Saturday, January 31, 2009

Don't try to impress us by quoting TWW.

UPDATE: We're loons! Way to keep dismissing what we have to say, Paul, without actually addressing the real arguments (of which you so far have exhibited none). Check the comments here. Most of them are smart, thoughtful and legitimate arguments. Well, at least you're coming back here to check on us. We really appreciate it.

Jesus, this is getting really tiresome now. Paul Carr responds to us (rather, at us).

Anyway, as much as we love Aaron Sorkin and his work, the man's got a thin skin for someone who puts his stuff out for public consumption, as do JA (well, "work" is a loose term) and even Paul Carr. Sorkin wrote the scene Paul "sites" [we will only use this Mary Rambin-approved spelling from now on] in response to mostly constructive criticism he received about The West Wing on sites like Television Without Pity. The dialogue is snappy and amusing, to be sure (when is Sorkin not?), but it was also basically an easy way to dismiss anyone who expresses a dissenting opinion online. A giant "Fuck You," if you will. Draw the parallels as you wish.

Anyway, Paul says that he saw Julia's panel live, so he is a better judge of her performance than we could ever be (though we saw the whole thing, from start to finish, through the video link DLD provided--but maybe we missed the magic fairy dust that didn't appear on camera?). Paul, seriously, you're damaging your own credibility now.

Then he says, quoting us:

Also, we’re sick of people who use this excuse: “having read the vile abuse aimed at Sarah and Julia and countless other women who dare to showcase their abilities online…”

Um, no. We have nothing against women who showcase their abilities online. We are women. We like smart women who can do smart things on the Internet. Julia is not one of them. Jesus. We’re so tired of this bullshit.


Quel motherfucking irony. These weird lunatic Lemon-Lyman-Nurse-Ratched-Parliament-Chain-Smoking-Harpies attack Julia and Friends for damaging the image of women online. And yet, by doing so in such a pathetically catty way, all they achieve is the reinforcement of that hideous stereotype that the worst, most bitchy critics of successful women in the public eye are other women.


Ooh, you got us, Paul! No response about how JAB and company haven't done anything innovative or intelligent all the while saying that's exactly what they're doing. And we don't think Julia and Friends are attacking the image of women online. There are plenty of awesome, smart women online who counteract their presence. We're just calling out their bullshit [like when Mary Rambin likens Botox to abortion]. And yeah, we think cheap shots against their weight and looks are uncalled for. We agree with you. We're not interested in doing that, though some people who comment here are. (We're not the comment or thought police, though.) But ain't nothing wrong with mocking their actions with a little bit of snark. And if you watched them with a little bit of objectivity, you'd realize that pretty much everything they do (that they share online) is ridiculous. And mockable.

Kisses, love!

162 comments:

  1. *Quietly relishing being labeled a "weird lunatic Lemon-Lyman-Nurse-Ratched-Parliament-Chain-Smoking-Harpy."*

    so, Pauly: the video lied? Not so good for all of those internet biz models predication on vids, is it, now?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oops..er, um..that would be "biz models predicated on vid."

    Sincerely,

    A weird lunatic Lemon-Lymon-Nurse-Ratched-Parliament-Chain-Smoking Harpy" (TM).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I love how he follows his spiel up with the patriarchal, "Now, now girls, don’t fight." What a dick.

    Paul, f you're trying to get into JA's pants, just show as little interest in her as possible. You're killing your chances, dude.

    This guy still doesn't get why we dislike JA. Until these folks realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with jealousy, there is no helping them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's often about the reductive when it comes to women, isn't it? They are all this, they are all that. Some of us are, you know, quite capable of objective thought (ha, ha), as has been well demonstrated here. Kudos to you ladies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That must have been quite a blowjob.

    Also ... hey, Paul? I'm a guy! And I'm on here all the time because I am one of the many, many people in JAB's life who has been stomped on, treated like shit and had my privacy intruded upon relentlessly. Be careful, dude, be very very careful. You don't know who you're messing with.

    ReplyDelete
  6. he's a self-proclaimed 'media-whore'. so, of course he will stick up for other media whores because he's indirectly justifying his existence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. God Paul. Is Julia literally sucking your dick as you write this garbage? Oh wait, Julia will never, ever sleep with you. Sorry! That's just the way she works. She doesn't even sleep with her boyfriends! But I'm sure a SuperFan like yourself already knew that.

    Why do guys always assume that women are hating on other women because they are "beautiful" and therefor any and all female critics, even if they bring up valid points, are just jealous of the criticized female's looks? Jesus fucking Christ! It is so tiresome and trite. Kind of like Paul's writing, so I guess that explains a lot.

    I hope someone is around to document the moment he realizes that not only does JA not give a shit about him, but she will never touch his dick. I'm sure there will be a lot of tears involved.

    Jackass.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul, You're right. The majority of us probably were born with ovaries, making us -- in a biological sense -- female.

    However, my being female has nothign to do with why I write on this site (or even liked Nonsociety in the beginning). I write here because I, Caryn, am disappointed in the weak content of their lifecasts. I don't care what Julia looks like. I care about what she writes, since she is a writer. And lately, she cannot call herself a writer at all.

    I also think a lot of us write here because we know -- more than ever -- that our messages are getting read by you, you and you (hi there!).

    A true thinker sees not black and white, but the grey mess we all make. We're human beings first, Paul. I got ovaries and I also got a brain.

    Thanks, Caryn

    ReplyDelete
  9. Seriously, Caryn!

    Paul: who do you think visits that retard site NS anyway? Men? hahaha! small percentage! I mean, ask JA who her target audience is...if she says men, she's smokin' up!

    So, maybe it's a little deductive reasoning that you need! Men arent on NS; they don't really give a shit about JA's spiritual awakenings and would rather read about that supermodel's bacteria-infested-death (r.i.p.) when on the internet.

    That said, don't discount the men who are commneting here as well. There may not be a lot, but that's because JA and crew aren't writing to men (although, if yousay their photos are more geared towards hetero men, then I'd say you have an argument!!)

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  10. Also, how "catty" of Paul Carr himself to resort to name-calling. He might do with a dose of his own impassioned cry for objectivity.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...but maybe we missed the magic fairy dust that didn't appear on camera?"

    That's why I love this blog. It never fails to make me laugh. I agree it’s not okay to tear apart Julia’s appearance. But I see nothing wrong in mocking the endless photos of Zoolander face and cheesy poses. I certainly don’t hate the woman for doing it, but I’m sorry it’s funny. Someone should do a series of pics with her doing that face. Julia would do it if she knew how to laugh at herself instead of namedropping and trying to present this false world of fabulousness. It would make her not only more likeable but far more interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Caryn, nice response. You are so right--he doesn't get that we are not so offended by her as women than we are as writers. I've seen better writing in this site's comments than I've ever seen on NS.

    Seriously, as JA would tell him, if it bothers him that much then he should stick to his vapid famewhoring. Or perhap he enjoys feeling patriarchal to us little ladies (and gentlemen)?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, anon 4:23, Paul was a magician for years, so maybe he did the fairy dusting himself?

