Friday, January 23, 2009

Seriously, this is starting to piss us off.

The Trio of Banality consider their site "light entertainment" when it suits them; then they call themselves journalists when it suits them (at Sundance, for example).

Let us be clear: NS is NOT a journalistic venture. It has no established editorial guidelines, and though we've heard of Megan Alagna, their producer/editor, there really seems to be no kind of editorial oversight.

But what pisses us off the most is a comment that Mary Rambin keeps repeating: "I'm sure you already know this, but let me state it for those of you who don't. Magazines give reccommendations based on brands that purchase ad pages. No transparency there."

For the love of all things good and holy, THIS IS NOT TRUE. Mary, you are not a journalist. And you know nothing about editorial integrity or how major publications work. Trust us: One of us works for a national consumer magazine published by the largest publishing house in the country. Editorial and Advertising do not influence each other. We make recommendations all the time, and NEVER--EVER, EVER--do we make those recommendations because of our advertisers. This is called editorial and journalistic integrity. Our readers trust us not to bullshit them, and we do not violate this trust. Otherwise, all our content would be one big advertorial.
This is concept that has escaped you NS girls, and that's fine. But you need to learn the facts before spreading untruths. Perhaps you should call up companies like Hearst, Conde Nast, Time Inc. and other major publishers to find out their editorial policy before you make your ridiculous assumptions.

Some of us actually practice journalism. We stake our reputations and our careers on our integrity. It is something we take seriously. It is not a joke.

Mary, PLEASE STOP SPREADING YOUR UNINFORMED BULLSHIT. You're seriously starting to piss us off, and not in the fun way we enjoy.

120 comments:

  1. I'm a journalist, too, and that's exactly why I'm here. They're out of line and need a clue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly!
    It's Ok to be a spokesperson but to be spokesperson disguised as a journalist is SMARMY!

    Mary, Julia, and Meghan here’s a little J-school lesson: Your CREDIBILITY is the most important thing you have as a journalist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I saw that line and just rolled my eyes. Christ, she has no clue. And JA should have a clue, since she's so "connected" and all with the media, and the fact that she doesn't and allows her friend to go off half-cocked just proves again how goddamned stupid Julia is. Anyone who knows anything about the magazine industry knows the basic truth you have just stated here. Dumbassed twats.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Okay I have a question about pageviews. For those of us who hate her, but still want to read the blog to see what she has been spewing and not give any pageviews- can we read the google cached version of the page instead? Would a hit on the google cached version of the page show up in their analytics as a pageview? Or, does google host those pages?

    I am curious and curiouser. Anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  5. THANK YOU for stating that so eloquently and succinctly NSRB. Can you email that directly to Mary Rambin because she's posting some pretty outrageous and idiotic responses over on TMI about their relationship with Blueprint. I've politely commented there as well and I am "speachless" at the incoherent babble that Mary replies with. MY GOD how can these girls be so stupid??

    ReplyDelete
  6. God bless you for writing that.

    I was pissed when I watched that video where they introduced themselves to Ben Affleck as journalists from nonscociety, thus my rant in a comment here yesterday. They want the credibility without the actual hard work and adherence to basic ethics and standards.

    Worse JA actually writes a column and the occasional piece for other mags and claims to think of herself as a writer yet she works with two people who don't know basic spelling because presumably they've never read certain words in print and who appear to lack some of the most basic thinking and writing skills.

    Plus their whole operation discards every journalistic ethic there is. I find them truly disgusting. They and their "business" are an insult to all working people out there and to those who are real writers and journalists and work in media with integrity and standards.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is it safe to assume Mary Rambin is pretty much homeless? She moved out of her apartment that she shared with a roommate before the holidays and packed her stuff in storage. She's been staying with Meghan while she's in New York and now she's flying out to mooch of her pal Andy in LA, but other than that she really has NO home. I also think it's so awful how those girls leave their pets all the time. Poor Mason and Lilly have a terrible quality of life because the have no stability or sense of "home."

    ReplyDelete
  8. A homeless snob! HaHa amazing. If I could draw I would do a comic strip based on these girls.

    PS: Where on their site is Mary leaving these Blueprint comments? I checked the QOD but its just a bunchabull in there and no Mary.

    But Charlsie showed up for a cameo.

    £

    ReplyDelete
  9. Scary - the said comments are on their TMI Weekly site.

    ReplyDelete
  10. product placement is if the were doing a tmi episode and had a coke on the table (like on american idol).

    not doing a whole episode on how coke "literally changed my life!!" and "ive never been happier since i starded drinking coke!!" what she is doing is not product placement.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Scary, the latest TMI weekly was basically a giant infomercial for Blueprint - check over there. A lot of viewers called her out on it and her rambling, incoherent defenses are comedy GOLD. You must screencap and post to your blog for posterity/parsing.

    She has *literally* turned into that godawful joke from SATC about the old woman who lives in her shoes. $700 YSLs don't seem like a very good investment when you don't have a closet to put them in, do they Mary Rambin?

    ReplyDelete
  12. They're becoming increasingly sloppy and are cutting corners as their desperation grows.

    They have no real business, just a mediocre website full of inane mini-posts and endless photos and videos of them trying too hard to show that they're living the life here in the Big City.

    Julia's bio for the conference this weekend is so laughably false that she could probably be accused of misrepresentation.

    The big challenge here (NSRB) is to get ranking on Google as high as possible - legally, of course. That way, when potential sponsors do the most basic due diligence, they can come here and see the truth about them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Over in the TMI comments, Mary mentions that she's going to be traveling for the next two months. Is our dumb bunny jumping ship? Bouncing around until something better comes along? Flying from place to place to mooch off friends and family because she doesn't have a place to stay? All of the above?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm free to comment on this site! They're all gone from NY now!!! I can do whatever I want with my time. They said they'll check in with me, but I'm taking an NS break. I'll do my duties, but I'll also have some personal fun without them knowing. Oh yes, I'm saying this. And they will never believe it's me.

