Celebrity gynecologist and stand-up comic has been hired by GAWKER to blog about everything from vaginas to videos. Pinks review of spoiled lobster knuckles at Marys Fish Camp had far more credibility than Frank Bruni. Dr Pink has been examing "fish" at his Hollywood gynecological practice for 26 years. He knows who's been packed in ice and who is covering up their freshness with Vera Wang perfume. This doctors uncanny search for the truth is appealing to most readers. They are simply falling asleep with most verbiage and want to read something that has no direction and no purpose. His column is cotton candy, pure retarded thought. As noted in his column he writes without a formula ,without any journalistic background he just ejaculates copy. This train wreck style makes readers wonder where will the next sentence take them. Its like watching a 30 minute show and its over too quick. Its like a quick fuck. Dr Pink takes nothing seriously so Nick Denton is considering making the column into a pop culture comic strip. There has been talk of it being syndicated which would create even more revenue for the Gawker Group. Again this is a fluid story there has been interest in Pink at Vanity Fair, Playboy and FHM. He has been working with Howard Stern and writing jokes for Joan Rivers since 1994. His penis has made many cameos in movies about race horses. He's sick of being a doctor. He's tired of comics getting laughs at the bits he came up with even he has been compensated tremendously. Dr Pink wants to sit in his bathrobe and tell stories. They are all crazy and they are all true. His one man play "you remind me of my mom because you taste like brisket" and CUTTERS THE MUSICAL have gotten positive reviews by critics with Downs Syndrome Start spreading the news. Start spreading your legs. Let PINK continue to keep GAWKER in the RED. Dr Rand Pink. Stand-Up Comic. Gynecologist.

Gawker,

A woman standing in line in front of me at Hale & Hearty salads just ordered the single most disgusting combination of ingredients imaginable: peas, beets, hard boiled egg, chicken (egg & chicken together! horror!), goat cheese, raisins, garbanzo beans.

Please let your readers and fellow salad eaters know that certain combinations of ingredients are inherently gross and will NOT be tolerated.

Subject: Tom Cruise
I do not understand all the hype about Tom Cruise. Everyone knows he's weird....enough said.

Subject: Divide and Conquer
I have the best idea of all: lets do a check on his
faith, all that thinks he is crazy and an idiot lets
not support his due payments to crazy land and boycott
his movies and we will see the light turn on or see
the alien being that has "SP" come out of his arrse,
then I might think oh he is not full of crap but add a
alien in there tooooo. Thanks

Related: Suri, Not L. Ron Hubbard's Spawn, A Cutie Pie!

Takeaway points:

• The Post's claim that Ms. Cordero is transgendered is not a part of her suit against them because it is so ridiculous as to not be "worth wasting the ink."
• This is called Strategy 111
• We "obviously have bad reporters who write opinions as fact and do no researching."
• Mr. Unroch hopes this is the last time he will be writing anything to us. We don't!

From: William Unroch
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:47:55 -0500
Subject: Your publishing.

Alleged Epstein Rape Vic Sues 'Post' article was not only a cheap, poor opinionated knock off of Radar Magazine's article it was stupid and uninvestigated. Where not suing the post for being the post and reporting the FACTUAL news! Where suing them for printing horrible, malicious lies they knew were false (if you saw the law suite you would know that) and printed away for a juice story! The fact that the majority of their publishing(s) were based on two web pages (that News Corp. is the parent company for) that the post was well informed several times were not Ms. Cordero's but published away as her words! N Y Post reporters working for the same company that owns myspace.com could have made 1 phone call to find out who created the web pages in question if they didn't believe me. How ever instead they printed it as if what the web pages said came from my clients own mouth ignoring my repeated pleas for them to at else investigate the authenticity of the pages before the write the article if they didn't believe me. I repeat what took me a day and a half to find out (yes I subpoenaed the web pages) could have took one phone for them. That fact that I didn't sue on the basis Ms. Cordero is a transgender is because frankly that issue is so ridiculous that it wasn't worth wasting the ink!!! That issue will be brought up by them and when they subpoena the birth certificate it will look much better for my clients case not only because they raised the issue by because of the outcome (it's called a strategy 111)! Further more the Post reports went around telling my clients friends and family that she suffered from a serious sexual disease which happens to be a criminal matter since the illness is statue protected. Not to mention it was completely false! Basically the whore article was a malicious defamatory lie to assassinate my client's charter cook up be Rubenstein and the post (which they conveniently left out the fact that they share the same publicist as Epstein!). So you say I'm suing the post for being the post! Be guided carefully or I'll bring you into the case for being involved with the post to dismiss and further defame my client as well as this being a effort to poison the future jury pool in News Corp.'s favor! You obviously have bad reporters who write opinions as fact and do no researching! I hope this is the last time I will be writing anything to you!

