Regarding FARCEFARCEFARCE

Everyone who wants sorospittle is more than welcome at Vox Populi. We did FarceFarceFarce up Shakespeare-style! Some names of minor characters remain, but it’s all first names (some of which the Colonialist version included), so you don’t even have to feel trashy.

Careful, Colonialist, unpublishing is a dangerous game. Boing Boing did it, and who reads them anymore?

Nothing can live up to the image at the beginning of this post.

I never read Boing Boing in the first place!

I didn’t even notice that picture. Awesome.

The Patriot won’t be publishing it because that would be below the (frankly arbitrary and constantly shifting) standards that we maintain for ourselves as a respectable blog of news and commentary, but I’m totally cool with other news outlets publishing it so that I can read it.

FFF brings up an interesting discussion about our goals here. While yes, we are committed to unfiltered news, we also have certain standards for what that news contains, because this blog is largely value-based. We care about student life, and building a better sense of community at GW, and we care about posting stories, pieces, news, etc. that other students care about in a way that serves that interest. I think FFF serves no value at all. I think their exchange is pretty disgusting, and posting it around in a way is just as bad, because it’s really similar to a 4th grade bully saying “hey everyone! point and laugh at THESE losers! What LOSERS!” Obviously when everyone grows up enough, they realize that bully was the loser. More importantly, I personally just found their exchange solely disgusting, and not funny in any way. I dont mean to sound like I have my nose in the air; it just happened to make me feel pretty gross that I was reading it. I don’t think that implies anything negative about anyone else reading it and enjoying it though, either.

The other side of this is that plenty of people to find it interesting and funny. It is within the interest of the community to see something like that. So I guess there’s just a divide between the types of things people want to read about. That’s where it gets tough. This is the first post we’ve ever taken down (I think). And I think that regardless of our values, our goals, censorship, etc. it just sort of ended up feeling like (to me at least) that posting something like that is at least somewhat inherently malicious, regardless of intent. I know that no one who posted it or reads it has any malicious intentions at all, but I don’t think the malice involved with spreading something like that around is avoidable.

That’s all for now. More as it bakes.

mmmmm, cookies….

There’s no such thing as unfiltered news. Every editorial decision is an act of censorship; hence the outcry: “that’s censorship” is just white noise. The question is whether this censoring is done properly. I am embarrassed to go to school with those two girls. I think they’ve got a really messed up view of what’s important. And I can say this because I think the “farcefarcefarce” post exposes their characters in a relatively raw way. So there’s a truth to the content of that post. A truth that reveals an element of our comminty we can’t be proud of, an element that doesn’t reflect the way we think our community (GW) should operate (I use the royal “we” and perhaps that’s presumptuous. I think I’m on pretty safe ground or I wouldn’t use it) . The whole point of this blog (in a general sense) is to provide a forum for expression within this community, so that we can better understand and perfect ourselves. To delete or block a post that reveals in a true way an influential and problematic element of this community seems reactionary and contradictory, given the paradigm expressed in the previous sentence. To delete it and then provide a direct link to it is just rediculous - exactly the sort of backhanded maneuver one would expect of the two girls in question (and perhaps the hatchet).

I don’t want to give the impression that I take this extremely seriously, but if the colonialist staff felt it was important enough to have a meeting over it, then I felt it was important to provide what I feel is a much-needed counter view.

You make a good point. However, I feel strongly that the post wasn’t in an effort to reveal a problematic element of this community. In fact, if it was, I would have been fervently behind it. I think posting the dialogue (with all names changed) and a note about our community would have been great. However I think it was posted as a way to make fun of, laugh at, and marginalize these people. I know few people who put as much stock in intention as I do; sometimes I get caught up in unnecessary nuances between intentions, and this may be a good example of that. But because of this, I like THIS post, because it at least launches a more serious discussion on the subject. And after a “hey check out these losers” post is made and can’t be undone, this seems like the logical way to start talking about the same issue in a better way.

