Wednesday, February 4, 2009

The Handmaiden of Passive Aggression just made us spit out our drink.

Last night, Mary quoted Julia's neighbor Georgie:













georgiegirlnyc:
I think it’s time to watch some Rock of Love or something. It’s so much more fun arguing about which girl is more trashy as opposed to the merits of mark-to-market accounting.

So now I admit I watch Brothers & Sisters. (Actually, I love it.) On one of the episodes this season, Kitty (Calista) and Robert (Rob Lowe) have “brain sex” debating political agenda. Then they have A-Maz-Ing sex. Oh how I miss this….

Go with it G. Get angry then get crazy

Miss what, exactly? The thought of Mary understanding what mark-to-market accounting is, or even having any kind of "brain sex" is, well, HILARIOUS. Let's imagine what this Handmaiden's riveting intellectual foreplay would be like...we want to hear your ideas. Amuse us, bunnies!

76 comments:

  1. Well... regarding the brain sex.... A stimulating conversation with a man complete with banter can make me feel as joyful as good sex. So I get that part of where she's coming from.

    What gets me is her jumping into her friend's business on her blog that is read by more than just her family and friends. It rubbed me the wrong way to see this exchange.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think she means 'hair sex'. She's infatuated with the stuff. . .

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's not that we argue with the premise. It's the idea of Mary having stimulating intellectual conversation that gets us. Heeeeelarious!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've been reading Georgina's blog for a while and she seems like a really sincere, likeable person. She's the one who dog sits for Julia and Mary ALL THE TIME and then Mary repays her with a $4 bottle of grocery store lotion.

    http://mary.nonsociety.com/post/73425877/review-from-a-reader-i-was-already-planning-a

    Mary constantly posts bitchy, passive aggressive reblogs to "friends" on her blog. See also: her cutting remarks to fellow blogger Sarah:

    http://mary.nonsociety.com/post/75127881/mascarah-lettuce-wraps-part-deux-if-you-follow

    I really have no idea why these intelligent, kind women are still friends with her.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mary: Do you like my hair?
    Man: ...Yeah it is hot.
    Mary: Yay! I love being pretty!
    Man: Hey so, who did you vote for this election?
    Mary: McCain!
    Man: Oh, uh, why? You aren't some crazy neoconservative purity girl are you?
    Mary: tee-hee NO! I just vote however my daddy tells me to vote. Did you know Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthy?
    Man: yeah well they have been significantly lowered during Bush's term in office...
    Mary: Hair! Style! Fashion!
    Man: ....
    Mary: The most important thing is to enter a room with confidence and fashion. Those are the most important things in style.
    Man: So...uh...I think I'm going to go.
    Mary: Oh! Please pay for me! I want everyone to know I have a wealthy boyfriend!
    Man: I'm not your boyfriend.
    Mary: What? ::starts to cry:: Why?
    Man: You aren't very...intellectually interesting.
    Mary: Hair!

    And scene.

    ReplyDelete
  6. RBNS:

    OH! I read too quickly. How true how true.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Awww. Too soon. I feel bad for Mary. She's gone and cut off all her hair to help get over a guy who broke her heart.(And it looks cute, just like it did last cut; not that Julia Creepy-Possessed-Doll-Hair Baugher would ever compliment her; her silence after Mary's first radical change in hairstyle was very revealing: jealous much Miss Sausage Ringlets to hide your double chin?).

    ReplyDelete
  8. They are both so catty to each other I have a hard time believing they're friends in real life. Perhaps they only hang together for the business. It's just so obvious, don't they realize?

    ReplyDelete
  9. New QotD is up:

    What are you most grateful for?

    My response:

    Daisy - I'm grateful that I have people in my life who love me enough to warn me if I'm making a fool of myself.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's very clear that Mary and Julia HATE each other. I think Meghan's just to much of a people-pleasing wimp to speak up or rock the boat. Their personal jealousies and dramas have completely wrecked their business, which makes it even more amusing that Mary has now taken to spouting off Deep Thoughts from their "life coach" Kyle King. From looking at Kyle's website, she seems like an even bigger scam artist than these "business women."

    ReplyDelete
  11. Forget about QotD. Even giving them a page view to see what funny or amusing thing someone has posted is not worth it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mase Mary's dog said:

    Having brain sex with Mary is like having sex in a car wreck ie what is to commonly referred to aqs a carrier landing..

    You never know when you wil get waved off for another try at a landing and nver know whether Mary's directions and hand waving will enable a successful landing or a crash.