    Too bad he couldn't get the bunny into his, er, hat.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I couldn't care less about JAB's weight fluctuations, her hair extensions, her veneers, her lip injections, her ridiculous outfits. Likewise with Mary and her botox, hair bleach, cleanses, and colonics. They created these blogs about themselves and posted that stuff. Apparently they believe it's of interest. I don't find it so.
    What gets me isn't Julia Baugher at all. She's a party girl; flashes some titties, flirts and acts outrageous to get attention, jumps up and down like a 5 year old when she meets someone she wants to impress with her adoration, name drops, and picks of snippets of conversation so she can repeat these thoughts as her own and appear as though she's "in" on the leading edge of whatever. No big deal, climbers like her are dime a dozen. There's nothing remarkable or different about that.
    What gets me is not Julia Baugher at all. It's the people who get sucked in by this spectacle and think there's anything relevant or interesting there.
    The lazy ass editors who assign someone to write about her because (1) she never says no, and (2) she's an easy study. A self-described "attention addict" pushing 30 who models herself after television characters (currently, the fictional Blair Waldorf who I believe is meant to be a teenager).
    So that's where my frustration lies. That's how a little part of me dies when I see her stalking people more accomplished in their own right than she will ever be, and somehow "passing" as one of them. When she crashes parties that she hasn't been invited to and makes it all about her. Her inauguration "coverage" was the pinnacle of that technique.
    But it's not Julia alone that makes a mockery of true innovators and entrepreneurs (women or men) with real accomplishments and something worthwhile to offer, it's the people who buy into her conceit (including her) and reinforce the myth that there's anything of substance there.
    Seeing her -- such an obvious and transparent climber/sycophant/narcissist -- being given any kind of platform of legitimacy beyond her "fame whore" aspirations is truly disheartening. That she squanders the intrinsic value of these various events and cheapens them with her antics is beside the point, there's really no surprise there. That's what party girls do; they're part of the entertainment, peripheral eye candy, but hardly taken seriously.
    Ya, sure, from what I can tell based on her own indiscrete and pay-back type postings she also seems to be a totally self-involved and spoiled cunty bitch. But there's not big surprise there either. Again, a dime a dozen.
    It's not JAB that's the problem, IMHO, she's one person amongst many just like her, who effing cares? But with people who should no better, she repeatedly gets away with somehow claiming more. And that is what I find infuriating.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon 4:30

    Yes, exactly. Oh, they all need to hide behind this easy stuff -- "women hate attractive women", "women hate successful women",etc.

    The problem is she is neither attractive nor successful. Well, in my opinion that is. Being a woman, Paul, I judge women by their inside beauty through what they contribute, represent and encourage. Let's say I'm harsher than the men...

    Oh my ovaries hurt from all the thinking!

    Caryn

    ReplyDelete
  16. my response on the last post: (I think it still applies especially since his response still reeks of the same issues as his initial piece on the topic):
    I saw Sarah Lacey at SXSW (on video I mean) and the criticism of her was very fair, and her reaction (f you all or whatever she said on video interview to her critics)was unprofessional and absurd. She unlike JA actually seems to work hard but there is stil plenty that can be criticized there too.

    While both of them may get sexist comments and critique (I don't doubt that they do or could) the problem is in lumping all critique against professional females, especially ones who are considered sexy, cute or atractive, as being sexist.

    That is what Paul Carr seems to do here, neglecting to acknnowledge that both women receive legitimate criticism along with perhaps sexist comment. "Vile" is subjective. Even "abuse" is subjective. Maybe if Carr had followed the "show not tell" edict of good writing and given examples instead of only his assessment of such comments, we could judge for ourselves.

    Ineff.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you, Paul Carr, I've seen the light. Did you really think you were doing anything more than putting gas on the fire? Of course not. Enjoy the extra page views while you can, you magnificent knight in shining armor, you. What a wanker.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I don't think either of these pieces by him are worth a real response since he hasn't bothered to research or present significant, relevant facts on the issue or cite evidence for his assertions and opinions.

    So my response is limited to his tactics rather than the points he seems to be trying to make about online nastiness (which by the way, what? Is he not reading his own pieces on this topic?) especially in regard to this whole NS thing (not to mention many did respond the first time this was posted about and he somehow managed to not pick up on any of the real points made on this site).

    Ever heard of looking at two sides of an issue, questioning and researching both sides for their viewpoints, then offering your educated opinion based on what you've learned, while presenting relevants examples for your arguments and both sides' views even if you don't agree with both?

    Just because it's an opinion piece/column doesn't mean it need be totally void of 1. facts 2. some attempt at evenhandness and knowledge of your subject matter and 3. specifics to explain and support your assertions

    Maybe if you read the site you happened to encounter probably a day or so before writing about it and took the time to familiarize yourself with some of the point there, then actually went through the trouble of explaining to your readers what was so smart about JA's presentation and why the arguments/critiques about her WORK are so invalid, you'd have some points for people to discuss or refute.

    Oh and Mr Carr people are anonymous online in most cases when their job does not involve being online or writing publicly under their real name. In most cases people aren't anonymouse because they as you so tastefully put it don't have the balls to put their name to their views but because for many the reality is that putting one's name to any opinion online can be a problem at work or for future job opportunities.

    Should people not have or voice opinion in what is a most common forum of discussion today because doing so in a way that is reasonable for them and is the practice of the majority somehow makes their points not legitimate in your eyes?

    Or should they put their name to their comments and risk their livelihoods (not because their comments are wrong or nasty but because posting opionions online period is frowned upon by many prospective employers) just so someone like you doesn't have the silly argument about anonymity to resort to when he has no other valid point to make about the content of their message? I believe the answer is no.

    (Also I'd argue that attacking others on your blog with your real name but then deleting the posts so it looks like you never did it once it's been read by the intended party, as your beloved NS bloggers like to do, should fall under similar lacks balls category according to your definitions. )

    But those who for one reason or another don't face the same restrictions, perhaps because their chosen field does not pose those same restrictions, like to cite anonymous comments as lacking merit when they are faced with situations where they have no valid point with which to argue the actual content of a person's message.

    If you can't present a valid argument, attack the messenger's legitimacy instead, right?

    How about all the books written under psuedonyms? I suppose they have nothing of merit to say. The women who wrote under men's name because society at the time in some ways dictated their success or lack thereof if they didn't do so, their books have no legitimate content since their real name wasn't attached right? The writers completely lacked balls, right? And even if you think they did, does that invalidate the content of what they wrote? I don't see how it would. None of them are still read and valued today or anything right?

    Resorting to empty rhetoric about anonymity instead of having "the balls" to actually respond to the *message* of commenters is what I call a tactic of distraction. Points can be anonymous and very very valid. It would be great to start seeing certain people have "the balls" to respond to those actual points instead of taking the diversionary tactic of attacking the messenger. I think I understand now just why you like JA so much, you have quite a lot in common.

    signed,

    Proud ANON

    ReplyDelete
  19. I should add to that second to last sentence "...attacking the messenger *or misrepresenting the message so as to avoid addressing its actual points*."

    Read this and other similar sites, familiarize yourself with the arguments, go look at NS for a while with those arguments in mind, then write a piece citing real evidence for your points and maybe there will be someting there for a real discussion on this issue.

    As it is you've only attacked the writers of the comments and attached your own inaccurate interpretation to their words, then dismissed the false interpretation you attribute to them as being invalid. Not very useful starting point for debate or discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Wow, Proud ANON, kudos on that comment. And kudos again. You've articulated my frustration with the anonymity red herring so well I want to stand up and cheer at my computer.

    I would just like to add, as I mentioned on the previous post, that JA's so-called haters coming out of anonymity could hurt her more than anything else. She does not want a roll-call of everyone she's dicked over (and under, so to speak).

    I proudly add my anonymous voice to our wise Greek chorus of this tragi-comedy. And Paul, just because you're using your real name doesn't mean you have an argument that holds any water, bunny.

    ReplyDelete
  21. He calls himself a 'new media whore'!!
    Look at the title of his new book! Something about 'Bringing NOTHING to the party'...

