Gothamist: That Burning Feeling

dgdfcsae

Fri, 17 Nov 2006 22:53:08 -0500

dfgbhtyrfhbgdfdfyjfxv

oliver

Thu, 12 Feb 2004 16:08:21 -0500

Surprised this hasn't been brought up yet, but judging by the title, does anyone else think it's completely absurd and offensive that Blair compares his stint at the Times with being a slave? The sooner Blair goes away for good, the better.

keto

Thu, 12 Feb 2004 14:53:08 -0500

I'd like to burn his flat down. I can't wait for the tour, so I can sling an egg at him.

oliver

Wed, 11 Feb 2004 15:59:00 -0500

Can't spell BLAIR without LIAR. Blair's not stupid, just an exceptionally good liar, which can take some modicum of intelligence (which, hate to admit, he probably has, the jerk-off). And yeah, A.O., he definitely seems sociopathic. The sad fact is that exceptional liars and cheaters can get far in this society, and if they do get caught, our society oftentimes rewards them (eg, Blair, Stephen Glass, "Catch Me If You Can", MIT/Vegas gamblers [though technically I wouldn't call them cheaters; they were just extremely good card counters with a system]). In an ideal world, Blair sells 0 copies of his book.

A.O.

Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:32:25 -0500

Is he really stupid though? He's a college dropout that fooled America's preeminent paper and its well healed editors. He got caught--but, he's getting rich from it. He's certainly sociopathic yet, I doubt if he qualifies as stupid.

RIO

Tue, 10 Feb 2004 02:19:38 -0500

Here's the irony too...as much as everyone here knows that Blair sucks and shouldn't be profiting, he's still getting press (on this site too) which will inevitably result in some amount of profit. I think the best way to ensure this guy doesn't succeed in further shafting us is by ignoring his book. Unfortunately, I have a feeling most of the media will still cover the book's release, thus ensuring that it sells a certain amount of copies.

ShinGo

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 21:34:54 -0500

Apparently, the apostrophe was completely fabricated; a work of pure fiction made up while the author was high on coke, therefore, it was removed.

jenny

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:27:25 -0500

dude, either make a burn hole or an apostrophe. you can't have both.

D

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:13:34 -0500

Either Billy Bob Thornton or Louie Anderson.

Dre

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 20:03:27 -0500

First, "The Fabulist" and now "Burning..." Is this a new and foolhardy tactic employed by Journalists trying to get a book deal? and maybe a movie too? Who should play Jayson on the big screen?

matt

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:55:27 -0500

ah, yes, D, I will concede that you're right. that _is_ a backward and exceedingly high apostrophe. it seems that the news reports that Romanesko cites have misplaced their apostrophes and should have gone with the plural Masters that you're suggesting (which is how the book is indexed on Amazon & Bn.com). those creative burn marks sure do get a little tricky. carry on...

D

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 18:26:44 -0500

It looks like there is an apostrophe after the last S in "Masters." Maybe he means that the "house" belongs to many masters, not just one. Then it would be correct.

monty

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:44:26 -0500

perhaps the apostrophe, too, burned down.

jenny

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:35:41 -0500

oh thank you! I am so glad I'm not the only grammar nerd that noticed that.

matt

Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:01:09 -0500

what I would like to know is which cover design editor felt like it was important enough to italicize NYT, but decided the apostrophe in "Master's" wasn't all that necessary.