    S0ome of Mary's miss spellings edited others , not :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. @anon 11:25: RE: "(And it looks cute, just like it did last cut; not that Julia Creepy-Possessed-Doll-Hair Baugher would ever compliment her; her silence after Mary's first radical change in hairstyle was very revealing: jealous much Miss Sausage Ringlets to hide your double chin?)."

    Not to make excuses for Julia, but it seemed to me that she was covering her face and not making comments because she wasn't wearing makeup and didn't want to be on-camera (even from 20 feet away) without five pounds of MAC.

    What a sad bunny.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Rachael, when Mary first got her extensions taken out and had her hair cut into that sleek bob she looked amazing. Julia had many opportunities to reblog pictures of Mary's new hair or tweet or IM something just to say "super cute hair bunnie!" but ... crickets. From someone who gushes about hair bows and cupcakes the absence of a single complimentary word to Mary was glaring.
    The covering her face in Meghan's apartment is something else entirely. Yes, I realize it was an "oh no, don't take my picture, i look awful" move on Julia's part(god forgive Mary actually "lifecast" something candid and out of Julia's control).

    ReplyDelete
  15. oh oh QOTD is getting slower and slower..

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Anon 1:26 - It looks like things might be winding down. What a sad waste of resources.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I don't know whether the be happy, sad, or suspicious. . .and while this thing is still spinning (and because I don't think it's irrelevant), can I say how bad Meghan Asha is at using twitter?!

    ReplyDelete
  18. It was a bit of both, I think. I think she was horrified to be on camera without makeup and in sweats. But I also got from her lack luster and repetitive "You look preeetttyyyyy" comment and fake shock that she was trying to cover up the fact that she hated it. There are plenty of other things to say in that situation and she couldn't come up with anything but that. Pretty telling. She even tried to change the subject/get out of the conversation by bending down and paying attention to the dogs.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Who cares about following every post on QotD and who cares about the intricacies of Mary's hair reveal video... by focusing so exclusively on these things you are doing EXACTLY what these megaegobloggers want: creating web celebrities out of them where every move is followed, tracked and over analyzed.

    They deserve our attention and scrutiny because they are unethical lazy hacks who think they're entitled to success because they're pretty and privileged. By focusing your attention on trivial things like haircuts, you just keep playing their sad little game and they're loving every minute of it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Just rewatched it. Yeah, it does look as if Julia is freaking out because she's not wearing makeup. She keeps her hands on wayyyy too long. Doesn't she realize how much prettier she is without the makeup?

    ReplyDelete
  21. The trivial is what they and their business are about. You can't really talk about one without the other, because they and their personalities ARE nonsociety. They aren't loving this, it's a stain on them for the companies that might consider doing business with them in the future. They can pretend, but the reality is the white flag was raised long ago because there is NOTHING they can do about this site. It's basically the same reaction Julia had to the Baugher tumblr...remember her going crazy for awhile about it? She silenced herself when she realized she was looking like a loon calling out a "stalker" that had legitimate, calm, criticism and posted it AT A DISTANCE without ever coming in contact with her. All while she continuously pinpointed her every location and activity.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If sites like this one, Scary Mary's site and the crazy stuff posted on QOTD are tarnishing their image and reputation so much, how do they keep getting so much access and opportunities to exclusive events? I don't get it... if they are so loathed, how do they keep racking up the invites, free stuff and privileges? Won't those dry up? And if so, when?

    ReplyDelete
  23. They deserve our attention and scrutiny because they are unethical lazy hacks who think they're entitled to success because they're pretty and privileged.

    I agree that they are lazy hacks. And, yeah, their sense of entitlement offends me as a woman and a business person. But I guess I don't really give two shits about Google Spam and Julia's questionably poor performance at DLD. Why? Because she's never going to be anything more than she is. Anybody can see that she's no further along in her career than she was last year at this time. In fact, she's about 10 steps back. She's like a cat with nine lives, but this particular life- NonSociety/TMI Weekly/Time Out - is coming to an end. Sure, she'll fall upwards and probably get something else. But what she never seems to get is what she truly wants. She'll never be truly famous. She'll never get the relationship she desperately craves. She'll never have the kind of money she'd like. And if she gets any of those things, it will be only because she sacrificed what little dignity she has left. That's what I find interesting.

    They delete comments on their blog? Who cares? Every business similar to theirs does it. They white spam Google with their coding? Again, big whoop! I know so many business that do that that it's almost the norm. I don't know..I just don't get bothered that she gets invited to speak at conferences or seminars. She's a trained monkey that will get events like that publicity. She's their dog and pony show. She's being used. And she doesn't care. That's what I find interesting. Her pathology. All of three of their pathologies. I'm more fascinated by their obvious issues and how they truly don't think we, the public, know enough and are smart enough to see through them. She's not fooling anybody except herself.