    I'm with you all -- my job does indeed suck.

    Charlsie
    £

    ReplyDelete
  15. @ Preston:

    Yes, the video I've seen but I haven't checked the comments until now. It's just too much to repost it all! What they don't realize is, what they are doing with all this deleting and censoring, is proving our point for us. People who had no real issue with them before are likely noticing the things we are posting between deletes and aware that they censor their comments. That alone takes away a lot of credibility. People who "matter" don't have the time or the inclination to sit and delete negative postings, nor do they assign that to an intern who could be doing things to actually progress the business. What will Charlsie put on his resume as his duties as intern for NS? "I um, monitored their comments section for snark and implemented the brilliant "£" security coding method." I think the lady who lived in a shoe line is BRILL by the way, loves it.

    re: their Google rankings
    It will be interesting to see what their numbers will be now that the hidden keywords are (apparently) removed from their coding.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I'm a postgrad student studying abroad and I don't understand how they have the money for all their flights and hotel accommodation. Am I alone, here, wondering this?

    Do you think they have loans or something (as I do)?

    Enjoying the site. Thanks, L

    ReplyDelete
  17. Don't think they have loans. They have family money and my guess is at least two of them live largely off that. Meghan Asha appears to own a lovely large loft in Manhattan that I think she recently purchased. She travels and buys expensive gadgets constantly. They also draw a salary, a pretty healthy one I suspect, from their investor money but that can't last forever which explains why they are desperately seeking profit and sponsors at all costs.

    Julia is the only I can imagine might not actually use family money to live on. This is just my guess though obviously not anything I actually know for sure.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's cute when Julia tries to make people think she and Meghan are flying business class to Munich. Dear Julia: standing next to the business class check in sign is not fooling anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Maybe it's the timing, maybe it's RBNS that is bringing it on.. But have you guys noticed the girls aren't posting as much the last few days? :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Looks like business class to me - idiot!

    Are you content that they are now on their flight so I can post without being mistaken for Julia. Or are you now going to say that it is Mary landed in LA?

    Get over yourselves! You are insignificant and completely incorrect in your thoughts/opinions on whether a defamation case can be brought.

    Julia and Meghan go off to Europe to speak at a conference and to attend Davos and you twits sit on your fat asses in your dilapidated apartments and crow.

    Nice lives.

    ReplyDelete
  21. @ Anon 6:02:

    If we are "twits sitting on our fat asses in our dilapidated apartments and crowing" just because we aren't being used as filler for a conference our underpaid overworked publicists somehow got us into...

    tell me:

    THEN. WHAT. THE. FUCK. ARE. YOU?

    Anyone who can see the mountains of SOLID EVIDENCE of wrongdoing (ie: do you REALLY believe a SPAM bot somehow embedded code in thier page that magically makes them show up as #1... and yet not the spammer?) and still sit here and defend these girls is either affiliated with them, friends with them, or part of the problem right along with them.

    You are in the WRONG place, dear, did you get lost?
    Maybe you should.

    ReplyDelete
  22. from wikipedia
    "In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel, slander, and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image.
    Slander refers to a malicious, false and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. Or an untruthful oath.[1] "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[2]
    False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[3] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[3]"

    ReplyDelete
  23. @ Anon 6:14

    Good to know you have copy/paste skills. But READ what you pasted. "FALSE CLAIM". I have SCREENSHOTS OF THEIR CODES THAT SHOW THE KEYWORDS AND LINKS TO NON-SENSICAL SEARCH RESULTS ON GOOGLE FOR THOSE EXACT WORDS.

    That is not a false claim.

    DUH. What IS a false claim is Julia's lie that spammers did her that favor somehow.

    You are delusional.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Defamation is only possible when detractors tell an untruth, or maliciously and knowingly tell a lie. But nice try, way to go using Wikipedia! You really must be a lawyer!! Haha

    ReplyDelete
  25. Where are these lovely anons coming from? They're spicing things up.

    £

    ReplyDelete
  26. the point of the wikipedia was to point out the same thing you just said in your comment nicole. I was on your side. defamation does not occur unless is it based on lies and not just lies but ones that are reasonably damaging. that was the point of posting the definition. why the attack?

    ReplyDelete
  27. scary mary i was posting that as an argument against the anon lawyer not as as evidence for that person's argument

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sorry it's hard to tell one Anon from the other!!!! I thought it was the same one, back with redundant misinformation!

    My bad!

    £

    ReplyDelete
  29. She was still Twittering at 6:15, y'all, and so guess who showed up to foist one last desperate bomb our way?

    ReplyDelete
  30. no worries i should have posted more than just a quote. i thought it would be evident it was an argument against that defamation stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I thought it was funny how she thinks it's a BIG DEAL that Meghan is talking to a potential sponsor on 9 pm on a weeknight. Yeah, that's sort of how it is when you run a business. It's like...YOUR JOB.

    Also, did you guys see that grid of speakers for the conference she posted? And everyone has nice, professional-looking headshots, and then there's Julia Baugher wearing a tight t-shirt, suspenders, and fake glasses. I get what she's trying to do -- portray herself as out there and LIVING DIFFERENTLY -- but it's such an embarrassing miscalculation. It's seriously cringey, hopefully RBNS will post it soon.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anon @ 6:02 "Julia and Meghan go off to Europe to speak at a conference and to attend Davos and you twits sit on your fat asses in your dilapidated apartments and crow."

    Well, unlike Mary, most of us aren't homeless and scrounging off of others. As for Julia, the upstairs bathroom in my Soho loft is bigger than her crappy little apartment.

    ReplyDelete
  33. @nonEntity: At at 6:15 she Twitters "In the air!"

