Wednesday, January 28, 2009

RB: Julia, Jan 28 - 3:27pm

Fodder for another lip dub, perhaps? Here's Julia, in all her glory:

The Davos Piano Bar …

(photo credit: Randi Zuckerberg)


  1. Dude's looking at her like she's a total moron.

  2. I shudder to think what Our Lady of Lip Dubs is singing in this photo. The Little Mermaid song? "Tomorrow?" "Mr. Roboto?" No,'s "My Way." And not the Sid Vicious version, either.

  3. At a time when the global credit markets are unwinding so fast, some countries are actually worried aboout food shortages, Julia Allison attends the foremost economic summit in the world.

    And goes to a piano bar. And photographs it. And goes boot shopping. And photographs it.

    This is like going to Barack Obama's inauguration and telling your readers about losing your pink phone.

    Oh, wait...

  4. RB is over. It is about THESE girls now:


  5. I meant NS is over, NOT RB!


  6. Wait, something's different! Look Ma! No "BUT I DIDN'T HAVE A DRINK CUZ I DON'T DRINK. EVER. EXCEPT SOMETIMES!!" caption.

    Also, banal banal banal.. I really don't understand how after ALL the ruckus of the past few weeks they still aren't grasping that they (wait, let me break this down in a way JA might understand better) need. to. deliver. BETTER. QUALITY. and. TIMELIER. CONTENT. I can't imagine the people that give out these invites are seriously ever satisfied with the extent of coverage that comes out of it. BS "biz model" aside, these companies aren't inviting them to attend as celebutantes for the sake of event publicity (see: Paris Hilton back in her heyday)... they're depending on (and expecting) resulting coverage! Otherwise what good is it to have 2 or 3 randoms just freeloading with no apparent benefit to the company?

    NS continues on a daily basis to dig itself deeper into the gaping hole and they shouldn't be at all surprised when their requests to attend things begin getting denied continuously. What will there be to "lifecast" then? It's sad, really. They have all the tools at their disposal and yet appear to waste it all. There are individuals and smaller companies that wouldn't be granted access to things because some event planners actually think NS is bigger than it is (based partially on their BS "numbers") and they would get preferential treatment. It's sad because the talented kid on a college paper or young girl running a self-designed site with a low-budget vlog setup would actually take their being given clearance SERIOUSLY so as not to miss out on opportunities in the future. These girls take such things and run with them like it's all a joke. So much effort to make it look like they're professional and a huge hardcore production, but for what? All that so-called glitz and glamour isn't even backed up by anything legitimate or in-depth. Just superficial glossing over about events. It's like they don't actually care about taking it in and experiencing it for their audience. They just like being able to SAY they're going to do something that sounds cool/exciting (making them appear important/relevant), brag about how great it is WHILE they're doing it (to make you feel envious), and then give a little nonsense summary after the fact because THAT is when the real "work" comes in. The day after when you actually have this career you claim you want to be taken seriously while pursuing, and it isn't about getting dolled up and pretending one lives the life of a carefree, loaded trustafarian or celebrity for an evening. Quelle horreur.


    Shut up, Julia. Shut up.

  8. can anyone explain to me why she is at Davos? I mean, DLD I can understand, sort of....but what in god's name has she done to be at this conference? her tactics worked...i am jealous of her! as someone who has a post-grad degree in European politics and history, I would love to be there....alas, such invites don't drop at my feet the way they do Ms. Baugher's.

  9. "NonSociety: Live Self-Absorbedly!"


  10. this is my most favorite new website ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  11. Anon 4:20:

    "They have all the tools at their disposal and yet appear to waste it all."

    and this:
    "All that so-called glitz and glamour isn't even backed up by anything legitimate or in-depth. Just superficial glossing over about events. It's like they don't actually care about taking it in and experiencing it for their audience. "

    are about the size of it. It is very easy for the NS ladies to write us off as jealous haters -- I would freely admit to being envious of their *resources* but I am really just irritated and flat out frustrated by the way they squander the myriad opportunities they've been given. All of JA's silly attention-getting would be tolerable if it were directed toward a specific end other than self-aggrandizement. Like "now that you're looking at me...let's discuss the following issues." But she's not doing that. At all. That's why I literally couldn't understand her anger at Owen Thomas for calling her an ego-blogger. Blogging about the self = egoblogging. Flipping out over it just doesn't make sense.