Your point is well taken, and the rationale for your decision now has considerable pull in my mind. I suppose I’m not fully convinced that the decision was correct for one reason, which I did not express in my previous post but was in the back of my mind. I’m not even sure if its a good point, because it’s not fully formed, but I think it important to explore.

There has to be some consideration for the performative nature of certain utterances. Consider the original “farcefarcefarce” post as one such utterance. We can condense such an utterance down to the phrase: “I am exposing your secret conversation” or perhaps “I am making fun of you”. The “you” in question refers to the two girls. Either of these phrases could be seen as representations of intent - intentions that you (Darren) find objectionable. I think you ignore the performative dimension of the posts, however. If we see the post as not only a communication between ourselves, but a communication between ourselves and the girls, then we have to take account of the fact that the nature of this communication could actually have an impact on these girls. I think that by framing the nature of this communication in a negative way could influence those girls in any number of ways that could be considered positive. 1: they can no longer deceive certain people towards whom they are two-faced if those other people hear of their deception. 2: if they become embarrassed about some bad things they’ve said their reputation could suffer, humbling them. Because the “farcefarcefarce” was performative, in that it was an actual action with consequences generated by the utterance of words (I use “performative” loosely, and perhaps in a formally incorrect way), these postive implications could result. I say above that I’m not sure if this is a good point, because it seems quite possible that the girls would take it this way - its possible they could just become bigger assholes. Nevertheless, the question comes down to this: is thecolonialist.com merely a forum for discussion and planning about certain actions, that is somehow disconnected from those actions, or is it actually a series of actions themselves? To privelege this discussion over “farcefarcefarce” seems to indicate that Darren believes the former, while I lean towards the latter. I only lean towards it because the performative nature of a post is dependant on the tone or intention of that post (although every utterance in some minimal sense is an action with real consequences). If the intention is performative and causes results we would consider beneficial to the community, then the post should not be removed.

I’m not sure I agree with (maybe I don’t fully understand) the notion that the blog can’t be both a forum for discussion and planning about actions, as well as a series of actions themselves. I think if you look at it one way, it’s impossible for it not to at least be the latter. At the same time, I believe there are not only more negative possible outcomes for the girls in that situation than positive, but also that those negative consequences are probably more likely. No one knows for sure.

I think the most important part of your comment is the last sentence. If an intention is performative AND causes results we would consider beneficial, then you’re right, it shouldn’t be removed. In this case it’s very hard to decide if it’s more beneficial than it is detrimental.

“Utz Chips”:

You’re right to distinguish between the expressive and more “tangible” functions that a blog (or any medium) can serve–both providing a forum through which the writers communicate their ideas, values, and perspectives, and a means by which the writers (intentionally or unintentionally) have an impact on the world around them.

It is a mistake, however, to assume that Darren and his fellow writers are ignoring what you call the “performative” aspect of this blog. It’s clear that they know about the possibility that the FFF post (or any of their posts) could have some positive or negative impact on the campus community or on certain students. Of course, as Darren correctly notes, this isn’t a question of “one or the other”: it’s possible for a blog to serve both the expressive and performative purposes.

The fact that it serves both purposes means that some balance must be struck, and I think the Colonialist writers have done an admirable job of finding that balance. Taking into account the doubts that even you voice about the efficacy of the FFF post at creating positive change, can you really blame them for backpedaling?

I think it’s also important to note what we might call “blogger agency” in situations like this. If we strike our balance too far towards the performative (consequential?) value of a medium, we forget that a medium is sometimes not a tool for social improvement, or individual improvement, or ANY improvement. Sometimes, it’s not a tool “for” anything but communication. It is simply what it’s definition says it is: a means of transmitting ideas and information from one thinking human to another. Regardless of the consequences to third parties. That sort of communication gives affirmation to the transmitters and receivers of information, in their roles as thinking, decision-making, autonomous human beings. It allows us to express who we are, and makes us something other than cogs in a causal web of consequences who can seek only to maximize the good of society.