    ReplyDelete
  34. Speaking of journalistic integrity, anyone else notice tha blatent miscredit of the photo from the NY Times cocktail party? It specifically says, "photo: Diana Levine" and she credits Caroline McCarthy, because Caroline managed to take the photos from the New York Times' facebook page and create her own album. I mean, unreal.

    And why is she kissing up to Caroline McCarthy so much, exactly? Anyone know?

    ReplyDelete
  35. 1) Think her and Caroline are friends
    2) She's David Karp's ex-girlfriend. David is (at least partially) funding NonSociety
    3) She's an actual journalist. And a pretty damn good one at that.
    4) It's always good to have friends in high places. You can be popular by who you associate with, that has always been Julia's motto.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Caroline McCarthy, good writer, great rack, ugly as fuck grill. Sorry she's the classic butterface

    ReplyDelete
  37. She's not ugly. She's just not completely consumed in her appearance nor interested in getting poisons injected into her face while dieting on juices to get rid of the toxins taking up shack in her intestines as a result of her vegan-until-6 p.m. diet.

    And yes. Her boobs *are* amazing.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Okay, so more importantly then: Why the hell is Caroline McCarthy hanging out with Mary Rambin?

    ReplyDelete
  39. I don't believe that Caroline McCarthy is "hanging" with that fucking dimwit, I think it's the case that Rambin is going to the same spots as McCarthy.

    ReplyDelete
  40. ^her ex-boyfriend is an investor---maybe shes trying to patch things up in an incredibly convoluted way?? (i have no idea the circumstances of any of it, just a wild guess?)

    i was under the impression from mary's posts that mary kind of foisted herself onto caroline--it was a one-sided convo.

    -a totally unique anon

    ReplyDelete
  41. They seem to hang out with Caroline McCarthy a lot, especially Julia. Let me tell you, I had no opinion about her before and now I have a negative one.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Anon 6:02

    Have you ever been on a plane? That is NOT business class.


    Idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Also, Julia texted once the plane took off.

    Guess rules do not apply to that one with the thick thighs.

    ReplyDelete
  44. So the one with the rapidly expanding bottom is now using her electronic devices in mid-flight while she is also (I am to presume) stuffing sauerkraut into her mouth like so many little cupcakes in anticipation of her arrival in Germany. I do not understand the actions of this woman who simply ignores the rules (and sometimes vomits too).

    ReplyDelete
  45. Julia (and Mary, I guess) all suck up to Caroline because Caroline is an actual tech blogger (Meghan only wishes) for CNET, which is pretty well-respected in the tech community (again, Meghan really wishes).

    ReplyDelete
  46. Odd how the profane JA defenders are nowhere to be found when JA is without Internet access.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Julia has frequently discussed how one of her publicity tactics is to suck up to journalists for more coverage, which is why she also sucks up to Sarah Lacy... Also, didn't someone say that she's been trying to get contributors to NS since May?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Guess what I just saw in the US Weekly my husband brought home for me because I've been home sick?

    This woman
    http://www.brendawatson.com/About-Brenda/
    was consulted as a nutritional expert and said blueprint cleanse requires the body to "handle being on juices alone" and could be "dangerous and expensive."

    Funny how the NYT and USWeekly dismissed the efficacy and healthiness of these types of fasts and/or many of the notions involving nutrition and digestion NS has been talking about just as NS focused on the juice again this week.

    Anyway, just thought I'd share after all the discussion on the issue this week.

    ReplyDelete
  49. two excellent points recently made:

    -awfully quiet on the troll front while shes crossing the atlantic.
    -blueprint just happened to inundate them with boxes of free juice right as they were about to get a tsunami of potentially fatal press.

    also, when they say "juicing" it reminds me of pro-ana sites.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Ineffable, don't you know that US Weekly just says that because they are NOT being paid by Blueprint!?!?!?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  51. this was an interesting post i found, i wonder who they pissed off. bet it will be gone in a few minutes. lol.

    First, let me say I am not a loving follower or a hater. I only recently found your site and have found it fun to watch your idea grow and now begin to crash and burn. At least it doesn't have far to fall.
    You apparently lost a lot of fans running off to a porn convention, and probably turned off current as well as future sponsors by joking about it instead of doing what you were supposed to do. You then apparently show a further deterioration of ethics when caught with improper hidden tags. If Google believes this to be true you are pretty much done.
    Now it appears that you pissed off someone at the City of New York and you will be audited for 2008 to be sure you declared all the "free" stuff as income. After they are finished they forward the findings to the State of New Your and IRS. When those three get finished with penalties and interest you won't have anything. The good news is that they rarely prosecute criminally for such low amounts, just do it civil. Another plus for being not too successful.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Oh, Russian Girl! Your post about our lady of introspection eating sauerkraut mid-flight is your funniest yet. As there is nothing more attractive than a wonderful sense of humor, are you taken?

    ReplyDelete
  53. As someone else who works in the magazine industry, it absolutely PISSES me off when people start spouting erroneous shit like this...especially from a dimwit like Rambo who hasn't the slightest clue what she's talking about. Like anyone would EVER hire her to work for a magazine--as a "blogger," as a stylist, hell, even as an intern!

    ReplyDelete
  54. The Fox News weekend morning show did a segment earlier this morning about the dangers and pitfalls of these "cleanses." No wonder BP is desperate for ANY positive mentions.

    Was Julia really texting on the plane after the pilot asked people to turn off their electronic devices? If I were on that plane and saw some silly bitch disobeying that, I'd make sure that she was tackled like that terrorist who tried to set his sneaker on fire mid-flight.

    How funny would it have been if she'd been taken off the flight in handcuffs?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Dear Anon at 12:55 --

    I am just a simple girl from Omsk. Between my work harvesting the potatoes, making the borsch and following the adventures of the tree trunk one, the one whose head landed in the fryer and the other one, I have little time for matters of the heart.