Sincerely,
William Unroch

Earlier: Posts related to 'Jeffrey Epstein'

Subject: stories i care about
From: [Mom]
To: Alex

>>>> Please read the confidentiality statement below <<<<
jim carrey - mad about google
Drew Carey ruining the price is right

"Was the story better as Carver first wrote it? Maybe, but probably not. It would have been too long (even if it wasn't Carver), too heavy-handed and unwieldy, in my opinion. But the funny thing is—there is absolutely no way to tell whose hand swiped that black marker over page after page of that manuscript."

"Carver could have been over Lish's shoulder while he worked, or on the phone, or mailing drafts back and forth across the country. Without handwriting samples, which wouldn't apply to the haphazard x-ed out pages I saw, there was no way to know what happened and I left Indiana even more disillusioned than I'd already become after a year of grad school. The kicker is that I'll never know who wrote the most heartbreaking thing I saw while there: a line drawn through one nondescript sentence and the words 'what we talk about when we talk about love' written above it."

"Gawker," he begins, "I appreciate the fact you ran the story without contacting me for ANY type of validation." We think "I appreciate" might actually mean "I don't appreciate." Ah, witless sarcasm! The #1 rhetorical tool of incensed fourth-graders.

"I will ask you nicely to take down the blog about me (FARQ aready has). I really don't want to get my legal team involved, I prefer to play nice." First, it's called "Fark," and we can't imagine what made them take the link down. Being legal professionals, John, your "legal team" probably already knows this, but just in case you don't? Assuming you're suggesting defamation, a complainant must show that a statement could be found to convey a provable factual proposition. We're thinking that your "legal team" might recognize that they'd have a hard time with "worst person in the world" and "nightmare online dater." Those are just our opinions! Some other people might think, based on your public internet presence and the communications you've chosen to make public via a dating site, that you are the best person in the world, and a model online dater, and that is totally their prerogative. Anyway, we appreciate that you prefer to "play nice."

"If you even care about my side of the story, it is posted on the front of my webpage." Aw, of course we care! We love hearing your side of the story! Unfortunately, it didn't totally change our minds about your douchiness to read, for example, that you had called your Match.com lady a fatty because "Men lie about their height. Women lie about their weight. If a person has nothing but pictures of their head, they are not height/weight proportional. It is a cold reality. I have standards, as we all do."

"The title "worst person in the world" - I think it certainly fits the "crime". Sending a not so nice PERSONAL, PRIVATE email to someone. The end result - that people are trying to ruin my entire life and career is rapidly in progress." Um, but ... didn't you just say in your open letter that the "movies, books, TV shows" offers were rolling in? Confusing!

"I assume this brings you some type of joy. I wish we were as diligent about pedophiles, rapist[sic], murderers and terrrorists - we could clean up the world in a day!" I have no idea what would have given you the impression that cleaning up the world was in any way our goal here.

"By the way, an internet dating 'NIGHTMARE' would include stalking, date rape, murder, etc. Not an unpleasant email exchange!" You're right, John: an email from you is not as bad as stalking, date rape and murder. No argument there!

"Regards,

John Fitzgerald Page
'THE WORST PERSON IN THE WORLD'
'NIGHTMARE ONLINE DATER'"

Right on! Own it!

I find it disconcerting that you choose to target the well meaning group of idealists at GOOD Magazine for your criticism for the supposed lack of male vs. female "diversity" in their ranks. Indeed, it has been my experience that small Gen-Y led media companies (as a whole) tend to be be much better at fostering an environment of true diversity, ie, black, white, yellow, male, female, gay, straight, etc. So if, out of 20 odd employees, one finds a slight slant towards more men or more women or more asians or whatever, so be it, if their overall intentions are noble (which they are). Your real target should be the large consumer publishers who truly lack diversity in their ranks. Go thru the masthead of most major consumer magazines (say the top 200 titles) and you will find most of the staff is women (80%+). This includes the top positions such as Publisher, Editor, Managing Editor, Ad Director, Mkg Director and the top sales people. It is also an industry lacking in many people age 50+. In addition, try and find black employees in these companies outside of the mailroom. So, the magazine industry discriminates against men, older people and black people. Meanwhile, the content for many of these rags promotes anorexia, vanity, materialism and our cultural obsession with celebrities. All of this on non-recycled paper (unlike GOOD Magazine), so it's an industry that's bad for the environment too. And while I'm at it- the industry is subsidized by the govmt. in the form of artificially low postal rates secured by scandalous lobbyists. To target some young, well-intentioned idealists, at a magazine with a skeletal staff is a waste of your time and reinforces out of date stereotypes and misconceptions. Yes, it's easy to pick on a rich guy. But the truth is, there are plenty of real magazines out there that don't find a spot on their staff for older people, men and blacks, also owned by rich people who inherited their money. Your story is off the mark.... Best Regards, Alexander Hamilton

