Jones gives good blog?

No, it's just that Cook's 400 words fit a well-established pattern of his, one that has been demonstrated throughout this thread. (The piece about Schwarzenegger's kid-that-wasn't-his being the prime example.)

More than just errors, more than even a pattern of carelessness, it's kind of a moral failing to lie about people.

 

They treat junior and small-fry celebrities the same way they treat Lindsay Lohan. At least there's something egalitarian about that.

 

And you have to take his employer's history into account. Lie down with dogs, etc.

 

This where you lose people like me. You're so impassioned in your defense of journalism and what you hope it means to the younger generation -- except this kid who pissed you off, so fuck him.

This came up before in the brouhaha over your desire to win more NMAs: You've worked hard to gain a level of success most of us would love to approach, yet you can't help but take shots at some college kid because he didn't take your side. Your anger toward and disdain for John Cook and Gawker cannot be argued. But why get so caught up in a seemingly insignificant tangent? Especially when that justs opens you up to the Thompson Gunners of cyberspace?

You wouldn't be much of a person if you laughed off what Cook did, but lumping in this kid seems petty and unproductive.

 

People who work for Gawker aren't in the same business as me.

 

Dr Logan Levkoff - Sexoligists-- responds to Jones in The Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-logan-levkoff/chris-jones-esquire-article-women-sex_b_1392122.html

"Have you read: "Ladies: You're Not as Good as You Think," an Esquire feature by Chris Jones? If you have, you're probably writing letters of scorn and disgust to the magazine right now; if you haven't, you will be shortly.

What starts off as a self-deprecating article about his less than stellar sexual prowess quickly turns into an attack on his "unenthusiastic, uncomfortable and uncommunicative" sexual partners. "

 

Hers was one of the most idiotic, rambling pieces of garbage writing I've ever read. It drives me nuts when people are so set in their ways that they completely misconstrue the author's point.

"t is comical that Jones believes that "most women act as though they are sexual Olympians." Women -- wouldn't it be nice to feel such sexual bravado and confidence? Wouldn't it be nice to feel like we were free to spread our legs for whomever we want, whenever we want and not give a crap about scorn from others? Wouldn't it be nice to just brush off the awful and demeaning messages that we've been taught since we were born with a particular body part?"

What does the freedom to have sex without scorn and the "awful and demeaning that we've been taught" have anything to do with the fact that most women think they're A+ when they're often times they are C at best.

She does make a good point about porn though.
I never wanted to have sex with a woman suspended from the ceiling in a chair until I saw a guy having sex with a woman suspended from a ceiling in a chair. That looks like fun.

 

That nugget is a keeper.

 

I wanted to post yesterday that I wish the Gawker thing hadn't happened because I'd have loved to have gone toe to toe with Jones on that blog post. Rambling though it may have been, I think Dr. Logan What'sHerName gets close to a few of the things I thought.

What SJ longtimer among us could read that blog post and not be reminded of the Frankenberry Crunch joke (or something of the sort)? Which was very funny... But being a woman and a wife and mom... My thoughts reading the Esquire post? What will his wife think? I'd rip him a new one.

And admittedly I'm one of the minions Boom talks about. Proudly!

 

NO. Not at all.

 

Well, I might as well register just to say this:

I've considered John Cook a really good writer. In fact, I would consider an article he wrote back in 2007 for Radar Magazine one of the best magazine articles I've ever read. Whenever I find a good magazine article, I have a habit of ripping it out for later perusal. The funny thing is, if you'd asked me one year ago, "YeTodd, who exactly wrote that Radar article you were a big fan of?" I'd have had no idea. I didn't make the connection that John Cook (of Gawker) wrote that article until just recently.

So, yesterday I found this message board because Cook linked to it. When I first clicked on Cook's link, I assumed, "Ha, some hack sportswriter probably got owned by Cook and is all upset about it! This will be some good Fire-Jay-Morgan style hilarity!" I didn't know who "Chris Jones" was until yesterday.

When I clicked on this link, I was disappointed to find it didn't contain FJM-style hilarity. (It wasn't even about sports!) But, since I have a semi-personal grudge against Gawker, I was intrigued by the attempts to denigrate it, and kept on reading. And when somebody mentioned that "Chris Jones" was the backpage writer for ESPN Magazine, I thought: "Oh. Him!? I ripped out one of his articles half-an-hour ago!"

That's a pretty big coincidence. I don't make a habit of ripping out articles very often.

So...I realize this is a terse post about a complicated issue.

My point is, here's a message for Chris Jones: Don't assume that what's being written in this thread DOESN'T have an effect.