    Though I did have Skype date last night with some boy named Alexander Marquardt. He liked that I could type faster than the one with little bratwursts for fingers. (Also, he is not a homosensual. HOOKAAAAY?)

    ReplyDelete
  56. This is QUITE the comment sitting on Gawker right now:

    #
    #
    12:44 PM
    Image of crookedlawyer crookedlawyer
    12:44 PM


    Because I know too much about this asshat, let's unpack this. Ms. Allison got her start in politics when her rich-ass parents set her up with a bullshit job with their local Congressman after she dropped out of IU. She then transferred into Georgetown (though she's shocking non-specific, it was College, not SFS) along with dozens of other moneyed bobos who couldn't quite swing a fancy school the first time around. By all accounts she was headed for Ann Coulter-dom until she noticed that the famous people she was interested in fucking were all Democrats.

    But, yes. Without an ounce of talent, at least one F on her college transcript, an explosively ridiculous stint at her college paper that included not only a plagiarism charge but the revelation that her mother was editing her columns, and one transparently lame line on her resume, Julia Allison could be writing for the President if only she'd made wittier conversation at a barbecue.

    There's a difference between waving and drowning, Ms. Allison, and it's clear a mile away.

    ReplyDelete
  57. The whole IU transfer being completely left out of the timeline and replaced with the impression that she went to Georgetown and simply had a "gap year" is one of the reasons why I couldn't take her bulimia essay seriously. I'm expected to believe someone's "honesty" when she's flubbing basic facts from the start?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Hello,

    What irks me is the fact that she is going to both this conference and Davos. I really do not understand why, or even how. I vaguely remember Meghan reporting from Davos a year or two ago (for what? why? I'm unclear). It's possible she gets herself invited in loose and indirect ways, but how does this fit into NS: their brand, their messages, etc.? They are all so over the place; it's unorganized and incoherent.

    As for the DLD Conference, I am also surprised she gets invited. However, if you notice, her good friend Randi Z. of the Facebook family will also be speaking. I also agree with those who believe she was a last-minute filler and I think Randi had something to do with that.

    Nonetheless, what really really irks me is that she ends up at some pretty good events. And, of course, she does not deserve to at all. She has no message to convey and no advice to give except for "Fuck up, make mistakes, but look good doing it!"

    I also have begun the obligated, yet enjoyable, attending of conferences...within my field, of course. For those first conferences at which I was not speaking, I was a fly on the wall. I knew I could go up to the big names and try to make small talk and, on the whole, attempt to stand out and be remembered, but I didn't. I said to myself, "Just wait until you have things to present, things of substance to say." And I did wait until I started getting accepted to speak. Then, and only then, did I have worthy things to share with both the big and little names around me. Specifically speaking, I waited until my research was underway so that I could share my data -- my scientific contribution -- with others. ALL THE WHILE I COULD HAVE DRESSED IN BRIGHT "SEXY" SUITS, BEEN LOUD AND "BALLSY" THROUGH SMALL TALK, BUT WITHOUT ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE FOR WHICH TO BE REMEMBERED.

    I just didn't want that reputation in my field. I wanted to earn the respect of my peers through working hard and sharing my findings -- conversations with inherent depth. So, I always hold a grudge for those people, like JA, who can attend fantastic events without anything to contribute. Moreover, she *will* be remembered...and it's most likely because of the visual access to her cleavage.

    Pisses me off. Can't you understand that, Julia? What unique and innovative ideas can you share? Or are ya going to give that kick-ass PowerPoint with your baby pictures and funny captions that was referenced on Gawker/1938Media a couple of months ago?

    Smart.

    Thanks for reading.
    Laura

    ReplyDelete
  59. What a surprise. She wasn't even invited to the HuffPo party -- she just crashed it. Pathetic.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/27083360@N00/3213574462/in/set-72157612709095697/

    ReplyDelete
  60. woooow.. looks like sklar's more acute than we thought lol as the ns girls might say FEISTYYY

    ReplyDelete
  61. I guess one good say good for Sklar for getting back at Julia. So, Good for her. But what stands out to me is how all of these people - Forman, Julia, Sklar, McCarthy, et al - live in this world where they have to be passive aggressive 24/7 instead of just telling each other to their faces that they hate each other.

    ReplyDelete
  62. It's not about friendships as much as acquaintances - who can be good for what (career-boosting, etc.) and when. So it's all dislike covered in sweetness!

    ReplyDelete
  63. She has quite the knack for leaving out those inconvenient details that don't gel (sorry not sure about spelling in this sentence) with the insidery image she wants to project, doesn't she.

    I love how Mary continues the "we're always honest with our readers, you should trust us" crap while again and again it's made clear that Julia Allison deliberately leaves out or otherwise obscures facts to create the image she wants rather than the reality. The other two seemed to have learned from her as well and all engage such lovely practices as backdating, altering, and deleting posts, approving the deletion of critical comments and much more.

    Many people recognize JA's approach of sneaking and misrepresenting her way to where she wants to be and dislike and resent her for it. Some I suppose actually admire it (probably her co-NS-ers).

    And you know what, if it didn't work for her, she would probably not do it. It gets her access, publicity, and attention and presents a false image that she then uses for further opportunities. Like it or not, the media and our society respond to the techniques she uses or she wouldn't be using them for long.

    As another commenter said on this site and has been pointed out about her before (maybe in that profile of her I think it was in Mediabistro?) she latches on to well known and successful people, sneaks her way to photo ops and social events with such people, does what she can to associate with those she considers successful and uses that access to get what she wants and to appear as if she is on the same level professionally as those people until, I'm sure she hopes, she eventually actually is.

    Why people tolerate that behavior is a whole other question that I couldn't even begin to answer. Perhaps the cleavage has a hypnotizing effect? (Just joking, I don't think that would explain the females who befriend and associate with her, especially the ones who don't need her for their own success, like some others we know of, but those who actually are more successful than her who take her under their wing so to speak. Why in God's good name do they do it?)

