Monday, February 2, 2009

OK, here you go.

OK, Paul, you win. Here's one of the Haters, coming out:

Remarks on NonSociety from rachael on Vimeo.

It doesn't make much difference though...anon or not, it's the substance that matters.

So, Haters. Tell us below your own reasons for thinking that JAB and company are like the Emperor without any clothes. Think of this as a compendium. Thanks, Rachael, for starting the conversation.


  1. I mean I think being the HATER Paul Carr talks about is the easy way out. It's easy to gloss over these chicks and hate them. But people like Rachael (and myself) clearly WANT to LIKE NS and cheer them on--otherwise we wouldn't be so knowledgeable about their (very minor but funny) mistakes (totally didn't about that Press Page flub Rachael haha, good one).

    I like that the video kept it honest. I really do have an issue with Julia going around talking about she is inventing a new Thing on the internet or that she INTERACTS with her readers---because she doesn't. She MIGHT reply to .00323% emails (I have sent her two before--very nice ones--and she never got back to me, so it's not like she gets a pass for answering every email).

    I'm unsure if Julia has gotten worse, or if you really can't take this chick under mass consumption for more than 3 months. The more I read and follow her the more I find her annoying. And then the "community" popped up to agree with me and suddenly I am not alone in the day to day.

    Maybe I am annoyed that they are annoyed that we are annoyed. If you want to be famous--suck it up. You will get haters or people who will judge your lifestyle, no matter what. I guess it would be nice one day if she actually said she understood where criticism was warranted.

  2. This woman has more verge, panache and savy (great editiing) than all of NonEntitie's horrible TMI videos put together. What a great watch. Someone make sure NS sees this.

  3. Thanks Anonymous (and thank you to the owner of this site, too, for posting the video). The thing about the Press Page flub is that I've actually emailed Mary about this before. When I say "before," I mean "April of 2008." I think she's just abandoned the Moe site in favor of free shower caps. Who knows.

    I don't say it in the video, of course, but I actually respect that Mary does spend a pretty good amount of time blogging about fashion, which is far more than Julia or Meghan spend talking about their given subjects. NonSociety could be a really impressive brand if only they'd be a little less spastic and a little more formulaic. If Julia does earnestly want to sell NonSociety in five years, she's got to expand her brand beyond three people, and the site has got to be able to survive without her. If they want to turn NonSociety into a veritable business, not just an egoblog, they need to focus a little more narrowly on their topics so that when they do add more contributors (a health blogger, a money blogger, etc) the "lifestreams" won't all mesh together and seem like a bunch of skinny women running around at trade shows all the time.

    So, yes. I do actually want them to succeed. They are just failing so consistently that it's no wonder sites like this one have sprung up.

  4. Reasons for failure of Non Society - none of the players are very interesting, let alone likable. Plus, no content - vanity photos are not content.

  5. Good for you, Rachael.

    I find JA's Twitter about having a mind-boggling crush on someone -- again -- to be both so typical and tiresome.

    Remember when she came back from the inauguration she never went to and yammered on and on ad nauseum about "Alexander Marquandt?" She posted endless photos of the poor guy and blogged about him for days. Then suddenly, a Tweet that said simply "Crushed," after he told her he wasn't interested and demanded she cease and desist? We've never heard her mention a peep about that guy since.

    The definition of insanity, as Freud said, is to make the same mistakes over and over again but expect a different outcome. Hello Jules?

    This newest crush should be fun to watch -- once again she'll blow it by being unable to shut her trap about him online.

    If it's Paul Carr, I don't doubt he'll become one of "the haters" before long.


    Someone Who's Been There And is Anonymous Due To Fear of The Considerable Psychopathic Wrath of Julia Baugher

  6. Mary's comments on getting free stuff. She responds not because she's responsible, and wants to earn the trust & respect of her followers, because she's so frustrated with haters being "technical" - if technical implies honesty, than yes:

    Mary Rambin wrote on February 2, 12:10 am
    **The statement below is in no way official, it's just the product of my frustration from you being so f-ing technical. I don't care what I pay for or don't, I always tell you the truth. Believe that or kiss my butt.

    Here goes:

    We will post our policy about gifting soon. In the meantime, just assume we don't pay for anything. A few examples: I have not paid for any hairdryers I'm testing because I either borrowed them from friends, requested them from the company, or a publicist sent it to me. Despite the fact I can get practically ANY makeup product I want for free or borrow clothes at will, I still purchase some of stuff. My ex boyfriend from last year bought me 6 tubes of Bliss Lemon-Sage body butter, but I still buy/use Avon and Trader Joe's because it's a better day lotion.

    Let's just assume we get everything for free. I might not have an apartment, but damn it, my forehead is flawless! Go to work on that one.

  7. Rachael,

    Brilliant. Enough said.

