• Profile logout login

#condenast#

Gawker

Share Cancel
   
Upload an image | Add an image URL
×

logging in
  • FAQ. Include # before tag:
  • #tips,
  • #stalker,
  • #opencaption,
  • #internalmemos,
  • etc.

New York, 11:16 AM
Tue Dec 1
57 posts in the last 24 hours

Team

Tip Your Editors:

Tipline: 646-214-8138

Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder |

West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield |

Contributing Editors:

Valleywag:
Ryan Tate |

Media:
Hamilton Nolan |

Politics:
Alex Pareene |

Investigations:
John Cook |

Entertainment:
Brian Moylan |

Nights:
Adrian Chen |
Azaria Jagger |
Ravi Somaiya |

Weekends:
Foster Kamer |

Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley |

SUBSCRIBE TO Gawker RSS

New: Breaking news and daily top stories via email
4260 Subscribers
Gawker
  • posts about #condenast more →

    Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith

    For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded

    A Year Condé Nast Would Like to Forget

    Hearst Is Amazingly Not Broke

    The New Yorker, by the Numbers

    Give Reporters the Most Luxurious Airline Seats or Give Them Death

    Conde Nast Cancels Christmas Lunch, Hires Crisis Flack

    Si Newhouse (Almost) Breaks Even

    The Last Days of Gourmet

    Si Newhouse Has Some Real Nice Art For Sale, Cheap!
  • Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.
    Dsmvwl  Admin  Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×
    Image of TheWerewolf - Sotto voce TheWerewolf - Sotto voce
    11/19/09

    In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
    "The Apple Tablet has been something of a holy grail for gadget fiends."

    Seriously though - there's lots of reasons to be suspicious of the Apple Tablet - not the least of which is that it's not going to be a tablet Mac... it's going to be a large iPhone.

    Which means - you're getting an ebook reader for $700. :)
     Reply
    Edited by TheWerewolf - Sotto voce at 11/19/09 1:57 AM TheWerewolf - Sotto voce was starred TheWerewolf - Sotto voce was unstarred
    Image of Alfisted Alfisted
    11/18/09

    In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
    If Apple says the Tabelt doesn't exist, who am I to doubt them?

    Not sure why Conde Nast is staring with Wired, though.
     Reply
    Edited by Alfisted at 11/18/09 8:18 PM Alfisted was starred Alfisted was unstarred
    Image of TyTy27 TyTy27
    11/19/09

    @Alfisted: I'm pretty sure the tablet will exist. If Conde is going to make this move then Wired is the obvious choice. Of all Conde's titles, Wired readers are the most likely to buy the tablet as well as use new technologies in general. I'm not sure if it will work for Conde but starting with Wired makes the most sense. It's what I'd do.
     Reply
    TyTy27 was starred TyTy27 was unstarred
    Image of lostarchitect lostarchitect
    11/18/09

    In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
    This is a pet peeve of mine, so please forgive me.

    It's TOE the line, not "tow". It does not refer to hauling a rope, it refers to a bunch of guys standing next to each other with their toes on a line. It's probably got a military origin.
     Reply
    lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred
    Image of TipsyVonDrinklestein TipsyVonDrinklestein
    11/18/09

    @lostarchitect: Glad I'm not the only one. Also, it's "champing" at the bit, not "chomping".
     Reply
    lostarchitect promoted this comment TipsyVonDrinklestein was starred TipsyVonDrinklestein was unstarred
    Image of mark.hunter.ca mark.hunter.ca
    11/18/09

    @lostarchitect: Before I even checked the comments I was going to write, "Cue long debate about 'tow' vs. 'toe' the line."

    For what it's worth I think your pet peeve is entirely unfounded. Having spent a fair amount of time looking - including consulting with a linguist, there doesn't appear to be a consensus either on the proper form of "tow/toe" or, even, the appropriate metaphor given either form.

    I take the fact that your reply didn't even attempt to forward any support for your position (nor, really, does this) as yet more evidence.
     Reply
    lostarchitect approved this comment mark.hunter.ca was starred mark.hunter.ca was unstarred
    Image of Lizard_King Lizard_King
    11/18/09

    @lostarchitect: Not a big deal, I could care less.
     Reply
    Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred
    Image of seriously, saycarramrod seriously, saycarramrod
    11/18/09

    @Lizard_King: /sarcasm please?
     Reply
    Lizard_King promoted this comment seriously, saycarramrod was starred seriously, saycarramrod was unstarred
    Image of TipsyVonDrinklestein TipsyVonDrinklestein
    11/18/09

    @Lizard_King: I don't understand, can you flush out this idea for me?
     Reply
    lostarchitect promoted this comment TipsyVonDrinklestein was starred TipsyVonDrinklestein was unstarred
    Image of skierpage skierpage
    11/18/09

    @Lizard_King: Huh? You don't mind appearing stupid in public? You don't care that the web sites you visit are badly written? You're not offended that Ryan Tate, someone who is paid to write, can't use language correctly?

