hi design sponge. im afraid im going to have to stick with smarmy. and that opinion was formed well before the times article disclosure. did you read the rest of this thread ? the parts that werent about you ? or any of the other posts ive made here over the past little while? that might help provide context for you in understanding how we read media including d*s. rule one: never believe anything you read in the ny times. or at least take it with a few grains of salt. but back to you. no anger here. but we does call em how we seez dem. when you say you "love design", it sounds to me the same as "i love ice cream". duh, who doesnt. like ice cream can be separated from the rest of the world of foods and cows and vanilla beans and shit. look, what ever it is that got you the negative attention from the times is the same thing that got you the job offer in your comments feature. the industry doesnt care. so make your choice. get right with your pr career and blow off the detractors that see you as a soulless yuppie design ho or listen to them (me that is, pls address the others directly) and get a meaningful life together. your call. me dont care. peace out.
hello,
as an irregular reader of your blog, and a daily reader of design sponge, i must protest your unduly harsh treatment of her here. you say you formed your opinion of design sponge as "smarmy" before the times article...but where? i've never seen it. are you saying that you've posted comments to that effect before today? i'd like to hear how you formed such an opinion before you read this article. also - you "call them as you seez them"? (cute spelling btw, i love cleverness!) what on earth would make you see it that way? it's one thing to call names (like 'ho'? real classy.) also, your statement that whatever got her negative attention in the times is what got her the job offer is completely illogical, and you make no effort to link the two ideas other than the fact that you put them in the same sentence. you say you don't care, yet you insist on stringing insults together without actually making any valid points. either provide a link to back up your vague statements that will somehow provide this nebulous "context" for how you read media, or simply admit that you are jealous that yet another blogger is recieving national attention that you could only dream of.
|
- bill 1-31-2005 10:32 pm
hello,
as an irregular reader of your blog, and a daily reader of design sponge, i must protest your unduly harsh treatment of her here. you say you formed your opinion of design sponge as "smarmy" before the times article...but where? i've never seen it. are you saying that you've posted comments to that effect before today? i'd like to hear how you formed such an opinion before you read this article. also - you "call them as you seez them"? (cute spelling btw, i love cleverness!) what on earth would make you see it that way? it's one thing to call names (like 'ho'? real classy.) also, your statement that whatever got her negative attention in the times is what got her the job offer is completely illogical, and you make no effort to link the two ideas other than the fact that you put them in the same sentence. you say you don't care, yet you insist on stringing insults together without actually making any valid points. either provide a link to back up your vague statements that will somehow provide this nebulous "context" for how you read media, or simply admit that you are jealous that yet another blogger is recieving national attention that you could only dream of.
- anonymous (guest) 2-01-2005 5:42 am [add a comment]
What's with the courtroom drama tone? Given the frequency and number of years that schwarz has been blogging on the subject of design it only stands to reason that he would have come across design sponge and formed an opinion of it before the times published it's article. To demand evidence of his having formed an opinion is ridiculous.
- steve 2-02-2005 6:20 pm [add a comment]