  12. Anon 4:20 said they shouldn't be at all surprised when their requests to attend things begin getting denied continuously. What will there be to "lifecast" then?

    my response: um ... they'll lifecast exactly what they've been lifecasting.

    Anon 4:@0 said They just like being able to SAY they're going to do something that sounds cool/exciting (making them appear important/relevant), brag about how great it is WHILE they're doing it (to make you feel envious) ...

    my response: They can do all of this without actually being at any of these events! They practically are now!

  13. The entire POINT of Julia Allison's horrendous blog is to hype up the "fabulous" life she "lives" and then give you as little detail as possible. She does that because if she HONESTLY told you what was going on it would go something like this: I got kicked out of this party. Everyone at this event snickered behind my back. I bragged about getting a reality show but that fell through. I bragged about a huge live/work space but that fell through. I got turned down by this man. I got caught lying about my business. I was a total embarrassment to myself when I spoke at a conference. I had a chance to witness a historical inauguration and missed it.

    Julia's entire game is all pink smoke and vanity mirrors and, as evidenced by the HUGE tide turning against her in the past couple of weeks, people are even getting bored and sick of her stale schitck. Her business will fail and she will surely blame it on the haters, but it's really because she is a grating personality that has nothing new, innovative or creative to offer. NO ONE is jealous of her and her totally constructed lifestyle. It's all fake. Empty. Boring. What exactly is there to envy?

  14. I just wonder what her parents think of her. Aren't they worried? Embarassed?

  15. Look, I'm a nice person too. I know that Julia is absolutely frustrating and all, but I like to think of what she is missing -- what the hell happened to her in her life...

    I have no in-depth evidence, of course. I think about what is shared with readers in her 'life window'; that's all we have to go by. However, I feel like her parents may be/have been a bit cold/distant. The passage about them sending her chocolates for her birthday while she was struggling with Bulemia comes to mind (and it was so cold for me to read that! Chill!). And for some reason, I feel like there are other instances that left me thinking her parents aren't really that emotionally involved.

    Long story short: I think she is yearning for love. It may be obvious, but I think it stems from 'tough' parents who may prefer to turn the other way when their daughter was exhibiting symptoms of needing/wanting their love and approval.

    She is someone who seeks validation and when she doesn't get it, she still carries on to get some sort of attention/recognition, which ends up usually being negative. She must prove that she can turn heads, no matter what! "I am worthy, damn it!"

    And from what we have seen from her life, it seems that her parents are very well-educated and value this education-label-thing (University Club circles and the like) above all else. I think she may even be a bit of a black sheep to them, in comparison to her brother who seems to be on a more predictable life path.

    It's sad. She's desperate for something she never received.

    It's also rather interesting. To me, it's like page 56 of a psychology textbook or something...


  16. Her parents should be ashamed of themselves. What kind of fucked up childhood did she have to turn into this attention-at-any-cost monster with some very serious emotional issues underneath (bulimia, unstable, pathological liar, insomnia... the list goes on) I've heard borderline/narcissistic/manic personality disorder bandied about, but are there any psychologists out there that want to comment as to what CAUSES this manic behavior? What lead her to adopt this incredibly destructive behavior in the first place and WHY don't her parents step in and get her the help she so desperately needs?

  17. That much has always been pretty clear Kasey, at least to me. One she announced plans to start NS I basically knew the whole thing was in place to be a front for her trying to become this celeb/spokesperson. Her Oprah aspirations really said it all, because she isn't anything like her. She wants the Oprah admiration, clout, popularity and money but tries (and fails) to make it seem like the reference is about a desire to improve the world and the lives of others. Not so much. She didn't plan any of this well, just launched it in a rush to have something out there keeping her relevant once she was out at Star and it became public knowledge that the reality show was a no-go. She wants fame, not just notoriety. The former typically requires some element of talent and likability, and the latter is all she's going to get given the way she purports herself and treats other people. Karma, she'd say.

  18. The only reason she posted the bullimia story in the first place was to talk about the so-called "huge response" she received from fans during her talk at the conference. It's so blatantly obvious how vile she is.