Concerns about the “social impact,” or “performative aspect” of a medium are often important. (That’s why certain media, like child pornography and libel, are illegal or tortuous.) They are not always important, though, and are never the only thing of importance. The writers of the Colonialist felt that the FFF post was something that they simply didn’t want to say, because that just wasn’t who they were or who they wanted to be. Even if I believe that the FFF post had the potential to bring about social improvement (which I don’t), I have to respect that.

I think there’s been a distinction between two potential purposes a blog can serve, and I want to clear up what might have been unclear in my last post about the proper relationship between these two functions. First, there’s the potential for a blog to be “expressive” as Bill F. says. I take him to mean that in this capacity it can be merely a tool for communication. Second, there is the more performative, or “consequential” aspect of the blog. Bill F.’s point is that a good balance needs to be struck, that Darren agrees with this, and that I overly emphasize the performative dimension. He expresses the value of communication as follows:

“That sort of communication gives affirmation to the transmitters and receivers of information, in their roles as thinking, decision-making, autonomous human beings. It allows us to express who we are, and makes us something other than cogs in a causal web of consequences who can seek only to maximize the good of society.”

I think there’s been a mistake here. Bill F. says that a blog naturally serves both functions, then goes on to say that a blog has the potential to serve only the communicative function. I think this is confused, and the results of this confusion are evidenced in the quote given above. The idea is that we can exist as receivers of information, autonomous human beings who are not utilitarian freaks. And this choice is dependant on how we structure things like blogs. We can structure a blog to be expressive, as opposed to utilitarian. But this doesn’t make sense because our very ability to express ourselves depends on the opportunities for expression provided by our environment. Our environment is GW. The Colonialist defines itself as, countering the hatchet, a better expressive mechanism for GW as a whole. This implies that the writers of the Colonialist do not feel that their blog is merely expressive, because they understand that the very possibility of expression is determined by the quality of GW’s discursive environment, a requirement that is dependant on the values, interests, and lifestyles of GW’s students. This is why 2 posts ago I labelled the deletion of “farcefarcefarce” contradictory. It contradicts the defined intention of the writers to provide a blog that betters the GW community (by not being the hatchet).

I suppose my point is that there is always a performative aspect to a blog, because it is a thing existing in the social fabric that shapes our decision-making. We are not autonomous, monadic individuals. We are members of a community, with an interest in seeing that community flourish. So when a while back I called the retraction reactionary, I meant that it ignores the performative aspect implicit within the blog’s very design. The problem is that this discussion, as opposed to the “farcefarcefarce” discussion, while being equally performative, instead structures our social reality around the idea “lets not do things lets talk about them” and so misses the point or fails to ignore what it really is. I also think the retraction implies that the way these girls operate is okay, it is a tacit approval of sorts. What possible function can that serve? No-one has provided any support for the claim that leaving up the farcefarcefarce post could actually supply the posive impact I discussed. I said it might not provide that sort of impact, but I wasn’t fully convinced, and I still am not.

Eh, I think you’re making some unwarranted assumptions here, and misunderstanding my argument.

First, I claimed that blogs are capable of serving both functions, but could “sometimes” manage to serve only one. If a blogger typically devotes his or her efforts to improving his or her community, that hardly means that they cannot occasionally make choices regarding content without regard to the broader consequences of those content choices. I wasn’t confused about the potential or proper role(s) that blogs play–I was stating that blogs, like every other medium, can serve multiple goals without changing the way they are fundamentally “structured.” (That word, “structure,” is the source of a lot of ambiguity in your argument. Take, as a metaphor, books. Some books–”Unsafe at Any Speed,” “Up From Liberalism,” “The God Delusion”–are written with the intention of improving society. Some–countless memoirs, for instance–are written simply to express the author’s story or perspective. And yet, both types of books employ an indentical “structure.”) This is why it’s possible for bloggers to be both expressive and, er, “purposed” in their blogging.

