| | So, Lindsay's on my side... In that case, I'll need to take another look at Solo. :)
I've decided to cave in and respond to some of the comments here. First, the only reason I excluded parts of her responses to me was because they weren't relevant to the points I was commenting on. Don't worry, there's no "conspiracy to prevent the Objectivist community from knowing the REAL truth about Jennifer Iannolo!" She's obviously free to post the entire text of her e-mails here if she thinks they're relevant, or that there are people who are actually interested in reading them.
I'll remind everyone that Jennifer asked me to submit an article already knowing my style and after declaring "I adore your work." If you ask someone to submit their writing, knowing their pattern of consistently writing using language and content "inappropriate" for your website, then you explain to them what exactly you find "adorable" about their writing and/or that you expect to see something significantly different from what they usually write. If Jennifer was an editor at the CNN website, I might have expected radically different content guidelines than my own site. But it's an Objectivist dating site, for Christ's sake.
Now for the fun.
Reginald Firehammer writes:
"The use of barracks language is, to me, a red flag the shouts, "I have no vocabulary."
Actually, Reginald, having no vocabulary is a better indication of having no vocabulary. Using a word like "asshole" doesn't negate one's ability to form unique, intelligent, colorful phrases. Like "red flag", for example.
Glenn Lamont writes:
"There’s also a certain lack of honor in this guy publishing your private email and slighting your honest intentions."
Glenn, if you think her intentions were honest based on the e-mails of Jennifer's which I published, then I didn't slight her honest intentions. And I never said her intentions weren't honest. She was, however, a bad editor.
Jennifer seems to think that she was being a good editor by rejecting my submission. But if that's the case, then she was sloppy in her correspondence to me before I wrote and submitted the piece.
Imagine Time magazine inviting George Carlin to submit an article, knowing his style, and not telling him beforehand that there were significant aspects of his style that would not be acceptable. Do you think it would be "good editing" to reject his submission after he took the time to write it because you eventually realized that maybe articles about sex with dead children might not be appropriate for your magazine? Or do you think "good editing" would be to tell him before he wasted his time?
Finally, an ironic twist. Jennifer wrote to me:
"I recommend that you read some of Don Watkins' past pieces to get a better sense of the kind of humor we publish, and perhaps you can clean this up a bit and resubmit it."
Recently, Don Watkins just posted to my site:
"Wow, she asked you to tone it down and then referred you to *my* writing? From one of my Atlasphere articles: "The next morning, I came before a judge. Then they arrested me again because, well, you know, court clerks don't like cleaning up that kind of mess." How can they complain about you talking about blowjobs and yet let me write about the result?
"Anyway, just wanted to say I no longer write for The Atlasphere, which is so saturated with Kelleyites that they end up saying the sorts of things Jennifer said to you. "
Now, that's funny.
Jason
http://savethehumans.com
|
|