  19. FunnyBunny: what you said. It's part of my fascination for this Julia Allison persona she has created. I got another cold chill from her admission in that college diary entry she posted recently--in connection with her bulimia posts--that with each new date came that "rush" of validation. I realized how disappointing it must be that those positive rushes have been thwarted in ways she must not have envision by the negative reactions to her website and persona. I even felt some pity, and from time to time--when she isn't terminally annoying me--I still do.

  20. um, make that ways she must not have envisioned.

  21. anon 5:35:

    "What Causes Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

    The exact cause of narcissistic personality disorder is not known. However, many mental health professionals believe it results from extremes in child rearing. For example, the disorder might develop as the result of excessive pampering, or when a child's parents have a need for their children to be talented or special in order to maintain their own self-esteem. On the other end of the spectrum, narcissistic personality disorder might develop as the result of neglect or abuse and trauma inflicted by parents or other authority figures during childhood. The disorder usually is evident by early adulthood."

    Genetic factors are also thought to possibly be a factor in such disorders.

  22. Yeah, Dyspeptic, I'm with you. We all pity her. However, the frustration comes from when she does not admit to these things (the broken Bravo deal, the apartment/office, and even to her not posting her own DLD presentation!)...and then she says she is open and honest. And that's where, I think, a growing number of people get upset.

    As so many commenters have said, they hype upcoming events and then they just disappear from the radar. This, in turn, leads to disloyalty on behalf of's disorganized and it shows us that they don't really care about sharing anything with us. They filter way too much and in such a messy way. We know what they are filtering! And that's the basis of their demise.

    She speaks of accountability and that's the biggest joke of them all.

    Anyway, it's all been said a thousand times here!


  23. I understand what everyone is saying: Mental illness, insecurity, Consummate Suckiness -- I get it.

    My major problem with NS as a venture is the contributors' complete refusal to acknowledge the indisputable worth of their readers. NS thinks it's a magazine? Well, guess what? Most magazines publish "Letters to the Editor," and while they, obviously, print positive letters, they also publish negative ones! What a concept!

    Magazines also take direct reader feedback in the continuous evolution of their periodical. NS makes it incredibly, and perpetually, clear: THEY DO NOT CARE.

    ...So what happens when a "business" doesn't assume the age old adage of, "the customer's always right," subscribing to the Gary Vaynerchuk (someone Julia seems to admire) school of business? The venture DIES.

  24. So you are lucky enough to tag along to DLD as a last-minute addition and then you get to go to Davos. While on the trip, you are promoting your business to thousands of connected and visionary colleagues. It might occur to you, after your panel discussion, that they might click onto your blog and check it out.

    And this is what you have to offer. More of the same shallow, substance-less shit.

    It's blogging at its most mundane, the same things millions of people are doing. It's like looking at some teenagers Facebook profile page.

    Really smart, JA, showing how your company is so innovative, doing something so daring and revolutionary. I guess it's interesting if you're 13.

  25. The commenters here are really sweet to go looking for reasons for JAB's obvious personality disorder(s). I'm serious, no snark - you're trying to understand.
    But here's my take:
    Nurturing, loving childhoods are not the norm, People! Most of us have been damaged to greater or lesser extents and as we grow and mature, we learn to identify what these problems are or were and work to overcome them.

    On a lighter note: I am a pianist and have spent many a night in the Dantean hell that is a piano bar. I recognize the look on that pianist's face. That's how you look when some random honey has decided she's god's gift to the entertainment world and is treating you like a human karaoke machine.
    Oh, and nobody holds the mic at their waist when they sing. If you don't need a mic to be heard, put it down. It's not a prop.

  26. Is she really singing? And there's no vimeo of it?????


  27. Oh, and even weirder - she's singing and he's not playing.
    She probably said, "and it goes like this...." and just started wailing.

    (Human karaoke machine)

  28. She's classic Borderline (moreso than Narcissistic-- although the 2 are closely linked)

  29. I thought it was more the other two but that's just based on a memoir I read about Borderline, didn't seem to fit as well. I'm no professional on this so what do I know.

