enough drinks), this really sounds like Enemahosery† 101, something I'm a little too old and tired and unhip to care too much about. But schadenfreude can be a tasty treat, if you're careful to eat your way around the turds. †At least Gawker has encouraged me to drop douchebag from my vocabulary, as it seems to be the put-down of choice voiced by anonymous online douchebags. This is distressing to me, because 'douchebag' has a superb sound to it -- that labial purse of the 'ooo', the cleansing whoosh and then the gutpunch double-plosive of 'bag'. And the association both with the genital and the literally unclean makes it deliciously evocative. I would never have suspected (and don't actually think it's true) that this 'Gawker' website of which you are all speaking has much to do with the word's increased use. But if so, I may be compelled along with Astro Zombie (whose instincts I trust) to throw it on the trashheap along with words like 'honor', 'sincerity', 'respect' , 'asshat' and 'fucknozzle'. A sad day at wonderchicken industries. Unless Nick Denton, who does, I admit, sound like a bit of a ~~douchebag~~ ~~fucknozzle~~ cheeseweasel, wants to pay me for making fun of Techcrunch or something. Then I'd have to reconsider my position, because I'm really just a Big Whore.

By: Astro Zombie

Astro Zombie — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:45:48 -0800

If they all wrote like you, they would be aces in my book. And it's a very thin book.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:52:47 -0800

No, wait, I changed my mind. Screw that guy. The whole Weblog Revolution™ is lying semiconscious in a public bathroom, covered in filth and handjob-flyers, and he's one of the amoral fratboys who drew the sanchez-stache on the poor bastard before they zipped up and walked back out to the party. At least a douchebag has a noble ablutionary purpose. On preview: thank you, good Zombie.

By: BackwardsHatClub

BackwardsHatClub — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:09:15 -0800

How terribly uninteresting. I guess the magazine is titled "New York" so I probably should have known it would be about New York. My foresight it weak.

By: BackwardsHatClub

BackwardsHatClub — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:11:12 -0800

Also, I enjoyed how an assassination piece on blogging could be written (especially in the first couple pages) in a style that would fit 90% of the personal blogs out there.

By: Opus Dark

Opus Dark — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:22:21 -0800

Knockstalgia, from when pre-professionals, and post-amateurs, and non-contenders, dinned, deigned, and confabulated. . .

By: Sparx

Sparx — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:31:47 -0800

At least a douchebag has a noble ablutionary purpose. Yes - because vaginas are filthy, filthy things.

By: NolanRyanHatesMatches

NolanRyanHatesMatches — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:07:29 -0800

It's sad that this article isn't more even-handed so I could take it seriously. There's a good profile to be written about Gawker/Denton, but Grigoriadis' writes w/ too much ax-grind. With all the recent talk about what makes an awful write-around profile (most glossy mag celebrity profiles) and what makes a great write-around (that old Gay Talese profile on Sinatra), Grigoriadis should've spent less time trolling the website for quotes (!) and more time talking to those on the periphery of Gawker Media. If they could cut out all the Julia Allison coverage I might start reading Gawker every day again

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:27:48 -0800

Yes - because vaginas are filthy, filthy things. No, because douche is literally 'shower' in French, dumb-dumb, that is: to wash. And because, regardless of whether the vagina in question is filthier than a rat's asshole or sparkling like dewdrops on summer sunflowers, the purpose of a douche is primarily, unless I am very much mistaken, as I said, ablutionary.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:48:12 -0800

I are not a dumb-dumb! Well, I can't actually back this up (because I'm at work and the necessary search terms would have me escorted from the premesis by armed junior anti-sex policemen), but I have some vague understanding that the practice originated not from any notion of hygeine (in fact, numerous health agencies warn against it - saying it may lead to irritation, bacterial vaginosis, and pelvic inflammatory disease, as well as upsetting the pH level which can lead to yeast infections), but rather as yet another one of those things of dubious merit women do (or think they should) to please men. Perhaps it has that reputation as a result of its ablutionary ability, but I suspect that any "noble" ablutionary purpose is a figment of our unfortunate sexist history.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:23:54 -0800

C'mon, could you maybe just cut me some slack for trying on the fly to find a pithy and moderately apt phrase given the overall context without having to think too awfully hard about it? Regardless of the putative dodgiosity of the gender history and the effectiveness of and/or rationale behind squirting PH-enhanced water up the ol' canal, the intention is and was, as you seem to agree, done to attempt to render those nether regions daisy-fresh, whether or not the thinking that led to such a rationale makes any goddamn medico-hygienic sense or not. My wee bon mot worked, I reckon, and I'm not writing Deathless Literature here.

By: aramaic

aramaic — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 06:32:11 -0800

If only every post about NYC ended up talking about pelvic hygiene.

By: Sparx

Sparx — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:00:54 -0800

Alas, dear WonderChicky - I am sworn to decry the veneration of symbols of sexist oppression where ever I see it. Failure to do so could result in me losing my Sistaz! and a few emasculated associates membership and all the weekly knitting patterns it affords me. I'm only halfway through a lovely cuddley polar bear. After all, how would you feel when continually confronted in the shopping aisles by "CheezWizz : anti-smegma cotton buds for your filthy, filthy junk" Other noble inventions throughout history: The guillotine - clears up that nasty case of aristocracy Foot binding - aren't those shuffling girls the cutest? The gatling gun - so powerful nobody ever had a war again Life savers candy - because the hole makes them taste better The plate of beans - Now available in convenient Hill of Beans size The introduction of noble inventions seems to hold by far the most excellent place among human actions. - Francis Bacon

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:36:03 -0800

If you're an ex-gallerist who spends his downtime gardening on Fire Island ... you're fucking rich! Whining about feudalism as it provides you a luxurious lifestyle seems gauche. Well hi there! I was ignoring this thread. But I thought I'd pop in to recast that particular ridiculous assumption with the same facts: I live with a friend in a working class town (There is such a thing! Lots of retired cops and former Long Island Rail Road employees!) on Fire Island (in a house I most certainly don't own) and grow my own vegetables for eating and stuff. (My tomato and zucchini crop this year sure saved me some money at the store and also brought peace of mind!) As for the "gallerist" thing (I was a dealer) I'm a failed small business co-owner washed up in his mid-30s who now blogs for a living. Whirr. That being said, I *am* always gauche! Heh. In any event: My life is luxurious in the sense that I promote my quality of life at the expense of, well, making money. This way, when in decades to come people ask me what I did during the war, I can shrug and look unhappy about my choices.

By: digaman

digaman — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:54:55 -0800

Great to hear from you, Choire. First-hand information always helps put things in perspective.

By: NolanRyanHatesMatches

NolanRyanHatesMatches — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 08:00:56 -0800

Ditto. Now we just need LOLCait and Momo to spice this thread up a bit.

By: boots

boots — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:39:50 -0800

Hey Mr. Sicha, I was just reading this and wondering, how can I make a fake press pass? So I put it to you: how can I make a fake press pass?

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:49:21 -0800

Why that would be illegal! And I would *never* suggest such a thing! (Borrow one from a helpful card-carrying member of the press (hello!), scan it, swap in your photo and name, color-print out and laminate. Instant get-out-of-National-Guard-holding-area-free card!)

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 16:49:40 -0800

Well, my junk is pretty filthy.