  8. Awesome. Thank you so much for doing this, Rachael. We're not crazy harpies. We're real people who are really baffled, frustrated and let down.

  9. wow, that video was. so. GREAT! you even edit your vimeo's better and they have a whole production team. and youre right on about everything. i hope they see it!


  10. Mary screaming on the latest TMI Weekly:

    "I'm a classy person. I know how to spell!"

    This week's show is sponsored by Friday the 13th. Yeah, we're scared too.

  11. "Then suddenly, a Tweet that said simply "Crushed," after he told her he wasn't interested and demanded she cease and desist? "

    She never confirmed what that tweet was about. That's your interpretation. I think we need to keep in mind that we get down on her for fabricating stuff. We probably shouldn't be doing the same thing.

  12. Oh God, Rachel, will you please be my friend? If Julia has more than walnuts for brains, she will listen to you. I really thought your criticism was waaay more constructive than nasty.

  13. Awesome video, Rachel. You thoughtfully and cleverly communicate all of the problems I have with Nonsociety, plus some. Here are a few more:

    1. Disrespect for readers. Mary Rambin, Meghan Asha and Julia Allison obviously read this site because their subsequent posts after something is discussed here (people complaining about kissy face photos = 10X more kissy face photos) are posted as a giant FUCK YOU to their readers. They've obviously given up blogging about their given "topics" and have now resorted to baiting for page views based on raising the ire of their former fans. Guess what ladies - even your former fans and haters will get bored with that and then you will have NOTHING.

    2. Blatant lying. Julia is a pathological liar. Everything she presents on her blog is some half truth, amended truth or something she completely made up. It's fascinating to watch as a psychological study but not as a lifecast. Guess what bunny - no one is jealous of you. You parade around your mental illness for attention. That does not garner envy or even sympathy. Mostly people are just repulsed at the way you degrade yourself for attention. Draping yourself on married executives for photos is disgusting. Period. You look like you work for an escort service.

    3. While Mary's delusions of grandeur certainly never hurt anyone (unlike Julia's photos, which could potentially destroy a marriage), they get a little tedious to read about after a while. Mary, honey, you're almost 30 and wondering why you've had your heart broken? No man wants to hear about your famous teenage sister, what bars you frequent, where you travel on someone else's dime, or where you go to the gym, which from reading your blog, I get the idea that those are the only topics you probably talk about in real life as well as your online life. You travel incognito and talk about readers recognizing you on the street - you are not famous. Stop pretending you are. You're an uneducated simpleton who thinks the fact you can't spell is cute. It's not. You're a sad "dumb blonde" stereotype who seems to enjoy portraying that stereotype. That's really ugly - on the inside and the outside.

    3. Meghan - you seem like a nice person. I am sorry that you live off a trust fund and seem to have no personal accomplishments of your own. That seems to bother you, but if you don't do anything about it and seek out some personal accomplishments on your own, that is your own fault.

    4. Lack of research or uniqueness. Blogging is not new - even when you call it a lifecast. Stop pretending that what you do is new, unique or even that difficult. The topics you are "experts" on - you don't cover them in an expert way or even a way that I have not already read about six months ago. You are not unique in the digital space. The only thing unique about what you do is your HUGE lack of awareness. Your site is only fun to watch because all of you seem so clueless and unaware in everything you do. Your peers are laughing at you but you don't seem to know or even care. But even that gets tedious and boring. Stop making a mockery of female web entrepreneurs.

    Even commenting and reading here is tedious and boring. Why? Because it falls on deaf ears. These girls will keep skipping along in their bubble gum world for as long as investor money will let them. They don't care about their readers, former fans and haters. When their "business" fails, they will surely move along and marry the first old rich clueless divorcee that will have them, and live out their miserable lives in privacy. So what? There are a million other girls like them and they don't deserve my time - and neither do these idiots.

    Yep - that's my real name. Sorry it's so common - you wont' find much out there about me.

    Lisa James, 26
    New York

  14. Would someone post the link to the video from the DLD conference? I've seen it in the comments before, but can't find it now. Thanks.


    here's the link

  16. Rachael is really funny & altogether delightful. Interesting that she was able to create a whole little world by just sitting there on her bed, talking. All the production foofaraw in the universe won't help you unless you are bringing something unique and original to the table. Which she does. Brava!

  17. Great video Rachael! And a shout out too to RBNS! I really enjoy the commentors and freedom here! In such stark contrast to that deceptive gulag over on NS "Talk Amongst Yourselves". Ya right, ladies. Those of us who tried to are now gone for good! We're here!

  18. Anon 9:17. I'm not fabricating anything. Take that as you will.

  19. I love this young woman who spells her first name the same as the Rachael Ray. She is humorous and smart and does not bray like my cousin Vlad's donkey.

  20. what happened to the pics of the private plane taking them home?

