mail posted on Luke Ford's site, plus a 'gossip' editorial written by Mark Kernes in the current issue of AVN, sparked a Kernes' dialogue with RAME that appears several paragraphs down.
Brad Williams writes on the newsgroup rec.arts.movies.erotica (RAME): Like a dictatorship that tries to be the one and only "official" source of information to its repressed subjects, AVN sees a loss of power (i.e. money) if they can't be the only source in town. As Torris said, AVN has a staleness problem because they are in the magazine business and anything "hot" has already been covered on the Internet 2 months ago, and usually by some of the particpants of the story to boot.
They haven't taken it well, and still haven't got over it. For some reason, they seem to feel that lots of whining will somehow "make it all go away." They got used to doing whatever with no criticism from outside the business, and then that changed because of the Internet. AVN's first attempts at conquering the new medium were sending Kernes, Sheldon Ranz, and Paul Fishbein to mingle, and they shot themselves in the foot so many times they had to get carried out of alt.sex.movies.
Of course, AVN countered with the Gene Ross website as an extention on to the Internet, but it's the same AVN-line as the magazine that tries to counter Luke Ford's site. Reading Ross' and Luke's sites are like listening to an argument between the National Enquirer and The Star over who has "real news."
I don't really give a damn about their perspective because it is totally based on advertisers/companies and not consumer likes or dislikes, and getting a honest and thoughtful opinion out of some at AVN isn't going to happen unless it tows the industry line.
What I have found continually amusing since 1996 on is how Kernes and crew alternate from seeing RAME as a handful of zealots with no pull at at all to the other extreme as a mover-and-shaker that affects what movies get made and scares producers in some way. It can't be both..... maybe they can one day decided if it is (A), (B) or (C)(somewhere in the middle).
[This was the interaction between Kernes and RAME]
Mark Kernes posts: Adult Movie FAQ wrote:
> [posted and cc:d to [email protected]] \n> \n> {Note to Mr. Kernes: I cc: this to you to bring it to your attention in the \n> hopes that you will engage in some meaningful discussion on this topic, \n>since I am sincerely curious about the topics contained within; and I do \n>not think they have ever been addressed. -- Jeff]
Well, I'll respond to this one, seeing as I have a free "Good Friday" afternoon.
>[email protected] (Torris) wrote in : \n> \n> >After this month's whiny editorial from Mark Kernes about how this \n> >group makes porn news stale in AVN (my words of course not Kernes), \n> >Bob better get his resume' in order
Don't know who "Bob" is, but apparently Torris doesn't make a distinction between porn "news" and "gossip." My editorial was about the latter. \n>I haven't seen it... \n> \n> (now I have -- thanks AdultVideoNews.com!) \n> \n> I suppose I'll have a quick comment. Luke had printed some of this \n>earlier having cribbed it from Gene Ross' site :-) \n> \n>Kernes writes: \n> \n>The controversy started (where else?) on r.a.m.e. \n> \n> I always thought lukeford.com was the hotbed for controversy... but then \n> again, every other article on Luke's site seems to be cribbed from here,
Exactly - or so I assume, considering Luke's general lack of creativity. I don't read rame often; in fact, when I went there to look for the origins of the "Rough Sex" controversy was the first time I'd seen the newsgroup in over a year.
>so... I guess the controversy started here, but the flames were really \n> fanned on the Web, methinks...
Sounds about right.
> > (rec.arts.movies.erotica, an Internet newsgroup) with Ridley99, and \n> > perhaps others, who aren't even in the porn biz, nonetheless expressing \n> >their opinions on how the industry should be run. \n> \n> Is Kernes actually suggesting that the porn fan is not allowed an opinion \n> since he is not in the porn biz? I don't think he is saying this, but it \n> sure sounds like it.
Harlan Ellison is famous for saying, when faced with a fan proclaiming, "I'm entitled to my opinion, aren't I?" the excellent retort, "No, you are not. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion." Most on rame are not well-enough informed about the porn business to have their opinions taken seriously by those of us who are.
> What difference does it make if Ridley, et al are in the porn biz? To \n> say they shouldn't have opinions about "how the industry should be run" \n> is like saying sports fans shouldn't have an opinion as to how their \n> favorite teams should be coached since they're not professional \n> sportsmen... or that people who are not software engineers have no \n>business commented on Microsoft's business practices, isn't it? \n> \n> Am I mischaracterizing?