I had an epiphany last night that I realized only gawker could truly appreciate. I finally figured out why I find Dov Charney sort of inappropriately sexy: because I was watching the 1973 film of _Jesus Christ Superstar_ and realized that he bears a strong resemblance to evil Jewish high priest Caiaphas! And because, watching that movie as a small Catholic girl, I felt naughty feelings for the shirtless sweaty bearded evil Jewish high priests with weird hats and S&M-style chest-strap arrangements. Sexy evil Jews, both.
Wow, it feels good to confess that!
"One thing I'll say for him, Jesus is cool."
Katie

How in the hell are we supposed to care about this bitch Julia Allison? Who is this woman and how did she rise to such notoriety with such little education and or common knowledge of the world around her? The question remains, who among us can't do what she does? This is not simply a latter day Carrie Bradshaw. This is a painted whore who drives a Mercedes off her ill gotten gains. Perhaps because we don't have a 34D chest and a vacant personality we shall never attain such lofty goals. This girl is a menace, a boil on society and I, for one, refuse to accept that she gets a pass just because she has big tits. If people like me are heard then this girl w ill be out of the papers, if not now, eventually. I am sick of this type of New York bullshit. Woody Allen I can take, he is at least funny 10% of the time. This bitch is just annoying 100% percent all the time, every time. Please kill me before you place another post about her.

Before we continue, though: "your followers?" This is a just a website. Not a cult!

"But to begin to see the email in a fair way, you must understand this premise: I loved Elizabeth deeply for 13 years. I did not stop loving her when she told me what was happening between her and Ted. I love her still in an altered but sincere way. She loved me. She loves me still, but no longer as her husband. I'm sure many, if not all, of your readers have gone through their own dramas of love and loss. Love is not easily relinquished and it can shift its shape."

"Altered but sincere way." Excellent word choice. "She loved me. She loves me still, but no longer as her husband." This is when I started feeling like I was going to cry. "I'm sure many, if not all, of your readers, have gone through their own dramas of love and loss." Um, as have some, if not all, of our editors! This one, for instance, has listened to the entirety of Joni Mitchell's"Court and Spark," every Bikini Kill single, and also "Just a Little Bit of Heart and Soul" by T'Pau three times—this morning!

"My drama of love and loss was particularly intense and had some strikingly unique characteristics."

Newsflash: we all feel that way! Everyone thinks their heartbreak is special and unique! But no one's feeeeeeeelings are more important or special than anyone else's, no matter how good they are at writing about them!

"And it presented only a small range of choices, none of them good. In terms of the inevitable news of all this, my primary concern, of course, was with the community she and I lived in. If I had said nothing, the naked facts of the events would have meant that Elizabeth would be savaged by the rumor mill."

Oh, way to dodge that bullet. We would like to take this opportunity to recommend that Robert immediately purchase a copy of the instructive book Send, which is a guide to email etiquette that also details the history of the medium of email, and explains why, if there is ever any sensitive information that you'd like to communicate to a select few people, you must communicate that information in person.

"Even with the facts of her terrible childhood before them, some of the commenters on this and other forums are saying terrible and cruelly untrue things about her character. With no mitigating interpretation at all offered about what happened in our lives and in our marriage, you can well imagine how much worse the reaction would have been. It's just human nature. Nor would very simple, broad-outline public pronouncements have made any difference. If I had simply said something to the effect of "they're marrying for love and she and I will remain friends and I wish them well," it would not have been believed and the very same false assessment of her would have occurred. The explanation vacuum—even a partial one—especially given Ted Turner's involvement—would have been filled in a way that would have been unfairly critical of Elizabeth. Remember, I'm talking about the circle of our friends and acquaintances and colleagues here. Those were the people I had to focus on, not the wide general public. I never dreamed you all would get this intimately involved."