    And anon 7:09 I agree but mags cost $ so the trainwreck factor isn't there. NS is free and I'm willing to bet many of its page views are not from fans but curiousity seekers and trainwreck watchers. Until people stop giving page views JA may end up getting by on "NS and JA, not the customer, are always right"


  30. Ineff, you are probably right, I had forgotten about the manic inability to sleep. I do know that all so-called personality disorders DO overlap, so what I should agree on is that, yes, she most definitely has a personality disorder. What makes me think Borderline is the way she plows through friends, the self-destructive behavior (bulimia), the over-sexualized persona (riding on a dildo) and the pity cards she pulls which are very borderline. Always the victim. I bet there's a suicide attempt somewhere in her background as well.

  31. Then explain why Meghan rode the dildo as well?
    And who knows how many others did too...

    (Although, I don't think too many did...however, someone purchased/rented that thing for the party)

    Just thinking...

  32. It's not an isolated incident for her though. It's the constant proclamations of some "chaste", ladylike image contrasted with: cleavage every other minute, condom-covered halloween outfits (and derriere-bearing photos to boot), the Time Out NY cheesecake shots annnd the Wired ones, her Gawker Pinup shots, the recent Vegas "fresh off being dumped" spread eagle bathtub shots, etc. etc. She sends mixed messages all the time yet wonders why people question her behavior and whether or not she's genuine.

    Even as she is now you really have to wonder. Is this actually her we're seeing, or can she seriously not pull "herself" out from this Carrie-Bradshaw-slash-Paris-Hilton-SWFesque identity adoption thing she's apparently been trapped in for years? Maybe she decided while still a young, impressionable girl that it was how she was meant to live your life, but as people had said before, Carrie is a character. One would think the consequences of it all through the years would be enough for her to understand that maaaaybe what she thinks is the right life for her to lead isn't at all. She'd have to get down to some serious soul-searching and introspection (rather than superficial navel-gazing) and figure things out, but I don't know that she'll even realize that. It seems like Dan's been trying to pound it into her head for awhile and the pleas fall on deaf ears.

  33. Anon,

    Yeah most of those traits fit the other personality disorders too, the oversexualized stuff, the relationship problems. I posted a list yesterday somewhere on this site and you wouldn't believe how perfectly she fit it. It was as if they were describing her personally (that one was for histrionic but narcisstic seems to fit well too), thinks like belives rules don't apply to them, have to be center of attention, play victim when criticized, can't tolerate any criticism, etc.

    I really need to quit with my armchair diagnoses though, but I do think it's fascinating.

  34. Oh and the comment about Meghan, I think she has that needs attention, exhibitionist, uses her looks to feed her insecurity thing going on too. It's a lot more evident in the videos than in her posts or manner of dress. At least in my opinion.


  35. There's something called Cluster B, which is a combination of the personality disorders that have been brought up:

    Cluster B (the Dramatic, Emotional, or Erratic Cluster) is comprised of the Antisocial, Borderline, Histrionic, and Narcissistic Personality Disorders.

  36. Okay, all, while I agree with most if not all of the criticisms of JA, I find something vaguely ooky about analyzing her mental state. We don't know enough and it's kind of unfair. I'm all for discussing her lack of journalistic cred or her fameball-ism, but I think it's inappropriate (and really irrelevant) to start speculating on possible personality disorders. I don't think anyone deserves that.

  37. Yeah, you guys, it's weird. Come on.

  38. Nice one miss cast:

    "I recognize the look on that pianist's face. That's how you look when some random honey has decided she's god's gift to the entertainment world and is treating you like a human karaoke machine."


  39. Different people find different things about JA compelling. I happen to be intrigued by the psychology behind her persona and how it manifests itself. To each his own. Maybe I don't find her weight fluctuations interesting or worthy of comment, but I do find her psychologically perplexing.

  40. I certainly didn't mean to give anyone the creeps or seem like I was taking a cheap shot. Although I don't necessarily think sharing theories on personality disorders is really that different from listing personality traits we observe. The only difference (to me) is in noting that a preexisting list has those same traits as its criteria. They are all behavioral traits and the discussion about it is based on behavior JA herself posts online.

    I don't see it as any less relevant or more unfair than any other discussions held about their behavior, or its motivations. Actually I don't see it as unfair at all, I'm no professinal therapist and it's clear my opinion is nothing more than that, my opinion and just a random theory of a lay person who doesn't know her. What makes it unfair?

    To me at least it's relevant because it's a theory to explain or understand some of the behavior that they post all over the Internet daily. It's not meant as an insult or attack certainly, if that's how it came across.