    ReplyDelete
  24. If sites like this one, Scary Mary's site and the crazy stuff posted on QOTD are tarnishing their image and reputation so much, how do they keep getting so much access and opportunities to exclusive events? I don't get it... if they are so loathed, how do they keep racking up the invites, free stuff and privileges? Won't those dry up? And if so, when?

    First, I think the only site that would have any affect on their reputation is this one.
    People listen to rational thinking, not rants. The comments are, for the most part, insightful, the moderators write well thought out posts that aren't just petty, bitchy rants but rather have a point. That's what will resonate with people.

    As for their access to events, I think it's been discussed and proven by many sources and posters that they don't, in fact, get access to anything, they crash. The invites they do get are received because they know these three will promote the shit out of wherever they are going to be. When will that stop? Ohhhh...in about two months when they no longer have an audience and when people realize how truly desperate and ignorant these girls are. Mary is almost single handedly destroying them in that area. The data and site analytics are also becoming public knowledge and that, too, will make the freebies dry up. The problem was that nobody was really publicizing just how lazy and ignorant these three were until now.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's a fine line commenting on their choice of content vs. their actual content. I can see both points above. It can feel occasionally
    like we are a tabloid discussing every minute detail of these people's lives we follow.Other times it can feel like we are simply criticizing the practices of a business we are unhappy with.

    There are all sorts of comments here, reflecting the wide variety of reasons people are drawn to this site. Everyone is here for their own individual reasons and there is no one focus to this blog so far as I can tell, so there's a vast spectrum of angles presented.

    While I do comment on the trivial stuff too, my main reason for being here is because I have a problem with the way the run their business. I wanted to compile a list of their shady business practices because that is my real concern with NS, their unethical practices and their attempts to cover them up.

    I agree that this site and others like it must bother them, especially when the sites focus on their business itself. But when it comes to disecting their every personal move, well, isn't that the point of their site to begin with?

    Isn't that what they want from their readers, to find their lives so fascinating that they have plenty to say about all the little things they post like their crushes and their haircuts? Doesn't doing that affirm the premise of their site, that the pics and convos and other trivial posts that make up the large part of their meager content are enough to satisfy simply by virtue of their lives being so interesting to the public?

    No offense meant AT ALL to any other commenters. I am not judging anyone else or their reasons for being here. Like I said I've commented on those things too. But what Sam said has occurred to me too. And I do wonder if in the end all our talk will do is get them more attention, and not necessarily in the way we may have intended or expected.

    (I know some are here just out of interest, others want to bring attention to practices they take issue with. I'm referring to the latter in that last sentence.)

    --Ineff.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Excellent observation, Christian. I think that is what I find most interesting as I watch the downfall of Julia Allison's latest venture - she is completely oblivious to failure. But it seems like there comes a point when you reach a dead end... when/what will Julia's dead end be? How far can you keep "failing upwards" until you have nothing left - no dignity, no career, no money, no connections, no meaningful relationship with your family or a significant other? How much will she lose before she hits rock bottom?

    ReplyDelete
  27. As someone who has worked in traditional print media for years, there’s something else that draws me to this soap opera. So many of the early web advocates were so snide. They mocked newspapers and magazines as outdated, at the same time they stole those publications content. They cheered for everything to be free to viewers, no monetary costs, no real rules, no training. They started businesses with no visible revenue stream and told doubters they “didn’t get it”. And they pointed to the handful of web success stories where some kid made gazillions and acted like they had earned it. Like they knew better.

    So, yeah, it feels a little good to see some of them get the chair kicked out from under them.

    Turns out, content is hard. Journalism is hard. Readers are demanding. And it turns out that that no-holds-barred web freedom stance cuts both ways. People like posting anoymously. People free fell to blast what’s worthless in their eyes. You touted “interaction”? As a business model? You want interaction, instant feedback? Well here it is: you suck.