    --Ineff.

    ReplyDelete
  64. And by the way anyone notice this other lovely gem posted by Ms. Sklar?
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/27083360@N00/3220899014/

    --Ineffable

    ReplyDelete
  65. Their whole world just seems so ugly and exhausting to live in. Sklar, ok, you're right to be pissed. But come on. We expect this from Paris and Kim Kardashian. But, wow, she does have spectacular breasts.

    (Just joking, I don't think that would explain the females who befriend and associate with her, especially the ones who don't need her for their own success, like some others we know of, but those who actually are more successful than her who take her under their wing so to speak. Why in God's good name do they do it?

    I guess you're talking about people like Caroline McCarthy, Randi Z and Sarah Lacey? That part is easy to figure out. They were the awkward girls in high school who always wanted to be friends with the cheerleaders. Hanging out with Julia allows them to feel as pretty and as glamorous as she does. Julia can't offer them anything other than that in return.

    And you know what, if it didn't work for her, she would probably not do it. It gets her access, publicity, and attention and presents a false image that she then uses for further opportunities.

    That is all coming to an abrupt end. The tide has turned. People are now sick of her and on to her game. CES was the nail in the coffin. And when TONY goes under (and it will, probably by summer) she'll have nothing left to use to get access to their world.

    ReplyDelete
  66. I honestly can't imagine why Julia would be allowed to speak ANYWHERE. What is she going to talk about? She's done this before (at an NYC event with Gary Vanderchuk from WineLibrary TV) and reports are that she just stood up there with a fucking slide projector and told her life story.

    It was awful, nobody liked it, and she brought her dog along. The dog barked all through the presentation. After my friend recanted the story of her awful, awful presentation, I got online to see that she had given herself a "B" for the evening's talk.

    No, Julia. No.

    She has absolutely nothing of value to say, and I think Gawker put it best when they called her an egoblogger. She is not providing any kind of service to her readers. Did anybody else notice that they've changed her TMI Weekly segment to "Life" instead of "Sex"? When it started, it was Sex, Tech and Style, but now it's Life, Tech and Style. Know why? Because Julia fails at talking about sex just like she's failed at everything else in her life.

    Her TMI segment is now about whatever she feels like, because she can't do the due diligence that Mary and Meghan do for their segments. Notice how Mary and Meghan's segments have additional video and photos of things relevant to their topics? Julia's don't.

    I don't understand how somebody can be so vapid and so pretentious at the same time. Go sit your ass down, Julia. You have no worth.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Also, a list of people who don't like Julia Allison Baugher:

    1. Rachel Sklar
    2. Emily Gould
    3. Nick Denton
    4. Meghan Asha
    5. Mary Rambin
    6. Jakob Lodwick
    7. Jakob Lodwick's mom
    8. Jakob Lodwick's little brother
    9. Ricky Van Veen
    10. Charles Forman
    11. Jimmy Wales
    12. Sarah Lacy
    13. Owen Thomas
    14. Diablo Cody

    Feel free to add onto this list if you see fit.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Eponymous--

    15. Every Georgetown professor who had Julia in a classroom.
    16. Every Georgetown administrator who had to monitor Julia's dishonest behavior on a weekly basis.
    17. 99.9% of the Georgetown student body when Julia was attending classes, or showing up every so often.

    We've literally just added thousands to this list!

    ReplyDelete
  69. Diablo Cody!? Please tell me that story.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Shira Lazar (just googled her) seems a bit more intelligent and creatively driven than Miss JA. I think JA has her sights set on emulating her...

    watch this unfold...

    That's my tip!
    Kal

    ReplyDelete
  71. So the one who doesn't drink the German beer but does have third helpings of the strudel just posted something about how the Germans are the nicest peoples in the history of the world.

    Um, remember this teensy weensy not-so-nice incident that happened in the 30s and the 40s? REMEMBER THAT, POOFY?!?!

    ReplyDelete
  72. Don't you love how Rachel Sklar's photostream includes photos of people like David Axelrod, Chuck Schumer, Geraldo Rivera and Time's Matt Cooper, while Julia Baugher's included...photos of Julia Baugher? What a self-absorbed, delusional headband-wearing cockroach (saw that description on Gawker and liked it too much to not use it).

    Also, Rachel Sklar is a LOT prettier in every other photo I see of her than the ones JAB posts. Looks like someone can't stand being the only pretty pretty princess in the room!

    Side note: I was watching Giada de Laurentiis today and realized, "Man, that lady shows off her boobs a lot." Then I realized she has a talent other than showing off her boobs, so she's already a step ahead of JAB.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Mary has decided to do her job and has offered us all some exciting tidbits about her life.

    Am I the only person who thinks it's hysterical that she listed 'craps' as one of her weaknesses? LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Oh, I just realized Scary Mary posted almost the exact same thing before me. Sorry! I wasn't trying to pull a JA

    ReplyDelete
  75. whats going on w/the site? did ns shut it down too? MUST KNOW!!

    ReplyDelete
  76. So Mary got lucky after a long night of craps? Are we going to see video footage of that?
    Or am I getting confused - colonics: video, craps: no video.
    Anyone else feel a tiny amount of pity for Julia? It appears the tide is turning against her but she *just doesn't get it*.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Is Julia implying something non-kosher in this NS Post: http://julia.nonsociety.com/post/72827057? It reads:
    "Another Rachel Sklar (TM) photo, with YouTube founder Chad Hurley, who (coincidentially) will be here in Munich/Davos - and promised to hang with us - this week!"
    Glad I'm not Hurley's wife.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Hurley is married to Kathy Clark, the daughter of a hugely wealthy and successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur. They have two young children.