Speaking to the specific case of The Colonialist, I don’t believe that the writers of The Colonialist were betraying their mission statement by making this editorial decision. You quote their sidebar, but take it out of context. In aiming “never to be the Hatchet,” the writers were not necessarily making the claim that they want to improve the GW community. If anything, we can only draw from that quote that the writers of the Colonialist do not want to be like the writers that are regularly published in the Hatchet. Their mission statement can be placed, then, in purely “expressive” terms as well as more “utilitarian” terms. I think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt by interpreting the statement broadly.

The environment in which a blog exists (say, the GW community) and the quality of the media which that community produces (say, the Hatchet or Colonialist) has no bearing on what the various e-journalists here or elsewhere choose to do with their various media. If, as a result of people like the FFF girls, GW’s community is morally bankrupt and incapable of intelligent thought, that may shape the “discursive environment” in which The Colonialist speaks to or for the students of GW. It does not, however, impose some sort of requirement on the writers of The Colonialist to better the community. They may want to better it. They may even consistently seek to better it. It is, however, not an imperative that they do so. The fact that we do exist in a “social web of consequences” is irrelevant to the point: the preservation of some degree of individual autonomy is not a denial that those consequences exist. It is, rather, an assertion that sometimes those consequences simply don’t matter. We ought not to confuse the FACT that blogs have a “performative aspect” with the (dubious, I think) OPINION that the maintenance of this aspect ought to dominate the editorial decisions that a blogger makes.

(I won’t get into the whole discussion about whether or not the FFF post would have a positive impact on the GW community, for reasons that I think I explained enough above. It’s simply irrelevant to my argument.)

this is getting silly, but you missed entirely my point, which was that there’s no such thing as “the preservation of some degree of individual autonomy”. Memoirs may be written with the purpose of expressing oneself, but this very purpose has social content because it helps shape a social reality. You seem to operate under some delusion that the intention of various media determines whether or not it will be impactful. Everything is impactful, just to various degrees. Hence, when something like a blog says that it wishes to provide a forum for expression, it commits itself to the fact that it’s purpose is to be as impactful as it can, because the more impactful it is in helping GW become expressive the more it satisfies its mission statement. You seem to think that the writers of the colonialist designed this blog to be an irrelevant joke, an afterthought, a little toy object. You’re wrong. I don’t wish to speak entirely for them, but from what I gathered this blog was and is intended to provide a counter to the sort of influence the Hatchet pulls in our community - by doing things like mocking the absurd and often stupid editorial decisions made by that publication. I think you entirely fail to see this dimension of humor as social critique, which, if you’ll look at any post in this blog, you can see to be a driving force behind the whole shebang. The writers of the colonialist pulled farcefarcefarce because they thought it weak in the humor department, in that there was no clever delivery or anything of that sort. But everything in this blog is not designed to be funny, especially when the root of this humor is social critique. That’s why I don’t think farcefarcefarce should have been pulled, because it (perhaps brutally) crtiques an element of our community that reflects the sort of values antithetical to free expression - backstabbing, superficial hoarishness.

An afterthought to clarify what I mean by saying there’s not such thing as the preservation of individual autonomy: The idea of individual autonomy (as used by Bill F) depends on a notion of the ego as some cartesian a priori substance, a notion that is highly dubious at best. The very possibility of conceiving oneself as an autonomous agent depends upon the character of that individual’s development within a community, which structures norms for defining meaning. Bill F. operates under the delusion that this individual autonomy, the ego’s notion of itself, can be abstracted from its social environment once it has developed enough to consider the possibility that it has always been there. But its ability to perform this maneuver, and the depth with which the ego conceives this move, must be couched within the general conceptual framework generated by the society in which said ego lives. The very possibility of expression, then, is dependant upon a social framework that provides the opportunity for self-determination. The point of social critique (in humorous and other forms) is to correct and guide this social framework towards this end. As explained in the last post, such a task is precisely the goal of the colonialist.