Not completely. The problem is that if one is missing key information about a subject, one should acquire that information before putting forth one's opinion... in my opinion. If one didn't know what the "infield fly rule" is (as I do not, not being a sports fan) in baseball, it would be silly to have an opinion as to what a coach should tell a player to do about the situation, and anyone who gave credence to the poster's opinion would simply be showing comparable ignorance. I read rame much more frequently a few years ago, and while some of the discussions were interesting in a hypothetical sort of way, I was frequently struck by the lack of knowledge of some posters about the industry and its ways and philosophies; enough that I stopped reading rame altogether. And that's not to mention the people who simply have undisguised (and generally ill-informed) contempt for the industry but apparently need it to fulfill their jack-off fantasies.
>As I recall Ridley's initial post, he railed against the Rough Sex movie. \n> Not so much about the industry as a whole, but about a product he felt \n> strongly about. He made it clear that he felt this movie had no place in \n> the marketplace. \n> \n> Obviously, some people within Anabolic agreed with him because the \n>series was discontinued. \n> \n> So, the question becomes "Why was the series discontinued?" If we're \n> just a bunch of know-nothing fans, how did one thread in a \n> should-be-ignored-since-we're-so-clueless newsgroup kill a video line of \n> a major distributor? \n> \n> Why did Chris Alexander buckle if we're all a bunch of cluelss dim- \n>bulbs as Kernes seems to characterize us? Why did Gene Ross give the >topic any ink? \n> \n> Can anyone answer this?
Oh, I'll take a shot. The series was discontinued, according to Chris and Greg, because several distributors had notified Anabolic that they intended not to offer the tapes to their retailers, and because several retail chains likewise refused to stock the tapes in their stores, based at first on the recommendations of said distributors, but later because the retailers had looked at the material themselves and decided it was too strong for their market (in the sense that they feared getting busted for it). Since distributors (at least, the larger ones) generally do screen material they suspect may be problematic, it's frankly immaterial whether it showed up on rame first or simply became a topic of discussion between Anabolic and, say, IVD, as it undoubtedly would have in the normal course of events in the industry.
But various people in the industry DO read rame, including many who have no direct connection with either Anabolic or the distribution system, but who like to make their (often uninformed) opinions known anyway, and sure enough, they made them known. It's just a downhill snowball from there.
And to be fair, the industry IS worried about how the persecution of porn will be affected by the coming Presidential election, and those with (what they see as) the most exposure have made it clear that they intend to err (if indeed it is error) on the side of caution, and think others should do the same, at least until it's clear what the next President's intentions are toward the industry. As Eddie Wedelstedt pointed out, porn busts are no longer anything resembling a walk in the park. > The moderators have an obligation to approve articles that fall within the \n> bounds of the charter and posting guidelines -- but news outlets have no \n> such obligation. Why was the choice made to give his topic credibility \n> outside this forum?
Because the topic has relevance to the business of adult video and its position with respect to law enforcement. It therefore has its own "credibility," whether discussed on rame or not.
> I mean, its one thing to be "that other gossipmonger" who will print \n> anything and promote this crap, but why did Ross sink to our level? \n>How did this thread become news?
For the reason stated just above. As for why Ross "sank to your level": it's his job. Personally, I don't assume that anything I read in his column is necessarily factual; no one with any sense would. I do give Gene the credit, however, that when a factual mistake has been pointed out to him, he has corrected it in his column. The same can't be said of postings in other quarters. But facts have a way of creeping even into Luke's site, and rame has discussed them occasionally as well. The problem with _gossip_ is and has always been being able to distinguish the fact from the rumor. Some readers are in a better position to do that than others.
> Was it because Ford gave it press, and so it had to be countered and \n>neutralized by Ross?
If you read Gene's columns on this issue - and you can; they're still available on the avn site; start about Jan 25, if memory serves - you will see that what Gene did was to go to the principals involved and try to get statements from each. That's called "reporting," and if you read what's posted, there is nothing "countered" or "neutralized" about it; simply the reporting of statements by those involved, and various others whose opinions Gene saw fit to post. I read what he posted, and the majority of the opinions expressed seemed to be against depicting "rough sex" in the industry's product, mostly because of the increased risk of prosecution.
> >Nothing particularly wrong with that; ignorance is usually bliss, \n> \n> ... always with the backhanded remark. No one knows nothing if they're \n> not on DeSoto Ave in Chatsworth, is that it? ...