  21. Where was that comment on their payment policy posted by Mary?

  22. She's already deleted comments, so before this goes:

    **The statement below is in no way official, it's just the product of my frustration from you being so f-ing technical. I don't care what I pay for or don't, I always tell you the truth. Believe that or kiss my butt.

    Here goes:

    We will post our policy about gifting soon. In the meantime, just assume we don't pay for anything. A few examples: I have not paid for any hairdryers I'm testing because I either borrowed them from friends, requested them from the company, or a publicist sent it to me. Despite the fact I can get practically ANY makeup product I want for free or borrow clothes at will, I still purchase some of stuff. My ex boyfriend from last year bought me 6 tubes of Bliss Lemon-Sage body butter, but I still buy/use Avon and Trader Joe's because it's a better day lotion.

    Let's just assume we get everything for free. I might not have an apartment, but damn it, my forehead is flawless! Go to work on that one.

  23. Rachel,

    Your take was refreshing and enjoyable! Thank you.

    Also, had to point out Meghan's dimwit comment on their Davos Day 4 Google video. She said they were in Sweden!

  24. @Anon 11:02 - I'm still seeing the private plane pics.

    We are all Rachael.

  25. Anon 11:02 - the private plane pics are still up on Julia's blog. No one is jealous that you're only success is being a huge mooch, sweetie. You just look like a sad, desperate hanger on. Of course, your mental illness will not let you see that.

    Where - Mary's incoherent "policy" was left as a comment on an old episode of TMI Weekly at 2 a.m. Just another instance of her losing her temper, shooting off at the mouth and looking even dumber than she already does.

  26. Interesting observation

    The readers of RBNS have all been saying that "What happened to post so and so" or "This post is gone"

    I've figured it out. Tumblr has a crappy architecture.

    The problems of temporarily disappearing posts is a byproduct of a badly configured server infrastructure. More than likely Karp has two legs for failover. The problem is both legs are not in sync. So some of the readers here are seeing posts, some are not, but then they appear later.
    So, crappy business model, + plus hated personalities, + amateur back end = NonSociety.

    Live differently = buffoonery.

  27. Rachael, you are all kinds of awesome! Smart, funny AND beautiful! (I would KILL for those cheek bones!)

    Seriously, have you given any though to doing your own "video show"? Your attitude, brains and likability (and articulate delivery!) could take you very far.

  28. Funny, cute, informative, well-edited, snarky but poignant. This was a good video Rachael.

  29. The editing on the horizontal scrolling comment was inspired. Rachael for president of the internet!


  30. Rachael, you are so cute! The video was very well done, and I love your sense of irony. THIS is what NonSociety SHOULD be...witty, self-deprecating, well-edited, SMART.

  31. Loved it! The editing of JA's three-quarter pose pictures was great -- creative and interesting and fun.

  32. Yo Mary wrote that post late. She admittedly (from her lifecast) mentioned that she was drinking last night.

    All I'm saying is they ignore what's going on and, yet, in moments of weakness, you see that it really does bother them. Just talk to us! Don't write defensive posts at 2AM with a bottle of tequila between your legs!

    I understand your heart is broken, Mary. And no one can comment on that. However, save the anger towards us and use it to actually reply to our questions, set up a real forum, or post a non-defensive message to us during the day.

    Just sayin'


  33. Rachael, I am proud to share your name (even if it's a different spelling). Great video, well-articulated points and the perfect amount of humor.

    Your move, David Carr. I mean, Paul Carr. Wait, who's Paul Carr? Am I supposed to know who that is?

  34. Rachel,

    I had a chance to watch this through and through. Brilliant.

    Please do not be the next "Contributor" to NS. When, not "if" Julia sees this, she will offer you a gig straight up. Stay far away.

  35. But Lulu, Mary said she was only having "one" drink. Then she made some cryptic reference to her "heritage" -- whatever the heck that's supposed to mean. Is she Irish? The child of alcoholic parents? This is what drives me crazy about the lack of narrative on the site.

    Also, the only photo she could find of her mom is a kissy pic. She is a complete tool. Can't imagine why she is ALONE and drunk texting at 2:00 am. Pathetic.

  36. 12:40 I think she was talking about her dog and the tequila. Still strange.

  37. *snark* you guys, stop complementing Rachael!! we are all haters and jealous of other women remember. we are jealous harpies and incapable of having anything nice to say.

    lets forget about her having video proof of errors and the fact that she actually met Jakob. Annonomous haters remember, we cant have any idea what we are talking about.

    (we <3 Rachael)

  38. I saw that video last night (linked to it in previous post's comments.) Great video Rachael. I'm not sure if I'm leaving anything out because this is just off the top of my head.