    I know, I know. The internet has changed a lot of things for the better. I know. But it has also been this incredibly destructive force in certain sectors: media, music, etc. The people like NS who though the internet would be all hugs and kisses and venture capital money are so naiive. They deserve the backlash. They asked for it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Sam, I believe Julia has written quite unapologetically that she's an expert at the con artists' proven technique of walking into a party (uninvited) and acting as if she owns the place. She blatantly crashes events and carries on as if she is a welcome guest.
    From what I've observed, she appears to be managing her career trajectory in the same manner. She drops a bunch of borrowed terms (in those Next videos for example) to make it sound as if she has credibility, when really she's just a colorful parrot.
    Julia appears to be nothing more than a pampered princess version of a typical street corner hustler.
    She uses the same quick shuffle and distract techniques of a three-card Monte con artist; but she targets a different crowd. She's a few steps ahead in the game because of her polished presentation, initially paid for by daddy: veneers, extensions, nose job, lip injections, mani/pedis, slutty lolita outfits. And there is no putting baby in the corner.
    She's managed to create a free sample gravy train for herself of the feminine upkeep necessities, and now has a couple of jr. cons in training, not to mention the interns.
    And, she makes VERY quick, VERY intimate BFFs with the people she has insinuated herself upon (the marks) and seems to have no qualms about subsequently milking those connections for all they're worth. (The likes of Randi Z. for example, and remember the demand that JLodwick pay up for a MacAir? And the intimations that she was going to move to Brooklyn just around the time Charles Forman got his venture $$? And the latest, the "inappropriate crush" who just happened to fly her ass home from the lodgings in Switzerland she had just sponged off Randi Zukerberg -- the list does go on.)

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't get Meghan Asha Parikh's recent obsession with Ashton Kutcher as some sort of celebrity endorser of the (dying) Web 2.0 movement. It's like these girls want to be celebrities themselves but they piss their pants and blog endlessly about every time they are in the vicinity of an actual (tech or otherwise) celebrity, even their own half siblings. These women are nobodies... why do they pretend they aren't? They're not fooling anyone.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I'm actually heartened by the well thought out commentary here.

    I've railed against them in various outlets (Gawker, Tumblr, Valleywag). I was at the point that I was just getting low brow with my attacks and I simply let it die with the belief that no groundswell of opposition of these people would ever form.

    This assumption on my part has been proven wrong and I'm glad. I believe now in this economic downturn that people don't have the patience for entitled brats trying to play personality business. I think the more they try to push NS in it's current form, the faster it will fail and fold.

    If they change the paradigm, become above board, honest, contrite and really work hard then maybe they can survive to cover their expenses. But considering that Julia Baugher, Meghan Parikh, and Mary (no need for a pen name, I wasn't date raped) Rambin have not changed in this wave of backlash, makes me believe this NonEntity endeavour is done.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I agree! I am loving this thoughtful "big picture" commentary! Unfortunately, the ladies of Nonsociety fail to see the big picture: that personality-driven online reality shows (not literally a reality show but that is basically what their online presence adds up to) will never make money or thrive, especially in this economy. Homeless Mary Rambin is already realizing that you can't pay rent with free make up and hairdryers, Meghan Parikh doesn't have to worry about that because her parents bankroll her living expenses, and Julia's so detached from reality she won't even realize or acknowledge that she's hit rock bottom. Trying to get them to notice or acknowledge the folly of their endeavor is a pointless exercise, but it's been entertaining to watch it crumble and take note of WHY it's crumbled.

    ReplyDelete
  32. She drops a bunch of borrowed terms (in those Next videos for example) to make it sound as if she has credibility, when really she's just a colorful parrot.

    That exactly what she does. If you ask her to drill down her message deeper, she can't. That's because her understanding of the subject is so limited. She picks up buzz words and key phrases and can insert herself into a conversation. But I guarantee you she always takes it one step too far and blows her own cover. I have a competitor who's big on The Law of Attraction. When she writes about it, it takes her FOREVER to make her point. That's a clear cut sign that she doesn't really understand what's she's talking about, she's just regurgitating stuff she's heard and read. The one area Julia has a headband up, so to speak, is that she makes a strong presentation. She's well put together, she's well spoken, etc. But listen long enough and you realize she's really saying nothing. Men will always be fooled by this. Right Mr. Carr? They don't care how deep or smart she is. She knows how to stroke a guys ego just right to make him feel special. Then he give she what she wants. Wired destroyed their credibility by putting her on the cover. Cisco and Kodak? You'll never see them "sponsor" them again. Blueprint cleanse is desperate for publicity so they'll work with anyone. As are these ridiculous headband manufacturers. Randi Z and Sarah Lacey? Two average looking girls who were nerds in high school who are thrilled to death to have one of the cheerleaders sit at their lunch table. What Julia does is find people's weaknesses and then angle her approach thusly. That's why she's stagnating. The truly influential and smart people? Haven't the slightest use for her.

    But when it comes to disecting their every personal move, well, isn't that the point of their site to begin with?

