the goth one is ridiculous
― horseshoe, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:11 (eighteen years ago)
That's a better review of Send than the one that appeared in Slate.
― jaymc, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:11 (eighteen years ago)
It better be a joke, there's a 13-yr old on here.
― Laurel, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:11 (eighteen years ago)
How does one determine their price? One of the girls is just over $99K whereas one is just under $6K. Is that the price of virginity?!
I think it HAS to be a joke.
― sweet tater, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:12 (eighteen years ago)
no way that's real sorry
― La Lechera, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:12 (eighteen years ago)
sorry GENTLEMEN INTERESTED IN 15 year old MARTHA STEWARTSES
― La Lechera, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:13 (eighteen years ago)
http://digg.com/tech_news/MarryOurDaughter_com_is_a_Prank
― dan m, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:13 (eighteen years ago)
RW, your prayers are answered.
-- Laurel, Thursday, September 13, 2007 9:10 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link
finally!
― river wolf, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:13 (eighteen years ago)
The site design is pretty hip-tastic, I suspect aspiring graphic designers.
― Laurel, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:13 (eighteen years ago)
Is it some kind of internet performance art?
― sweet tater, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:14 (eighteen years ago)
Not real according to Urban Legends page.
― KitCat, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:14 (eighteen years ago)
I love reading transcripts of speech with all the "uh"s and "um"s included.
― jaymc, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:14 (eighteen years ago)
MarryOurDaughter is a great hoax, though, inasmuch as it preys on our willingness to believe the worst about Christian fundamentalists.
― jaymc, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:17 (eighteen years ago)
I figured it was totally fake, but I figured it would be worth a look anyway.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:17 (eighteen years ago)
Surely no one has ever married their daughter off at a young age in order to keep her out of trouble, no.
― Laurel, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:18 (eighteen years ago)
jaymc otm :-/
― river wolf, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:18 (eighteen years ago)
I mean, we don't believe that stuff for no reason at all, there's at least a reasonable amount of weirdness to go on.
And according to the NYT.
― KitCat, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:19 (eighteen years ago)
Mr. Ordover is a science-fiction editor with a prankish history and an interest in urban nudism. YES
― La Lechera, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:20 (eighteen years ago)
HA! By the same dude that did technicalvirgin.com.
― jon /via/ chi 2.0, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:20 (eighteen years ago)
an interest in urban nudism an interest in urban nudism an interest in urban nudism an interest in urban nudism an interest in urban nudism
totally different from suburban and rural nudism
― dan m, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:21 (eighteen years ago)
It's broken glass-ier.
― Laurel, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:21 (eighteen years ago)
Dov Cheney?
― jaymc, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:21 (eighteen years ago)
Charney.
― jaymc, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:22 (eighteen years ago)
You know, the American Apparel dude.
― jaymc, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:24 (eighteen years ago)
Who likes to whip it out.
Wait, who?
― Laurel, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:27 (eighteen years ago)
The CEO of American Apparel.
― jaymc, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:28 (eighteen years ago)
I thought he was no longer CEO.
― sweet tater, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:30 (eighteen years ago)
According to Wikipedia, he's still in charge and three of the four sexual harrassment cases have been settled.
― jaymc, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:33 (eighteen years ago)
Yep, it's always that fourth sexual harassment case that'll get you.
― Jordan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:34 (eighteen years ago)
http://misteriotremendum.sevenandsix.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/uki-d_du.jpg
― Jenny, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:34 (eighteen years ago)
i'd imagine if four people file sexual harassment charges against you you begin to examine your life.
― horseshoe, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:35 (eighteen years ago)
Jenny, what is that?
― sweet tater, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:37 (eighteen years ago)
Is it an actual ad for Am. Ap?
― sweet tater, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:38 (eighteen years ago)
WTF that ad.
xp, yeah, is that real?
― JuliaA, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:38 (eighteen years ago)
More on the "ad":
http://www.theaestheticpoetic.com/2007/08/28/american-apparel-is-sosoretail/
― jaymc, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:42 (eighteen years ago)
Unless you're that dude. He did notoriously jerk off in front of a Jane interviewer. That seems to suggest that he lives a wholly unexamined life, vis a vis his interactions with women.
xp - it's a fashion spread in i-D magazine. (warning - will resize yr browser.) Here's some commentary on it.
― Jenny, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:42 (eighteen years ago)
i'd say by the time you get to four, you are already suffering from an acute lack of self-examination.
HA xpost!
― kenan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:43 (eighteen years ago)
I owned that Jane issue!! I bought it for a plane trip & literally had to read the incident THREE times because I kept thinking, "Wait. What?! No..." but yes.
That ad is so demeaning. Not only does she look reminiscent of Aunt Jemima but the bold, exaggerated lips conjure "pickaninny" which is also awful.
― sweet tater, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:46 (eighteen years ago)
http://www.americanapparel.net/presscenter/articles/images/20040410drapers1.jpg
― Eazy, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:47 (eighteen years ago)
ah ha. now i read what jenny posted. so i agree with that article!
― sweet tater, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:47 (eighteen years ago)
Jane is racist
― Jordan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:47 (eighteen years ago)
xp to Kelsey - Aye, me too. And I am very disappointed (although unsurprised) by the first couple comments on the post that John linked.
― Jenny, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:48 (eighteen years ago)
the comments on that post remind me of the ronaldinho thread. I think a lot of people are just not aware of the history of racist iconography. which is a problem.
― horseshoe, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:51 (eighteen years ago)
wow. Even that dude's Lemmy beard looks lame. :(
― kenan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:52 (eighteen years ago)
the AA dude, obv.
― kenan, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:53 (eighteen years ago)
Yikes! Just read those . . . isn't it amazing how ignorant seemingly educated people are? That second person who commented writes like a perfectly intelligent person they just aren't thinking the ad through in its entirety.
― sweet tater, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:53 (eighteen years ago)
The jerking-off-in-public is why I mentioned him in the first place. "Urban nudism."
― jaymc, Thursday, 13 September 2007 21:56 (eighteen years ago)