Cheap Devices, Delayed Apologies, Simple Requests and Other Harsh Words We Heard This Week

Oscars are approaching, but no one wants to give us a gold statue. They are disappointed in us, because we advised them incorrectly, were insensitive, and misrepresented semi-anonymous boyfriends of celebrities.

Happy weekend all.

One guy absolutely is Dave's best friend from childhood and he would like to help us get some character background.

Subj: Britney and Dave

I grew up with David, and I don't like seeing people making up things about him online. It seems you do not know much about him and I am willing to help. Email me back if you are interested.

A high-priced lawyer has taken time out of his day to tell us coat thievery is totally chill.

subj: "Thatz Not Okay."

WRONG!

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG:

Ask a high-priced lawyer, . . .

This is related to bailments:

Except in little boys, "I found it, . . ." is not at first face, demonstrative (or even suggestive) of mens rea or blame-worthy animus apprehended in an ingenuous admission of guilt, . . .

For some frozen centuries of time past this matter has been fully settled in written law: before assuming a new ownership, upon taking possession (the synagogue, say), whoever finds something in a public place, must make reasonable effort (say, at one time, loud calls, but now, advertisements in local news papers of record) to find the owner, . . .

Also, a car or bicycle say, left unlocked or otherwise unsecured or open, is considered for the moment, abandoned because, it is well settled that, any person possessed of a reasoning mind will take at least some precaution and make at least some condition of security against loss, whether from nature, raining in the windows, or against persons of evil animus.

I would say, your cheap device in: "I just fuckin' found it and stole it. I take what I want. It's called livin' off the land. I like your coat too. I'm going to take it because I want it.", reveals an inventive soul of low estate.

You need to present a public correction, . . . and, we're waiting, . . .

Journalism is not attacking reddit, please tell Adrian.

Subj: Here's a tip: Adrian Chen is not a journalist

Adrian Chen is not a journalist; he seems to have some strange fascination with attacking reddit to game up his pageviews. That's not journalism. You should probably fire him.

In which the word "insidious" is used to great effect:

Subj: Regarding the Britt Ripkowski Article/Letter, Please Reply

It's something of an insidious gesture on you and your publication's behalf to present such a forum and then publish such letters therein, most recently, as that of Britt Ripkowski. While rightly citing and referring to the facts of the case, any critical intent on you or your publisher's behalf is merely, and frustratingly, only slightly implicit therein, and therefore — perhaps despite your intent — this article seems to provide no more than mere entertainment fodder or spectacle (i.e. what does the mind of a bi-polar, schizo-affective, or full-blown schizophrenic actually look like?) for many of the thousands who have read it.

I am an advocate of those with severe neuroses or psychoses, I will state — I do not, however, condone or excuse murder — but I must say, in legal terms, given the stated court-ruled delay in process, I take it that there's an imperative or question subtending the issue such as "What should I do?" or "How shall I respond?" yet to which guidance towards any possible resolution or response is entirely absent in your column, following the letter. That is to say, it appears that you post the letter, along with the facts and references thereto, but nothing else. That, to me, is troubling.

Quite simply, this series, and more poignantly, this particular article, lacks any critical conviction, and this theretofore appears painfully obvious when reading it, but why should that be the case? What's the point of dedicating yourself to writing upon a series of articles addressing one topic if you don't clearly express your point, a point, any point? Why let this be mere fodder or entertainment when so many people have already published in these and can ostensibly be taken in these regards (i.e. Daniel Paul Schreber, Mary Barnes, etc.)? It's not revolutionary, but again, I think you have a non-spoken critical stake in this that you should make clear when publishing something like this article, especially like this article.

I said "insidious" in the beginning in that the question I think you're addressing has begun to knaw at you, given the continuation of the series (or perhaps it's to draw attention from the crowd I decried above, who knows?) yet it's this affect to which a critical response ought to be given and tied with its delivery — In that regard, you're failing yourself and others right now. I'm not advocating that you stand for or against me, but I'm insisting that you not publish such letters in the future with the knowledge that they say nothing — "[that] did not answer any of our questions" (your words) — and thereby, only serve as perverse fodder for commentary.

Eww/Yuck/Don't. Re: This.

Subj: do not post this photo of kate upton

This photo of Kate Upton distract me when I am at work. My hard dick begin to bunt. Do I jack off because of it? Yups, I go to my car and drive to the mall. I park it and move to the passenger seat. I rub my stick in the parking garage until the gooey substance squirt onto my dashboard. Then I get back in the driver's seat and drive back to work. If anyone tell me what is the gooey substance on the dashboard? I will just say it is bleach.

And, we will conclude with a simple request, in reaction to this article.

subj: Please don't use the word "retarded"

It's offensive.

[Image by Jim Cooke]