    Mostly I agree with Lisa James. Well said, Lisa. And add these, especially number 1, 6 and 18, to my list:

    1. trying to silence critics and

    2. refusing to respond to or consider critical feedback (respectful constructive feedback)

    3. lack of professionalism as far as writing and content--the spelling issues, old or regurgitated news and posts, poor coverage of topics
    taking pride and glee in absurd spelling that makes it seem like you've never seen common words like "pseudo" before in print?

    4. stream of excuses--businesses should get the job done or apologize for not doing so not offer the same high school level excuses for months at a time with no changes (other than to become even worse) made

    and worse if you say you're busy working on back end things as an excuse for poor content don't show a million pics of yourself spending 90% of your time partying. it's just insulting to your readers.

    5. almost exclusively offering self obsessed content but acting as if they offer real content on actual non-self topics

    6, absence of integrity and transparency:
    -silence comments according to whether they are critical of them or not
    -no disclosure of compensation from brands they promote, using the business as a way to keep themselves in free (fill in the blank, basically all their needs i appears and no one can know for sure sine they don't have a disclosure policy),
    -no post update policy. they just delete and change posts to make it look like they didn't make certain mistakes and basically the practice obstructs accountability. they hide and erase instead of owning up to mistakes. the lack of accountability and self-mispresentation is huge for me. I think people can't find their posts because they "time correct"them not because of tumblr (but I could be wrong)
    -shady practices like cutting and pasting words from other web sites without crediting them or not giving any or the correct photo credits

    7. fear of public criticism= no comments, no community, no forums. NO respect for readers' opinions. They print only flattering emails and delete and leave no forum for any dissenting views. many of us were readers who became completely disenchanted with these kinds of practices

    8. inability to handle criticism after choosing to put selves in public eye. you own a business. you put yourself in the public eye. please learn how to accept the feedback and expectations that come with that. Just like Sarah Palin (remember that press are stomping on my 1st amendment right to not be criticized thing?), you also do NOT have an inherent right to not be criticized. You would be much more respected if you learned how to respect other viewpoints or at the very least accept and tolerate them as part of life and especially public life.

    9. shallow content. i get that it's a fluff break but can't there be something of real significance every once in a blue moon just so we can all acknowledge and bond in the fact that our human journey is not all about clothes, dating, looking good, money, and buying sh*t?

    10. misrepresentations--things like acting as if you are invited to a ball that you in fact crashed. or changing and deleting posts with no updates to indicate they've made changes, to make it look like you didn't say something you said or make an error you made.

    11. no mission statement! what the hell is this site supposed to be? or do they not even know themselves? I believe if they had this they'd get less flack because if we knew what they were intending to do and they actually did it a lot of the criticism that stems from them not meeting reader expectations might no longer be an issue.

    12. lack of professionalism--acting like cheerleaders or drunken sorority girls at a professional conference and dressing for the part. hard to respect you or take your work seriously when you present yourself as a joke professionally. lack of professionalism in their online work as well. the spelling, poor writing, etc (see above)

    13. overdependence of sexuality instead of work in professional scenarios. why all the short skirts and daily cleavage? it makes me wonder if you can't get by on your brains and abilities that you rely on breasts and legs and flirting in work scenarios

    14. putting out a shoddy product and acting as if you've just figured out how to put man on the moon. come on now. it's three mostly personal blogs with an overabundance of photos of yourselves in various places kissing various people (why exactly I don't know) and a 3 minute video translation of your 3 blogs shown twice a week.

    15. relatibility. Not necessarily a critique just a reason why I can't relate to them and their site as well as I'd like. It's hard to relate to people whose lifestyles are out of reach of the average person yet seem to have no visible means for support of those lifestyles but insist they make it all happen on their own. it's not the lifestyle necessarily (though that too is far too consumerist and focused around values I don't prioritize or share for me to find it relatable really) but the fact that the appearance doesn't seem to match the explanation behind it. being open about their situation would make them more relatable in my eyes.

    also the fact that their main concerns seem to be with body image, appearance, dating, money, name dropping, and buying things. I just don't relate to it. I care about most of those things but nowhere near the degree they seem to and their content focuses on. and also, I really do not understand what is with all the kissy faces?!

    16. no respect shown to readers or helpful reader input. I've noticed not only do they squelsh feedback and criticism but they actually end up acting on our comments but not acknowledging it. They correct spelling errors critics point out but delete the comment that mentioned it in the first place and never even thank readers for their help or feedback.

    They pick up things we suggest like, duh, you are supposed to write "update" when you change your posts after publishing but then start doing it without ever mentioning thanks to readers for posting this out we are going to do this from now on or whatever. Basically they take our tips and ideas but treat us like we are idiot haters whose comments have no merit.

