Kathy - my local clinic doesn't take that HMO.
Darn it! I'm surprised they don't take the Blue Cross HMO--you would think that would be a rather prominent one.
Anya ,'Touched'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Kathy - my local clinic doesn't take that HMO.
Darn it! I'm surprised they don't take the Blue Cross HMO--you would think that would be a rather prominent one.
This is totally not a piece about Chris Evans. It's an I'm-a-lucky-bitch-amirite? piece. Is that typical of GQ?
Yeah, that's the kind of piece I usually haaaate, where it's supposed to be about the subject but ends up being mostly about the writer, but I really like Edith! So I'm conflicted.
Well, Chris touched her knee and kissed her knuckles, so I think it's fair to hate her. But I read four pages, and I know blessedly little more about his high hotness, and that's disappointing.
I think pieces like that work if it's a regular feature, where readers are really interested in reading "the adventures of Edith". But as a single piece, it's so much more about her than him, it's really off-putting. And bad journalism, according to the old rules.
saw this on twitter:
Until Anthony Weiner finds something permanent, he could try being a lesbian blogger.
Hee, LeN.
I saw that article the other day, and thought it was skin-crawlingly awful even for celebrity "journalism." I have no idea if it's typical for GQ, but this suggests it's not unique: [link]
There's no way I'd read a competent interview with Chris Evans, because I don't care. But I looked at that because people were discussing it. So GQ got more attention by publishing something terrible, and I am part of the problem. Damn me.
Well, it's not at all journalism, is one thing.
Kathy - that was the problem with the HMO choices that the state picked: people outside of the Chicago area were not served by those choices.