    By the way, by the way you pair it with "Not a big deal", you should probably have used the outright "I couldn't care less" rather than the sarcastic "I could care less."
     Reply
    skierpage was starred skierpage was unstarred
    Image of justincandescence001 justincandescence001
    11/18/09

    @skierpage: That is one of my pet peeves actually. "Couldn't care less" should be the correct use because if you could care less, it stands to reason that you really do care.

    Although from what I've heard, the two are becoming colloquially synonymous.
     Reply
    Lizard_King approved this comment justincandescence001 was starred justincandescence001 was unstarred
    Image of lostarchitect lostarchitect
    11/18/09

    @mark.hunter.ca: Hi Mark. Thanks for your comment. I don't really need support for my position because it is the correct one, and it is almost universally accepted as such. Your linguist is wrong if he says there is no consensus; there is. Google is your friend here, and since you need support:

    [lmgtfy.com]

    [en.wikipedia.org]

    (note that if you search wikipedia for "tow the line" it redirects to "toe")
     Reply
    lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred
    Image of lostarchitect lostarchitect
    11/18/09

    @Lizard_King: Don't start with that one!
     Reply
    lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred
    Image of lostarchitect lostarchitect
    11/18/09

    @TipsyVonDrinklestein: Yes, and a point is "moot", not "mute".
     Reply
    lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred
    Image of bfarver001 bfarver001
    11/18/09

    @Lizard_King: Ugh, it is a big deal. If your not good at english, especially when your reader's depend on your use of language to communicate ideas, you risk appearing to be an idiot in there eyes.
     Reply
    Lizard_King approved this comment bfarver001 was starred bfarver001 was unstarred
    Image of Lizard_King Lizard_King
    11/18/09

    @bfarver001: "your not good at English"....

    Where do I even start?

    It was sarcasm - it was another misquoted, mixed up cliche.

    #tips
     Reply
    Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred
    Image of Lizard_King Lizard_King
    11/18/09

    @lostarchitect: :)

    #tips
     Reply
    Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred
    Image of Lizard_King Lizard_King
    11/18/09

    @seriously, saycarramrod: c'mon, that is so overused. I'd rather bait the hook and sit back and watch.
     Reply
    Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred
    Image of Lizard_King Lizard_King
    11/18/09

    @justincandescence001: kinda like regardless and irregardless (which isn't even a f'ing word!)
     Reply
    Edited by Lizard_King at 11/18/09 10:04 PM Lizard_King was starred Lizard_King was unstarred
    Image of SkonOfVulcan SkonOfVulcan
    11/18/09

    @TipsyVonDrinklestein: As a horse owner I happen to know it's "Chomping" at the bit not "champing". Look in a dictionary.
     Reply
    lostarchitect promoted this comment SkonOfVulcan was starred SkonOfVulcan was unstarred
    Image of lostarchitect lostarchitect
    11/18/09

    @SkonOfVulcan: In terms of the original phrase you are technically incorrect, but functionally you are *sort of* correct. The original usage is "champing" (perhaps *you* should look in a dictionary?). "Chomp" is a modern variant on "champ", so it also makes sense, but the original is, in fact, "champing".
    [www.word-detective.com]
     Reply
    Edited by lostarchitect at 11/18/09 10:54 PM lostarchitect was starred lostarchitect was unstarred
    Image of Baroness Baroness
    11/18/09

    In reply to Condé Nast Is the Latest to Convert in Apple's Secret Tablet Faith
    Why should Jobs be flattered? The Apple tablet sounds perfect for the affluent audience Condè Nast cultivates. It's a good match for both of them.
     Reply
    Baroness was starred Baroness was unstarred
    Image of BookishLookish BookishLookish
    11/18/09

    In reply to For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
    I have never been able to get around the name of this place: "a radiant light around the head" has never made me feel the least bit peckish. Also makes me think of lady nips; ditto.
     Reply
    BookishLookish was starred BookishLookish was unstarred
    Image of manchops manchops
    11/18/09

    In reply to For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
    are all the laid off folks invited too? If not I think they should all show up and press their faces against those "big windows looking out on 42nd street"
     Reply
    manchops was starred manchops was unstarred
    Image of If_I_Had_a_Poodle If_I_Had_a_Poodle
    11/18/09

    In reply to For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
    They have to keep up appearances, impress their sources, and, you know, all the other reasons why it's more important to throw a big, expensive party than save that $100k and keep the positions of two editorial assistants.
     Reply
    If_I_Had_a_Poodle was starred If_I_Had_a_Poodle was unstarred
    Image of son of spam son of spam
    11/18/09