    17. no accountability. that includes much of what I've stated above but also refusing to acknowledge errors and shady practices.

    for example JA wrote that Robert Palmer was an expert wine critic (she fixed the error in the name when people pointed it out but of course made no mention of the correction or thanked readers for alerting her).

    and worse, the sentence she used to describe him was word for word taken off someone else's copy yet she did not put it it quotes, give attribution etc. it was pointed out but she never owned up to having copied it word for word to pass of as her own. most likely she's since removed it from her site. the sentence was widely quotes and is in gary's wikipedia entry: "outside of robert parker, probably the most influential wine critic in the united states"

    Those kinds of things make me really dislike them. the "rules don't apply to me and I can cheat my way to what i want" mentality disgusts me. Especially coming from a so called "writer/journalist," Which brings me to...

    18. calling themselves journalists and their vanity blog journalism. if you are gong to say your project is journalism then please follow journalistic ethics and standards. we'd all be quite pleased (I would at least) if NS was real jouralism as it would eliminate a good many of the complaints people have shared about it.

    the problem is in wanting the credibility that comes with the label of journalism while not maintaining the ethics or doing the work involved. have your cake and it eat too could be NS's motto. Unfortunately that is a large part of what angers readers, I think. they do shoddy, shady, and lazy work and then present themselves as if they are in the same category as those who work much harder and maintain difficult standards. is it any wonder people are going to be annoyed and speak out?

    thus ends my anti-NS manifesto.

  39. Also according to this person below JA went to Davos as media/press. That's part of what I meant above. If that is true it's just another example of misrepresentation (go as press, then cover the actual event, not just pictures of you making kissy faces and wearing ski pants).

    And as seems to be their MO, by not saying she went as press, she tries to make it appear as if she was an invited guest. The twitterer below (I'm sorry I'm not familiar with who he is) says media are restricted as to where they can go.

    As I said above if they were open about this stuff, gave the inside scoop that they do have access to, told us what it's like there for press and invitees, etc I think readers would enjoy and respect it. Same as what happened with CES. Instead they seem to want to come across as insiders and what they consider to be important people so they misrepresent and withhold, making their content come across as limited, weak and not genuine.

    Again, all that is IF the twitter about her going as press is true. If it isn't, there are plenty of other examples that show NS doing the exact same things however.


    Wow. Really? That much cleavage? Really?

  41. watch this:


  42. Ah, Ineff --

    Yes yes and yes! However, I want to point out for the power of the Randi/Facebook connection. I truly believe JA and MA were hooked up with their whole European trip thanks to Randi. DLD presentation to Davos, and the cars and hotel beds in between (well, maybe not the Munich hotel, but that's it!). The "media" badge at Davos is the only logical badge she could be wearing, I think. Again, thanks to Randi. However, she wasn't restricted as most media people would be because, again, she can walk in anywhere with Randi.

    Besides, since when does Julia let herself be caged? She has crashed parties, red carpets and other events ever since she realized that it is a legit way of gaining a career.

  43. And I'm sure one of her reasons for talking and getting up close to people is to be able to circulate with them, in and out of exclusive places and sessions. She's a leech...

  44. I am sorry to keep harping on this (but that's what harpies do, hee hee!) but from scanning Julia and Meghan's "coverage" of Davos, it seriously gives the impression they were there as paid escorts. The trashy "business" attire and gowns, the constant party pictures, the private jet home, Julia's twitters about having an "inappropriate crush." Ugh. It's disgusting. I wonder what their parents think of them degrading themselves like this?They have the amazing opportunity to attend a very serious event and come across looking like sleazy executive escorts.

  45. Hopefully Randi Z. will get this memo:
    "Model of decorum? Family friend Fernando Sulichin would beg to differ. Fernando was appalled by Miss Allison's vulgar presence on his DLD panel. "Missing feminine charm" were his exact words."

  46. Well, its because all the REAL stuff was off-the-record, you people! You're just not important to know what that is.

  47. ALL of Meghan and Julia's hookups at DLD and Davos were because of that gullible fool Randi Zukerberg - the passes, planes, hotel rooms, parties, etc. What I can't figure out is WHY. They only serve to tarnish her image... why would she willingly associate with them and let them tag along with her like that?

  48. The Ineffable &quot;Alexander Marquardt&quot;February 2, 2009 at 2:07 PM

    Anon 1:51 - everything was off the record and redacted, redacted, redacted because it didn't happen. That's been Julia's MO for as long as she's been blogging. If something/someone important wandered into her vicinity, you better believe she's going to broadcast it as publicly as possible. If something/someone important it didn't happen, you better believe she's going to make it seem like it did. That's how pathological liars with a tenuous grip on reality work.

  49. FB,

    That's the thing though. I think most people myself at least would say something like, a friend was kind enough to get me into such and such confernece or I was lucky to get a press pass to cover such and such event, etc. It seems they deliberately obscure facts, whatever those facts may be (whether randi or a press pass or whatever) instead.