Eton Ave. But I was simply pointing out that of the posts I saw, several posters were prescribing remedies when they had no idea what the diagnosis of the condition was - and the reason they had no idea is because they weren't well-versed enough in industry practices nor were they sufficiently aware of the likely responses of law enforcement to the material.
> >and \n>those reading the posts who are in the industry should have had enough \n>sense to give said opinions as much weight as if those same persons had \n>expressed a liking for, say, strawberries. \n> \n> I guess the operative phrase is "*should have* had enough sense..." since \n> apparently, they didn't have enough sense to ignore it... \n> \n> If the thread was discounted as the ramblings of a ignorant consumer, \n>why was the video line dropped?
For the reasons explained above, not to mention those expressed by the industry members quoted in my article.
> Is it because Khan Tusion was the only person \n> with the vision to produce the line and he got spooked by the bad press? I \n> can't believe there aren't other pornographers out there with the ability \n> to make this genre of porn? (i.e. Jon Dough had his own line for a while, \n> and he *was* in the series in question, perhaps he could have helmed \n>Volume 3? We'll never know.) \n> \n> Why wasn't our thread ignored? Why didn't he turn down Rog's request \n> for an interview and just stand by his work? Why did he legitimize the \n> brouhaha by paying it any sort of mind?
It was Khan's choice to talk to the media. Far be it from me to attempt to take that choice away from him. I suspect I would have reacted differently to the situation, but then, it would never occur to me to make a rough sex video. Perhaps I simply lack the requisite amount of creativity.
> (Has RAME become a scapegoat for insiders to use when they disagree \n>with a colleague's product? Were those colleagues secretly relieved to see \n> the line discontinued and RAME allowed them the smokescreen to let out \n>their heavy sighs?)
I haven't come across anyone in the industry who seems to be taking one position on this material in public and another in private. According to the best sources, the action in the tapes was consensual, and those involved knew what they were getting into before they got into it, and were advised that they could discontinue the action at any time. That having been the case, I for one would not attempt to stop that video from being made. (I recognize that others would, and they have made their voices heard in various forums.) But likewise, I would not buy or rent it, and if it were my duty to review it (and I would avoid doing so if possible), I would point out what action appears to take place in the tape, and might very well contrast the action with that of tapes that have been busted in the past. All this without reading rame.
> Or was this all a calculated move on Anabolic's part? \n> \n> I have a hard time believing that this line was discontinued because of a \n> thread in our group. It's been long said that we carry no sway with the \n> industry -- I don't expect us to carry any weight, to be honest (why is \n> for another thread) -- so why did we this time?
Again, you didn't; this controversy would have existed whether rame existed or not. It just might have taken a bit longer to get around.
>Now don't get me wrong: I have nothing against sites where the \n>contributors know what they're talking about - you know, where they \n>actually investigate and speak to the participants in all sides of a \n>controversy? \n> \n> This has always been my criticism of Luke as well -- its just shoddy, lazy \n> work. But RAME has never passed itself off as a "news" site - we're just \n> fans passing notes. But can't geneross.com -- part of the AVN online \n>presence -- be accused of doing the same sloppy thing? Gene initially \n>attributed the Rough Sex posts initally to Rodney Moore... couldn't this be \n> considered sloppy and hardly a benchmark of investigative journalism? \n> Did Gene ever ask \n>Ridley for comments or to try and get his side of the story?
The main problem here is that Gene is not very computer literate. He'll tell you that himself. He doesn't read newsgroups. He simply got confused by the style used to quote the material; a style with which he is not familiar. But I'd consider the question of whether Rodney said something or was simply quoting another post to be a minor part of the controversy. The issue was the Rough Sex tapes themselves, and Gene apologized (in, as I recall, a somewhat back-handed way) to Rodney, and the discussion developed from there.
> It seems that Gene's site, which is such an obvious attempt to counteract \n> Luke's site (which is fine by me) with the "official" word, sometimes \n>falls into the same traps that Luke does and when it does, its air of \n>superiority just makes it seem conceited.
It's clear that Gene's site is far more informative, in a factual way, than Luke's, and it's equally clear that Gene does not indulge in anywhere near the amount of rumor-mongering (not to mention veiled and not-so-veiled hatred of the industry) that Luke does or that rame does, for that matter. So I (at least) see a vast difference. But that having been said, I reiterate that I do not respect gossip, and I wish AVN did not operate this site. But that's not my decision to make.