    The glory in disecting them in this manor is that you're literally pulling back the curtain of the great and mighty Oz. It's one thing for Julia to use the Baugher Blog as a way to get an article on ABCNewsonline. It's an entirely different thing for people to be able to pin point exactly why she's actually a complete failure at any venture she attempts. And highlighting her obvious flaws - the lack of accountability, the lying, way she uses Twitter and Tumblr and Gawker to try and push herself further into the public eye, well that takes away the very thing she uses to get attention.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I believe now in this economic downturn that people don't have the patience for entitled brats trying to play personality business.

    I was just saying this myself a couple days ago. People are just TIRED of all the bullshit. We're pretty beaten down as a society right now. We don't trust anyone and we're tired of being fed bullshit. To watch these three girls attempt to flaunt their "riches" in people's faces, and then to find out that they aren't really "riches" at all but rather a whole lot of smoke and mirrors....it's offensive and annoying and just plain insensitive and shows they're total lack of a clue. Julia and Mary are broke ass broke. It's obvious. So why not talk about the struggles of living in an expensive city and trying to get by? Oh, that's right, because they don't really struggle.

    Yet.

    Julia's free ride is juuussst about over. She knows it, too. That's why she's so manic. See, you can tell a lot about what's going on in a person's life by their behavior...and her behavior is so all over the place and so nonsensical she couldn't NOT be in a panic. I said it yesterday and I'll say it again (I used to post under Hollie Go Lightly). Her gig at Time Out is finished. Just wait for it. That news will surface.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "No internet" my ASS. You run a WEBSITE. Get those damn sausage ringlets to a coffee shop or go mooch internet off one of your other friends.

    If you can't find free & easy wifi in NYC, you are a liar and a fraud.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Christian

    Re:"But when it comes to disecting their every personal move, well, isn't that the point of their site to begin with?"
    &
    "The glory in disecting them in this manor is that you're literally pulling back the curtain of the great and mighty Oz...to pin point exactly why she's actually a complete failure at any venture she attempts. And highlighting her obvious flaws - the lack of accountability, the lying, way she uses Twitter and Tumblr and Gawker to try and push herself further into the public eye, well that takes away the very thing she uses to get attention."

    By every personal move I meant like dating, haircuts, boyfriend, etc. not the things you mention that have to do with how they run their business. I get that the other stuff is the "content" of their business. But I think in focusing on that we become more like the readers they want to have and consumers of their content (even if we consume critically) rather than critics of their business *practices* (which does include choice of content/subject matter).

    That was the distinction I was trying to make. Not sure if it was clear.

    But people are here for both (and other) purposes. I get that. And if I misinterpreted your response, sorry.

    -Ineffable

    ReplyDelete
  36. "You touted “interaction”? As a business model? You want interaction, instant feedback? Well here it is: you suck." HA HA HA :)

    some of the above commentary is brilliant and incredibly astute. I truly hope NS and their sources of capital read the above.

    ReplyDelete
  37. BORED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!February 4, 2009 at 4:01 PM

    MEGHAN BORES ME TO DEATH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Julia Allison KNOWS Nonsociety is failing and that it's all about to be over. She's in retrenchment mode and is now just grasping at straws with her lame excuses. She just complained about no Internet access for the millionth (and perhaps last?) time. Yeah yeah - she's too lazy to go find free wi-fi, etc. etc. but I think that's just her latest smoke and mirrors. She knows it's over. She knows her time is up. She knows she's hit her dead end. Saying she has no Internet is just a stall tactic. Too bad she chased off her audience and no one cares anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Here's an interesting view for you guys to see

    www.alexa.com

    Do a comparison of this site and NS. There is a period of two days where the site hits were virtually dead even.

    No offense to RBNS, but a premier "lifecasting" site with programmers, marketing experts, and managers has lost readership to a "created in five minutes" blogspot subdomain.

    If that's not delicious irony, I don't know what is.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Web20Morons- those statistics just prove how ALMOST 100% of their readership are "haters"- ie people who are not fans, and ergo their business model of being "role models" and shilling products onto a guilible readership who "looks up to them and hopes to emulate" is certainly not viable.

    Okay, NS- make a career out of being controversial. Be Ann Coultours or Rush Limbaughs. Exploit the fact that you have a loyal viewership who hate you and work the "notorious" angle. But stop kidding yourself that you are like Oprah. Cuz you're not.

    ReplyDelete
  41. http://mary.nonsociety.com/post/75514466/after-hearing-about-ashtons-escapes-in-the

    Did Dr. Rambin mean "escapades" instead of "escapes" in the above?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Did the Kutchers invest in NS? What's up with all the pimping of Demi Moore's tweets and Ashton's new web show?