    He's just sticking up for his fellow nothing-to-contribute friends. Again, as I said earlier, he has to. By defending them, he defends himself and his livelihood and reputation as a whore.

    Maybe it's JA who's gettin' the head.

    Anonym-US

    ReplyDelete
  22. I don't know. I'm starting to like her.

    #Davos - on our way to WEF soirée, just saw Naomi Campbell sitting shotgun in the shuttle in front of us.
    about 3 hours ago from txt

    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul Carr = future Mr. Julia Allison

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mental Kel from DerryJanuary 31, 2009 at 5:55 PM

    Paul,

    If you read this, I just want to say I love your book title and I hope to one day crash parties and be amongst cool, successful people. I have nothing to say really, so your method must truly work. You're an inspiration. Julia, too, of course (that's why I'm here -- to fight the haters and make it a better place for us on the net).

    No snarkism; I love ya!

    Kel

    ReplyDelete
  25. Speaking of, who would marry her?

    Julia, you like to think of yourself as *a lot to handle*, but no non-canine species could tolerate your ruthlessness.

    Lily is too cute and silly to know!

    xoxo

    Lulu

    ReplyDelete
  26. Just a few points -

    * Perhaps Mr. Carr should ask Julia Baugher and Meghan Parikh why they don't post online using their real names.

    * He needs to buy Julia expensive shoes if he's expecting her to put out.

    * What a lame ass he is for automatically assuming that just because we criticize and (in many cases) just don't like Julia, it has to be because we're somehow jealous of a somewhat attractive woman (who dresses like a slutty teen and injects toxins into her face so much that she looks waxy) who makes a horse's ass out of herself on a regular basis. Whenever she finds herself in a public setting, she brays and does outlandish things (like riding a giant bucking dildo) just for attention. NOT attractive.

    * Her constant obsessing over celeb sightings is not only pathetic, but confirms (once again) that she's all about surface and appearance, not a serious journalist or businesswoman. I mean, who give a flying fuck about seeing a nasty model in another bus? I see famous people all the time in my neighborhood, and most of the time, I just don't care. Hell, I don't even recognize most of them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Oh, come on now. She's just being real...she's starstruck all the time! Like everyone would be! Naomi Campbell!? Now that's a sighting! She's just a girl in the world...she's one of us...she's just so lucky to be at these places and she acknowledges it in ways we take as showing-off. No, she's not showing-off; she is sharing her excitement.

    DON'T YOU PEOPLE GET IT!???

    Read her old blog! So many posts are about crashing parties and posing with that person and this person for photos! She's in on it and she's just making a superblog with her two best girlfriends! They're keepin' it real all the time.

    *Let it unfold*, girlies!!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Paul,

    I'm a male, in my thirties, involved in the new media scene, and to be frank, Julia Baugher sickens me.

    She makes this fledgling level of media look bad. The value-less content she purports is a stain on the hard work of others who are trying to move this medium to the forefront of the information age.

    You wrote a book, you seem insightful, yet, you defend this pox. Why?

    ReplyDelete
  29. “Read her old blog! So many posts are about crashing parties…”

    She should go back to that and STEP UP her content.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dear Kyle (or, I mean, the one who rides on the large woman-pleasing sex objects):

    It is late in Switzerland. It is late for me here in Omsk. We should both to go bed, rabbits.

    ReplyDelete
  31. After checking out Paul Carr's website, where he so amply displays his abilities, all I've gotta say is it's a compliment to be called a "weird lunatic Lemon-Lyman-Nurse-Ratched-Parliament-Chain-Smoking-Harpy" (TM) by this man. That is all.

    ReplyDelete
  32. http://tumblelog.marco.org/74650082

    Tumblr cofounder Marco calls out Next New Networks, and notes that there is one NNN show that he refuses to watch even a single second of.

    hmm.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Haha! Looks like "new media whore" Paul Carr is trying to drum up publicity by trying to take away some of JA's detractors to use for himself. God he is so transparent, especially for someone who should supposedly possess a bit of media tact.

    Stop linking to this guy's pathetic website. It is obvious he is delighted because this is the only thing that has ever drummed up any publicity for him. I bet he is moping a bit that Gawker hasn't picked this up.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anon at 7:13pm: Tumblr and NNN share an office in Manhattan. They are all pals and they are all connected to one another. I don't think Marco was really "calling out" NNN. Although, it would probably be in Tumblr's best interest to distance themselves from that trainwreck (NNN) since it is about to go under.

    I really wish this site would go more into the Charlise and Tumblr incident and share some of their experiences about getting kicked off the site. I think that would be a really interesting thing to dive into considering that many Tumblr users would be upset to hear that their blogs might disappear for even MENTIONING one of David Karp's friends. Please, please, please investigate this! We can only trust RBNS!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anyone who would admit to liking Julia Baugher--especially after meeting her in the flesh--could only be a fellow media ho, so any assessment by Mr. Carr, or by any of his other personalities who appear to be commenting here (now THAT'S a Julia strategy!), on those who adore this reblogging site is irrelevant.

    Guess I need add is that a dean at Georgetown referred to Baugher repeatedly as a "sociopath" when the pink lady caused problem after problem when at university. That assessment was shared by 99.9% of the faculty, administration, and student body, and nothing appears to have changed, other than Baugher's narcissistic personality disorder appears to have become even more extreme. So who's the loon, Mr. Carr?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Even his twitter buddy has asked if NS is a joke (after watching some vids)...

    Please, let's forget this new media whore. We've already got three!

    Let's move on...

    Lulu

    ReplyDelete
  37. If this douche is going to throw around stereotypes about women hating women, how about that old saw that even the smartest men can be blinded by a nice set of knockers, huh?

    That's equally offensive and insulting to his intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Nice, Jacy. Exactly.

    Well, Sheryl just poured her heart out, once again, on QOD. Lorraine followed up with a good one, I think:

    Then stop visiting, Sheryl!

    I mean this in the nicest way; no joke.
    If it's lost it's appeal for you, then walk away. You were the most loyal of them all and it's their loss.

    Well, you know, Julia has many new friends in such high places that she really doesn't care. You don't believe me? Look at her photos! Such important people run up to pose with her...

    She doesn't need us. We're just jealous.

    Repeat three times:

    "I'm just jealous."

    We're not disappointed, confused or frustrated -- we're just jealous. All of us. After all, we're just being women, right?

    Let's all 'fess up.

    Thanks,
    Lorraine Cohen, my real name. Look me up, but you won't find much. I don't usually comment on the internet, but I had to share my thoughts on this one. I was, of course, a former fan.


    Lulu <-- it's a nickname, Paul. Is that OK?

    ReplyDelete
  39. You're all chicken for posting comments anonymously.

    You moan, whine and bitch all you like.

    In fact, hide behind your anonymous tags. Keep typing negative posts and being the whole problem thats being highlighted.

    But when it comes down to it, either put up or shut up. If you think you can do better than certain people, go ahead. If you have a problem with someone, have the guts to actually criticise under your own name.

    Or just spit at them and run away.
    Cause you've not got the guts to face them.

    Your choice.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Paul's here!

    Glad you want to play with chickens, Paulie.

    ANONYMOUS

    ReplyDelete
  41. LOL

    Julia's Twitter
    #Davos - I'm the only one at Davos with a headband! 3:05 PM Jan 30th from txt

    ReplyDelete
  42. I believe he said he was going offline...he was announcing it to the web. It can't possibly be him.

    If it is, Paul, I follow your columns and I enjoy them. Just relax. This is the internet and there's nothing that will really change. I know you listened to Julia speak about accountability and poor commenting manners, but you can't hitch your own beliefs to hers. She isn't accountable to her readers. You know?