> The knife cuts both ways. AVN has especially taken great strides in \n> dismissing the online community -- all the way back to 1996 when \n>Kernes and Tony Lovett crucified alt.sex.movies -- and I am not sure to \n>what end. Is it to discredit us so people continue to rely upon AVN for \n>their news?
As opposed to relying on rame for their news? I should hope so! But "discredit" isn't the word; simple observation from a base of knowledge will do.
> Does AVN consider itself the "official" line because it is produced by \n> people "in the industry?"
As far as I can tell, there is no "official line" in this industry, certainly not on the vast majority of subjects. AVN, however, has sources within the industry for what it writes, and where news is concerned, it tries to distinguish between fact and spin. \n> Personaly, I have always found AVN to be somewhat schizophrenic -- on \n> the one hand it is a magazine for retailers, on the other it is a fan \n>magazine covering the industry... and it increasingly seems like it does \n> not appreciate the competition on the "fanzine" side of things. (It is still \n> unequalled in the retailer niche, IMHO)
Our problem (if it is one) has always been that retailers not only sell the tapes, but they're often fans as well, as evidenced by our correspondence and comments from them. That's why a certain amount of "fan material" makes its way between our covers; they want to see it. AVN does not consider rame to be "competition," as far as I know.
>-or ones that review tapes, discuss perceived trends in the \n>industry, or give contributors' preferences for one star's tits over \n>another's - even some interesting posts detailing which scenes and bits \n>are being cut out of Vivid movies when they go to catalog or DVD. \n> \n> How did RAME get a rep for being anything other than fans blabbing? \n> When did we become a "news outlet"? When did people start paying attention to us?
If you don't know, I'm in no position to tell you. Apparently, some take you more seriously than I do.
> Its obvious that Joe Pornographer is going to continue churning out his \n> one-day wonders and Mary Slutbunny is going to continue getting her tits \n> inflated despite our protests to the contrary. \n> \n> It has been long held that the on-line community does NOT mirror its \n>real world counterpart. \n> \n> The RAMErs seem to hate Leisure Time. Yet, Leisure Time is one of \n>the most successful companies -- their product always seems to be rented \n> and sold according to sources here who own or work at video stores. If \n> it was up to us, Carriere would be out on the street; yet he is "making a \n> living." \n> \n> Ditto for fake tits. \n> \n> As with any broad base of people, especialy those who congregate on \n> Usenet, you're going to get a broad range of articles, and those articles \n> will cover the gamut of unintelligble drivel (which we try to filter out) \n> to thoughtful to useful.
Not being a moderator, I have no idea what criteria you use to filter things out. When I was reading rame 'way back when, the filtering of "unintelligible drivel" seemed less than adequate.
> I'm glad that Kernes at least gives passing credit to reviewers and posters \n> like J Smith with his Vivid Cuts list. Its projects like these that give \n> the group its true worth -- in protecting the consumer from an industry \n> that seems to take fucking to every level of the supply chain :-) \n> \n> I hope Mr. Kernes will delurk, discuss this and clarify some things. I am \n> fairly certain he will not, but a boy can hope :-)
Hope springs eternal when you least expect it.
> Cheers
Ditto. However, I've pretty much said what I have to say on the subject. Don't expect further responses - and as I said, I don't read rame with any regularity, so don't expect me even to see questions unless they're e'd to me. Mark Kernes, Senior Editor, AVN
The following is an exchange that occured two days layer.]
Adult Movie FAQ wrote:
> On 21 Apr 00, at 17:10, Mark Kernes wrote: \n> \n>Adult Movie FAQ wrote: \n> \n> Well, I'll respond to this one, seeing as I have a free "Good Friday" \n> afternoon. \n> \n> Mark, I appreciate you taking the time to respond. \n> \n> [My Fellow MODS: If Mark only responded to me, please reject \n> this. His post (if there was one) didn't appear on Supernews as I \n> compse this]
You can free to forward this and my previous post to the newsgroup if you want. Luke's already gotten hold of it and is using my words to help foster his own agenda. Nothing I can do about that.
> Harlan Ellison is famous for saying, when faced with a fan proclaiming, "I'm entitled to my opinion, aren't I?" the excellent retort, \n> "No, you are not. You are entitled to your INFORMED opinion." Most \n>on rame are not well-enough informed about the porn business to have \n>their opinions taken seriously by those of us who are. \n> \n> I know the quote -- S. Andrew Roberts has had it in his .sig for \n> quite some time :-) \n> \n> But in what ways to you feel the average poster is uninformed? \n> \n> I feel I know quite a bit about the industry, even tho I've never been \n> near a porn set. I've done a fair amount of reading and research \n> and had e-conversations with business people to feel this way. I \n> also know that a great deal of the RAME readership does not have \n> this level of knowledge, but I do think they know what they like. \n> \n> So, in that respect, I feel the porn consumer HAS an "informed \n> opinion." He knows he doesn't like fake tits or Janine just doing \n> girls or that Khan Tusion stepped over some line or whatever. \n> Does he need to know more to comment?
