Whitney Matheson and Aaron Schatz

Reader Comments From The Fray:

[Wednesday notes from the Fray Editor: Well we're enjoying a nice level of meta-discussion about the Internet, as obviously all Fray workers and posters are top experts in this matter. Fletch suggested that one line from the post below by (noted troublemaker) Neill Hamilton should be the Fray's official motto: "The whole point of things is to argue about them." We think his entire post could be a Mission Statement for Fray posters, it so accurately sums up their world view.

Mangar has a post enticingly titled "All the answers, right here," which leads to a very nice thread. We like Biff's sentence "Since this is the 'Breakfast Table' I'll try to be as pointless and incoherent as possible," though obviously his thesis is totally wrong. We were hoping that Fraypersons would start telling us what they were listening to while they posted, but as the Breakfast Tablers seem to have given up on this too... if you're not careful we'll start telling you in our Notes what the Fray team of musical experts is listening to.]


The whole point of things is to argue about them. While this maybe my legal training bubbling to the surface, the point of things placed in the public commerce of ideas is for them to be debated. What other purpose does Bobby Valentine exist for, except to second guess him on sport radio talk shows? Just because our debate and argument has no effect on the outcome doesn't change our God given right and duty to complain. Hence [any] argument that we should simply accept things is a very denial of of why we were placed on earth. Only Republicans and atheists would attempt to deny God's plan by telling us to shut-up.

--Neill Hamilton

(To reply, click here.)


The voice-mails are still there [on the Psychoexgirlfriend.com site]. You have to scroll down from the ads. If anything, the "hoax" claim has been even more interesting than the site itself. In the end, the early registration date is the only real evidence that the site is a hoax, but it seems perfectly plausible to me that this guy registered the site before all the voice-mails had been left in anticipation of this eventual bonanza. Once you deal with that problem the rest of the argument falls apart. For instance, the fact that the ads are so sophisticated and annoying: it again seems more than plausible that this guy simply took whatever advertising he could get to keep the site going. It must be a real money pit.

Anyway, the hoax argument seems to have entered the conventional wisdom at this point, even to the point that people are announcing that the voice mails aren't even there. The only thing more popular than getting on board a fad is getting on board the debunking of the fad. Around and around we go on this wonderful, productivity-enhancing thing called the Internet

--Michael Paisner

(To reply, click here.)

[Monday notes from the Fray Editor: Pop culture: worthwhile subject or red herring? The Fray isn't sure. No less a personage than Wakefield's wife (and a warm welcome to you ma'am) declared firmly that she was not up for "the adulation of those who're already more than adulated", part of a long and interesting thread. Charmy summed up the arguments nicely, and we really want to know the answers to these questions: do Slate readers fantasize about Washington parties? Does Norm Sloan of NC State have the most garish sports jackets of anyone who ever appeared on TV on regular basis (here)? Have the Old 97s really lost it (here)? Is the correct answer to "Madonna: soul sister or plantation mistress?" in fact another question: "Madonna: One Smart Cookie--or just a silly, rich Pop Tart?" Answers please from Fray posters and Breakfast Tablers.]



I think most people have their gossipy side. And it isn't that much fun to discuss the scandalous personal lives of the politicians and the punditariat (they aren't very attractive, most of 'em), or what they're wearing. In politics, we tend to deride the idea of having someone as an "image" or an "icon," branding themselves like Madonna. In pop culture, this is a time-honored custom. We're invited to fixate on these stars, imagine their lavish houses and parties, etc, whereas I doubt Slate readers fantasize about being invited to Washington parties. Though I think there's a few distinctions to be made. Discussing pop culture that one doesn't personally consume sometimes gets boring (because of the air of condescension, "I would never watch that awful Spears girl").

--Charmy

(To reply, click here.)

• Cohen: How an Economic Crisis Is Like a War
• Froomkin: How's Bush? Put a Fork in Him.
• Milbank: A House Divided Along Twisted Lines
• Robinson: Ugly Politics at Justice | Q&A