Meet USC’s Kate Miltner, RBD Basement Dweller


Bunnies, I was doing a little research for our donation page and stumbled upon Kate Miltner, a doctoral candidate at USC’s Annenberg School of Communication who has been giving conference talks about RBD during the past few years. Miltner, who sports most impressive credentials, has racked focus on the comments section, namely RBD as community. A description of her talk at the 2016 Crossroads in Cultural Studies conference:

Welcome To The Catlady Basement: An Ethnographic Exploration of “Hateblog” Reblogging Donk

A “hateblog” is a blog whose main purpose is to critique and mock its targets for the amusement and satisfaction of its audience. This paper is an ethnography of Reblogging Donk, a hateblog focused on American internet personality Julia Allison. While Reblogging Donk may seem cruel and incomprehensible to outsiders, it cannot be simply dismissed as the work of internet bullies wounding innocent victims for fun. Instead, it must be examined within the context of anti-fan behaviors, particularly those endemic to online communities focused on gossip and reality TV. This paper discusses the ways in which Reblogging Donk is a “moral text” (Gray, 2005) that provides a great deal of insight into contemporary discourses and practices surrounding online fame and femininity. Furthermore, Reblogging Donk complicates the conceptualization of online “hate”, and showcases how both media and social contexts play a deeply influential role when it comes to these behaviors.


Miltner’s abstract for another talk about the basement:

Sun, May 28, 15:30 to 16:45, Hilton San Diego Bayfront, 2, Indigo Ballroom A

In July 2008, the cover of Wired Magazine featured a brunette woman with the headline “Get Internet Famous! (Even If You’re Nobody)”. The woman was Julia Allison, one of the internet’s first “microcelebrities” and, at one point, the third most hated person on the internet (Golson, 2008). Allison is a complicated figure whose behavior and life choices have inspired a fair amount of critique, but few have been as aggressively critical as the participants on Reblogging Donk (RBD), an online community and so-called “hateblog” devoted to chronicling and critiquing Allison’s life choices and missteps.

A “hateblog” is a blog whose main purpose is to mock and critique its targets for the amusement and satisfaction of its audience. Allison has described the discursive activities of RBD and its community as “cyberbullying”, and has claimed that she has suffered greatly as a result of their activities. The RBD community members, on the other hand, frame Allison’s highly public (and self-publicized) antics as “an unbelievable online reality show” and their discussion and dissection of her life as the same “hatewatching” practices that are widespread amongst online communities focused on gossip and reality TV.

This paper uses Reblogging Donk as a case study for examining the often murky boundaries of online harassment. While RBD may seem like a straightforward case of online cruelty and victimization to some, such a claim is complicated by the fact that RBD engages in many of the same “anti-fan” behaviors that are commonplace in many online fandoms (Marwick, 2013). As Harman and Jones (2013) have documented, “hatereading” and “hatewatching” are mainstream and commonplace practices; examined through this lens, RBD’s activities aren’t the obsessive dissection of an innocent private citizen (as Allison would have it), but a community that has been brought together through legitimate critique of a public personality and her often questionable behavior. The case of RBD highlights the difficulty in drawing distinctive boundaries between different forms of antagonism in online environments, particularly when culturally prevalent behaviors are legitimized and encouraged in one context and vilified in another.


So, lurker or commenter? Miltner clearly has the goods on Judy and her talks don’t seem to be a complete vilification of the RBD community. However, given Miltner’s research interests in, and papers on, cyberbullying and online anonymity, we’re definitely not getting a complete pass. I’m going to send her an email and ask if I can see a copy of her remarks.

One thing’s for certain: ANYTHING Miltner has written about the basement will be smarter, more sophisticated than Donkey lover Alice Marwick’s half-assed, sophomoric commentary.

Who do you think you are, Donkey? Living off Dadsers, bragging about your $1200/mo massage bill, posting schoolgirl “Dear John” letters at age 37 – you are the ultimate first world problem.

Site update: Upgrades will begin later in the week and a donor page will be going up on Wednesday or Thursday. Stick with us! There’s lots to come, including hot tub parties, more Donkey BS, and the return of Julia Tutu!


    • There are a couple of really fantastic photos of Judy in there including at least one gaping maw.

    • Oh wow theres Kumail Nanjiani. And nose #2 must mean circa 2005

    • That Flickr page is like a hipster convention from the previous decade. I kinda miss those days, Julie was a little more interesting back then. I think she’s due for another costume change..

