Thursday, April 23, 2009

The Girls Debate Boxers Versus Briefs: Really? Really!



"I didn't even know this was still a debate," Jackles says.

No shit, Jackles. Because it isn't. Tell me, when was this interesting? Ever? Cosmo Magazine, 1986?

Other pressing upcoming episodes:

Bush: Leave it or wax it?
Blowjobs: Spit or swallow?

75 comments:

  1. spit or swallow isn't relevant if you refuse to slide into thirdbase.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, geez, this episode is a disaster! She drools on herself. Even worse, we find out that Daddy Baugher wears briefs, ugh. Finally, man-panty? WTF?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The creepiness of Jackles went to a new depth of fucking hell.

    ReplyDelete
  4. What is with the mental-case mincing she and Asha do in the ad? Mary acts normal, those two act like insane little overly hammy losers.

    ReplyDelete
  5. (who does the sponsor voiceover at the beginning?)

    yuck, mental image of dadsers in briefs. i'm sure he's so thrilled that info is out there. and why is the laptop there?! and jackles' donkey bray when she drools on herself!

    "i had a boyfriend who went commando. he was a hippie from san francisco." ah meghan, the underwear technology historian: "futuristic panties"

    if this A game content, i don't know what is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. not that i want to continue the foaming at the mouth about the FB friending turning people into her fans, but... has anyone looked at the picture used for her fan page? BINGO ARMS!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Why is Mary half out-of-frame?

    And what will Jankles do now that her good side features that unattractive incipient double chin?

    ReplyDelete
  8. OH MY GOD THE HEE HAW DONKEY LAUGHING!!! CANNOT GET OVER IT.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 9:25, it has to do with the embed code. for some reason it's not showing up as widescreen. but if you view it on youtube or on the website mary isn't cut off.

    ReplyDelete
  10. in the video at 3:10 (I somehow watched for that long): "Julia, you're face when..."

    Seeing as we're in the boxers/briefs debate from the mid-90s(if that soon ago), now's a good time to revisit a certain Friends quote from Ross:

    "Y-O-U-apostrophe-R-E means 'you are,' Y-O-U-R means 'your!'"

    We all make the occasional typos, but if you want to have credibility as a "real" business, PROOFREAD.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 9:41, that's one of my biggest pet peeves! i didn't watch that far...bless you for trying to suffer through it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. anon 9:41 have you ever heard of [sic]?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is the first time i click to one of those videos. That's the show??

    ReplyDelete
  14. For some reason the video looks like that in Firefox, but not IE. I don't know why.

    ReplyDelete
  15. randomly noticed:

    - cosign on overly hammy JA and Meghan (the usual for her tho), Mary is about the only one with natural on-camera pacing. The other two usually look like bad actresses.

    - JA thought "all guys wore boxers" Sure. I don't believe this particularly given some of the types of guys she's dated (whichever dude was too good for her, doesn't strike me as a boxers kinda guy)

    - why discuss dads and underwear?! grasping for a dissenting pov and.. ew.

    - JA's never-actually-happened anecdotes that she drops in when she can't NOT speak are hilarious with all their pauses and overly exaggerated hand motions

    - "you really don't care" no, Julia, most girls who are removing the clothes TO GET TO THE SEX PART aren't going to be biting their nails over what a guy's wearing.. which strangely enough, is like GUYS TOO

    - "YOU'RE face.." reader comment. lol

    - "you guys are at your best with a guest" (mainly because you three are totally freakinggg boring)

    - I'm sorry, but I don't give a shit about what underwear some dude is wearing and I would never ask my girlfriends about this either so the "neverending debate" is bullshit

    - Julia ENOUGH WITH THE HAND MOTIONS

    ReplyDelete
  16. 10:10, here here. who the hell cares what type of underwear your man wears? mary is against dating men who wear boxers? how pretentious can you be? my boyfriend has silly ones with characters and cheesy stuff like "stud" on them and i think it's silly but also kinda cute. i don't expect him to wear "sexy" boxer briefs all the time just like he doesn't expect me to bust out lingerie every night.

    needless to say, when you have a man this type of stuff doesn't really matter. hence...why they're doing an episode about it. ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Guys,
    What the phuck is going on here?
    Julia and facebook have changed user-rules to inflate her fb number?
    And the only real re-blogging site is moving on?
    Look, Owen Thomas is doing something, and maybe someone also contacted valleywag. And if facebook, that $500million company, is doing this it's a national story.
    A story broken by this blog.
    Why don't we stop with new posts about the stupid underwear thing and keep our eye on the ball here.

    we need more on this inflated friend thing...