    My name is Luella and my nickname is Lulu, which is how I refer to myself. I'm a student in Philly, but originally from Durham, England.
    I will not post my last name because I am not required to. I don't give any information out these days, not even to the store clerks who want my email/address/phone number before making a purchase. I don't trust anyone. Please, don't hide behind such a weak argument. This site has some valid comments on it. Your columns are fun to read; just stick to what you do. You can't be the crusader for all 'public' personalities.

    Thanks,
    Luella!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous said...

    Paul's here!

    Glad you want to play with chickens, Paulie.

    ANONYMOUS
    January 31, 2009 8:23 PM
    ..................................................

    I take it that was directed at me.

    Anywho, I am not Paul Carr(thanks for the compliment though)

    I happen to be a guy called Phil as stated.
    And I live in Southport, UK.

    A place I am sure Paul Carr does not know exists.

    ReplyDelete
  44. OK, Phil.

    You're on the wrong site.

    Love, Anonny

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sorry to break it to you but you people really are "loons." I'm not defending anyone here... but it seems you guys are just here to attack this "Julia" person (please bear mind I just stumbled in here from a tweeted link) I don't know what's going on and frankly I don't care. Am right in thinking this is a blog set up to criticizing a blog? That is fucked up on so many levels, I mean who cares? If you don't like it don't read it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Honestly, I'm done. After seeing how physically sick this whole debacle is making me, I quit.

    I now resign to the Julia Allison School of Karma. I have faith that things will right themselves in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  47. ** and i don't mean that YOU guys will get bad karma- i mean Jules & co.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Paul misses the point.
    Yes there has been de-constructions of julia et al that brought up feminism, and were off-mark. Yes.
    But the larger picture is this: the free internet that makes mini-stars has a flipside.
    People don't like Nonsociety. They dont like julia, for a lot of reasons.
    They are being shouted down.
    Being shouted-down is the opposite of building "buzz". Yes, some web-newbies ended up with gawker or vimeo. But only because people like what they had.
    The internet works the other way, too. And Web people like Paul should understand that.
    20 million people at work, with computers, can cut you, bitch!

    ReplyDelete
  49. A post that somewhat covers what you all are getting at, as far as them being "shouted down".

    Also:

    Yesterday’s QOD is STILL up and the comments section has, for once, not been censored. With Mary and the show’s producer still stateside, I have to wonder why this is. Do they really just not know how? Maybe they could ask the elusive “programmer” that Mary said would be commenting on their innocence in this whole Google mess.

    Any why hasn’t Scary posted for the past 24 hours?

    ReplyDelete
  50. Hallelulah, Scary Mary. These dirty girls have dug themselves into an ugly hole. Now they just need to go away.

    Especially the one who brays like the donkey in my barn.

    ReplyDelete
  51. get after it, flatface. julia doesn't understand that something that exists on the internet is still subject, more-or-less, to the rules of offline society. meaning, if you don't do your job well, people will tell you about it. even if your job is a blog.

    it's not legitimate to complain that people don't understand "new media," and that if they did they would shut their pie holes when they were dissatisfied.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Russian girl... I LOVE YOU!!! You are my hero..and the only one who clearly sees this fat, badly dressed joke of a woman for what she is.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This is a reblog from "Kitty" (I'm not her) that is on NS QotD. I'm posting it here because I think it pretty much sums it up (and if history is any guide, will soon be deleted ...).
    In her words:
    The problem is, this site has no mission and no content. Their brand is themselves, but unlike other self made female brands-Oprah, Martha- their brand is about nothing and offers nothing beyond the activity of brand making itself. Julia and her girls are Empty Signifiers - meaning nothing, standing for nothing, related to nothing but the activity of signifying. They are women of reaction rather than action, of poses rather than positions, of random short term status seeking goals rather than actual long term meaningful missions. JA's endless posing, purse-lipped, breasts aloft, are the pornographic come ons to starting story that never unfolds -because it does not exist. Non society is an endless introduction, a bottomless pit of vapidity, a new blank slate every day. There is no there here.
    [brilliant]

    ReplyDelete
  54. It is Saturday night. Most of you were posting last night and are here again tonight. I pick Julia's life, thanks!

    And for the person that claims to have attended Georgetown with Julia: really putting that education to work (or is it your "friend" who is passing this hearsay along?).

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anyone else hear that Fernando from the "telling stories" DLD panel was disgusted with gutter mouth JA?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anon 11:01: And yet you're here too, both nights. Party over for the night in Davos? Another all-nighter, bunny?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Julia is "famous." She decided to become famous. She decided to make her name public (though she changed it first!). That's her choice.

    I'd love to sign my name after all my comments but I can't. It's not because I'm embarrassed by them. I'm not. I would have no problem if my mother, boyfriend, best friend, etc. read my comments. However, my employer would not take kindly to my comments. I hold a position that makes public blocking, public facebooking, public twittering impossible. It's not my choice to make. This is true for many of us 9-5ers...

    I don't think the anonymity comment has as much weight as people think it does.

    ReplyDelete
  58. That should have read, "I hold a position that makes public blogging, public face booking, public twittering impossible.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anon 11:03, AKA Julia,

    Oh, Bunny, I did attend university with the trainwreck then known as Julia Baugher, a narcissist par excellence who was the laughing stock of the university. The stories about Baugher are legion, and I always learn something new whenever I meet another alum. Oh, and I have put my degree to marvelous use, first working for the Peace Corps for two years after graduation. Not exactly a choice that a mentally ill exhibitionist who would change her name to hide her sleazy past could have made.

    Sleep tight, bunny. The piano bar is closed for the evening.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous 12:23 AM : I love it when you call her "Bunny."

    ReplyDelete
  61. Wow, JA wore ski pants and moon boots to a session of the World Economic Forum. I don't know what else to say.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Hiding behind anonymous tags, huh? And who are you, "Phil"? Hmmmm let's see, I'm "Jane." Feel better now about what I have to say?

    ReplyDelete
  63. In case anyone wants to see what Julia Baugher looked like before the nose job and the veneers:

    http://wonkette.com/3620/whos-that-girl-in-pink

    ReplyDelete
  64. Erik--Yep, that's the ol' horse mouth that I remember prattling on and on about her idol Paris Hilton when I had to endure a class with Baugher during senior year. Ah, the memories. The crap that would tumble out of the joker's wide mouth when she managed to actually show up for class . . .

    ReplyDelete
  65. Why, if Julia is so obsessed with accountability and anonymity on the web, does she continue to hide fake names herself?

    In your own words, Jules, put up or shut up.

    On a side note, here is my own personal reason for hating women like Julia.

    I am also in a field dominated by men. I am young (21) and I am very concerned with being treated seriously. This past November I was one of the youngest people (ever) to be invited to speak on a panel at a prestigious academic conference. And I can tell you this: I sure as hell didn't dress like a trollop and ramble on about myself.

    I stressed for days about what to wear so that I could be considered both respectable, young, an academic, and a beautiful woman. (Side note, Jules: Red tights are never attractive. Ever.)

    I have worked so hard to get where I am. And women like Julia just flash some boob and are invited to attend things that people like me only dream about going to. You don't get it, do you? You ruin it for the rest of us. You are the worst kind of person.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Oh my gosh, those pre nose job pics Erik linked to from wonkette are incredible. She changed so much! Like completely different face.

    http://wonkette.com/3620/whos-that-girl-in-pink

    I wonder if that was her Georgetown graduation present?

    ReplyDelete
  67. What infuriates me the most about Julia Baugher is the way she constantly fails upward.

