Patterico's Pontifications

11/30/2007

Readers’ Rep Blog Publishes Almost No Critical Comments

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General — Patterico @ 12:12 am

Amy Alkon says that the new Readers’ Representative blog at the L.A. Times has a “faux comments section.”

I’m starting to agree.

What kind of a blog publishes only a few of the comments submitted to it? And what sort of blog deep-sixes almost all the critical comments submitted to it?

The Readers’ Representative blog has a comments section — in theory. But the Readers’ Rep says that only comments that “touch on topics of wide interest or raise new aspects of the conversation” will be posted.

What sort of comments “touch on topics of wide interest or raise new aspects of the conversation,” in the estimation of the Readers’ Rep?

Well, based on the comments published so far, if you praise the newspaper, your comment has a good chance of being published. If you have criticism — not so much. Your comment will likely be rejected — although you will receive a nice e-mail from the Readers’ Representative.

So far, the blog has been up for four days. It currently has eight posts, and eight comments have been approved. Only one of them is negative or critical. In the extended entry, I list all of them. Five of the comments are positive, one is neutral, one is negative, and one is the Readers’ Representative’s response to the negative one.

I am also aware of three [UPDATE: four!] other critical comments that have been submitted — that were not published. One of them was mine:

So, you will publish only comments that, according to your view, “touch on topics of wide interest or raise new aspects of the conversation.” Other comments will not be posted.

This is much less of a “conversation” than I had hoped. What about comments that talk about Tim Rutten’s abuse of the policy on anonymous sources? Will those make it past the gatekeeper?

What about Tim Rutten’s claim that The New Republic admitted that Scott Beauchamp “concocted” an aspect of his story — when The New Republic admitted only an error? I had hoped that part of the “conversation” could be about whether the Readers’ Representative sees “concocting” a story as equivalent to errors. Will comments raising that issue make it past the gatekeeper?

You can run your blog the way you like, of course. But if you really want a “conversation,” allowing a free flow of comments is much better than tight control. In my opinion.

That comment was not published. Instead, Jamie Gold sent me an e-mail, which said, in part: “This forum for the most part won’t be for allegations of error, which are handled as requests for correction.”

They’re not ignoring the negative comments. They just (with one exception) aren’t publishing them.

So far, this is not a “conversation,” as Jamie Gold characterizes it. Rather, it appears to be a “faux comments section,” as Amy Alkon describes it.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything quite like this in over five years of reading blogs.

All comments referenced in this post are set forth in the extended entry in their entirety.

[Extended entry]

Approved comments:

A positive one from MC:

I think this is a great idea to have a public exchange of perspectives between the readers and the journalists. Your readers will learn more and feel like they are better shaping the reporting based on an assumption that feedback is enlightening.

A positive one from Foxfier:

I hope that this blog will be used to encourage conversation, as well as giving a new route for writers to get information– the interview comes to you!

A positive one from Kent Mollohan, Helena, MT:

I encourage you to keep this kind of communication going, i.e., a site where facts can be checked and published. I’ve sent a question to the Pew Charitable Trusts, too, asking about which agencies and national, regional and state polls can be a trusted source of credible questioning and “truth.” Somewhere in the near future, I suspect we’ll be able to bookmark the ten or twenty Internet sites for “truth” and I hope networking among them to see that Americans and wannabes get the best information. Good fortune on your venture: the L.A. Times is still one of the top sources I use periodically to check on things, particularly immigration issues.

A positive one from Darrin Knox about one of the paper’s photographs:

I hope that the Los Angeles Times does whatever is necessary to promote Karen Tapia-Andersen to be nominated for a Pulitzer Prize for this amazing piece of photojournalism.
D.W.Knox

A positive one from Rick E. Lebel, Palm Desert about the same photograph:

I was at one time the ranking fire chief for the City of Ontario Fire Department in California and served as the second-in-command for many many years. The photo of the firefighters on the ridge by Karen Tapia-Andersen is truly an iconic image. My son, also a firefighter with CAL FIRE, noted that it is a similar image as the firefighters raising the flag in sight of the steel cross at the World Trade Center disaster of 9/11…

It is a remarkable photograph. Additionally, the comments by the photographer Karen Tapia-Andersen on the Brian Williams segment of NBC News, that she was praying for the safety of the firefighters, brought chills up my arms and tears to my eyes. The sensitivity of this “lady” while taking an award-winning image, is in itself a Pulitzer story, as is the picture she shot!

