1. Wednesday, September 18, 2002

    et tu, erotica? 

    although there are a handful of sparkling exceptions, typically the rule holds true that if you have a beautifully designed blog that’s (c) copyrighted, theres usually nothing at all to steal.

    technoerotica.net is gorgeous, but perhaps should stick to speculating about james brown’s testicles, bitching about people who use cell phones while they drive, and providing handy links to coffee enemas, and leave serious issues like what the LA Times covers in their California Living section to me and my buddy welch.

    insinuating that our gripes were largely narcissistic, technoerotica is conducting a cute little poll asking its readers if matt and i would have changed our tune if we had been mentioned in last week’s times feature on blogs.

    truth is, as anyone who had bothered to read our posts would have surmised, we would have been happier if ANY los angeles blogger would have been mentioned, or interviewed, or photographed, or consulted.

    apologists to the embarrassing article claim that the times approached academics purposely, arguing that there would have been greater benefit to interviewing the professors and former journalists than the actual bloggers who are actually living the trend.

    may i respectfully type: poppycock.

    in the wake of 9/11, real journalists were interviewing Taliban spokespeople. would the times instead choose to talk to a poli-sci prof at usc than a taliban prisoner, if, God forbid, one of osama’s buddies decided to do some more fucked up shit? maybe i shouldn’t ask such questions. im scared what their answer might be.

    perhaps a better rhetorical question would be: do the times interview college softball coaches when they want to do a story about the dodgers?

    technoerotica’s readers also make me scratch my head. ive gotten exactly three referals from yesterday’s post, yet over 100 people have voted in the poll. so either technoerotica is talking about old news that all of its readers have already researched and formed opinions, or its poll takers couldn’t care less about the long and detailed complaints that welch and i have.

    finally, the poll should have been worded: “Would Pierce and Welch express a different view had any LA blogs been mentioned in Tawa’s article?” for as it is currently worded, i was inclined to press Yes along with the majority of voters, because the glaring fault with the story is they completely ignored all LA Bloggers, not just me and welch.

    has this dead horse been beaten enough?

    maybe i should create a poll.

    instead of such nonsense, i posted a new photo essay instead, created by a special guest star.