    ReplyDelete
  18. Flatface: We have been out of pocket all day and I'm only just catching up.

    Someone educate me: Is everyone who tried to friend her suddenly been made a fan? No one was made a fan who's never heard of the chick, have they? Or have they?

    Please advise. There are lots of conflicting theories in the comments.

    ReplyDelete
  19. jacy, the official story that's coming from JA is that every pending friend request that was made by people she doesn't know were moved over to her public fan page.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jacy,
    This is Hindenburgh-level stuff. This is Facebook-is-acting-like-it's-run-by-unworldly-babies New York Times feature stuff.

    And it started here.

    Run with this!

    More updates from her FB! E-mail inquiries to Gawker and VW about if they're covering ( I got contacted by Owen)! Questions to FB itself!

    This is beyond normal reblog shit!

    This is second crime stuff! She pulled personal strings with tmblr, which made a little media splash.

    But FB has 200 million users. Many are businesses. Many are bands. Many are filma makers, artists, writers and etc. All of whom would love to force people to fan them, to follow them, know their names.

    Why did the Zuckerbergs do this for Julia.

    And they certainly did do something special..

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jacy

    I was made a fan. Chescaleigh was also. Anyone who has, in the past, friend requested her and not yet approved was made into a friend.

    This happened during the 24 hours after her meeting with JA.

    Owen Thomas confirmed via email.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If you look at the stats,you'll see she added 2,500 + fans in the last 24 hours. The only other spike in her fan base was after Randi suggested her as a "fan" in her Facebook newsletter. Prior to Randi's help, JA had 438 fans. NS has 100 fans. TMI has 99.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Having a 23-yr old muscle-less ceo of facebook was reason number 7 for me in killing my account.

    although you can never really kill your facebook account. they keep every thing and just "de-activate" your page.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Honestly I'm surprised some people are like "zomgzzz why did you friend her". You don't automatically assume people to be disgusting, it's the benefit of the doubt and sometimes they prove you wrong.. as if we haven't actually SEEN former extreme fans come around!) Maybe people friended her after feeling sorry for her or liking something about her without knowing the full story of her crazy. There's a difference not only in connotation btw friend and fan, but even visuals on the site. Someone lamely posted PPs profile as it comes up publicly (that was kind of silly btw, you failed to note she's friends with LOTS of Gawker names.. pp is innernetz hero, get over it) and that shows your info on a public search for whoever googles you will see fan pages. You might not care if you genuinely CHOSE to be a fan of a company, business or person... that's legitimate. For it to be there with absolutely NO warning or contact to the profile owner whatsoever? There is zero explaining that. It's not as simple as "oh, new thing we're doing". Really? An announcement of any sort, even private to those who would be affected, would have been better. So again, can we realize how having her as a friend - where someone would have to have her in common with you or be looking through your friends list quite insanely to find out - versus having her name and photo appear and your being a "fan" of hers, as if she's a celebrity (average people don't usually have their own, self-created fan pages) aren't blatantly different?

    ReplyDelete
  25. I assure you that I've disliked her all along and was just being nosy.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Oh, and let's not miss a very valid point. She has thousands and thousands of people she had no intention of friending (as she candidly and stupidly explains in her response) and instead of rejecting their request she has them in limbo then converts them? Surely it couldn't have been hard then, to mass reject them or just delete them entirely. Ahh - SOLUTIONS!

    ReplyDelete
  27. facebook needs to answer

    ReplyDelete
  28. something that was also brought up was that fans can be used to promote that person and their events/projects on facebook. so they could put my picture in the advertising section of fb with a little ad that encourages my friends to become fans of JA as well. i find that really shady. i wish i could see when i requested her because it had to have been at least a year ago because i was reading julia's blog long before NS and most likely requested her at that time.

    does anyone know if friends requests ever expire? when someone requests me that i don't know, i just deny them. did she deny and then facebook retrieved them or or do you think JA just kept all her requests lingering in her inbox as a constant reminder as to how many people wanted her online friendship? either way it's very strange and kinda sketchy.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Oh yes, I actually do remember seeing an ad on the side once that one of my friends (profile photo included) had become a fan of the new blackberry curve. So, that's definitely true.

    ReplyDelete
  30. chescaleigh,
    Exactly the right questions!

    Forget JA.

    What is Facebook doing?

