Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03

[Gattigap]

This Washington Post article this weekend reminded me of this board, largely because of our enthusiastic embrace of nonwhitebread topics (and not, mind you, that we fit within this weird demographic).

After all, while we'll spend days debating the merits of anal sex, I doubt any of us would pose with Cheetos bags over our heads.


Gattigap



* note: this is the article's reference, not my own. This board has caused me to remove the term ironic from my vocabulary altogether.

[leagleaze]

Originally posted by leagleaze
Doesn't seem to be online yet. Just a note it will be on the 2nd

Wow, nice job there Heather. Not only did she not bother to report any of the items she got from me when she apparently wasted my time on an interview, she took a quote from Mr from the board, out of context.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1052440819671

I sent her an email asking her (a) why she bothered to interview me and (b) why she used MR's quote from the board out of context.


I know she interviewed Slave, Less and lord knows how many others. I have no problem with her story in and of itself, I just have to wonder why she bothered with all the research, and why she wasted all of our time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by leagleaze
I have no problem with her story in and of itself, . . . .

I do. It ascribes motivations to everyone here without any support. If the article simply explained West's desire to "clean up" the FL boards, that would be one thing, but the article really makes the (unsupported) claim that lawtalkers was founded principally to indulge our "potty mouths." Perhaps that was part of the motivation, but it really misses the bigger picture.

I have no idea what you (leagl) discussed with the interviewer, but the article, as written, is pretty poor reporting. It reads more like an editorial, or, worse, west propaganda.

[andViolins]

Is heather a lawyer? She certainly does not appear to be a journalist. What was the point of the article? That GA's only care about swearing and West has a whole web strategy that doesn't include swearing?

What a fucking concept.

aV

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by alan derthawits
Not same thing. all women have, or should have feet, so a foot fetish isn't looking only for women with feet, he simply has an intended use for the feet once he meets the attached women. I suppose one with an attraction to women without feet might better fit your theory. That hypothetical man would be seeking out a women based upon a particular look, like the asian chaser at issue here.

That's a non-relevant distinction. Fetish is not so limited.

(from dictionary.com)

fetish:

1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.

At least def'ns 2 and 4 would allow for an "asian fetish." The (apparent) fact of it is that he has a particular attraction to women who are asian. We can argue whether it's "abnormally obsessive," but I don't see how you (or atticus, or whoever it was) can say it's definitely not a fetish.

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by andViolins
Is heather a lawyer? She certainly does not appear to be a journalist. What was the point of the article? That GA's only care about swearing and West has a whole web strategy that doesn't include swearing?

What a fucking concept.

aV

In Heather's defense, she is probably an idiot and didn't know any better. I am sure she would apologize for wasting each of your collective times if she were smart enough to know that what she did was wrong. When she is done watching teletubbies, I will give her a good talking to.

[alan derthawits]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
That's a non-relevant distinction. Fetish is not so limited.

(from dictionary.com)

fetish:

1. An object that is believed to have magical or spiritual powers, especially such an object associated with animistic or shamanistic religious practices.
2. An object of unreasonably excessive attention or reverence: made a fetish of punctuality.
3. Something, such as a material object or a nonsexual part of the body, that arouses sexual desire and may become necessary for sexual gratification.
4. An abnormally obsessive preoccupation or attachment; a fixation.

At least def'ns 2 and 4 would allow for an "asian fetish." The (apparent) fact of it is that he has a particular attraction to women who are asian. We can argue whether it's "abnormally obsessive," but I don't see how you (or atticus, or whoever it was) can say it's definitely not a fetish.

bear with me.... given your definitions,( which are helpful, but dictionary definitions are limited tools and in the end we all must work from the vernacular) Paigow was saying Def 3 is the Same as your stretch of 2 or 4. A foot fetish is def. 3, no factual dispute. Perhaps the asian chasers meets def. 2 or 4, but there is a factual issue. So he at least has a chance, and I think a very good chance to show it is not a fetish, but rather a stylistic choice. Pardon the legal analysis, but I've just had a judge do something very bad in a SJ motion, and my mind is in this mode.

[purse junkie]

I'm humbled to see we haven't 'grown up' as West has, since all we ever wanted was to use naughty language.