    Can't write a good school newspaper column? Plagiarize it.
    Can't gain notoriety on your own? Date a congressman.
    Can't hack it as a journalist? Have your parents pay your way to NYC and get regional advice column.
    Can't get a tv deal from Bravo? Launch a lifestyle website.
    Can't run successful website? Go to every trade show you can, crash inaugural balls and get invited to DLD.

    After a life trajectory like that, most people would be finished in their field of choice, but she keeps going higher and higher. At the least, this hypothetical person might rethink some of their choices and make a new set of plans.

    As it stands, I'm guessing this is exactly the path she envisioned for herself back at Georgetown.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Finally, I think that Mary and Julia come off as self-serving and sycophantic at the same time. It is quite the feat, I must say.

    (Meagan, on the other hand, seems like she has no idea what she has gotten herself into. Or maybe she does and is just along for the ride.)

    ReplyDelete
  69. one more thing about those nose job photos- she's with some pretty heavy hitters there. she must be mortified that those photos exist, otherwise you'd think we'd have seen them before plastered all over her blog.

    remember how much she just LOVES to trot out all the photos of her and alex, and whoever, from her past? but yet we have heard nary a word about how she was with hilarie clinton, bill and kerry? ha. the past election would have been a good time to show us those, dontchathink? oh, wait... we only get to see the post-op ones.

    ReplyDelete
  70. http://i328.photobucket.com/albums/l354/scarymary1234/thennow.jpg

    Sorry but I couldn't help myself.
    No way in god that's the same damn nose.
    And the fucking kicker is Mary's fucking bull shit rant about people just being open about their "right" to cosmetic surgery. And yet...

    xoxo
    Scary

    ReplyDelete
  71. From Trainwrecks over at Tumblr:

    http://trainwrecks.tumblr.com/post/74389370/juliaallison-piano-baring-it-2nd-night-yes

    ReplyDelete
  72. I'm not so great at articulating my thoughts. These words are from Chez Pazienza for The Huffington Post, about women of the new media:

    "Emily Gould's neck-breaking, yet strangely dull, confessional introspection -- her lamentation of "I've Never Been to Me" -- seemed to confirm everyone's worst fears about young bloggers: they're shallow; they think the world revolves around them and their problems; they grow addicted to the rush of instant feedback or instant fame; they become nothing more than caricatures of real people after a while. For someone who now writes fulltime, mostly via the internet, I couldn't help but see Emily Gould as a kind of new media literary Stepin Fetchit, setting the whole damn movement back by a decade or so by smiling broadly and doing the happy little shuffle that would guarantee her minor fame -- at least that of her idol, media gadfly and real-world nobody Julia Allison, whom Gould name-drops with Tourette's-like consistency -- but would also ensure that any larger responsibility toward women in new media (and women in general for that matter) went unattended. By greedily grabbing the lowest-hanging fruit on the massive tree available to women bloggers -- writing mostly about her love life, which seems to always assure an audience of one kind or another -- Gould helped to lower the bar and set a new standard for the women who would follow in her wake."


    "...as women with a forum and an audience, they have a responsibility not necessarily to represent or speak for all women, but at the very least to understand that what they say matters -- that people are listening and give a crap. There are often larger consequences to what those with a forum say and do."

    (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chez-pazienza/droll-models-is-being-dru_b_112141.html)

    ReplyDelete
  73. Julia's last day at WEF? 10 pictures in ski pants. Yes, SKI PANTS.

    ReplyDelete
  74. I got a good giggle out of the person who thinks this community of commenters has "no life" (get a new line, willya?) because we are posting on both a Friday and Saturday night. They implied that Julia's life is superior to ours because she spends her evenings in a bar, drunkenly belting out karaoke songs for the entertainment of strangers.

    See, I live "differently" than the old 9-5 workday and party on the weekends stereotype. My business allows me to set my own hours. When I have free time, I entertain myself by volunteering at an animal shelter, teaching kids in my neighborhood how to sew clothing, and keeping up with current events on the Internet (including gasp! commenting on things that catch my interest). Even before I got married, I never thought going to bars and parties full of strangers was much fun. I preferred to host dinner parties for my friends, go to movies, or work on my hobbies. Oh yeah, I've been overseas, too. I lived and studied in Europe for three wonderful years.

    I don't believe that lending my voice to the ever-growing crowd of others here who are trying to shout down NonSociety is a waste of my time at all. Nor do I feel that my life is in any way inferior to the lives of Ms. Allison and company.

    -Donna K.

    ReplyDelete
  75. By the way, am I the only one here wondering who/what the fuck Paul Carr is?

    Never heard of him before, and I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say.

    ReplyDelete
  76. NonEnt--

    You're not alone.

    FunnyBunny

    ReplyDelete
  77. Shit, Julia! YOu're important!!
    Thanks for the 4 photos of the non-commercial plane! I get it.

    Please tell me that's Meghan's plane.

    Do you think they would ever mention whose plane it is??? No, better left unsaid...leaves more to the imagination, right?

    Julia, thank your lucky stars that you have done nothing to deserve...well...you'll see how it pans out for you.

    Planes, conferences, ski pants...it's all nothing because YOU'RE IN THEM.

    Sorry to the others.
    Peace out.

    -- emily

    ReplyDelete
  78. I don't think it's the same plane.

    http://valleywag.gawker.com/353900/meghan-ashas-party-plane

    Whatever, some guy is a tool, that's all.

    Julia, who do you post pictures for? Just answer that. You can travel any way you can! Thanks!

    k

    ReplyDelete
  79. Hi,

    I have recently learned of the name Julia Allison about 2 days ago. It didn't take me long to get here, eh!? Twitter searching her name brings up fun stuff, like this gem (she's all alone at the HuffPo ball, according to numerous accounts and THIS picture):

    http://twitpic.com/14xjo

    It's all a lie! Madoff style! Her blog is put together to make her seem oh way more than we think...

    Loves,
    Iris

    ReplyDelete
  80. Please, oh kind and merciful Lord, let this be some sort of corporate jet. In this financial climate the equation goes something like so: corporate excess + picking up moon-booted moron hitchhikers = resignation.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Yeah, I actually think it's all thanks to Randi again...I don't think the Facebook crew fly commercial.

    GOOD OL' RANDI!

    ReplyDelete
  82. It seems the ski pants/private plane photos have been taken down unless they are some place I'm not looking. Were they on her blog?

    ReplyDelete
  83. It's funny, isn't it, that the wireless came back for long enough for her to write a little blow-job to a Facebook executive she'd glommed onto. The most substantive thing she wrote all week -- how odd. Strange how the WiFi comes back when it comes time to write something JA hopes might benefit her personally.

    ReplyDelete
  84. What happened to Mary? No Tweets or posts since Friday...it isn't like she is busy with "friends."

    ReplyDelete
  85. Mary is basically sending a big fuck you to them by ignoring what's going on, addressing what she wants to address, and writing what she wants despite how it makes NS look. Guys, her message is loud and clear - FUCK Y'ALL! I'm doing my own thing. She's done. And she's letting everybody know it her way, on her terms. And I'll tell you what was the straw that broke the camel's back - the intern issue. I think she vehemently disagreed with Julia's decision to have her blog taken down and probably really liked Charlsie. I'm telling you, look for Mary to send a "screw you guys, I'm goin' home" message very soon, and publicly.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Hollie Go Lightly: Oh, God I hope that is true! I would love Mary if she defended Charlsie, and it would definitely change my (and others') opinion of her.