When I first entered the industry full-time in 1991, I was fairly knowledgable as well. I'd been writing reviews since 1983, had talked to the others at AVN (mostly Paul, Gene and Gene's predecessor, whose name escapes me), had met a few porn stars, been to a few CESs and read a few mainstream articles on the subject. None of that prepared me to understand the psychology of those who do porn - in fact, I'd even say I didn't REALLY get it until I performed hardcore in front of the camera myself, but it's been an evolutionary process over the past 9 years. I submit that it takes close contact with those involved in performing, in directing, in tech'ing and in producing and sales to get what this industry is all about. Consider, for instance, that the average person, when it comes right down to it - all barroom bragging aside - would be scared shitless to expose his dick to millions of viewers, keep it hard and have sex for two hours at a time, even with some of the more beautiful women in the industry, let alone the ones that, in "real life," one would never ask for a date. It's even harder for the women, who are socialized practically from the cradle that being sexual in public is just Something You Don't Do. One needn't even be religious to have this drummed into you; it so pervades society that even atheists soak it up. So what kind of conditioning does an actress have to break (or at least deal with) in order to undress, spread her legs and have sex with a guy (or guys) she may never have met before... and look sexy and excited and interested while doing it? These are just a couple of things that most posters to rame have no real conception of.
> Plus, as consumers, doesn't their word count for anything? Is it a \n> case of "they don't know what's good for them?"
Every actress, director and producer I've talked to say they take consumer comment seriously. What they don't necessarily take seriously are comments posted to rame, because they (and I) have seen plenty of agendas played out in that forum, to the point that, unlike personal letters from consumers, which statistically represent a certain number of similar points of view, those posting to rame don't seem to be correllative with the views of anyone but the poster him/herself.
> Interesting, and I can see your point; tho the sports analogy (while \n>more or less lost on me as well, since I'm no sports fan either; but I \n> do know the infield fly rule :-) may be a bit too technical to have a \n> direct correlation. I say this only because if we take a look at the \n> topic at hand -- the Rough Sex issue -- all one poster did was say \n> how much he didn't like it. I don't see how he needed to be much \n> more informed or how he displayed his ignorance (in the initial \n> posting. He does seem to go a bit batty sometimes...)
Well, I strongly suspect that the writer (Ridley99?) doesn't know Chris Alexander personally, to know what he would or would not do in an effort to get a feature in the can - in other words, doesn't know the measure of Chris' ethics; was not privy to the conversations between Alexander, Khan Tusion and the actors and actresses involved in the production of Rough Sex to know what was agreed upon or not regarding the action; and he may very well not know the history of what has and hasn't been busted in this country under the various administrations of the past 20 years. Those are all highly pertinent issues to this discussion.
> I read rame much more frequently a few years ago, and \n> while some of the discussions were interesting in a hypothetical sort of way, \n> I was frequently struck by the lack of knowledge of some posters about the \n> industry and its ways and philosophies; enough that I stopped reading rame \n> altogether. And that's not to mention the people who simply have undisguised \n> (and generally ill-informed) contempt for the industry but apparently need it \n> to fulfill their jack-off fantasies. \n> \n> I agree with you on the latter wholeheartedly. The one thing I \n> always try to do is to treat the performers with a degree of respect -- \n> not call them derogatory names ("slut", "cum dumpster", etc.) -- \n> unlike a pretty good percertage of the posters... however, I think \n> that one would notice that there's a few posters who seem to \n> overwhelm discussions with this kind of talk; and most of the \n> posters are a bit more, er, respectful?
Look; since I don't read rame with ANY regularity, I'm not that concerned with what's posted. It does not impinge on either my work or social life. I see, however, some of the same jackasses contributing who were contributing when I was reading rame regularly. The screen name "Torris" immediately comes to mind. If people want to write to me at [email protected], I'll read what they write, though I probably won't respond; my time for this is extremely limited. My point is, have all the discussion you want; just don't expect to be taken too seriously by people who may know more about the subject than the poster.