You say:
“The environment in which a blog exists (say, the GW community) and the quality of the media which that community produces (say, the Hatchet or Colonialist) has no bearing on what the various e-journalists here or elsewhere choose to do with their various media.”

This is completely wrong. The very possibility of a blog’s existence is dependant on its environment. Moreover, the fact that the colonialist mission statement explicitly references its interest in reshaping a critical aspect of the environment (the quality of GW’s media) shows its writers recognize that environment does have a bearing on various media, and they want to change that environment by changing its media ( the media is a part of the environment - the relationship is dialectical)

The role comedy plays in this whole thing has been sort of racking my mind lately. In terms of solely comedy, I subscribe to the South Park mindset, which is that if you make one thing “off limits” to lampoon, you might as well make everything off limits, because doing that would be just as discriminatory as making fun of whatever one believes to be “off limits”. In terms of how that applies here, I wondered if my stance on the post (wanting to take it off) was contradictory to that at all. I don’t think it is, and I think it’s because of an interesting (at least to me) difference between something being “off limits” and something being, well, whatever this is.

So what is this? I think in this case, the original post was made without the aspect of social critique which max is talking about above, the element of social critique that is present elsewhere in this blog. What made it necessary to take this post down was not the presence of the exchange between the two girls itself, it was the presentation of it.

First, some names, both of people and places, were in fact not changed. If the goal of the post is to be a valuable critique of the exchange and the existence of it in our community, the identity of the specific people and places involved should be completely disregarded. We shouldn’t be trying to single out specific people or organizations and saying “hey check out these losers, isn’t this funny?” We should be saying “check out this exchange, isn’t this a problem?” I think the intention was to change all the names, but this wasn’t done completely.

Second, in the same vein of the “hey check out these losers, isn’t this funny” thing, the exchange was presented as a piece of gossip that was already circulating throughout the school. It was presented as funny, just because these people go to our school and are in our community. My point of view is that if there was to be an element of comedy in this, it had to be in the presentation. Maybe I’m alone here, but the exchange alone is not funny to me. Of course, there doesn’t have to be any comedy in it at all. It can just be a social critique. But this wasn’t part of the presentation either. I think it being presented as something simply being exposed is really just more gossip.

So, I am in no way opposed to this being a PART of a post, if that post as a whole is valuable in some way, and includes important social critique, either humorous or otherwise, and if the exchange includes no real names.

I am also in no way opposed to the concept of taking down a post. Sorry, we can do that if we feel like it. If we decide there’s something on the blog that we dont want on the blog, we’ll take it down. It’s pretty simple, and not really problematic. If it becomes problematic (it wont), it’s worth saying something then.

Darren: I suppose I’m relying on the possibility of the two girls’ conversation being a social critique in itself. I, like you, did not find them funny - I found them revolting. The mere bare-bones presentation of their discourse was all the post needed, and this is essentially what Travis provided. He did say that it was hilarious, and perhaps that tone was off color. I suppose my point is that the reception of this content is not always analagous to its presentation, and in this case the two girls’ dialogue seemed (in my mind) to outweigh Travis’ brief headline in terms of overall impact. Especially because Travis presented it openly - he thought it was funny but not everyone else has to. Perhaps we can think it’s just interesting.

I do of course see your reasons for pulling the post (which is entirely within your right). I think they are good reasons. I also think there are good reasons for keeping the post up. I have responded to Bill F. in detail because, while I think he’s on the right track in some ways, and obviously constructs a cogent argument, he relies upon some fundamental assumptions that are radically incorrect, notions about the relationship between an individual and her environment - but the terms of that debate perhaps extend beyond the matter at hand. I have continued to engage in this discussion not in a confrontational manner, but more as an exploration of the territory involved. It has been a fruitful discussion for me, and I hope for you as well. That is all.

Max,

Yes. To everything. I hope you didn’t think I received any of your comments or arguments as hostile or confrontational. This has been really interesting and enjoyable.