    If someone does have a mental health issue (not that any of us could know that from anything we merely see online, I understand that) it could potentially affect their behavior and how others consider their behavior.

    Again I realize we can't know anyone's mental health from online postings but in my view the relevance is both in simply theorizing on what we see and also in reconsidering the behavior in light of a different viewpoint/context.

    I'm fairly certain I wouldn't feel nearly the same way I have felt about them if I knew any psychological issues were involved. I can't know that but when I consider even the possibility it makes a good bit of my irritation and interest in even commenting fade away.

    To me mental health or psychological issues hold no stigma and I consider them in many ways no different than any biological/physical trait or condition. I take no offense at anyone speculating about my mental health. In fact I find it fascinating.

    I have to agree with the commenter above that some categories of comments are inevitably going to offend some people since we are not all here for the same reasons or drawn to the same aspects of their content, etc.

    To me theorizing on psychology is equivalent to theorizing on motivation and that is a normal human thing to do when faced with other humans. IMO there is no harm in it. What harm are my theories to anyone else? Especially when I've made clear they are nothing more than my theories based on an online list and that I have no professional expertise.

    Just the same, I can respect that others may have different interpretations of the appropriateness of comment of that nature. I try to be respectful and fair even when being snarky in my comments even though I know I don't always succeed. But in this case I really don't see the comments as anything outrageous or nasty. I am totally open to hearing why it seems unfair or irrelevant. I don't want or mean to offend but I do prefer to understand the reason for the offense first before censoring myself.


  41. Ineffable, I don't think your comments are outrageous or nasty. I understand it's part of a larger effort to understand the psyche of someone else. That said, I think that though you might not be offended by someone speculating about your mental health, most people would be. I know I would be pissed (and hurt and embarrassed) if someone read my content and decided to analyze me psychologically in a public forum (perhaps that's what ooks me out?) and concluded that I had a personality disorder. And while you personally may not stigmatize mental illness, there's a reason mental health professionals are bound by confidentiality.

    I especially feel it's unfair to speculate on her childhood since her family has not sought out fame or attention. It feels wrong to posit that her parents didn't give her enough love when we really have no clue what her upbringing was like. We have snapshots (literal and figurative) of her family life but not enough to make this anything other than really, really speculative. Psychologists/psychiatrists and other trained professionals have in-depth knowledge and the ability to study up close. The other criticisms JA faces: that she's shallow, uninterested in her business or at least in producing content, that she courts attention shamelessly -- are not speculative.

    Also, I think it's irrelevant because I'm not sure "diagnosing" her with a personality disorder necessarily makes her less responsible for engaging in unethical business practices (loading codes) or not attending to her business. I also think psychology is hazy and the difference between someone who is just an attention whore and someone who has Narcissistic Personality Disorder is very, very indistinct (and I'm sure some would say there is no difference). If I had to sum it up, I think the fact that we are laypeople with little access to this "subject" attempting to publicly diagnose a personality disorder makes me...uncomfortable.

    Ineff, I've enjoyed your comments so I'm not attempting to silence you on the matter, just concerned about the form our criticism takes.

  42. Quite honestly I find the Ms. Allison's affect, behavior and the possible reasons for it fascinating. She invites it by her over the top, radically contradictory behavior. And also by the selective sharing of such clinically disturbing behavior as binging and purging. I really hope this site doesn't get all hall-monitory and self-righteous. I'm not really comfortable with the organized attempts to squelch sponsorships, drive NS out of business, etc, but I will defend to the death y'alls right to do it. Just things should tilt in the direction of non-censorship when at ALL possible.

  43. Dyspeptic, definitely not trying to be a hall monitor here. I thought Ineffable's distinction between criticizing the ladies based on their looks (i.e., what they can't control) and their behavior/obsessions/choices regarding how they look, in the "Arrington" thread above, was a sound one. I just happen to feel discussing mental illness falls into the former category.

    Also: just to be clear, I have a Blogger ID but I don't work on this site, so my "hey, guys, can we tone it down a bit?" was not really meant as prescriptive, just a concern.

  44. Regina

    Thanks for your reply. My responses:

    **"I think that though you might not be offended by someone speculating about your mental health, most people would be."
    But then most would be upset to read much of what is written on this site, period. Most are offended by being analyzed and critiques in what to them feels like a negative manner. So that logic in my mind would apply to all that's written here and isn't exclusive to conjecture about personality disorders.