    And what does it mean for everyone elses's info?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Well Facebook is hard-up for cash, so maybe this was a trial balloon. If it blows up, then JA and Randi get the blame - if nothing happens, then Facebook might want to launch a feature that converts friends into fans in order to boost advertising revenue. Either way, I cosign with flatface, this is a huge story. PartyPants and chescaleigh, your 15 minutes of fame is probably starting right about now.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 11:27, my 15 minutes? eh. i hope not cause i'm not interested. especially if it means i'm piggybacking on JA's internet infamy. no thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  33. P.S. chescaleigh, you might want to send a tip into techcrunch.com; they cover this area and, since it has had a direct impact on you, they might want to hear your story (i.e. how you were potentially made into an unwilling pitch-woman for a product you would never endorse).

    ReplyDelete
  34. ... chescaleigh (which is pronounces Ches-Lee, right?) you guys broke this right? Plus, you have e-mailable names. URL's I think they're called. Don't ignore requests for info...

    ReplyDelete
  35. pronounced... arrrgggh!

    ReplyDelete
  36. http://gawker.com/5225447/rosie-odonnells-screaming-match-with-wife-destined-to-leak

    shocker.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I hate to burst the bubble here but, this isn't a huge story. You guys didn't break anything. Sorry.

    ReplyDelete
  38. How's that 1136? Where did you hear fb was giving special treatment before here?

    ReplyDelete
  39. flatface, it's pronounced cheska- lee. my name is franchesca middle name's leigh.

    umm...yeah, i guess we "broke" the story. not really. someone else mentioned that they had somehow became a fb fan, i checked it out, realized i was a fan and left a comment on the page saying i didn't approve. apparently my comment was the first complaint on the page but i don't think that counts as breaking the story.

    11:32, i COULD, do that, but i'm not going to. like someone said earlier, that's just more publicity for JA. and while i don't approve of what fb did, i'm not trying to take them down or anything. with the exception of this one incident, i have no real issue with the company.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Well, for one, what makes you so sure this is special treatment?

    ReplyDelete
  41. chescaleigh,
    um, no, that counts. This is the blogasphere after all. First wins.

    Im not pushing you to advance the story. I'm just saying: it happened here first.

    And this is a facebook story.

    Not a Julia Alison story.

    FB has said they own your info, and will keep it even if you leave. they have said, hey, trust us. and now they are forcing people to be followers of people they like.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @11:36, the actions violate Facebook's Terms of Use - it is clearly a story unless you can point to where Facebook says that a commercial/marketing "fan of" opt-in request is equivalent to and interchangeable with a non-commercial "friend" opt-in request. This is a bait-and-switch tactic and is probably illegal under California state law.

    ReplyDelete
  43. well, JA (in her own words) scheming with randi the other day at the fb offices would be one point of interest.

    also, it's not a feature that's available to everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 1142.
    Pick a band. Any band.
    Try to get forced fans from facebook.

    How would you do it?

    ReplyDelete
  45. flatface and 11:42, you both bring up good points. i dunno...

    ReplyDelete
  46. "This is a bait-and-switch tactic and is probably illegal under California state law."
    HAHAHAH you're kidding me right?

    That's my point chescaleigh - you don't know that it isn't available to everyone. Have you tried friend requesting other public figures to see what happens? No, you haven't.

    You guys have this crazy mob mentality around here and in your excitement you forget to think through things.

    Facebook is totally allowed to do this if they want. It's only a story if they are doing it ONLY FOR JA. But they aren't. The end.

    ReplyDelete
  47. PS
    totally off topic, can someone make one of these for JA?

    http://22.media.tumblr.com/C0uMtUfffmnrx7kvklGdmIrko1_400.gif

    ReplyDelete
  48. 1142 is an idiot, chescaleigh.

    the idea that the host site would automatically pick you for exposure to something is soooo essentially against the idea of social networking ( where you choose your friends, likes, bands, movies, job, etc)

    ReplyDelete
  49. 1147
    who else are they doing it for?

    ReplyDelete
  50. But it's not, flatface. You chose to associate with that person when you friend requested them. The fact that they simply chose to associate you with her other page is not an interference with your right not to associate with her.

    ReplyDelete
  51. "Facebook is totally allowed to do this if they want."

    Um, no there not. I went through their privacy policy and there Terms of Use. In fact, they have a separate Terms of Use for Facebook Pages and they clearly state that:

    "YOU SHOULD BE CAREFUL BEFORE PROVIDING ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION TO OR ENTERING INTO ANY TRANSACTION IN CONNECTION WITH A FACEBOOK PAGE."