A neutral one from TCO about the meaning of the phrase “he said” in referring to an e-mail:

“Wrote” seems more accurate than “said” when referring to an e-mail. But e-mailed is best of all.

And one negative one, from JD:

This is a good start. However, if past history is any example, the accuracy issues will dominate this blog. Hopefully, a public airing of some of the more egregious examples of blatant partisanship, and outright fabrications will encourage the writers to be a touch more accurate in the future. One can only hope.

And a response to JD from the Readers’ Rep:

Jamie Gold, readers’ representative, responds to JD:

This is similar to other comments sometimes received in the readers’ representative office. When readers send general notes like this, we write back seeking specifics, in hopes of learning where readers see bias or error — or more egregiously in this comment, outright fabrication. In this case, I sent this reader a note and have not received a response to his general allegations. It’s important for The Times to know where readers see what they consider to be bias or errors. Corrections appear on Page A2 and in the online corrections space daily.

The problem is, if you write with specifics, the comment doesn’t get published. I did, and my comment wasn’t published. [UPDATE: So did JD, as it turns out. See UPDATE x2 below.]

Here are a couple more comments (besides mine) that haven’t been published, but that readers have republished in e-mails to me, and/or in comments on this blog.

From reader Sue:

I agree with you completely. An exchange of perspectives between the readers and the paper may indeed shape reporting due to enlightened feedback. Your post of November 27, 2007 @ 7:30 pm is right on. How is that avenue proceeding?

This one doesn’t sound that negative on its face — but I classify it as negative because of its praise for JD’s negative comment. (The reference to the “post of November 27, 2007 @ 7:30 pm” is a reference to JD’s negative comment — the only negative comment published so far.) Sue got an e-mail from the Readers’ Representative in response, but her comment was not published.

From reader nk:

I thought a recent story about retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’connor’s husband, who is suffering from Alzheimer’s, having a “romantic attach[]ment” with a female patient in the facility he is in, was in very bad taste. Frankly, below the standards of supermarket tabloids.

nk got an e-mail from the Readers’ Rep, but his comment wasn’t published.

And, of course, there’s mine, published in the post above — which, like these others, got me a personalized e-mail response . . . but no publication.

I continue to encourage readers here to go leave polite, pointed criticism on the initial blog post of the Readers’ Rep blog. Save your comment, and if it isn’t published, leave it in a comment or e-mail it to me. I’ll publish it.

UPDATE: Here’s another unpublished comment from redc1c4:

when, if ever, is the Times planning on covering the positive news coming out of Iraq these days with something approaching the enthusiasm it’s given to the negative stories of the last few years?

a quick look at the main web page this evening (28NOV07) only shows two mentions of Iraq, one of which is an “opinion piece” by Rosa Brooks, who (predictably) downplays the good, and hints that if there is any, it won’t last. that may play as “balanced” in the news room, but it doesn’t fly out here in the real world, especially if you define that as “other than here in LA”.

the only other mention of Iraq that i see is in an AP story all the way at the bottom of the main page, and it too is written in the “well, there’s some possibly good news here and there, but look at all this bad stuff” style we’ve come to expect from AP, when they aren’t handing out fauxtography as news.

just for amusement, i checked to see how the Times had covered a story about Fallujah’s first sewer plant i recently read about on line. when you type “fallujah sewer plant” in Google, you get at least two pages of links to web sites where the news about this has been posted. when you do an Times search on the same criteria, the result is zip, zero, nada, zilch. no articles, no venues, no events, no photos…… just a repeated admonition that i should “Try broadening your search criteria.” so i typed in just “fallujah” to follow that advice.

at least this time i got 5 photos: 1 from 2007 showing the SecDef & the CJCOS meeting at Camp Fallujah. the other 4 were from November 2004 showing Marines prepping to retake the town. nothing else…….

i tried looking for MNF-I or Multinational Force Iraq, to see if maybe it was hidden away there, but was directed back to your preferred header “The Conflict in Iraq”.