On the Asian-obsession thing, I don't think the woman is racist for noticing that her husband has a racist obsession with Asian women only and for being nervous every time her panting husband slobbers all over every such woman he sees. She's right to assume that it's only a matter of time before he cheats with an asian woman, assuming he can find one to say yes, as he has shown that's who he's attracted to exclusively. She was certainly victim-blaming to ditch her innocent friend instead of her sleazeball husband after he made a pass--but I can certainly see where it would be uncomfortable for all parties and painful for the wife to hang out after that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by alan derthawits
bear with me.... given your definitions,( which are helpful, but dictionary definitions are limited tools and in the end we all must work from the vernacular) Paigow was saying Def 3 is the Same as your stretch of 2 or 4. A foot fetish is def. 3, no factual dispute. Perhaps the asian chasers meets def. 2 or 4, but there is a factual issue. So he at least has a chance, and I think a very good chance to show it is not a fetish, but rather a stylistic choice. Pardon the legal analysis, but I've just had a judge do something very bad in a SJ motion, and my mind is in this mode.

That's fair. My initial use of the word and, I think, paigow's defense of the word, were based on a reading of the letter that suggested some sort of particular obsession, NTTATWT. Of course, who the hell really knows. Women with skirt-chasing husbands aren't always the most keenly analytical about what their husbands are actually doing.

[leagleaze]

Heather and I spoke at length about our reasons for leaving, none of which were specifically so we could use foul language. The reasons I gave her were the same reasons I have discussed elsewhere, how the changes were inplemented and how we were treated.

She misrepresented our reasons for leaving. In response to my question she tells me that she used me and the others for background. I have to ask what background since she ignored what I told her. In addition she said she used the MR quote cause it was funny and showed we wouldn't censor the users.

It sure was a funny thing when he said it originally, but it doesn't look like she is using it as a joke to me. It rather looks to be a continued attack upon us for using foul language.

[notcasesensitive]

from realityblurred --

Taking a break from finding America's most something somebody, NBC's debuts For Love or Money tonight. The show follows a bachelor's search for a partner from a group of "15 beautiful girls [who] come for love but are surprised to learn in the first episode that there is also a million dollar prize at stake -- but the winner and the bachelor will not know that she ultimately must choose between the man of her dreams or $1 million." The show's bachelor is a 33-year-old laywer, Rob, and his 15 suitors all appear to have nearly the exact same haircut.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by leagleaze
Wow, nice job there Heather. Not only did she not bother to report any of the items she got from me when she apparently wasted my time on an interview, she took a quote from Mr from the board, out of context.
...
I know she interviewed Slave, Less and lord knows how many others. I have no problem with her story in and of itself, I just have to wonder why she bothered with all the research, and why she wasted all of our time.

Journalists simplify. That's what they do, and (let's face it) the easiest and simplest explanation -- and most interesting for those reading the article -- for the Great GA Schism of 2003 is the imposition of the language filters. Oh, sure, we all know that the filters were merely the visible symbol of West's arbitrary and sudden changes. But it sounds so much better to say that those spoiled GAs left because they couldn't say "fuck."

And to a journalist, there is no such thing as a quote out of context. Their likely response to that complaint? Well, MR said it, we just reported it.

Finally, it is possible that Heather (aren't we all picturing Winona Ryder at this point? No? Uh, neither was I. Really.) (Apropos of nothing, I miss Rb.) wrote a superb, balanced, informative, and detailed story, which was promptly sliced and diced by an editor to fit the mold.

C'est la vie.

[Connect_the_Dots]

Originally posted by leagleaze
It rather looks to be a continued attack upon us for using foul language.

Since we can say it on this board:

FUCK HEATHER!!!

[evenodds]

Putting aside our own personal feelings about the (mis)representations about the site, it is a fascinating story of corporate public relations. Essentially, it's a puff piece for West, engendered to reinforce their image to law firm managers who might have been concerned about West's involvement in the GAs after so many state bar journals wrote about the spilt, and drew the connection in the first place.

I say, well done, Heather. She used enough quotes to not make it look as if she cut and pasted their entire press release.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
from realityblurred --

Taking a break from finding America's most something somebody, NBC's debuts For Love or Money tonight. The show follows a bachelor's search for a partner from a group of "15 beautiful girls [who] come for love but are surprised to learn in the first episode that there is also a million dollar prize at stake -- but the winner and the bachelor will not know that she ultimately must choose between the man of her dreams or $1 million." The show's bachelor is a 33-year-old laywer, Rob, and his 15 suitors all appear to have nearly the exact same haircut.

They also seem to have trained him to have a Joe Millionaire look as much as possible.

That said, the outcome was made rather clear when he told Katie Couric that if she had been on the show, he would have picked her. Sure, he's kissing up and probably being facetious, but that doesn't sound like a man who found true love. And if he did, true love took the money and ran. Wouldn't you? I mean, $1m vs. a guy you met only a few weeks before? You can buy a lot of love with $1m.