    I have heard neither she nor her family are people to be messed with, and she's apparently well aware (probably tipped off by her weirded-out husband) that some vapid NYC narcissistic egoblogger is after her husband. Kathy Clark and her family could stomp her and her business out like a bug if they wanted to.

    Good luck, Jules!

    ReplyDelete
  79. Julia Baugher is an egoblogger and such a little cunt.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I love how Meghan graciously posts a pic of their hosts on the first night. If you look closely, not one of them is over 22.

    Julia, you can't hang with the grown-ups? Make sure to take lots of photos to make it look like you did!

    And good luck on the presentation...provoke them with your insights...
    ha ha ha.

    And I'll be there too.
    R

    ReplyDelete
  81. Hey Julia,

    Thanks for the pics of people speaking! What are yor thoughts on their talks? Oh wait...that would mean you would be a blogger, not an egoblogger. Don't answer then! Carry on...

    It's all aboout how blessed you are...not them.

    Lousia Maria DellaFontana

    ReplyDelete
  82. I'm trying not to give NS my pageviews but all your comments are making me want to go look. And since our intrepid hosts appear to be taking a much deserved break over the weekend, I'm tempted. Hope I don't succumb.

    ---Ineffable

    ReplyDelete
  83. Ineffable - Just sign up for Tumblr, start following their blogs via the direct URL to their individual pages and you'll never have to give them page views ever again nor await the self-punishment of making yourself peek.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I see she's describing someone as "ineffable" again. Jesus, woman, buy a new thesaurus. EVERYONE can't be ineffable!

    ReplyDelete
  85. I find this photo hilarious from Rachel Sklar: http://www.flickr.com/photos/27083360@N00/3220899014/

    ReplyDelete
  86. To say that something is "ineffable" means that it cannot or should not be expressed in spoken words (as with the concept of true love or some taboo). It is generally used to describe a feeling, concept or aspect of existence that is too great to be adequately described in words, or that inherently (due to its nature) cannot be conveyed in dualistic symbolic human language, but can only be known internally by individuals

    ReplyDelete
  87. Julia Allison Baugher is a fuckin retard.

    Please, DLD people -- if you are as intelligent as you're sold to be -- recognize the emptiness that will stand before you on Tuesday to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Discussing artifical hearts - “it’s as complex as a missle or a spaceship, but in a very small space.”
    ...
    Julia Allison, on.....ummm....er....why she is awsome....?

    this post pretty much explains it all

    Meghan just took this photo of me sitting next to Hubert Burda

    ME ME ME ME ME ME ME ME

    ReplyDelete
  89. Mona: thank you! I have done this and now I won't be adding to the page views on NS. Yay!
    Mary reposted a picture of a shirtless Jakob Lodwick. You know, the guy who broke her BFF Julia's heart. Seems a bit callous, but maybe that's just me.

    ReplyDelete
  90. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anon 6:02 (Julia) gives me the laffs:

    "...you twits sit on your fat asses in your dilapidated apartments and crow."

    I'd say that is EXACTLY what Julia Allison does on a daily basis. At least our dilapidated apartments are bigger than that ugly 12 X 12 shoebox that Julia calls home!

    ReplyDelete
  92. I looked up the conference schedule. She's not really speaking, she'll be on a panel (on "Storytelling" I think it was).

    ReplyDelete
  93. Ah, it's a panel eh? Still though...why on Earth?!

    HA HA HO HO HEE HEE HA

    ReplyDelete
  94. When she says ineffable, is she meaning indescribable? I think she's meaning indefatigable.

    In any event, for a "journalist," she should either know what the goddamned word means or, in fact, aim to describe the qualities of a person she is giving online blowjobs.

    Stupid idiot.

    And WOW! What a surprise! She's not speaking, merely on a panel?? That's not like JA to embellisn and exaggerate!

    ReplyDelete
  95. Yeah, and on top of that, there is zero press for DLD. They released a press release and it's on PR Newswire, with one random pickup, but nothing else. I mean, have *you* ever heard of DLD? Tech lead-up to Davos? Uh, not even their press release claims that, it just says that it's happening right before Davos.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anon @ 5:50 "Mary reposted a picture of a shirtless Jakob Lodwick. You know, the guy who broke her BFF Julia's heart. Seems a bit callous, but maybe that's just me."

    Even more callous when you factor in that Mary's much younger sister (former soap actress Leven Rambin) started screwing Jakob either right before or right after he dumped Julia.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Re: the J.Lodwick posting:
    Well, Mary did say she was having a hard time keeping her "food" down. On the other hand, why put that imagery up at all?

    ReplyDelete
  98. To make fun of him, I think. As if, in her mind, she is on Julia's side, pointing out what a douche he is. She's good, right?
    £

    ReplyDelete
  99. Something just occurred to me -- NS doesn't use any trademark or copyright symbols. You can use a TM without registering it as long as you use the trademarked item consistently; they should be doing this if they want to have any legal claim at all to that name or logo. Furthermore, they don't seem to be registered as an LLC or corporation. Unlike Julia, I don't pretend to be a lawyer, but it seems ill-advised.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Nonsociety is registered as an LLC with NY state. They've done that much right, at least.
    http://appsext8.dos.state.ny.us/corp_public/CORPSEARCH.ENTITY_INFORMATION?p_nameid=3660671&p_corpid=3664444&p_entity_name=%6E%6F%6E%73%6F%63%69%65%74%79&p_name_type=%41&p_search_type=%42%45%47%49%4E%53&p_srch_results_page=0

    ReplyDelete
  101. "Chad Hurley- clearly stalking me (Julia)"

    What. The. Fuck.

    JA is DELUSIONAL.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Bunnies!

    An interesting story on Valleywag about the Shira Lazar/Kevin Rose and Julia Allison connection.