one guess what the general gist and meme of *those* story lines was….
besides predictable, of course. maybe you should cut a deal with Michael Yon: he seems to be able to travel to parts of Iraq that other reporters don’t (anywhere outside the Green Zone) and gets well written researched and documented stories. it would at least give you the appearance of balance.

speaking of which, what’s with the tone of the November 23rd article about the Soldier who was sent the letters about repaying his bonus? why not do an in depth story on the DFAS Wounded Warrior Pay Management Program, which was established to reduce/prevent this sort of thing from happening. a quick call to any military PAO would have gotten you access to the *real* story. anyone who’s ever served in the military expects the occasional screwup (it’s like working for a big company). that’s all this was.

you could have published an upbeat story and given other GI’s contact points if they ran into similar screw ups. that you chose not to cover it that way either means that your reporters couldn’t/wouldn’t follow up on a story, or that your editorial stance decreed that the message was more important than the underlying facts. neither option speaks well of the participants, but in this day and age, the ability of such efforts to cover up the reality of matters grows weaker every day. you are competitors in the marketplace of ideas, and that of messages. the ongoing downtrend in circulation continues to this day. that no one in charge there in the Times building or at your corporate HQ can figure out why this is happening doesn’t speak well towards your long term survival as a business entity.

I’ll keep adding them as they come in.

UPDATE x2: JD writes to tell me that, contrary to the comment left by the Readers’ Rep, he did in fact write back immediately (44 minutes after receiving her e-mail) to give several very specific instances of the paper’s Tim Rutten getting facts egregiously wrong. JD says his e-mail was sent Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 12:14 AM, yet Jamie Gold’s comment, time-stamped November 29 at 12:19 p.m. (over 36 hours later), says that JD hadn’t responded. I have asked JD to re-send his e-mail and to leave it as a comment, so that Ms. Gold’s inaccurate comment can be corrected on the issue of JD’s supposed lack of response.

47 Responses to “Readers’ Rep Blog Publishes Almost No Critical Comments”

  1. I for one think we should run a parallel project of leaving pointed critical comments, respectfully worded, and backed up by facts…

    … together with contrasting glowing comments of other aspects of the newspaper, its photographs, intelligent reporters, typography, astute headlines, etc. — really lay it on thick — and see how many of those we can get published.

    I think a < b.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  2. Christoph,

    I saw your earlier comment, but wanted to wait until I saw a pattern before I leveled any criticism.

    I’m seeing that pattern now. Why in the world are the negative (but polite) comments above not being posted??

    The blog is treating comments like e-mails — missives that deserve an e-mail reply, but only a *chance* at publication.

    That’s great for letters to the editor or to the Readers’ Rep. But this is a blog, and these are comments sections. If you ban someone for a reason, that’s one thing — everyone has to do that, from time to time. But to routinely treat polite comments like missives that may not be published is just bizarre.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  3. A pattern does seem to be developing. The only remaining excuse I can think of concerns this caveat posted in the Introduction [emphasis supplied]:

    All comments will be read and forwarded to the appropriate Times staffers. Those that touch on topics of wide interest or raise new aspects of the conversation will be posted.

    It’s easy to respond to positive comments but it sounds like the negative comments are referred to the authors/editors involved. Maybe they aren’t as prompt in responding to criticism as they should be.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  4. But why not publish the comment while you’re waiting for the response?

    Patterico (faeccf)

  5. Because it stings to get criticized and have to look at it on your own website.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  6. Yeah, I know. But when you do this blogging thing you have to get used to that.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  7. If you’re really looking for a “conversation,” that is.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  8. Since I’ve apparently decided to stay up all night, I might as well add to the last few thoughts. Journalists know better than anyone that readers don’t notice or remember corrections issued days after an article is published. Most readers believe the article and rarely notice the correction.

    Similarly, the LA Times knows readers will believe and remember critical online comments that sit there, unanswered, for days. I think the LA Times may have decided to print critical comments but only if they are accompanied by immediate responses or explanations.

    It’s got to be hard to get a journalist to respond to critical comments left online. The more the journalist responds, the more people will comment. So on a scale of 1-10, responding to online comments is probably a 1 on the journalist’s list of things to do. I don’t know much about newspaper hierarchies but my hunch is that Jamie Gold has a hard time getting prompt responses.