Everyone,

I just sat next to Kevin as he wrote a comment for about 45 minutes. It was pages and pages long. It was insightful, and thoroughly edited. He was not logged in and didn’t fill in the proper fields to comment. He lost everything. Sitting next to a man going through this is a humbling experience, to say the least

Also, I hope that doesn’t minimize Bill F’s very valuable contributions to the discussion. I think you saying some of his assumptions are “radically” incorrect is pretty subjective also.

I just wrote a really long comment that was deleted before I posted it. I am angry. here are the highlights. Don’t expect full explaiantions because I am angry.

though it might have been reactionary, the taking down of the post was an action that incited a substantial discussion that would not have otherwise taken place. to say that taking the article down was reactionary is to assume that there was no acknowledgment of the potential consequences of doing, whether or not that entails maintaining any kind of performative function this blog may have. how do you know it wasn’t taken down for that very purpose. it wasn’t, but still, the performative function is always being carried out in some way, just not in every way. there was no denial of this function, but rather a misstep resulting from something that need to be done.

parsing the conversation is a waste of my time - Its having been accessed was a accident in the first place; had the content been substantial - either “comedically” (which it most definitely is not [i explain this more in my post that no longer exists, so fuck everyone) or
"socially" (it might be cynical to say so, but I won't believe that person who could write such things is in a position to engage in discussion about, or be willing to change their priorities. I will not, therefore, take any part in 'teaching them a lesson,' simply because its not worth my time or intellectual energy) - I would be all for dissecting the discussion, its posting, its having been taken down, and its subsequent commenting about. I won't in this case because it is not important - I don't write for a gossip blog.

there was nothing funny about this. seriously. that's not to say its sad or surprising or is cause for outrage...it might be those things, but all I'm saying is that is just isn't funny [about here is where the lengthy analysis of comedy, and this message chain specifically, took place. fuck. whatever.]

here’s a treat for everyone:
http://apps.facebook.com/animoto/videos/AJTwmWGMdJmD1NokeBbtmw/show?ref=profilewide

I’ll post one last time to cover a few points worth covering, then call this discussion (or, at least, my part in it) finished. It’s been real (and very enlightening), but I suppose it’s time to move on.

I understood completely the idea being asserted–that “there’s no such thing as ‘the preservation of some degree of individual autonomy.’” It didn’t pass me by or whip over my head. I just disagreed with it, and said as much when I wrote this:

“If, as a result of people like the FFF girls, GW’s community is morally bankrupt and incapable of intelligent thought, that may shape the “discursive environment” in which The Colonialist speaks to or for the students of GW. It does not, however, impose some sort of requirement on the writers of The Colonialist to better the community. They may want to better it. They may even consistently seek to better it. It is, however, not an imperative that they do so.”

I would never (a) deny that media have an impact on society, or (b) claim that the extent of that impact is dictated by the intentions of the journalist. My claim was that the intentions of the journalist (at least sometimes) ought to dictate the relevance of that impact. If a journalist makes an editorial decision that could forgo something good for the community, that’s not automatically an argument against their decision and shouldn’t be treated as one.

Whether or not such an approach makes the Colonialist an “irrelevant joke, an afterthought, a little toy object” is, I suppose, in the eye of the beholder. But I don’t think it does. I didn’t miss the fact that this blog frequently uses humor as a social critique. I’m simply not attempting to shackle them to that particular purpose and method–as if any significant variance from it will sink the entire project. I might be more sympathetic to your view if their mission statement was clearer about intending, with their every breath, to improve the GW community’s morals or behavior. Allowing the writers of the Colonialist to vary from (or even, now and then, abandon) the sort of “socially conscious” humor they typically use doesn’t ruin their blog. I think it actually makes The Colonialist a better medium with better writers, because they’re truer to themselves (whatever it is that “themselves” happens to be).