    Yet, they just forced individuals like chescaleigh into a transaction with a Facebook page. When did she have the opportunity to consider said transaction? She never had the opportunity - Fail for Facebook!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Whoops, meant "their" above, sorry...

    ReplyDelete
  53. flatface, i meant 11:43 (the comment right under yours) not 42. this is a sign that i've been staring at the computer for too long.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anon 11:52 & 54 - No, you didn't. You meant "they're".

    ReplyDelete
  55. 11:50PM, so if I friend request an employee of GM, the employee is then allowed to make me a "fan of" GM and I have to be forced into GM advertisements? That's basically what happened here.

    ReplyDelete
  56. 1150
    first of all, I'm not one of the new fans. i never friended or anything.

    Second, there is not an anything-goes motif at facebook. you're supposed to be able to set your own levels of access to your own page and to have a chance to say yes or no to any new requests. to ask to be a friend and then later get culled into sometjing else is a small, important violation.

    the larger violation is one of trust of course. Your choice of a friend doesn't neccesarily mean support. Or fandom. And also, how does facebook know what i want? If i have the national as my favorite band, must i also become a ting-tings fan?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anon 11:57 - No, that is not a salient analogy. There are relevant differences that make the two cases unalike. I'm sure you can spot them, it's really not that hard.

    ReplyDelete
  58. ... if facebook is fair i would like everyone, all 200 million, to be fans of my favorite comedian, a guy i used to work with, Drak Whitham.

    Also, everyone should "fan" Mastodon. Georgia's best metal band.

    ReplyDelete
  59. 12:00AM, I'm dense, point them out to me.

    ReplyDelete
  60. From the Facebook TOS:

    "Facebook Pages are special profiles used solely for commercial, political, or charitable purposes."

    OK, JA is not a "political" or "charitable" purposes. That only leaves commercial. Not personal, commercial, like my GM analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  61. pick some fake names people, so we know who is who... 1200 is also 1150? no?

    ReplyDelete
  62. 1206
    So how does that justify forced-fanning?

    ReplyDelete
  63. You got it flatface - I'm the 11:50 and 12:00 troll who thinks you guys are wrong (I'm not 12:06 though - I think that person agrees with you).

    ReplyDelete
  64. fb-did-a-bad-bad-thingApril 24, 2009 at 12:13 AM

    It doesn't, it shows that a friend request to JA the personal profile was always intended to be different than a "fan of" request to JA the commercial profile.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The point is, JA isn't the only person they do this for. Any person with a personal page and a "page" page has the option of converting requests.

    ReplyDelete
  66. fb-did-a-bad-bad-thingApril 24, 2009 at 12:16 AM

    And my point is that the conversion process violates Facebook's own TOS and is probably illegal. It doesn't matter if this is a JA only issue or not.

    ReplyDelete
  67. How does it violate Facebook's TOS and how in the world would it be illegal??

    ReplyDelete
  68. fb-did-a-bad-bad-thingApril 24, 2009 at 12:22 AM

    If you don't like the GM analogy, a better one would be as follows:

    Suppose you are friends with a congressional staffer that then runs for office. You do not agree with their political platform, yet, you are automatically made a "fan of" their campaign.

    A friend request is in no way equivalent to a fan request, except in the eyes of Randi Z.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Crazy train,
    for real? (and thanks for taking a name. I disagree with you, but respect your energy and writing)
    My band could get 17,000 fans tomorrow?

    BTW guys let's take this to the new post...

    ReplyDelete
  70. Crazytrain - not unless your band consists of only you. But if you had 17k pending friend requests and you "band" page was classified as a "public figure" page, then yes, your band could get 17k friends tomorrow.

    fb-did-a-
    No, because if you were already friends with that person then the request would not be pending and couldn't be converted. See the difference?


    Ok, moving over to the other thread now.

    ReplyDelete
  71. 12:18AM, we have written laws for a reason, so that one may know what to expect when engaging with another party. Facebook's TOS makes pains to differentiate the Facebook Page part of the system from the Facebook Profile part of the system. In fact, they operate under different TOS agreements. The structure of the Facebook Page part of the system is that of opt-in marketing. You are supposed to be allowed to choose your affiliations. Unfortunately, Randi and company have decided that choosing affiliations in the Facebook Profile part of the system is the same as choosing affiliations in the commercial Facebook Page part of the system. It isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I didn't know where to put this, but boxers v. briefs is just one step away from slanket, no?
    http://twitpic.com/3vr09

    ReplyDelete
  73. I really didn't need to know that Julia's dad wears briefs. Come to think of it, I don't think Julia needs to know that, either.

    ReplyDelete