Here's some unsolicited advice, Robert: stop caring so damn much what other people think. We all hate this advice. But isn't it the key to sanity?

"Either of those two choices—silence or vagueness—would have been the easy way out for me. I had nothing to gain from the letter I wrote unless it was a covert act of rage, an act of passive aggression. It was not. Your readers may not believe that. But my wife and I have warmly and lovingly spoken on the phone virtually every day since the breakup. We are going through this crisis of publicity together in a loving way. She is the one person in the world—the only one other than myself—who can judge if I am raging and aggressive over her. When I said in the email that she knew about, endorsed, and even encouraged the email, that was literally true. I showed the entire email to her before I sent it. She could have said not to do it. She could have significantly altered it. She did not. She made a few suggestions, which I implemented."

The fact that Elizabeth okayed your email doesn't mean that your email wasn't insane, in our opinion. It means that you and Elizabeth are both kinda insane!

"And the email was never a mass email. I chose five trusted grad students who know us both the best. I chose half a dozen faculty members who know us both the best. And they were asked, when the rumors reached them, to tell the appropriately nuanced story. Or to tell the fuller story on their own initiative—because everyone would soon know anyway. Yes, I sanctioned the use of the email I sent them in order to explain the circumstances to the people in our community who were hearing about this. Why should I avoid vagueness myself and then force them to be vague? Without that sanction to use the email, the explanation vacuum would have continued to form and be filled with lies. And this process worked exactly as I had hoped. That email went out six weeks ago. And faculty members and students alike have told me that all of the talk around campus and around town has been sympathetic and generous about both of us."

Any email has the potential to become a "mass email." That is the nature of the medium of email. It's icky, but true.

"Now as to the intimate nature of the email, this is crucial to understand: there is not a single fact of Elizabeth's or Ted's or my personal lives that the intended audience could not easily have already known. Elizabeth has spoken and written openly, publicly, about everything in her childhood. Ted's persona and the details of the pattern of his love life are widely known (just read Jane Fonda's memoir). I do connect some dots to try to explain why Elizabeth has been drawn to him. But it was not meant to be a judgment against either of them. Ted's own difficult childhood is also public knowledge. We all of us often—some psychologists would say pretty much always—form adult relationships as an acting out of the basic love patterns of childhood relationships. There is nothing unseemly or wrong about this. It is the human condition."

Oh my god, THERE IS SUCH A THING AS TOO MUCH THERAPY.

"And I tell you absolutely that Elizabeth did not do this for money and Ted did not do it lightly as conquest. They love each other deeply. And given what they've both been through in their lives, I expect them to be very good for each other. I love Elizabeth and her remarkable writing talent. I admire the wide-ranging good works Ted does to preserve the earth and prevent nuclear war. These are admirable people doing important work in the culture and in the world. I sincerely hope they have the rich happiness they deserve."

This part kind of reminds us of the opening few bars of "You Oughta Know" by Alanis Morissette.

"In spite of my previous chiding of you and your readers, I wish that happiness for all of you, as well. It's dangerous to live too deeply in a world of glib judgmentalism. And man, there is some truly legitimate short-burst writing talent among you all."

Whee! Clip and paste permanently! "There is some truly legitimate short-burst writing talent among you all" — Robert Olen Butler. We are all so excited to use this as a blurb someday for our novels.

"But I hope at least some of you come to realize that vituperation, no matter how funny or elegantly expressed, is not an art form."

Wrong! Also please point out exactly where we were "vituperative?" We'll give you this—some of our commenters are really mean. But they do love your writing!

"Because some of you may well be capable of turning your talent with language—and your ferocious sense of right and wrong—to a more enduring purpose: to exploring, with courage and frankness and humor and compassion and moral insight, the truths of the human heart."

Oh look, Bob: I just did.

That email, intended strictly for those who personally know Elizabeth and me, was to explain an event that, if not explained, would be spun in ways that would unfairly make Elizabeth look bad. It had its intended effect around Tallahassee and in some other places where she and I are actual human beings. The sad thing about your sneeringly printing this in a blog is that both of us are easily dehumanized. Which, of course, is your point. Dehumanization is the essential ingredient for the daily pleasure of gossipers and gawkers. What a creepy little circle-jerk of self-righteousness you're running.

Does Gawker's envy and petty mindedness know no limits? Has it given you license to invent gossip?