Which brings us to the general discussion about individual autonomy–whether, that is, it is actually possible to be autonomous or “true to one’s self.” It’s one thing to argue that self-actualization (or autonomy, or whatever semantics you want to apply in this situation) is a phenomenon inseperable from its social context. It’s entirely another to argue that this makes individual agency either impossible or meaningless, and requires that we constantly seek to improve our environment through our media before we can possibly use them as a means for pure self-expression. Put it this way: you may think that the “true” selves as expressed here or elsewhere by editors are inauthentic products of a retarded social environment (or authentic products of a fully developed social environment). I think it’s possible to agree with either of those statements, and still uphold the sanctity and meaning of editorial privilege here and elsewhere, even when that privilege interferes with the bettering or maintenance of those editors’ environment.

Just a FYI, the conversation was left up in their sorority house, where an angry Sister (not Sista) sent it out. It wasn’t left in Gelman.

As an upcoming Freshman, I’m far behind the traditions of the press in GW. But, our favorite stalker-esque ‘blog’ that has been whoring itself on the GWU 2012 group has posted FFF in full. I must admit, I read it there first, and it gave me a good idea of the obscure things that may happen at GW. We have to realize that GWU isn’t just Dems and Pubs, Hatchet and Colonialist, but it also has the good and the bad, bad being FFF. I wouldn’t say that having this story up will necessarily poke fun at the people involved, but it gives us a good idea of what REALLY goes on in some places of GWU.

By the way, the aforementioned blog also has a hidden transcript of the conversation, completely unedited. I think it’s the unedited part that would do harm, but keeping it unreleased will only make people want more. And frankly, I don’t want to go to a Georgetown blog to read about GWU.

I was going to weigh in earlier, but I’m at the beach. Because of my beachlated (YES!) response, the debate seems all dones.
So, here I go…

utz_chips & Bill F:
Nice.

Darren:
Hey Darren!

Kevin:
I’m sorry you lost your comment, but that video makes me either not want to talk to you anymore or say things I don’t want the whole internet to know.

Andrew:
Why should I believe you?!
If you’re right, it changes very little.

Zahin:
1. Thanks for reading our blog.
2. I’m not sure if you’re savvy yet, but Will runs the Vox Populi and Will’s a nice guy.
3. There are no such things as Dems and Pubs.
4. Are you linking gwblogspot?
5. A hidden transcript? How do you know!? They have to re-hide it!
6. We had no intention of “keeping it unreleased,” I linked to it…a bunch. The internet has it!
7. Hi!

Kirk (that’s me):
There’s something hugely important that seems to have been missed in this discussion y’all’s been having (it hasn’t gone unmentioned, it just hasn’t been directly stated): FarceFarceFarce is BoringBoringBoring, it’s LameLameLame, it’s NotInteresting! I didn’t read more than twenty-thirty percent of F x 3. I skimmed around, but I didn’t READ it.
I couldn’t read it — not because I was so disgusted or appalled at the folk I happen to share a tuition bill with, but rather — because it’s too sad.
When it’s not boring it’s SAD!
It’s hardly interesting, barely incisive, and — most of all — not funny.

Just to be sure I wasn’t missing anything, I read it.
Results?
Still sad.
Still not funny.
Still not something I — as writer/editor/person — want to be responsible for disseminating.
Still too shallow to be a critique.

Like I said in the post, we have no interest in gossipmongering.

1. Haha, no problem - It’s entertaining.
2. Well, I wasn’t assuming that ALL Georgetown kids were Satan’s minions, but I’m glad to hear one isn’t
3. Well I’ll be damned
4. No. GWBlogspot has a lot more class than the blog I’ve mentioned
5. Well, it’s hidden from the public, but anyone with a brain could figure out how to get into it
6. I’m going to laugh if I find the transcripts on KaZaA and torrent sites
7. Hi!

you should believe me because i was the one who tipped you guys off in the first place.

and i know that it changes very little, but more accuracy > less accuracy. unless you disagree?