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.
Any of our esteemed law librarians around? Is there a (free) way to figure out if this guy [link] is the same as, oh, this guy [link]
I, on the other hand, would have liked to read about Mr. Evans. It was incredibly boring. I am not Edith's friend. I have no you go girl response. I don't read groupie stories, as a rule.
Give me a minute and I should be able to figure it out for you, smonster.
smonster, is that your former employer? (unless that is too nosy)
Yes, yes it is. Rumor mill is churning, I still hear things.