    I may be completely wrong and I don’t think this is a smart approach. My point is that it wouldn’t surprise me if this is what’s happening.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  9. DRJ,

    I think your analysis is a pretty good explanation of what goes on. I would add that a journalist is also supposed to be researching new stories and all that goes with that. Blogs may be more of an admin task some journalists are required to do as part of their job.
    Kind of like some of the telecons or meetings we are required to attend weekly. The one thing about blogs that is definitely different is that to post and respond is a singular task that requires full concentration for each post. When on a telecon or in some meetings we can get some other work accomplished.

    You had noted before that the Houston paper has a good blogsite. My guess would be that the paper decided to dedicate some resources to its care and feeding and that is one of the reasons it is a good one.
    When a newspaper cannot do that they really should consider not having blogs or places to reply. No one is going to be satisfied with the end result.

    voiceofreason (76c594)

  10. That comment was not published. Instead, Jamie Gold sent me an e-mail, which said, in part: “This forum for the most part won’t be for allegations of error, which are handled as requests for correction.”

    They’re not ignoring the negative comments. They just (with one exception) aren’t publishing them.

    So the L.A. Times won’t publish anything that points out that they made a mistake. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, from Jamie Gold.

    Xrlq (8b1564)

  11. Patterico – I just sent you the following email.

    Patterico –

    I did not have a chance to take a look at the date stamps on their blog, but if Jamie Gold indicates that I have not responded, that is a flat out lie. I received her email on Tuesday, November 27th, 2007 at 11:30 PM Eastern, and responded Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 12:14 AM, a total of 44 minutes after she sent hers to me. Now, if she alleges that she posted hers on the blog in the 44 minutes between when she originally emailed me, and when I responded, she would technically be correct, though it would be a bit disingenuous as it gave little to no time for someone to respond. Additionally, since she has since received a response from me, instead of maintaining that she has not had a response, she could update to show my actual response. Either way, they are being disingenuous. This is much like the bobbing and weaving we have come to expect from the LA Times, when confronted with their mistakes.

    JD

    JD (00210f)

  12. ________________________________________
    From: JD Allen [mailto:johndallen@sbcglobal.net]
    Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:14 AM
    To: ‘Gold, Jamie’
    Subject: RE: [Readers’ Representative Journal] JD submitted a comment to ‘Introduction’

    Jamie – Yes, I can. And before I forget, thank you for responding..

    Tim Rutten’s recent column about TNR and Scott Beauchamp, specifically. Where to start with that one? Rutten claiming that Drudge did not link to the Memorandum when Drudge most certainly did link to it. The TNR editors never admitted that Beauchamp made up the story about the burned lady, but Rutten claims they did. TNR never truly confirmed with the manufacturer of the Bradley vehicles that they could do what Beauchamp claimed, but Rutten claims so. TNR talked to Beauchamp in August, but Rutten claims they did not. This is but one example, but the Beauchamp affair is a perfect example of the long time complaints many have had with the paper. We can no longer rely on the paper for even the basic facts. There is obvious bias it the articles involving politics and government, especially at the Federal level.

    As a reader, I was pleased when I saw the Editorial about the LA Times abortion coverage, and the longtime bias the paper had shown on this issue. I had hoped that it had marked a turning point for coverage in general. Sadly, no.

    JD Allen

    ________________________________________
    From: Gold, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Gold@latimes.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 11:30 PM
    To: johndallen@sbcglobal.net
    Subject: FW: [Readers’ Representative Journal] JD submitted a comment to ‘Introduction’

    Thank you for your note. Can you provide specific examples of stories or coverage that you think should be discussed? (Especially the ‘outright fabrications” — even without the journal I would appreciate knowing more about that.)
    Thank you,
    Jamie
    Comment:
    This is a good start. However, if past history is any example, the accuracy issues will dominate this blog. Hopefully, a public airing of some of the more egregious examples of blatant partisanship, and outright fabrications will encourage the writers to be a touch more accurate in the future. Once can only hope.

    JD (00210f)

  13. I responded, and sent her an email requesting an update, or correction. She has not answered.

    JD (00210f)

  14. It’s 6:31 am for God sakes.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  15. And she sent me an email at 11:30 at night on Tuesday, which I responded to in 44 minutes. Yet, she maintains that I have not done so.

    JD (00210f)

  16. Send it to her again.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  17. email servers are weird things. From the same one you will get through in a minute one time and be stuck in the qeue for two days another. It caused me more than a little distress a year or so ago.