    **"I know I would be pissed (and hurt and embarrassed) if someone read my content and decided to analyze me psychologically in a public forum."
    Again, same as above. Most would feel that way about all the content here I think and we've had indication that NS does in fact feel that way.

    **"And while you personally may not stigmatize mental illness, there's a reason mental health professionals are bound by confidentiality. "
    But they are offering professional diagnoses based on real clinical evidence and access to the person. I am not and that is clear and was stated as well. There is a huge difference between revealing a professional private diagnosis and pointing out that certain traits displayed online match a list of criteria for a condition.

    **"I especially feel it's unfair to speculate on her childhood since her family has not sought out fame or attention."
    I have not done that. But again I don't see why conjecture and people thinking aloud about what they make clear are merely theories and guesses is a problem when it is clearly not stated in any way as fact.

    **" We have snapshots (literal and figurative) of her family life but not enough to make this anything other than really, really speculative. "
    I don't think anyone has claimed it is anything but speculative. That was my point. Why is it harmful when it is clearly presented as and known to be nothing but a random person's lay conjecture based on slim online observation?

    **"That she's shallow, uninterested in her business or at least in producing content, that she courts attention shamelessly -- are not speculative."
    But the personality disorder discussion revolve around those exact same types of obersavations and merely match them up with a preexisting list. Again I am not seeing the difference. We can say she desperately seeks attention for example but not point out that that is a symptom of a larger condition that seems to describe her behavior well? To me it doesn't make sense.

    **"Also, I think it's irrelevant because I'm not sure "diagnosing" her with a personality disorder necessarily makes her less responsible for engaging in unethical business practices"
    That is subjective but I do believe that mental health issues are as real as physical and yes they do lead peole to do thing they wouldn't otherwise. Of course they are still responsible for themselves but that doesn't mean their behavior would not be framed and seen by some at least in a different light and context. It would be by me. Additionally I don't think anyone here is diagnosing her or has claimed to.

    **"I think the fact that we are laypeople with little access to this "subject" attempting to publicly diagnose a personality disorder makes me...uncomfortable. "
    Understood. I am also not comfortable with some of what I read here so I don't make those types of comments or skip over them when I encounter them. I guess the question is how comments that some are not comfortable with are addressed here.

    I think we disagree on the issue of expressing opinion. I think all opinion is fair game when it is clearly presented as opinion and not fact. You seem (if I understood right) to think some opinion crosses the line or that it may be construed as fact despite being clearly presented as opinion?

    I may not like or feel comfortable with every opinion but I do believe in its right to be voiced. Distorting facts or presenting opinion as fact however is entirely different and essentially a lie and I do NOT support that at all.

    While I respect your points and positions Regina, I just don't agree with to the argument behind them but as this is a community I do not want to go against the basic feeling and agreements here especially in regard to the hosts' wishes or offend other commenters if at all possible.

    So despite still not seeing the problem with such comments or their difference from other comments on this site if the majority here or the hosts of this site don't want this type of discussion and are serious about it then I'm happy to avoid it.

    I know RBNS chimed in to agree with you so I have not made that type of comment since. But I think it may be a good idea, RBNS, to post a short commenting guidelines on your sidebar or somewhere on the site with clear indications of what is and isn't acceptable or encouraged.

    My personal opinion on this tends more toward the views Dyspeptic and a previous commenter (above) shared on this issue. In general my belief is that opinion is NEVER inherently harmful and people who make clear they are sharing opinion not fact have every right to do so. People may be offended but I see that as a choice because they are not being lied about since opinion is not fact. It is not spreading a rumor, it is not pretending to be or know something that isn't true, all of which I do consider wrong and harmful.

    To me monitoring the voicing of opinion becomes very subjective. Even commenting on appearance that people can't control, wile I don't do it because I think it cheapens discourse and doesn't interest me, I think still falls under opinion, meaning I believe people have a right to share it.

    That's doesn't mean this site wants to lean toward that type of commentary, I get it. And maybe this site doesn't want to lean toward conjecture of personality disorders either. I get that too. But there can be a very fine line is ascertaining what is okay and what is not when this type of think becomes an issue. To me I don't see a difference between other comments on their behavior and personality and those connecting those behaviors with known composites that list those same traits as their components.