    ReplyDelete
  43. http://siteanalytics.compete.com/thefrisky.com+nonsociety.com/?metric=uv HA!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  44. Good advice, anon 4:35, but Julia Allison Baugher, Meghan Parikh and Mary Rambin do not have the guts, staying power, smarts or steely self-esteem to be famous for being controversial. Right now, they're mostly microfamous for being incredibly clueless and unaware, but even that's crashing to an end. The Limbaughs and Coulters of the world have a very carefully calculated offensive hate schtick. They have also proven that they can monetize that schtick, something that Nonsociety has failed to do.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon 4:49 I sense another undisclosed "partnership" (or attempt at one at least) coming along.

    And yes other Anon 4:49 I think Mary meant escapades of course but we know how she feels about the English language: Using it correctly makes one hypocritical since no one is perfect (don't ask me how that makes sense, please).

    What an enlightened viewpoint from a budding journalist at a cutting edge journalism 2.0 startup. The future of "journalism" looks bright indeed. I just can't wait to see the escapes they research and report on next.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anon @ 4:49, I think the new Ashton-Demi fixation might have something to do with Meghan having participated in that Sundance thing that Kutcher ran recently. It was a tenuous connection, and if these women aren't good at much in life, they know how to exploit the shit out of every possible connection.

    Speaking of NS connections, I was near the South Street Seaport today and since I was killing some time before meeting someone, I wandered around a bit. I had to chuckle when I was right in front of Dr. Bobby's office. Poor schnook. He probably had no idea whatsoever that associating himself with the Gruesome Threesome would make someone snicker and then shake her head while passing his office, all the while saying to myself that I'd never use his professional services - because I don't trust his judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I'm tots creating a new blog, "Copyediting NonSociety"

    ReplyDelete
  48. @anon/5:02 - Better hurry. The ship is going down fast.

    ReplyDelete
  49. One of Julia's friends I thinkFebruary 4, 2009 at 5:23 PM

    from "Spiro Agnew" on QOD :

    I'm grateful that I am not one of the many trolls that frequent these message boards.

    Dare I pull out that old chestnut about "nattering nabobs of negativism?" Enough is enough. I've read through these various comments over the past week and . . . wow. The self-indulgent hypocrisy cloaked as Masked Crusaders For Truth is just plain irritating. It's basically three groups: (1) the ones who with trembling voices clutch at their pearls (and who inevitably begin their rant with the earnest little qualifier that they had started out as fans! fans, I tell you!), but "the missed opportunities" was just too much for them. Oh, the squandered opportunities, the lost kingdoms. Will no one think of the children? Will Julia not interview economists and post them online? Alas, poor Yorick, I rend my garments at the loss.

    2) The second group appear to use this little forum as a dating website. They log on everyday, hearts aflutter that their latest missive of wit will impress the commentator community. And proceed to try to one-up each other with the nasty quips. Frankly, these people should be putting pen to paper and writing some Emily Post quality thank you notes to Julia, Mary and Meghan for creating a liberal-arts worthy "safe space" for trolls. To meet other trolls. Troll love! It makes the heart sing, it really does. And the wrapping oneself in the flag of "exposing hypocrisy" is really beyond the pale. Hypocrite who? Hello, pot! Meet kettle. But first, please go look at my reblogging site.

    and then 3) the UR STUIPZ AND UGLIE crew. Such vitriol! Such an impassioned showing of spleen! My word, it is reminiscent of those subtle Roman mobs salivating for public executions. So, the zeitgeist or sad people behaving badly?

    The site is what it is. Settle down, Sally.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Don't go to QOD, comment here. It's BAIT.

    ReplyDelete
  51. SHe missed the pointFebruary 4, 2009 at 5:26 PM

    And from Mary (about her 'i dont want to look like a lesbian' comment:

    The Frisky came up on my Google Alerts this morning, and I thought to myself, oh no, how has that bitch manipulated my words now?

    But, I was pleasantly surprised to see her honest response to Julia’s post that exposed my potty mouth.

    So listen, I have used the word “dyke” plenty of times before, among friends. Sure, I could totally pull out the age old “but I have soooo many gay friends and family members” excuse to justify it, but the thing is, I know using that word is offensive to some people, so I would never say it in mixed company and especially not on a public blog …I definitely wouldn’t just alter the post…I would acknowledge that I had offended people and that I understood why my remark was offensive, and that putting it on a public blog, as if it was no big deal, was even more offensive because it assumes that everyone else is just as cool with that kind of language. When you make a living providing a service or entertainment to an audience, you have a responsibility to that audience. It does with the territory.