    Hanging out with Shira finally makes more sense. I think it's a very public way to piss off Rose, who she (unsuccessfully) pursued earlier in 2008. No man wants his new girlfriend cozying up to a previous girl he dated, and especially if that woman was Julia Allison. But goddamn, Kevin Rose has dated every "hot" tech-y girl out there, so maybe two of them becoming friends is not hard to fathom.

    If you remember, Julia gave Dan's inauguration ticket to Shira and later took multitudes of pictures of herself with Shira at the Huffington Post party she was never invited to.

    Shira also competed in the Sundance Qik competition along with Meghan. Shira was also called out by TechCrunch for bragging all weekend she was dating one of the event's organizers.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Anon 10:30 -- where was that?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Anon @ 10:30

    Clearly, the little cunt is trying to break up the Hurleys' marriage, just to get herself some fame and publicity.

    Suddenly, I don't feel so sorry for her as I did when Jakob screwed Mary's sister, right after he busted up with Julia. Got what she deserved.

    ReplyDelete
  105. @Jacy... julia.nonsociety.com

    I broke down and checked it out- Lots of new pictures of her and various married men.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Mona

    So no page views as a result of reading through tumblr? If that's the case, I'm on it. I cringe at the thought of giving them even one page view so thank you so much

    And agree ing with all of you if she finds everyone she knows ineffable (can't be put into words etc.) she's not much of a writer, is she? But we already knew that. At least that's my view. Her writing is, like she appears to also be, trite, cliche, shallow, and lazy.

    --Ineff.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Ineff...nope, no page views, and same thing if you subscribe through RSS feeds. Of course, NonSociety could count the #s of RSS subscribers, but that doesn't seem to be the metric they're using to scratch their own backs.

    ReplyDelete
  108. A caveat: I'm sure that fabled ad sales deck of theirs features how many followers they have on tumblr, so it's not a "zero impact" thing.

    ReplyDelete
  109. This is true. It won't affect page views, although you *may* be counted as a subscriber if they are tracking that (which they would be if they're smart. Although they have constantly shown they are not. Not getting the .org URL, the credit score ads in the code, not registering their Twitter account, etc).

    Man, would I love to peak at their sales sheet.

    ReplyDelete
  110. True true, anon 11:02. I'll have to weigh the costs: how much I despise giving them even an ounce more clout with which to promote themselves and my curiosity about their ongoing trainwrecky antics.

    --Ineffable

    ReplyDelete
  111. Well, then, to curb your appetite:

    Julia: 15 pictures of kissy face at DLD with married men, passively hitting on married men, looking really haggard.

    Mary: She went to get a pedicure and took a photo of her feet while she was at it! Took a photo of her lettuce smoothie after a 2 hour workout, 'cause a muscular girl needs to be fed properly! She wants to cut her hair short like Katie Holmes and is asking for YOUR advice. Took a photo of herself "sleeping." Took a jab at a half-shirtless Jakob Lodwick at some NY Web event.

    Meghan: A few brief recaps of panels she watched at DLD. Nothing too scandalous.

    Feel better?

    ReplyDelete
  112. Yes, please, when RBNS goes MIA, let's assign one of us to go in, take a look and report back, OK?

    Who's with me? I just need a summary!

    ReplyDelete
  113. Mona

    I went there before I read your very accurate description. Lost my appetite. I don't think I'll be having to worry about adding to a subscriber count on tumblr after all. Especially as long as this site is around I really don't think I need ever visit there again.

    Jacy and those curious like I was, it's not worth the visit. It's just JA describing people as "THE ineffable so and so" or "THE handsome and talented so and so" (the latter one is for men obviously, the other usually for women, although women sometimes get "THE talented and gorgeous so and so" instead of "The ineffable and indefatigable so and so"), more pics of themselves of course, JA in a super tight pink top, mary in la making green shakes with her gentlemen friends. In other words, a joke. And a replay of the past few months. Save yourselves, do not make my mistake, do not click or tumblr over there.

    --Ineffable

    ReplyDelete
  114. Oh and thanks for the summary Mona.

    ReplyDelete
  115. agreed. i would LOVE a view of their sales sheets. also wonder what sort of rate they get for shilling. we should pose as "advertisers" and contact them hoping to sell something to learn their rates.

    ReplyDelete
  116. You can always check my site for your fix :)

    I'm curious as to what you all think of my "Open Letter To Tumblr". My curiosity was sparked when this site said they were suspended from their Tumblr account. But today in my comments someone let me know that Web20Morons, another Tumblr who "hated on" NS, has also vanished.

    I'm thinking I should start an archive of my postings, just in case, but it seems like soooo much extra work, and the focus I already give this little site of mine seems like more than enough.

    Let's hope Tumblr isn't going to let us down.

    ps: Did you guys see Mary posted about how much she hated everyone's dresses this year at the SAG awards... but was critiquing LAST YEARS pictures, and didn't even WATCH the awards?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Scary, Mary Rambin obviously reads you or reads over here because her incredibly stupid SAG post is now gone. Jesus, can the dim girl not even check People.com?? She's even more hilariously out of touch in LA that she is in New York!

    ReplyDelete
  118. I've been lurking on this site for a while now. Mainly out of sheer curiosity, and mainly because it's oddly amusing to read the various comments here. I used to be quite the fan of nonsociety and still stop by there on occassion, but lately, I have been so seriously, incredibly irked by these gals and their shameless materialism, their vapid and sad little lives, and their laughable excuse of a "business", which is really just three dim-witted famewhores desperately attempting to be relevant at the wrong time.

    It started with CES when I really saw the cards fall with those three; while I used to find those gals quirky and entertaining, I just felt embarrassed for them and embarrassed to even formerly approve of them. I'm a highly educated professional woman who wanted to cheer these girls on, but it became plainly obvious after that trip(why where they there?!) that they're nothing but tacky freeloaders who want fame and fortune at any cost.

    Then when they started deleting comments and egging on haters and doing the whole shady Google practice, I got even more annoyed with them. Don't they realize that successful businesses welcome anyone, haters alike?!