    Honeslty, I do kind of like Mary even though she is easiest one to hate sometimes. Meghan is an airhead and she is willing to go on JA's ride. Mary seems like she is smart enough to realize what is going on and that JA basically suckered her into being hated so that JA could increase her "star power." Can't hate JA for it, she knows the game. I would feel abused if my friend did this to me, however. It doesn't seem like this is exactly supporting Mary's lifestyle. I hope she moves on to other things and let's the truth come out. God, she could make a chunk of change for dishing about what it was like to work for JA at NS!!

    Do it Mary!!!

    ReplyDelete
  87. Mary doesn't need to dish anything. By discontinuing her business relationship with JA, she says it all. I think Mary would never sell JA out because 1. she knows everyone already knows anyway and 2. she does have dignity (in comparison to the others, yes.).

    I hope she goes her own way and does well. She is the only blogger of the three, really.

    Iris

    ReplyDelete
  88. Iris: Sorry, I have to come to JA's defense here and say she is the only real blogger of the three. She has maintained a blog for longer and she knows how to write beyond a 7th grade level. Mary can't write for shit and she only started blogging when JA encouraged her to.

    I do think a Mary tell-all would be kind of interesting though. There are a lot of things about JA that Gawker and co. are not willing to say. She is kind of a horrible person if you ever meet her in real life. And by "horrible" I mean not at all like how she comes off in her blog (that is a whole other level of "horrible").

    Also, if Mary had any diginity she would have 1. Never have gotten into this JA mess and 2. Never have repeatedly blogged about her colonics, botox and write bitchy things about anyone who isn't her.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Hi Everyone,

    Take a look at NS's stats over at Alexa (www.alexa.com). Alexa ranks all the websites, and gives a pretty accurate idea of page views and ranks. It not only proves that Mary's estimate of "hundredS of thousandS" of page views, but notice where it is now. The past week has seen a major drop in page views. I would think a true web entrepreneur would jet home immediately upon seeing such information, wouldn't you?

    I think it is safe to say that Non-Society is done.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Jeez, Nicole, that Nonsociety graph does indeed show a steep downward dive in traffic recently. I guess the Hatin' Haters, loons and lunatic Harpies withholding our page views actually is affecting their statistics. Well, that and the fact that their content has been at an all-time low, even for them.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Of course, the big traffic dive means that Julia Allison is even now--as she wings over the icy Atlantic on some ineffable, indefatigable somebody's plane--planning the stunts to be executed upon her return. Watch for it!

    Or better yet: care to speculate here on what Her Stuntiness has up her sleeve, other than the obvious Paul Carr Memorial campaign against online's Hatin' Haters?

    ReplyDelete
  92. Whoever suggested using tumblr if you really must look at their site had a good idea. Even better you can follow them on tumblr for a minute to look at their site, then unfollow when you're done. That way they don't have your page views and they can't "site" you as one of their tumblr followers either.

    ReplyDelete
  93. It's really quite fascinating, and proves once again how she's been lying about page views and numbers. Surprise surprise.

    http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/nonsociety.com

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anon at 2:43-- I think if you look at a page on your dashboard on Tumblr it still counts as a PV. I know it does with sitemeter for my Tumblr.

    ReplyDelete
  95. She didn't get a nose job, we are just used to seeing her from a side or slanted angle. There's a reason she poses that way.

    Photo with face on angle from CES http://www.flickr.com/photos/wmsproductions/3192581365/in/set-72157612458829069/

    ReplyDelete
  96. Oh lord, she is back in the US.

    Brace for impact.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Total Jing
    Did you see scary mary's before and after? I know we are trying to keep the discussion off appearance but it seems really clear she did get a nose job. Another picture from back in the day:
    http://blog.juliaallison.com/Images/Julia%20Allison%20New%20Year%20in%20Las%20Vegas.JPG
    Now:
    http://80.media.vimeo.com/d1/5/10/25/25/10252537/10252537_300.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  98. Anon 3:11
    Thanks for the info about Tumblr and page views. I won't check that anymore either but I think a few others were under the impression it didn't count either. Good to know.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Paul Carr's reaction is so outrageous that I can't even take him seriously. If he read for comprehension, he'd get that the majority of criticism here is NOT "pathetically catty."

    I actually found the entries from JA's old blog that someone posted to be kind of sad in the sense that she is **capable** of producing content. Her startling glut of content (on her tumbler, with jakobandjulia) is what got her noticed in the first place. If she wants to run a website based around writing, I'm not saying she must cover only serious topics and only be a serious journalist. I doubt she has such aspirations anyway -- and that's okay. For her to blog about relationships, for Mary to blog about fashion, for Meghan to blog about tech, with the intention to turn NS into a female-friendly interactive "lifecasting" enterprise that builds a contributor base -- that is all fine, and not a half-bad idea. (And THAT is a business that JA could actually sell someday.)

    But the rub is...you have to PRODUCE CONTENT for people to start thinking of it as a legitimate business and not a vanity project. If I or someone else started up a blog that consisted solely of pictures of me posing alongside people with uninteresting captions, no one would pay attention. And certainly people would only laugh in my face (and rightly so) if I expected to make money from it.

    Julia is Julia and I have long been fascinated by her ability to get attention so it's not necessarily about wanting a beautiful attention-magnet to go down. I am simply disappointed that she isn't doing more with what she's been given but wants to be rewarded as if she has. And that she regards all of us who point this out as haters or violently jealous of her instead of taking it as a personal lesson (and just the necessary fallout of being a public figure) is frustrating.

    As for anonymity, I'm posting under my Blogger identity and if anyone wanted to contact me, they certainly could. However, I don't consider myself obligated to post my full name, home address/work address online. Just because we're not oversharers doesn't mean we're cowards.

    ReplyDelete
  100. The moose has landed.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Jing....

    She definitely had a nose job. Also startling was how small her boobs are as compared to how they appear now.

    ReplyDelete
  102. The lack of real content is due to their lack of connections and credibility. The problem is the core of their business model is their "lifecasts." I have no doubt that when this business plan was hatched, it was hitched to the fact that Julia worked for Star and had access to great parties and people. Without that, and due to the fact that when she had that connection she blew it and burned bridges and just assholed herself out, they have no connections. Now they have to crash parties and ride coat tails and take whatever crumbs they can get. Their connections have dried up, leaving them with no real access to cover or "lifecast" any major event. In short, they have no lives to "lifecast." There's only so much their meager connections can get them anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Teterboro! MUST SHE SAY THAT?

    I'm sorry, Julia, I can only believe you are showing off. We all know what "Teterboro" means.

    Please, see it from our perpsective.

    Thanks, k

    ReplyDelete
  104. Jing: She did get a nose job, not sure if it was before or after those Wonkette photos were taken, but she did have one. If you look at childhood photos of her you can tell. I'm pretty sure she has talked about it before but that might just be wishful thinking.

    I think her boobs just look smaller because that was when she had that eating disorder. She screams "late bloomer" to me anyways. Her boobs aren't that big now anyways. They are just a 32C or something.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Anon 3:51: No problem, although I am not 100% sure if it counts. If you look at it on your Tumblr dashboard it won't show ads so those are PVs that advertisers would not be concerned with anyways. I'm sure NS' PVs are inflated because of the dashboard views and this would explain why the Google Reader PVs are so much higher than other search engines' PVs for the site.

    I'm one of the love-to-hate fans of JAB and Co. so I am only ever interested in their posts if Scary Mary or RBNS or Gawker posts about them. If you stick to looking at things on here and don't click the links, I don't think that will contribute to their PVs. Wouldn't it be awesome if there was some other non-Tumblr site that reposted ALL of their content so no one would ever have to link to them? Ha!