    I agree with her. Although it was Julia who posted the chat (without consent), the word came from my mouth. My friends know I have nothing against homosexuals, but the slang is inappropriate on my public page. To be completely frank, I was very upset about the post, and I asked she take it down immediately. Despite my best efforts, I really couldn’t find a way to genuinely apologize without the post seeming like I was just trying to cover my ass.

    After reading Amelia’s post, I realized most of you understood I wasn’t trying to offend anyone, we all use slang, but the chat being blogged in a public place was inappropriate.

    My sincere apologies to those who were offended

    ReplyDelete
  52. I think the girls are in a fight...

    "Julia posted it, Julia posted it, Julia posted it god damn it! Im sorry for saying it, but Julia posted it!"

    And besides, my beef with her thoughts is not the word 'dyke', its that its bad to look like a lesbian. WHATEVER THAT MEANS.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Spiro Agnew was Nixon's VP. Hmmm...now, where is there a Nixon = Baugher connection???

    Good one, Brit.

    Here's a great thought. How about Julia and Mary and Meghan be the ones to write out a thoughtful and accountable response? Something that doesn't include the phrase "no internet" or "haters" or, and this is my personal favorite, "if you don't like it don't read."

    While I agree a lot of the stuff in that QOTD forum is beyond obnoxious drivel and just plain old obsession masked as genuine passion, there have been a lot of quality comments that have gotten erased simply because they don't want people to know how truly disliked and incompetent they are.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Thanks for that Leave Britney Alone moment, Spiro.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I say its her high school debate boyfriend Dan

    ReplyDelete
  56. I disagree with both the Frisy's viewpoint here (the so listen part is from the Frisky I believe not from Mary) as well as Mary's.

    Part of my posted response at the Frisky:

    "Mary Rambin’s public apology now echoes your sentiments, suggesting (at least in my interpretation of her post) that it wasn’t the casual use of the term that was offensive but the fact that it was posted publicly that made it a problem. I totally disagree."

    And Lulu I agree with you. Had I proofread and taken more time to clarify my point I'd have said "suggesting that it wasn’t the casual **and derogatory** use of the term that was offensive but the fact that it was posted publicly..."

    --Ineffable

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes, the post above is Mary, then an excerpt from the Frisky, then Mary again, beginning at "I agree with her"

    but you guys can figure that out!

    I know, Ineff, that's my main problem. God forbid one looks like a lesbian. Moreover, what does she mean by that? What do lesbians look like to you, Mary??

    Stereotypes galore!

    Lulu

    ReplyDelete
  58. Sure, I could totally pull out the age old “but I have soooo many gay friends and family members” excuse to justify it, but the thing is, I know using that word is offensive to some people, so I would never say it in mixed company and especially not on a public blog

    Wait. WAIT. That's like saying, "Well, yeah, I use the "n" word. But never in mixed company."

    And, oh yeah, the girls are fighting. BIG TIME. The digs and swipes they've been taking at each other are getting hard to ignore. Mary's at her breaking point. She's just letting loose with everything offensive. She doesn't care anymore.

    Julia absolutely printed that conversation KNOWING it would get people talking and get them criticism. Nice. Throw your frenemie under the bus for a link on Gawker and Jezebel. Jesus. What desperation.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anyone have the link to The Frisky?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Not to be a total conspiracy theorist, but outside of Julia's mention, and the mention in the mediabistro profile, I can't find any evidence of her mother being a Nixon speech writer. I don't know, maybe she used her maiden name.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Christan,

    Yeah, you can feel the tension. She pointed out Julia's posting of it way too much. Of course, the girls would say that they're as happy as Yorkies on stilts, but you know...

    ...they tend to lie a bit.

    Julia is in the doghouse today, je pense.

    Lulu

    ReplyDelete
  62. http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-politically-incorrect-from-miley-cyrus-to-mary-rambin/

    Here you go.

    ReplyDelete
  63. @anon/5:45 - Julia's mom was already working for Nixon when she met Julia's dad. I'm completely ashamed that I know that.

    ReplyDelete
  64. ANd not to mention Julia's "This is true, but a hot one"

    So, like when you both think of lesbians, you think of women with short hair who are not hot. However, Mary is a hot one.

    I can't stand their narrow vision anymore.

    These gender constructions and stereotypes they endorse each and every day makes me want to

    ReplyDelete
  65. So The Frisky gets through to Mary, but none of the comments on her site do?? Or the comments here, for that matter?? F-OFF, you perpetual liar.