> I'm still interested in this notion of "uninformed" opinions. I'll go \n> thru the archives and re-read the thread and see what you mean; \n> but in a subjective case like this, I don't know how opinions could \n> be uninformed.
As an example, anyone who took seriously my opinion on nuclear waste disposal would be a fool. Yet I read the daily newspapers, listen to newscasts and have a rudimentary understanding of the medical issues involved.
> I agree also. It always seemed to me that the "harder" stuff would \n> prove to be the industry's own worst nightmare. I can't see a jury \n> watching Jon Dough slap someone around or Rob Black performing \n> a coat hanger abortion in drag and letting it slide.
And yet, they should - and would, if they had an understanding of the First Amendment and why the Founding Fathers put that, unqualified, in the Constitution.
> For the reason stated just above. As for why Ross "sank to your level": it's \n> his job. \n> \n> Well, yes and no. He should be a gatekeeper of sorts, and make \n> choices as to what he publishes. In college journalism class we're \n> taught about gatekeepers in the media and how those people who \n> control the information control a good part of the public discourse.
But AVN and the website are businesses, and one thing all adult online sites need is content. Gene cares a bit more where he gets it from, and its veracity, than some, but he still needs content. Hence, the gate is open wider than some (including myself) might prefer.
> Those news people who decided that this Elian Gonzales thing is \n> more than just another "deport the alien" story kinda prove this. \n> \n> So, on the other hand, if our articles were "ill-informed" why let \n> them thru the gate? Why lend them credence by publishing them?
It seems to me that he published the views expressed more as a starting point in his investigation. What Gene turns out on the site on a daily basis sometimes approaches (it seems to me) stream of consciousness, and almost an organic process where he hopes that the whole will be greater than the sum of its parts. I'm very glad I don't have his job.
>Honestly, I hate what the Net has done to journalism. There was a \n> lot to be said about the quality of reporting before one didn't have \n> an hourly deadline :-(
Ditto. But there ARE differences detectable.
>The problem with _gossip_ \n> is and has always been being able to distinguish the fact from the \n>rumor. Some readers are in a better position to do that than \n>others. \n> \n> I agree. (I actually agree with you quite a bit, I just generally \n> disagree with your generaliztion that the newsgroup is crap -- its \n> only half crap ;-)
Well, half is good/bad enough for me.
> OK, I found the posting in the Jan 31 archive -- it seems to me that \n> at least what Ross quoted of the e-mail Rodney had sent him didn't \n> seem all that ill-informed or off what you're saying about the series. \n> But Jamie Gillis (hardly an ill-informed guy, methinks) is the one to \n> say that it shouldn't be banned, they're only performers, etc.
Rodney and Jamie are both in the industry, though I seem to recall that Rodney has used rame in the past in an attempt to push an agenda, even if it's a simple one like complaining that he doesn't like how AVN reviews his tapes.
> So, now I'm really confused. :-) \n> \n>Nothing particularly wrong with that; ignorance is usually bliss, \n> \n> ... always with the backhanded remark. No one knows nothing if they're not \n> on DeSoto Ave in Chatsworth, is that it? ... \n> \n>Eton Ave. \n> \n> Got me :-) When did they move?
I thought you were referring to AVN, which is on Eton. Were you talking about VCA? They're still on deSoto.
> The main problem here is that Gene is not very computer literate. He'll tell \n> you that himself. He doesn't read newsgroups. He simply got confused by the \n> style used to quote the material; a style with which he is not familiar. \n> \n> Then shouldn't he have asked for help?
All I can say is, you'd have to know Gene. A very "seat of the pants" kind of guy.
> Is the deadline that rigid? I \n> don;t accept computer illiteracy as an excuse -- his name is on a \n> website that deals with this kind of stuff -- I'd expect him (or \n> someone on the staff) be able to "edit", if you will, his "news."
No one edits Gene. That's why they pay him the big bucks.
> I don't know the details as to how Gene's site works -- there seems \n> to be a morning and an afternoon edition... couldn't the piece have \n> waited until Gene asked for help deciphering all the >> and such \n> (and thus avoided hurting whatever feelings were hurt?)
Again, I don't see that this is a really big deal. The point was the content of the post; less so who said it. And all "news" has time value.
> I'm not saying Gene didn't do the right thing, or correct himself, or \n> even that this issue is a major part of the controversy (tho I do \n> recall Rodney was rather upset by the incident); but rather that \n> Gene fell into the same trap that Luke lives by -- he just p