    Whether it's that they use connections, crash events they pretend to be invited to, take pics with people they have no connection to other than being at the same party and make it appear as if they are friends or acquaintances, utilize family family wealth, connections, etc., whatever the real story may be, the approach is always the same: not only do they not seem to be upfront about the real story, but they also seem to make a concerted effort to obscure and misrepresent the real story.

    I think that is a large part of what makes them come off as unrelatable, dishonest, poseurish wannabe types, trying to appear as something they are not. If they are so happy with themselves, why not be upfront and honest about their circumstances? It makes them appear shady and dishonest and turns off a lot of people.Okay turns me off, I shouldn't and can't speak for others.

    People relate to human traits and emotions. Be real with your story whatever it is and you will draw people in and quite likely have their respect if for nothing else, at least for your honesty and openness. Misrepresent yourself and it may get you somewhere but quite often that somewhere is not a place of respect and relating but one of gawking, trainwreck watching, or mutual using of one another.

    (And as someone else pointed out I think she was perhaps "caged" ins ome way as she was at the piano bar all but on night it seemed, instead of at other parites perhaps? I don't know how it all works but that seemed to be what was said by those familar with Davos events that only invitees could go to the social events that she did not seem to be at in the evenings.)

  50. Hey, remember when the one with the headbands invented blogging? That was good one.

  51. The la-la-la, the rules don't apply to us, we are not accountable for our actions approach really bugs me. And so disingenuous - be honest about the reasons people give you stuff/invite you places/let you take photos with them. They want coverage because you pose as journalists.

    There is no real community to the Non-Society website. Check out the New York Times for example, you can register and sign up for their *informative, regular, interesting* email updates about topics of interest. There is no regularity of content here, no distribution list of registered readers, and the deletion of readers comments at will is hardly inspiring. It seems like a very amateur operation. In the beginning I was willing to cut them some slack while they got up to speed but that hasn't happened.

    Probably the last straw for me was how they shafted their intern C, and never even addressed it on the website! I mean, your readers know all about it and you just act like it never happened? The poor girl was just keeping her own blog, which may I say read a heck of a lot better than NS. That kind of callous disregard for other people seems to be a common theme here.

    These comments are really great, they could form the basis of a book/article on how to build a *successful* online community!

  52. Ha ha, anon 2:26. Don't give that troll Julia Allison any ideas. After Nonsociety fails, I am sure she'll steal your idea - pitching a book deal about how to NOT run an online business and build a community. Or try to sell her story about how she was brought down by "haters." Or blame her business failure on the recession. Or a combination of all three. Mark my words- when her latest venture fails, she will blame it on ANYTHING but herself.

  53. I love you. You're my new hero.

  54. Failure Alert--

    So right re: Julia's penchant for placing blame on anyone but herself. She hates when people try to make her accountable for bad behavior, is completely incapable of taking responsibility for her actions. It's what I hate most about her. Oh dear, am I now one of the haters? Does that mean I have no life, Mr. Carr?

  55. Update from Paul Carr. He agrees with Rachael, which I think is pretty admirable!

  56. I think we were admonished for speculating on mental illness in previous posts, but I cannot help but point out that the thing that seems to irk most people about Julia Allison - the rules don't apply to me/no accountability/no responsibility for her actions/reinventing the truth/pathological lying - stem from a personality disorder and/or very bad parenting/traumatic upbringing. Sadly (and a shame for her parents), no amount of criticism here or on their site is going to change anything. People like that cannot be helped or changed unless they want to and unfortunately Julia Allison does not think she has a problem and does not want to be helped.

  57. Ineff --

    I totally agree with you! That's why I find myself needing to point out that she did not get there (Europe) on her own merits. Although, I know everyone knows this because how could she!? I guess I always think the NS lunatics are reading this and I want to always say to them (mainly JA): "I think what you *imply* on your lifecasts is far from the truth."

    And that's exactly it, as you said. She wants us to fill in the blanks. She wants us to thread the photos and little soundbytes and tweets into this story about a highly lovable and successful young blogger -- but we only fill in the blanks with, "You want us to think you are so important, but come on! We know you're not, so be real! It's OK!" or, more recently, "You're actually so deluded it's scaring us."

    Hope that makes sense. I just want to get the story out there that without her dear dear (oh how dear she is!!) friend, Randi, she would be painting her toenails pink and taking pics of herself in her bathroom for the past two weeks.

    Oh, but you all know this...


  58. Re the Paul Carr comment

    I don't know. To me it sounds like he put up his "rules of engagement" as being "THE rules of egagement." Because Rachel did what he defined as acceptable she passes. Those who have equally valid points and post them here under a pseudonym and without a picture are according to him "lunatic harpies," which coincidentaly sounds to me like the exact type of personal/catty/ad hominem attack he supposedly decries in his post/article.

    I find what I've now read of this Paul Carr's writing on this matter to be hypocritical, lacking in evidence and thoughtful analysis, and obnoxiously self righteous. And I've laid out why on various comments using relevant examples and addressing his actual points, which is more than I can say for how I view his approach to those he attacked.