    Speaking of which, I hope my response to Patterico’s email yesterday went through.

    nk (09a321)

  18. I left this comment:

    The Readers’ Rep says:

    “In this case, I sent this reader a note and have not received a response to his general allegations.”

    JD writes me to tell me that he did, in fact, respond — in an e-mail sent November 28 at 12:14 a.m. — with several specifics supporting his claims.

    The e-mail he forwarded to me reads as follows:

    “Jamie – Yes, I can. And before I forget, thank you for responding..

    “Tim Rutten’s recent column about TNR and Scott Beauchamp, specifically. Where to start with that one? Rutten claiming that Drudge did not link to the Memorandum when Drudge most certainly did link to it. The TNR editors never admitted that Beauchamp made up the story about the burned lady, but Rutten claims they did. TNR never truly confirmed with the manufacturer of the Bradley vehicles that they could do what Beauchamp claimed, but Rutten claims so. TNR talked to Beauchamp in August, but Rutten claims they did not. This is but one example, but the Beauchamp affair is a perfect example of the long time complaints many have had with the paper. We can no longer rely on the paper for even the basic facts. There is obvious bias it the articles involving politics and government, especially at the Federal level.

    “As a reader, I was pleased when I saw the Editorial about the LA Times abortion coverage, and the longtime bias the paper had shown on this issue. I had hoped that it had marked a turning point for coverage in general. Sadly, no.”

    I checked the timestamp on the forwarded e-mail, and it was indeed e-mailed on Wednesday, November 28, at 12:14 a.m.

    As I said in my reply to you, JD, don’t assume that she deliberately overlooked your e-mail. I assume she just missed it.

    Like Christoph says, send it again. And leave it as a comment.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  19. I sent it again to her, and she responded as such.

    From: Gold, Jamie [mailto:Jamie.Gold@latimes.com]
    Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 9:49 AM
    To: JD Allen
    Subject: RE: [Readers’ Representative Journal] JD submitted a comment to ‘Introduction’

    I did not get this the first time! I went back and looked through my inbox and it’s not there. Thanks for the note back, I’m sorry that I didn’t get your initial response. Let me review this when I get into the office.
    Jamie

    JD (00210f)

  20. E-mail is a very unreliable form of communicating. When I send email to someone, I almost always echo it to other accounts of my own, and the echoes don’t always get there. Speedy arrival even when delivered doesn’t always happen, either, and in-order arrival isn’t guaranteed (that is, I’ve gotten corrections and updates before I’ve gotten the orginal.)

    All that aside, the conversation appears to be amongst the editors, not the readers.

    htom (412a17)

  21. The LATimes in not an honest organization. When I questioned or corrected the OC Register by writing their Ombudsman, I usually got published and answered. The Times would do well to hire an outsider to do the same for them.

    PCD (09d6a8)

  22. It really does not have the tone or feel of a blog. And least not an interactive one. Kind of like mahablog, where only comments that maha likes are posted.

    JD (00210f)

  23. This forum for the most part won’t be for allegations of error

    I suppose they think that allegations of error don’t touch on topics of wide interest or raise new aspects of the conversation. Nobody cares about accuracy when reading the LAT, and the fact that there are errors should not be new to anyone.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  24. *cough* Whoot! I win at t3h bl4nd!

    *resets self out of high school* I think my hopes are going to be unfulfilled.

    Foxfier (d50fce)

  25. Patterico, what they don’t seem to realize is that you are their best fan, you are trying to make sure they do the job they’re supposed to do.
    The problem? They are not journalists trying to inform the public, they’re “journalists” trying to make sure people think they way they’re supposed to.
    I really hope you have a soft wall that you bang your head against,otherwise, you’re going to have a huge bump.

    Veeshir (7a9e8b)

  26. Patterico…
    Re your request to participate…

    Why should I bother to engage in a bogus excercise?

    It just isn’t worth the energy expended.

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  27. The business day is over. I have at least five comments that haven’t been published.

    They still haven’t corrected the misimpression that JD never wrote back with specifics.

    It’s like everything is frozen over there.

    Weird.