    I wouldn't be too concerned about giving these girls PVs, though. Remember, it isn't about PVs, it is about advertising and VC funding. The girls are not generating that much revenue with BlogAds on their TMI site and the Degree Ultraclear ads that are mysteriously staying put despite the fact they were for "the holidays" only...If NS has a bad reputation no one will want to advertise with them.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Randi Z. will put more thought into inviting JA to speak anywhere else when she hears of the fallout from DLD. Fernando was on the "Telling Stories" panel. He has personally complained to the Burda family regarding his disgrace in sharing the stage with a foul-mouthed, crude Ms. Allison.

    ReplyDelete
  107. If she's insanely happy right now, she might not want to check QOTD. Oh wait, she doesn't anyway. D'oh!

    --A Nony Nony

    ReplyDelete
  108. A Nony Nony: That's just the manic phase of her disease kicking in, likely brought on by lack of sleep.

    The boasting about Teterborough -- oh how that made me laugh. She's like a 12-year-old flaunting her parents' wealth in the faces of her frenemies. She is incapable of growing up.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Jacy,

    Her parents' wealth!? I truly believe all the photos we have seen have been brought to us by Randi Z.

    1. Her DLD invitation
    2. The DLD sponsored cars to Davos
    3. Her Davos accommodation
    4. Her Davos badge
    5. Her super-exclusive partying
    5. Her Flight home

    Seriously.
    FB (FunnyBunny, not Facebook)

    ReplyDelete
  110. Fernando from DLD should tell JA that you can go back to Chicago and say "fucking" and "god damn" just stay away from the civilized Europeans.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Julia, 14 years old:

    "I am very emotional. And so confused. I don’t want to be a bad person, yet I feel as if I will be one. So much of my time is spent on material gain - and not enough on what’s really important. But what is really important?"

    http://julia.nonsociety.com/post/22581245

    Posted December 2007

    ReplyDelete
  112. JA lurves to say "shit" as well. Klassy with a capital K.

    ReplyDelete
  113. One of my friends, who was a huge Julia fan, just expressed annoyance over her Davos antics. The tide is turning, my friends...she's lost pretty much everybody now.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Silly 14 year old Julia. Everyone knows what's really important is getting your photo taken with really important people. Glad she figured it out.

    ReplyDelete
  115. I'm almost obscenely happy right now.

    She won't be. More and more people are gathering the data and showing that she doesn't have the self promoted site statistics.

    The game plan for many (including myself) is to start the counter offensive. Find any sponsor that NS has, and start sending the stuff from There's something about Mary, this site, and the stats from the established website measurement portals.

    NS will be done by the half year.

    ReplyDelete
  116. http://gawker.com/5142714/goodbye-sad-davos

    Gawker either a)taking a dim view of Julia Allison's Davos exploits or

    b)continuing unholy conspiracy to up page views at her/their sites by baiting the Hatin' Haters, loons and Harpies (TM). That would be us.

    ReplyDelete
  117. @Dyspeptic:

    Or C) both. Everybody wins!

    A Nony Nony

    ReplyDelete
  118. @A Nony Nony: Har! A distinct possibility. Yin needs yang and vice versa.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Julia is creating fake tumblr accounts to serve as phony supporters on TMI.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Next stop for JA - the loony bin. I seriously think she may be manic depressive.

    ReplyDelete
  121. 5 years from now, is anyone going to care what lipstick this girl wears? Or what dress she borrowed for some event? No.

    Because none of the stories have staying power. They are merely just the cannibals on the river in the depths of Africa. You look because it is so terrible, but it is something you never want to remember.

    ReplyDelete
  122. "They are merely just the cannibals on the river in the depths of Africa. You look because it is so terrible, but it is something you never want to remember."

    Propagate not these awful stereotypes about Africa, pls. I know what you are trying to say, but come on....

    ReplyDelete
  123. Um, 9:58--I think that was a literary reference. "Heart of Darkness" by Conrad? I could be wrong.

    A Nony Nony

    ReplyDelete
  124. 9:58 - It's a literary reference.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Oh no! Julia's internet is broken, AGAIN:
    http://julia.nonsociety.com/post/74915261

    ReplyDelete
  126. And now I am going to treat myself to my TIVO’d Gossip Girl from last Monday, and then go through the 782 business cards I got in Munich & Davos, to kickstart the charming “pleasure to meet you I sort of think you’re awesome” follow up email process.

    Here's a thought. Maybe tackle to ever growing amount of spam on your website and take care of your "company." Then address Mary's "ghetto" comment and apologize to the community that offended. Then touch on Mary's "Botox v. Abortion" debacle. It's called spin control, dear. Do it. Unless of course what everyone suspects is correct and you're perfectly fine with the reality that your "company" is seconds away from folding.

    Or, you know, eat chili and watch a show about teenagers. Whatever is more important to you.

    ReplyDelete
  127. And suck it. GG was a repeat last week.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Oh, but poor widdle bunnykins haz no internets again, just like at CES, & in Munich, & in Davos! It's so hard being an internets personality, kthxbai.

    ReplyDelete
  129. @ Holly. It was, wasn't it? I wonder what she's ACTUALLY doing.

    Also, I kind of wonder if the "lalalala" fingers in the ears thing she's doing re: the imminent death of her business is carefully calculated. maybe writing emails to business card people is how she's planning to move on to the next thing. because you know she always has a next thing planned ... NS is just the next thing after her Star gig. And who knows exactly what's next.

    ReplyDelete
  130. She knows NS is done. TMI, too. That's obvious. TMI is sooooo done.

    And I'll lay money TONY boots her by March.

    ReplyDelete
  131. @10:12

    here it is so you guys don't have to read it.

    Just so you know, my internet is like, practically broken. I’m calling TimeWarner now (blerg), but it’s transferring data at 11kbs/sec which is more or less dial up, making it de facto impossible to upload the remaining photos/videos I shot in Davos until it’s fixed (I’ve been blogging from my iPhone!)

    Hope everyone’s enjoying the Superbowl! It’s not really my thing, so I unpacked, ate a bowl of awesome canned chilli (Amy’s, spicy) and had a two hour conversation with Sarah Lacy instead. She’s like therapy, but free, and gives The Best Advice, ever. I love her. (Sorry, Sar, I’ll always be a fangirl with you.)

    And now I am going to treat myself to my TIVO’d Gossip Girl from last Monday, and then go through the 782 business cards I got in Munich & Davos, to kickstart the charming “pleasure to meet you I sort of think you’re awesome” follow up email process."

    ReplyDelete
  132. South Park is on right now, the episode about Bebe's boobs. Bebe makes a great little speech about how getting everything handed to her without working for it, just because she has a great rack, will end up ruining her life. Ah, the wisdom of those South Park kids.

    ReplyDelete
  133. also, classic Julia. Note, for example, (1.) "blerg." Or (2.), the uneasy joke about therapy, which proves how self-aware and cool she is. (3.) The use of unnecessary capitalization in describing mundane phenomena. (4.) Gossip girl, Sarah Lacy, Davos, iPhone, Davos, Munich, Davos.

    ReplyDelete
  134. "My internet is broken" is an excuse that a high schooler would use in 9th grade and NOT get away with. I wonder how she rationalizes using that one when she is failing her business because of neglect.

    I would hate to be someone invested in Julia Allison, LLC.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Whining to a girlfriend about YOURSELF for two hours is NOT therapy. Sarah, I hope you're getting something out of the relationship. Didn't Julia recently blerg about a FIVE-hour dinner with poor Sarah at CES?

    ReplyDelete
  136. Rah, rah, I'm sassy little Jules, just so perky and nutty and entertaining and gosh darn cute! I wear headbands! I send thank you emails to strange but powerful men! I refer to myself as charming! I prove my quirkiness by eating canned chili and not watching the Superbowl! I may be on the brink of a Britney style core-meltdown! Twitter me! Read my lifecast! Call me?