    I say this anonymously and he can write it off all he wants. My points are not affected by his views on anonymity. Anonymity does have its implications and consequences but it does not have the ability to negate otherwise valid arguments. Arguments can stand on their own merits no matter who is or isn't associated with making them.

    If Carr addressed the real issues posted about here, didn't do the exact things he attacks others for all while trying to make his points about how awful those behaviors are in others, and used real evidence to support his points, and then just discussed anonymity as one of his pet peeves or something among many other legitimate points he was making, fine.

    But as long as he continues to question the absence of a name instead of the merit of a point when faced with disagreement, he has no point as far as I'm concerned.

  59. Oh Julia is going to her big strategy meeting! Oh la la

    Bonne chance, ma cherie. I hope you all decide to put less pictures of Julia on your website. I hope Mary breaks off into her own stylish world and that Meghan takes her plane back to the Apple store in Palo Alto.

    And, Julia, well, I hope she meets her bad karma public.

    P.S. she posted it on twitter and now on her lifeblast; she wants us to know!!

  60. I really respect Paul Carr's posting of the Rachael vid and his fair assessment of its merits. Maybe he'll visit the NS site and see what all the fuss is about. Or maybe he'll move on to more interesting topics -- which is what I'm going to do.

    I've had a great time here with all of you like-minded folks, but it's time to face the truth: NS is comatose. We are artificially keeping that brain-dead site breathing. For me, it's time to pull the plug.

    I'll miss you bunnies!!

  61. I'm outta here, too. Wishing them all the best though!

  62. And as part of the big meeting they have deleted every single constructive comment from QOD. I'm done!

  63. As long as those vapid arse hats and their nonwebsite are in existence, I'll be here. Fight the fight I say

  64. 4:23 To be honest, this is only as relevant as one makes it, AT THIS POINT. Earlier, I fought the fight when the superificial reigned on nonsociety, and women were being labeled x or y, and when our very ability to objective was questioned. A LOT has been said and resaid. How much more is it possible say without becoming redundant or seeing any sign of change? To me, it makes more sense to take a step back. But that's me...

  65. I don't buy these "im leaving" posts.
    sorry if I'm wrong, but I am not joining any mysterious trends.

    If I'm right, interesting tactic.

    a little paranoid FB

  66. Good. Now we're done with Paul Carr. And I still think he's a silly cunt.

  67. Of course these "I'm leaving" comments show up just as Julia goes into her "business" meeting and is frantically deleting comments on QotD. Nice try Julia but this lame tactic won't work either. You were much more entertaining when you just shouted classless profanities!

  68. I wouldn't leave yet. That's like when very silly main characters in horror movies turn their backs on the crazy chainsaw-wielding serial killer who *must certainly* be dead by now. No dice! I know how this works.

  69. I meant I am done leaving comments over there. They have their heads so far in the sand there is no yanking them out. However, I am here to the bitter end, I can't look away!

    (I may have posted a similar thing twice, my comment didn't show up the first time, just in case anyone thinks someone is pretending to be me.)

  70. It goes to show how Julia has really kind of
    f--ked with our minds. Even those of us with a reasoned dissenting voice (i.e. I'm leaving commenting to do better things with my time)
    become suspect. Again, her dishonest practices... it's just a shame how it affects things.

  71. Regina on leaving RBNS: "That's like when very silly main characters in horror movies turn their backs on the crazy chainsaw-wielding serial killer who *must certainly* be dead by now."

    Thanks to you, I spit hot cocoa onto my keyboard just now. Very apt comparison.

    I have always likened my fascination with the Bunnykins Trio to the way I once followed those absurd serial comic strips like Apartment 3G or Mary Worth--just for the laughs inherent in the improbable narrative.

    Julia Allison herself equated NS with a "soap opera" at DLD. And everyone knows that soap fans do NOT all follow their faves out of unalloyed reverence.

    Others may leave, and I may miss them. But out of my own perverse connoissseurship, I will stay to see the narrative play out.'s fun.

  72. Following the Trio of Denial is less like watching a soap opera and more like watching a freak show or horror movie. You're all "don't do it!" (but then the stupid character does it anyway ) and "ewwww... I don't want to see that, but I think I'll take a peek to gross myself out anyway."

  73. Yeah, Wes...but they're a little more gross than a horror film. They exaggerate, hide the truth and create nonsense...and ignore the fact that we all know.

    And, of course, they say they're real -- not actresses.

  74. Man oh man! I think their strategy is to keep on plugging away at the same crap with a little improvement (thanks to us) added in here and there. Incredible. The ongoing list of mysterious, vanishing topics/events(please add to it!):

    Julia's hyped up DLD performance

    Why they were at Davos and how, really

    How they got home on a private plane that we were all made aware of, several times (It's not like we're snooping!?)