    In reply to For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
    Where they will scoop black sea beluga out of tiny designer gene fetal skulls. Wait...that was last year.
     Reply
    son of spam was starred son of spam was unstarred
    Image of TheBusinessGuy TheBusinessGuy
    11/18/09

    In reply to For Christmas, Condé Nast Will Party at a Restaurant Now-Defunct Gourmet Magazine Once Heralded
    The Fairchild, Golf Digest, bridal, and digital groups can party in splendor at the McDonald's at 42nd and Broadway. There will be balloons! #condenast
     Reply
    TheBusinessGuy was starred TheBusinessGuy was unstarred
    Image of thatsrealbutter thatsrealbutter
    11/18/09

    @TheBusinessGuy: oh to be a red-headed stepchild
     Reply
    TheBusinessGuy promoted this comment thatsrealbutter was starred thatsrealbutter was unstarred
    Image of LoveHandles LoveHandles
    11/11/09

    In reply to Hearst Is Amazingly Not Broke
    With less staffers, perhaps Current TV will have less of a chance of getting it's staff embroiled in international nuclear affairs? #media
     Reply
    LoveHandles was starred LoveHandles was unstarred
    Image of TheBusinessGuy TheBusinessGuy
    11/11/09

    In reply to Hearst Is Amazingly Not Broke
    With Drew Schutte, Conde has a smart, web-savvy guy running digital--finally. Let's hope that he, like Hearst, has a war chest. Let's also note that Conde Digital is not at 4TS and that, as surely as the luncheon seating plan, is a measure of status. #media
     Reply
    TheBusinessGuy was starred TheBusinessGuy was unstarred
    Image of Magister Magister
    11/11/09

    In reply to Hearst Is Amazingly Not Broke
    The Ombudsman wrote a Sesame Street piece about a Sesame Street piece. Unfortunately, nobody who was offended will ever hear of it. #media
     Reply
    Magister was starred Magister was unstarred
    Image of LoveHandles LoveHandles
    11/11/09

    In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
    Honestly, these numbers seem rather pedestrian, given the content. #thenewyorker
     Reply
    LoveHandles was starred LoveHandles was unstarred
    Image of snugbug snugbug
    11/11/09

    @LoveHandles: True. It's interesting that regular readers seldom realize the enormous effort that goes into producing complex articles like those in the New Yorker that flow, both on a logical and literal level, like liquid butter. The flow of the printed word is very different from the flow of the spoken word. Wordsmithing is way more difficult an art that most of us are aware of--but that's the point that the New Yorker illustrates so beautifully. You just read, and you're never aware of how much work it went into making writing come across so effortless on the page. #thenewyorker
     Reply
    snugbug was starred snugbug was unstarred
    Image of girlhowdy girlhowdy
    11/11/09

    In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
    Never mind the New Yorker masthead; do you think Ivanka Trump's publisher had to pay full price for the banner ad for her book on the bottom of the article? #thenewyorker
     Reply
    pssshwhatever promoted this comment girlhowdy was starred girlhowdy was unstarred
    Image of Monte Wooley Monte Wooley
    11/11/09

    In reply to The New Yorker, by the Numbers
    Bloated staff, unreadable magazine. No wonder Si loves it. So Proustian. A remembrance of things past. Tiny mummies live! #thenewyorker
     Reply
    Monte Wooley was starred Monte Wooley was unstarred
    Image of lionel-mandrake lionel-mandrake
    11/11/09

    @Monte Wooley: Unreadable? You're not saying very much about yourself, are you? #thenewyorker
     Reply
    lionel-mandrake was starred lionel-mandrake was unstarred
    Image of Monte Wooley Monte Wooley
    11/13/09

    @lionel-mandrake: what would you like to know? That I enjoy prose with blood in its veins? I like surprising story choices, not the utterly predictable kind? Yes, dear Mandrake, unreadable, to me, which obviously makes me a heathen to you. So be it. #thenewyorker
     Reply
    Monte Wooley was starred Monte Wooley was unstarred
    Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion

Login

Enter your username and password.

Please enter a username.
Please enter your password.
logging in
Login via Facebook | Sign Up | Forgot Password?

Reset Password

Please enter your email address to have your password reset.

Please enter your email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
requesting password reset

Register

Registering will give you a user profile and the ability to add other users as friends. To become a commenter, however, you need to audition.

Want to know more? Consult the Comment FAQ and legal terms.

Please enter a username.
Please enter a password.
Please confirm your password.
Passwords are not identical.
Please enter a valid email address.
registration sent, waiting for reply

Submit Your Comment

You don't need to login to comment. Just enter your email address below.

See how your address will be displayed in the Comment FAQ.

Please enter a valid email address.
Please enter a valid email address.
logging in

Login with your Facebook or Gawker account.

Sign up here.



  • Archives
  • About
  • Advertising
  • Legal
  • Help
  • Report a Bug
  • FAQ
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.