But most people hate some of their clients.I think that's Finkelstein's point, though. He's claiming that her blog doesn't sound like the blog of a service worker, no matter what the industry. Service workers in general don't seem to like all their clients the way he says she does.
yet I doubt anyone would seek the services of any prostitute because of the stimulating conversation. that's not the point.I don't think that's true at all. From what I've read, a lot of guys look for the "Girlfriend Experience" being able to talk to a girl and make her feels like she loves you, is interested in what you have to say, and can hold up a conversation on their level. That's just what I've gleaned reading metafilter threads, though.
I expect HMRC will be in touch with her before too long for the outstanding tax on all those 'cash in hand' earnings she's now admitted to.What makes you think she didn't pay taxes? Prostitution is legal in the U.K, at least the way she was doing it. I imagine she probably paid some taxes on it (She might not have declared it all, but how would they ever know?) If you read the article, she actually employed lawyers and whatnot to cover her while she was blogging and selling books. I would imagine.
What has thoroughly convinced me of the fakery is that just about every single blog I have ever seen which was written by someone in a service industry, whether a waiter, bouncer, comic-book store clerk, whatever - has had a strong component of hating moronic customers. In retrospect, "Belle de Jour" reeks of someone making it up.--Seth Finkelstein.I not only disagree with Seth Finkelstein, I think he's moronic for holding that view. He's essentially making the argument that because most of the people he's read who work in the low-paid service industry hate their customers, people who work in the expensive service industry must also hate their clients. And not just most of the people but all of the people. He refuses to believe that anyone could be different or unusual. But the truth is in some way everyone is unusual in some way.
After all, her very name is taken from a famous fictional-prostitute novel (written by a man) and film. That ought to be a red flag as to what we might be dealing with, as in a fictional-prostitute blog.Seth, the fact is that that isn't a red flag for anything. A literary allusion is not evidence for anything in the real world.
I think the "least hypothesis" here (at least for those who don't have some sort of ideological axe to grind) is that she wrote the blog based on her own experiences.Oh dear. Occams razor only applies to explanations that have identical results, as in, there would be no measurable difference. But that's kind of beside the point. Generally, we assume people are telling the truth. But more then that, presumably the times has some fact checkers who verified that she was more then just a storyteller. After all, the author of the article was someone who had been skeptical. Don't you think she would have verified that she was actually a prostitute before admitting she'd been wrong?
Wjy? Why isn't the "least hypothesis" that's it's a work of fiction?
The thing that surprises me most here is that her PhD was in science and not literature.If she'd gotten a PhD in literature, she'd still probably be hooking to make ends meet.
And then early last weekend I received an email signed by Brooke that confirmed that she was outing herself in the Sunday Times because the Daily Mail had discovered her identity via an ex-boyfriend.Has anyone yet said here that her ex-boyfriend is a shit? Because I will.
« Older NASA's Fluxtimator helps calculate the meteor show... | In 2010, Obama will have a mis... Newer »
Levi Johnston?
posted by Forktine at 4:57 PM on November 14