    Either way though, as I said, I have no problem following the guidelines posed by the host and/or community here.

    Thanks so much for your thoughts and I hope I don't come across as dismissive of them. I am not at all, I just think we happen to disagree on the issue, that's all. Sorry this was so damn long!!!

  45. After glancing at your comment again, I want to make sure I've made clear that I take seriously the suggestion that I made an attempt at "public diagnosis" of JA's psychological well being and I strongly refute it.

    My many disclaimers about not being a professional, etc. aside, I think the context alone makes clear no diagnosis is occurring. We are not professionals and we have no clinical or even in-person access to JA so we cannot diagnose no matter what we may theorize about.

    There is a lot of conjecture and opinion on this site. Singling one type out and suggesting it's an attempt to portray opinion as fact seems unfair to me. Especially when in fact it's been stressed that these conjectures are not professional and are based limited online access only. In other words they are not and cannot be by definition diagnoses, something that I think was presumed readers would understand given both the context and disclosures about lay opinion, etc.

    At no time have I attempted to pass my musings and posting of excerpts on mental health, etc. as anything other than the conjecture and musings based on very limited online observation and completely lay opinion that they are. In fact I have gone out of my way to explicitly relay what I considered obvious by noting my lay status repeatedly, stating that I have not even met JA, and this these discussions were all conjecture and theory from a random layperson commenter only.

    In the future I will avoid this type of issue by refraining from making any more such comments.


  46. Thanks for everyone's thoughts. Look, we're not really going to impose a limit on what people can or can't comment. We're not really interested in that. There are some things that we'd rather avoid, and we've vocalized that. That said, we're not going to impose a ban or start deleting comments. You people can discuss whatever you like. Please be civil. Debate that merits if you will. Our thoughts are meant to be guidelines, not mandates.

  47. ***Debate THE merits--typo

    Of course, if things get crazy or out of hand, we may have to revisit this policy in the future. We'll see.

  48. Also: Ineff, we'd be sad if you left. Don't go!

  49. Ineffable, I think it was probably ill-advised for me to address my original comment the way I did. I think the use of "all" and "we" made it sound far more authoritarian than I ever intended.

    You are absolutely entitled to your opinion(s) and are free to express them however you choose.
    I think my discomfort stemmed from the fact that I find the community of individuals here so even-handed in their criticism of NS that I consider comments about the ladies' physical appearance and, in this case, something as private and perhaps unknowable as their psychic states, to somehow compromise the overall tenor of the main criticism: that these women have been given tremendous opportunities to create a business that could work and they have shown NO interest in cultivating it or using it for anything other than the glorification of their own egos.

    That said, I think it was unfair of me to start assuming "communal values" instead of realizing that everyone here is an individual, has different opinions, and finds the NS trainwreck interesting for different reasons.

    Definitely, definitely do not feel the need to silence yourself. I would absolutely echo NSRB in saying that I appreciate your presence and insights here. :)

  50. Thanks NSRB for the nice words and clarification.

    I'm not planning to go anywhere (yet anyway, someday I gotta tear myself away from the NS trainwreck though!), didn't mean to imply that, just to stay away from commenting on some topics in the future.

    I don't agree with Regina's assessment of my comments at all (obviously, as evident by my super long responses) but since I don't come to this site to get involved in long back and forths about censorship, fact vs. opinion, or to feel I need to defend myself for comments I view as no different from the rest made here, I'd rather just err on the side of caution and avoid the topic altogether.

    In particular, I really don't want to deal with being accused of something that I think is a huge misrepresentation of what I've said or done and that I take really really seriously. For that reason I would rather avoid the topic entirely even though I still believe it's no less legitimate than other discussions here and I wasn't persuaded to believe otherwise based on the reasoning presented to me (doesn't mean other reasoning wouldn't convince me of course).

    Also as I said before I prefer to follow as much as possible the guidelines you guys suggest since it is your site and I respect that and the others here.

  51. Regina

    I just posted my comment above before seeing your recent one. I get what you're saying about your position and where you are coming from and appreciate the reply and your comments in general. Thanks for the explanation and the comments about my comments, I really appreciate it. And you're right, the tenor in general on this site is one I really appreciate too and don't want to ever bring down with my comments.