    The icing on the cake was Julia Allison disgustingly fawning all over the VERY married CEO of youtube like an obnoxious teenager with a painfully obvious crush...it's one thing to make one respectful photo with the guy, but this hussy took 14(??!!!) photos with him, then splashed 5 or 6 pics of it on her site, all in various "fuck me" poses?! WTF???!!!
    How would she feel if some fame-whoring little trollip ever publically acted like that if that was HER hubby and father of her children??
    Good God, woman, have some fucking respect, not just for a married CEO but for yourself!

    The saddest part of all is that these gals obviously have squandered away what could've been a wonderful opportunity for them. THey've pissed away a great web opportunity and otherwise good connections because of their sheer greed, obvious laziness and lack of any marketable business skills.
    If your business is a website that depends on "lifecasting", why the fuck would you only post a few trivial items maybe once or twice a day? Why would you post the same trivial shit repeatedly?? Why are you sooooo busy behind the scenes for a business that requires you to be ON the scene constantly???
    It's old, it's boring, and it's frivolous. Mix it up, for god's sake.
    USE YOUR CONNECTIONS/PAGEVIEWS TO MAYBE DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR OTHERS, PERHAPS? LIKE WORK SOME CHARITY BENEFITS, MAYBE??
    (oh wait, that's just what they expect us haters to do instead. yet unlike them, we actually have real jobs, real relationships, and far more meaningful lives to uphold. what's their excuse?)

    Meghan annoys me strictly because she won't even own up to being a total heiress or admit to her privileged background. What's there to hide for this poor little rich girl? Maybe it's because no one could possibly relate to a gal who mysteriously owns a posh NYC loft, wears designer duds, has constant access to pricey gadgets and goes on endless international travels, yet claims to be as broke as the rest of us? And really nice try there with the attempt to appear all humble on her birthday by posing as a volunteer in a soup kitchen.
    Notice that was the first and last time we ever saw or heard mention of any of those famewhores attempting volunteer work or to do anything for anyone besides themselves? I'm not even convinced rich girl didn't stop by for 10 minutes to pose for pics in a shower cap to pretend like she actually did volunteer at that soup kitchen. Why didn't she lifecast THAT then?

    Mary annoys me because she actually thinks she's some sort of well-connected, intelligent fashionista. When really, she just had a lucky streak with some goofy-looking overpriced/faddish handbags. What a poseur. She's just some badly educated broad with a severe case of label-whoredom whose gene pool unfortunately rendered her a good 10 years older-looking than she should be. I guess excessive tanning and living on nothing but juice and booze does that to a gal!

    As for Julia, the woman I once found oddly endearing, I just find odd and sad. She really is rather astonishingly full of herself, isn't she? Who cares about covering a historic Innaguration and all its festivities when you can just shoot pages of photos of yourself in a borrowed dress within various hallways doing kissy-poses instead?
    It's actually pretty pitiful to watch how her star flickered so bright for a hopeful while there, and now that her looks and former contacts are fading, so is that once bright star. She's basically a has-been whose 15-minutes of internet fame are ticking away faster than ever. She really is like the Edie Sedgwick of the internet world---like Edie, she was so hip and hot for a glam year or so, but instead of giving in to drugs like Edie, Julia's given in to mismanagement, a ridiculous sense of self-entitlement, and cupcake binges.
    NIce going there, dumbass. You had everything going for you, and your former fans were rooting for you! Amazing how a failed reality show deal suddenly left all three gals flailing about for relevence. As if a reality show ever gives any of its former stars continued relevence anyway once its season is done.

    These three need to face the facts that this nonsociety thing is going down the shitter and get on with their lives.

    Julia seriously needs to move back to CHicago and go be a newscaster there or something. Maybe report on local entertainment. Write an autobio about her more entertaining years.

    Mary needs to give up her deluded dreams of being a Manhattan socialite and move down to the South where she can meet that hubby already without all the younger/hotter competition eating her up alive there.

    Meghan can use her awkward good looks to secure another plum hedge fund position or work for some techie site and continue to thrive on her trust fund. Maybe she wouldn't worry about being single the rest of her life if she'd put those gadgets down already and reinvest her time in learing better personal skills.

    I guess I'm just as frustrated as the rest of you now. Especially since those three dimwits don't even have the balls to allow any comments on THEIR site; if they had any business sense whatsoever, stupid Julia would continue her whole "any attention is good attention" motto and let the haters keep the site entertaining, because right now it's a total snoozefest!!!

    But then again, her ego is every bit as bloated as the rest of her is gradually getting, so I would expect no less.

    One more thing: I'm annoyed that three grown women, women almost 30, act like a bunch of goofy teenage girls. If that's their idea of "live differently", it's no wonder none of them seem to have successful relationships.

    The world only needs one Paris Hilton, and it's obvious that all three of them secretly would give anything to be just like her, living a fluffy little bubble of a desirable life that's nothing more than endless parties, overpriced designerwear spending sprees, fashion shows, magazine stories, etc.

    But their former fanbase is finally onto them and their severely gauche ways. And for three women who seem to offer nothing more than idiotic girlie stereotypes in pretty packages, their clock is ticking extra fast:
    These gals are not 25 anymore. Time to start Plan B if they still plan to compete like they're the hot young hardbodies who use their good looks/feminine wiles to get where they want to in life.

    Whew! Sorry if I rambled here. It felt so good to get that off my chest finally. Especially considering that they would never allow this post on THEIR site!!

    If anyone wants to do me a serious favor, I double-dog dare any of you to e-mail my entire comment here to these three sad girls for the wake-up call they truly do deserve from a former fan; I would myself, but I figure I've wasted enough of my time here hating on them as it is. I have to go work with the mentally disabled tonight, after all!

    (nice work on this site, folks. fight the power!)

    ReplyDelete