In your headline-writer's cockeyed vision ("Laurel Touby's Dad Hates Gay Pimps") you invented something that doesn't exist.

My column that you cite criticizes corporations that enable enslavers of women and young people to invite their rapes by advertising in mass-circulation publications. Those publications fit the definition of "pimp".

Does Laurel Touby's father Frank hate pimping? Absolutely. Does he hate gay pimps? No. He hates pimping, plain and simple, as clearly expressed in the column [please link to it] and perverted by your mean-spirited headline.

So now you're attacking a decidedly non-millionaire senior citizen who happens to have sired a multi-talented daughter whose inventiveness you copied and whose success has eluded you...and whose "bad laugh" can be heard all the way to the bank.

Could it be because you're second rate? You even get the country wrong. There's no such place as "Canadia," where I toil as a journalist. Don't you have spell check?

Frank Touby,
Laurel's Proud Poppa

So the other day I got an early morning phone call from the undergrad I boned (once!) a month ago. In this phone call he casually told me he was getting his annual STD check and wanted to know when I was last tested so that he could figure out which tests he could skip. This was the entire point of the call: to save money on an AIDS test! Seriously, with a name like Lev Sheingold he's lucky in my groggy state I didn't make some sort of crass Sarah Silverman-esque joke about his ethnic frugality. Ahhh! Being a slut is so not worth it.

Okay, I've seen your new post about this. You might have done the classy thing, or at least the adult thing (speaking of adults), and managed to print my statement without having to make snide remarks about me—one that confuses decency with paternalism, another that repeats an old insult levelled by one or two out of the many hundreds of students I've taught, many of whom will tell you that I'm one of the favorite professors they've ever had—but I suppose that if you started doing the classy thing, or even the adult thing, you'd have to take down the entire site. Or even the legal thing, come to think of it: I also notice that you still haven't said anything about how the original post violates the copyright of the two student-authors in question.

Now how about posting this?

March 5, 2007

TO; GAWKER.COM

A RESPONSE TO YOUR RATINGS FOR THE WEEKEND OF MARCH 3-4, 2007,

YOUR WEBSITE SHOULD BE REGULATED AND LIMITED ONLY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE REFERENCES TO CULT WEDDINGS AND NUPTUALS AT ASHRAMS OR PROMULGATED IN COUNTRIES THAT RECOGNIZE PRE-ARRANGED MARRIAGES.

YOUR NEGATIIVE POINT SCALE ATTACHED TO THE WEDDING OF MATTHEW L. SLONIM AND GAYLE GREENBERG ( SLONIM ) INDICATES THE FOLLOWING FACTS;

GAWKER DID NOT INVESTIGATE THE TEXT INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE NEWLYWEDS VERSUS THE FINAL PUBLICATION AS ALTERED BY THE PUBLICATION. GAWKER MINUS 3 points

THE LAW FIRM OF THE FATHER OF THE GROOM MUST HAVE THE SURNAME OF A PARTICIPANT AS REQUIRED BY THE ETHICS OF THE PROFESSION—WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE TITLED ' GET RICH WEBSITE BY TOUCHING ME ' PROFESSIONAL ENTITY . GAWKER MINUS 2 POINTS.

YOUR CHAGRIN AT TWO YOUNG PEOPLE OBTAINING ADVANCED DEGREES WHEN 'THE WORLD IS FLAT ' AND AMERICA IS OUTSOURCING ON A DAILY BASIS IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE. GAWKER MINUS 4 POINTS

YOUR NEGATIVE POINT SYSTEM FOR MY SON'S QUEST FOR YES SHOWS YOUR INSENSITIVITY TO THE USE OF YOUR IMAGINATION IN THE MATING GAME. GAWKER MINUS 2 points.

LASTLY, MY ANSWERING YOUR CHOCOLATE PUDDING WEBSITE AN OFFSHOOT OF A NO NAME UNIVERSITY IS THE ONLY POSITIVE POINTS YOU WILL RECEIVE. GAWKER PLUS 3 points

THUS THE EIGHT NEGATIVE POINTS FOR MATTHEW AND GAYLE SLONIM SHOULD BE EXTINGUISHED. PLEASE PUBLISH THE RESPONSE TO ALL THOSE WHO READ YOUR INITIAL DIATRIBE.

HOWARD SLONIM THE FATHER OF THE GROOM —-— THE NEXT SEQUEL WITH STEVE MARTIN.

Earlier: Altarcations: Stacey Harris and Daniel Maman