    ReplyDelete
  137. Erik--you're right, it's 9th grade when a paper is due.

    I have homework due tonight for an online class; when I realized I wasn't going to be done it did flicker across my mind to say I was having Internet problems.

    And a split second later I realized what a completely moron I would be.

    --A Nony Nony

    ReplyDelete
  138. *And a split second later I realized what a complete moron I would be.*

    By the way, this is kind of the best thread I've read in a long time. A.N.N.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Wait. Color me confused. She was obscenely (on various levels)happy one minute, and then needed a two hour gf therapy session? Please do not tell me she is disingenuous. I.can't.bear.it.

    ReplyDelete
  140. A.N.N.:

    The worst part is that that post shows her complete lack of understanding about what made her possible in the first place: her writing. It wasn't that is was amazing prose either; it was that it was open and honest.

    Somewhere along the line she decided that being a fame-vampire was more important and the content of her posts became mostly pictures and videos of her showing off.

    If her internet connection is really slow, she could have posted her actual, unfiltered thoughts or even one of her "I love [product]" p press release things, but it turns out that didn't even hit her radar.

    A picture might say a thousand words, but every one of those words is "I love myself" and has been on permanent reruns.

    ReplyDelete
  141. She's happy that she's in the US, but unhappy about the trials and tribulations of being a hated fameball.

    It's getting to her y'all, keep it up!

    ReplyDelete
  142. *"made her popular in the first place"

    ReplyDelete
  143. @Anonymous 11:04:

    Loving your use of the verb "to blerg." Defined, of course, as "to blog in a whiny, vapid, inconsequential way."

    As in: "Julia Allison is working on a blerg post about the intern Charlsie's perfidy."

    Or: "Megan Asha blerged from Davos that teh internets wuz not cooperating."

    Or: "Mary Rambin is blerging intermittently from a Superbowl party in the Connecticut suburbs."

    Use it three times and it's yours, Bunnies!

    ReplyDelete
  144. Twitter:

    juliaallison: I have the most mind-boggling crush on someone totally inappropriate right now. Shit! 38 minutes ago from web

    ReplyDelete
  145. Probably either the guy who fucked Paris Hilton or some other old economist type who liked her tits and her braying fake laughter that erupted at his every utterance. Old men love to feel like a younger woman with a nice rack finds them fascinating. There you go. And it works for her -- she probably won't have to fuck the old guy very often. Until Viagra enters into the picture. Uh-oh, Jules. What are you going to do about a smitten 60-year-old with a perma-boner?

    P.S. By the way, this will bring the weirdo Daddy worship full circle.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Fame-vampire -- omg, Erik, that is PERFECTION! She latches onto those that have it, taking it and giving NOTHING in return.

    ReplyDelete
  147. totally inappropriate = totes Sarah Lacy Underall

    j/k - it's gotta be a married guy (her favorite kind), so Chad Hurley is my prime suspect. Perhaps our little snow bunny got googled good in Davos. Or just wants us to think so. Same effect.

    ReplyDelete
  148. I would not be at all surprised if there were no crush. This strikes me as Her Stuntiness' 1st post-Davos stunt to try to get her page views revved up again. She thinks that in the wake of the Gawker photo gallery of her and various Davos/DLD attendees (Gawker did get them mixed together), lots of people will begin speculating tomorrow and give NonSociety a windfall.

    Please God no.

    ReplyDelete
  149. They won't get a single hit out of me. I'll keep up with their antics from here, thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  150. I'm with you Anon 1:05. I'm not checking even through Tumblr.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Her reasons for disliking NS aren't necessarily all the same as mine but I like the "showing my face" thing. Check out the vid. if interested.
    http://vimeo.com/3045891

    ReplyDelete
  152. "The crazy security at the Kongress Center (and throughout Davos). I’ve never in my life seen anything like it. There are police EVERYWHERE, checking badges constantly."

    Really, Julia? Wasn't it just two weeks ago that you were at an event with the largest security force in US history - certainly much larger than the one in Davos?

    Oh, that's right, you didn't actually go to that event, you just crashed a few parties afterward.

    ReplyDelete
  153. http://vimeo.com/3045891

    LMAO. Dope video by a nonANON commenter callin out the girls.

    ReplyDelete
  154. @Ineffable: Rachael has chutzpah; love it. Thanks for the link!

    ReplyDelete
  155. Ineffable--

    Rachel Osborn, my new hero! Now here's a woman who seems fun, bright, likable, and brave enough to say, hey, Julia Allison is a bit of an asshole who has a website that sucks. Think I'm in love. Don't tell Paul Carr! Oh, and I am male, heterosexual, 26 years old, and went to school with the trainwreck previously known as Julia Baugher. Like most who've encountered the pink lady, I would be terrified to have my name linked with hers. I leave it to brave souls like Rachel to speak truth to the abyss.

    ReplyDelete
  156. That "crazy" security is the reason her sorry ass was in the same piano bar every night. She couldn't charm her way past security to get into anything where current and former heads of state were meeting. I heard Bill Clinton likes to go to the Davos nightly after parties, and then the after-after parties. Why no word on the exclusive daily after parties, bunnies? Why no shots of you on skis? That's what the big shots like to do for fun (NOT go "tobogganing".)

    ReplyDelete
  157. Help!! I can't get into your 'comments' on the video posted recently!! It just won't let me click on them.

    ReplyDelete
  158. To anon 9:53. Click on the hyperlink of the title in the side bar (right hand side) and you'll be able to get there.

    ReplyDelete
  159. A few points for that Paul guy, or anyone else looking here who wants to classify everyone as "haters" (that word is so blerg!):

    1) These are not your average commenters. The internet is full of people who comment negatively on the dumbest things. If you look at any uncensored commentary, you'll always find some jackass who says "U suk!" or "DIE" for no actual reason. These comments are all well thought out and you can tell they're by intelligent people. Many are former fans. You don't have to agree with what people here are saying, and you might think some of it is unnecessarily harsh, but these people are not your average bitter internet anony-bloggers with no social skills and that's definitely worth admitting.

    2) The sheer volume of these comments (and the anti-NS sentiment) should be a big red flag. Obviously this has struck a chord. Again, there will always be negative commenters. But when a backlash is at this level, you have to admit that it probably has some kind of merit. At the very least, it's worth checking out.

    3) If you actually read through the comments, there are several really telling conversations. There are a lot of repeat commenters, and if you follow the discourse it's really not just a hate parade. There is interaction, information sharing, community, and a lot of repeat visitors. Come to think of it, that's what NS was trying to do, isn't it?

    4) Many people here have MET one or more of those three girls. It's much harder to dismiss negative commentary as jealousy or bitterness when it's someone who has actually interacted with these girls and gotten a negative impression. If you meet someone at a party and s/he's a total jerk, nobody's really going to fault you for saying so. It's an opinion. Everyone is entitled to it.

    5) If you just stumbled onto the anti-JA/NS backlash, yes, it's a bit much. At first I had no idea why anyone even cared about this girl. Then I felt a little sorry for her and could see how others might find her awkwardly charming. However, I've been following this backlash for a looong time and I get it. It built up, and it exploded. That's what you're missing, having just met her (or just been introduced to the concept of her).

    Oh and Paul, I have no idea who you are. Maybe we'd be BFF in real life. But I don't give my full name because I don't want to be internet famous like you and NS. I don't get paid to comment on NS. NOT because I'm hiding behind my computer muscles. I think that's the case for many people.

    ReplyDelete