    Miss truth-telling Charlsie's disappearing blog

    Mary's offensive comments (abortion, ghetto, ...)

    How they afford things...everythings

    And how about, maybe, what y'all are meeting about? You know, since this is a lifecasting operation and you're all about experimentation and acting as guinea pigs and putting yourself out there and being brave.


  75. posted on the intern's blog...

    I just want my J-Term form to be mailed back on time to my college. And I want it to reflect my work for the entire month, not what I wrote (which was all the truth) on my blog which pissed certain people off.

  76. OMG, they cleaned up Friday's QOTD, but left my JOKE/SNARK comment (from "Meghan Asha") about how "I" don't like researching intelligent questions to ask when I interview people.

    Oh, crap, my sides hurt from laughing.

    They are actively policing today's QOTD, as well, but all the rest of the spam and abuse are still littered all over older questions, as well as the Advice Box. Go, you little Unknown Intern, Go!

  77. They also deleted a bunch of genuinely earnest answers from Friday's QOTD, even superfangirl Allison's response. What's up wit dat?

  78. Unless that girl Samantha still interns for them, I don't think they have an intern right now because Charlsie went back to school. I don't even visit QotD anymore - not even to see what they delete- because it just gives them page views and I know they delete all the good stuff anyway. Although I do think it's funny when they leave up something they think is real but it's just a commenter cleverly disguising their snark. They really are clueless idiots, aren't they?

  79. @Anon 3:59: I LOVE the term "lifeblast!" it's so much more accurate than what they're calling it.

    "Lifecast" actually refers to things that are continuous, ongoing and more or less constant. what JA and her handmaidens are doing are "lifeblasts": short updates, usually consisting of a photo and a couple of sentences, that are generally not elaborated on (my own definition).

    Hey, Jules, now you can claim that you all are the "first" ones doing something (although it's sort of twitterish, if you ask me). Don't forget to give Anon the props for naming it.

    @FunnyBunny 5:53: I also feel like Mary has to answer for what I believe was a racist comment about her dog and some liquor. It felt racist to me, anyway. At the very least, completely ignorant.

  80. I really love the irony of making a feature called "Question of the Day" that was written by an intern a hundred questions at a time.

    "of the Day" usually means something is topical and, well, daily.

  81. I hate that they say attack people for their comments but then actually make changes based on those comments without giving any credit or acknowledgment. So now they update posts by writing update or by crossing out the old text (yeah I admit I read Mary's stream on tumblr today.). Hmmm where'd they get that idea? All the comments on QOTD that they delete without response or comments posted elsewhere that they claim are written by envious haters?

    Or when they defended the porn posts to all who complained but then deleted them anyway without a word. Why is it so hard for them to admit an error or to acknowledge someone who may have given them a good tip?

    These types of things make them seem so sneaky and ugly to me when they could instead use the opportunity to make themselves a little more likable by being a little gracious and not so defensive all the time.

    I feel like they act on people's feedback only when too much criticism is posted in places they can't delete. It seems usually at that point, they change things (like when pe ople post on sponsor blogs, etc.). So they make changes anyway but instead of doing it to meet reader needs by responding to feedback and comments, they seem to do it only to avoid public critique of things they know are true and can be checked out by anyone who looks into them.

    Whatever. Honestly, I'm boring myself even talking about them right now.


  82. Melissa Sue,

    I think she was making a joke about Mason's mexican heritage being that tequila is a part -- more in the less commercialized past I think -- of Mexico's cultural heritage.

    I guess the undertone is that (all) mexicans drink lots of tequila. Oh, it's Mary...she was trying to be funny.


  83. Ineff --

    I hear you -- it's the sneakiness you want to scream about! Just acknowledge that you know we are not haters, girls!

    Imagine if they allowed comments for each of their posts? It would be a nightmare for them...

    They want to control it all.


  84. LifePast. LifeHalf-Assed. LieCast.

  85. re: lame joke about Mason's mexican heritage...because she's such a superstar we all immediately know what kind of dog she has, right? I, for one, didn't geet eet, senorita. I thought you were speaking of your madre.

    In my defense, I read recently that 70% of jokes in emails and text messages aren't perceived as jokes by the recipients. A cheesy little MS Paint-ed sombrero and bandito moustache would have helped a non-dog breed recognizer like me. (I try not to look too closely at her pics anyway, since she's always kissing up on everything in sight and I have a sensitive gag reflex.)

  86. I had to search high and low to find this post, but it was in "Inappropriate Indeed". I knew after clicking on the Blogger profile that I'd seen the photo somewhere before.

    The comment made was this:

    " - Julia wanted contributors right? You'd think she'd respond to this/take it seriously"

    Same person as MissMatched, and inquiring minds DO wanna know, what happened with that? Or did JA ignore your twitter and email completely?