    Patterico (58743a)

  28. FWIW, I posted the following comment last night on the introduction blog page that has not appeared:

    I’m curious about the author’s approach in “Immigrants’ children break language barriers” by Anna Gorman. The author discussed the Pew study on immigrants’ language skills and offered quotes from people who criticized the study. In addition, the author interviewed and quoted several immigrants regarding their personal experiences, specifically second and third-generation immigrants who are proficient in English and who think it’s important to learn English. In contrast, there were no interviews with second and third-generation immigrants who have not learned to read and speak English or who don’t want or need to learn English. Not only would those interviews add balance to the story, they would also add perspective. Was there a reason for this omission?

    Unlike others, I didn’t even get an email.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  29. You know, Patterico, in one form or another the brick wall you’ve run into at the LAT can be found in any number of other papers. They fake “reader participation” quite well. But when it comes to the nitty-gritty they treat the readers who write to comment or protest like furniture — stuff to be moved around and dusted and then stored away.

    David Ehrenstein (4f5f08)

  30. Not a thing since early this morning. The last communication I had with them was that Jamie Gold did not get the prior email where I provided her with the specifics that she requested, and that she was going to take a look at it when she got into the office. I am still willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but as is, she still has it posted that I have not responded, when I have, now more than once, and she is, in fact, aware of that.

    JD (00210f)

  31. The LAT has yet to understand Al Gore’s internets. It’s ok. I think it’s kind of quaint. I enjoyed my job as a paperboy (I actually had a canvas bag on my bicycle’s handlebars and I did lob the papers while riding by).

    nk (09a321)

  32. Maybe they just don’t have anybody minding the store right now.

    I may publish some of the comments people have sent me that I haven’t seen show up.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  33. Maybe they are rethinking this whole internet thing.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  34. It could be as extreme as that, or as simple as nobody paying attention to the blog because it’s everyone’s day off.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  35. I know. For once, I was kidding.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)

  36. Oh.

    Uh, heh.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  37. How long should we give them the benefit of the doubt?

    JD (00210f)

  38. Well, JD, my friend, if I were you I’d be pretty annoyed. This completely untrue comment about you has been sitting up there for well over a day. They’ve known all day today, at least, that it is wrong. And they’ve done nothing.

    That’s pretty bad.

    Patterico (b28911)

  39. I submitted a comment just now asking Ms. Gold to correct her inaccurate comment about JD. We’ll see what happens.

    Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4)

  40. Bradley,

    Could you e-mail me the comment? I’m putting together a list of comments that haven’t been posted. I wouldn’t include yours yet, because they need time to post them. But I’d like to have it on hand for a future update.

    Patterico (faeccf)

  41. this is the current response to JD, as of 4DEC07:
    (note that the time hack is wrong)

    Jamie Gold, readers’ representative, responds to JD:

    This is similar to other comments sometimes received in the readers’ representative office. When readers send general notes like this, we write back seeking specifics, in hopes of learning where readers see bias or error — or more egregiously in this comment, outright fabrication. In this case, I sent this reader a note and have not received a response to his general allegations. It’s important for The Times to know where readers see what they consider to be bias or errors. Corrections appear on Page A2 and in the online corrections space daily.
    [Update: After this was posted, JD wrote to say that he had indeed responded (this office has no record of having received that e-mail). His note, re-sent, spelled out that he was seeking correction on an Oct. 27, 2007 opinion column. Those allegations had been looked into weeks ago; editors and this office had determined that no correction was warranted.]

    Posted by: Jamie Gold, readers’ representative | November 29, 2007 at 12:19 PM

    redc1c4 (dcc4d4)

  42. red and Patterico – I am steamed, and cannot figure out which pisses me off more, that Jamie left the impression out there that I did not respond, or that she did not see fit to actually post the specifics that I gave her. X gave her specifics as well, which we know were not posted. It also chaps me a bit that she new this since Friday morning, and just got around to correcting it, kind of.

    JD (2c9284)

  43. what else would you expect from the Times?

    one of the best days this year was when Household 6 agreed we could kill the subscription… they pi55ed her off once too often.

    redc1c4 (dcc4d4)

  44. Unlike others, I didn’t even get an email.

    Nor did I.

    Xrlq (8b1564)

  45. Keep the faith, XRLQ. I finally got an email response last night that said my comment would be forwarded to the reporter.

    DRJ (a6fcd2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5046 secs.