    ReplyDelete
  66. As I just said on The Frisky, the most offensive part of that Julia/Mary exchange was that you could just hear the wheels turning in Julia's head. The minute that came out of her mouth, Julia couldn't wait to run home to her laptop and post that conversation. She was anticipating a Gawker post, a Salon article and various other link throughs. Wow. Julia, and I know you're reading this, You're a thoroughly despicable human being. Hate speech for page views? Wow. That's a new low, even for you.

    And spare us the phony "We're like sisters. We fight, but we love each other." You two so clearly hate each other it's insulting to try and pretend otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  67. That comment by Spiro is bang-on in terms of the philosophy of NS. When the massive purges of comments and censorship were revealed as intrinsic to the QotD page, I wondered why then did the girls bother to put "talk amongst yourselves" at the top of that page? They clearly had no intention of allowing commentors the freedom to do so. Spiro's blatant bitterness (jealousy) at the friendships that may have developed between like-minded readers (mockingly referred to as trolls) fits right in with the girls' consistent "hey anonymous losers, if you don't like us, stop reading and get a life" approach.

    ReplyDelete
  68. This whole hair drama is purely baiting for page views and attention. They're desperate at this point and starting to sweat. (May I suggest Degree Ultra Clear?) Mary Rambin and Julia Baugher are manufacturing controversy because that's all they have left. Their success ship has sailed and they know it.

    ReplyDelete
  69. the Spiro comment probably was by Brit as Julia's brother

    Mase, Mary's dog says..

    You know these girls have really bad food choices??

    No good doggie bags of left overs for me:(

    ReplyDelete
  70. Welcome to the party, Spiro.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Spiro's blatant bitterness (jealousy) at the friendships that may have developed between like-minded readers (mockingly referred to as trolls) fits right in with the girls' consistent "hey anonymous losers, if you don't like us, stop reading and get a life" approach.

    I highly doubt he (and yes, a man wrote that) was jealous. That's kind of an easy excuse. Sure, it was preachy and as detached as someone who was defending them more because he felt he should rather than he vehemently disagreed with the posters. But he had a point. The QOTD section got completely out of hand. There's a difference with voicing a dissenting opinion and just being obnoxious. A lot of those people (I'm sure it was about 3-5 people who just kept posting over and over)sounded like obsessive wackjobs.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Except this "Spiro" character is totally wrong about the following:

    The first group: former fans and others who are upset at the missed opportunities. No one's saying Julia should interview an economist or act like a hardcore serious journalist. They're saying that the dating/relationships blogger should...blog about dating and relationships. And "clutching [our] pearls"? Please.

    Second group: "Trolls" are people who intentionally post inflammatory content simply for the sake of generating a reaction, not because it reflects their real life viewpoints in any way, shape or form. Discussing our problems with the site does not equal trolling, even if it does hurt your sister's/friend's feelings.

    Also, the maintainers of RBNS/NSRB are not hypocrites for the simple reason that they are not promoting themselves as individuals. Ironically, the blog that is centered on a content-free blog actually has a LOT OF CONTENT. They are not simply "ego-bloggers" out to promote or brand their identities. They chose a topic and *gasp* blog about it! So while doing the whole "pot. kettle. black" thing was a valiant attempt at deflecting the point, "Spiro" still fails.

    If the site "is what it is," then none of the NS ladies should call themselves journalists, because a refusal to find free WiFi in NYC to maintain your internet business does not seem like something *any* journalist (not just the ones who do zomgseriousthings! like interview economists) would do.

    So, Brit/Dan/Spiro/whoever: I am unmoved.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Man, if I were Dan or Brit, I wouldn't be defending her. I mean, come on! She pimps out Dan's cancer for sympathy and then steals his inauguration ticket! And wasn't Brit the one who determined that Julia is only 38% insightful? They don't really sound like two people who would jump to her defence.

    ReplyDelete
  74. And isn't Spiro part of Group #2?

    Isn't he/she (I'm not totally sure it's a man, but who cares) trying to out-wit us

    And, I'm sure as hell he/she be refreshing up a storm to see the responses!

    Pot. Kettle. Black, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Spiro is her mom, right? Who in JA's peer group throws around words like zeitgeist on a freakin' web forum? Sounds like a post that was planned for some time.

    ReplyDelete
  76. This site provides much more intellectual stimulation than anything I've ever read on nonsociety. And the point above, about the pageviews of this versus their site is spot on. What are they doing with all of their interns, and employeesc? It seems whatever "angels" invested in the site are merely supporting the extravagant lifestyles and personal assistants of three lazy, spoiled talentless goons.

    ReplyDelete