      And I wish WordPress would set a cookie and remember my login stuff like it used to.. @#$%!! ?

  1. I wonder what her faculty’s ethical guidelines are considering most ethnographic research requires that the people being observed fill in an informed consent form.

    • Just for illustrative purposes, here’s an example from University of Massachusetts (though most universities have similar codes of conduct these days):

      “The three key components of informed consent for any research project are communication of information, comprehension of information, and voluntary participation.”

      The fact that she never disclosed she was doing this research says everything I need to know about her research ethics.

      • Oh it’s the new Facebook rule-conduct psychological research on subjects without their knowledge (2014) then only apologize (not really) once forced.
        Unethical birds of a feather…

      • Amen amen! Don’t use any of my comments, Ms. Miltner. If I find out that you have, I will be more than delighted to contact the USC Office for the Protection of Research Subjects.

        • Same Ms. Miltner. Do not use any of my comments. Unlike a Donkey I *do* have the academic connections that would make a lot of noise were I to speak about this unethical ethnography.

        • Are we obligated to opt out, or cannot this apply across the board as a given if someone has not given permission?

          • yes, the usual rule is that this kind of research is opt in. But she seems to have the ethical understanding of a donkey so here we are. I’d bet you $$ that she has already thought of the justifications about why the ethics of ethnographic research do not apply in this case. People who do stuff like this tend to have a fine tuned sense of entitlement about why the rules do not apply to them.

          • We’ll see if the OPRS agrees. Former university administrator here myself, always happy to rattle some cages.

      • Miltner recently asked on twitter:

        International academic Twitter: do you know of any other people who are currently doing ethnographies of coding bootcamps or schools, especially outside of the US? Kid-oriented or adult-oriented. Any help would be v. appreciated!

        I hope everyone plans on asking subjects for their consent.

    • Technically since the page is publicaly available you don’t have to get informed consent since the content is freely available to all. She is incorrect in calling this an ethnography. It is a content analysis.

      • Yes, I balked at the word “ethnography” to describe an online community and this makes sense.

      • Oh hi Kate! (can I call you Kate?)

        not really. Even if what she does isn’t an ethnography (sketchy claim since this is what she’s building her academic career on), there are ethical guidelines for the study of online communities as well. Again, I provide examples for illustrative purposes but most serious institutions (that are not Trump college) have similar guidelines these days:

        Ethical issues in qualitative research on internet communities

        This paragraph is pertinent as to when consent might not be necessary or expected:

        “On the other hand, researchers “may conduct research in public places or use publicly available information about individuals (such as naturalistic observations in public places and analysis of public records or archival research) without obtaining consent,”15 and “research involving observation of participants in, for example, political rallies, demonstrations or public meetings should not require Research Ethics Board review since it can be expected that the participants are seeking public visibility.”

        See how it is a rather stringent set of examples?

        In any case, my issue is not only about this particular case but about how yet another white feminist academic is reproducing rather gross practices. Funny she’d study the donkey as a curiosity and yet, share so much of her entitlement.

        • this is an important distinction, also from the link above, when studying online communities:

          “Although publication on the internet may have parallels to publishing a letter in a newspaper or saying something in a public meeting, there are important psychological differences, and people participating in an online discussion group cannot always be assumed to be “seeking public visibility.” On the internet the dichotomy of private and public sometimes may not be appropriate, and communities may lie in between.”

          ethnography or not, the whole thing is on shaky grounds.

          • Ms. Miltner spoke with Jacy at length, as well as several commenters. I’ll do an update as soon as I am able.

    • Digital culture research projects don’t require subject permission if the information being gathered is publically accessible and observable. If you wrote it online, its in some poor shmuck’s dissertation. RBD is a common research site for digital culture research, as is GOMI.

  2. I hope she managed to include the “don’t poke the Donkey” rule of this group as evidence that we are not overtly harassing anyone.

  3. But she’s ignoring all the great travel tips and good advice you can get here

  4. This just in: Rhoda thinks there might be a possibility that Miltern wrote her senior thesis on Donkey. She’s researching it now.

    • WAIT, WUT? She says in the comments that she’s not sure if she wants to divorce, but she’s buying a house several hours away and taking the kids away from Kendrick? These are some serious histrionics.

      • Is anyone else a little alarmed that each of them is taking one dog? I am not a Jordan hater but it seems wrong to separate pets.

        • I’m feeling sympathetic towards her reading her recent posts.

          She is taking one dog, two cats, and two kids. It seems fair that Kendrick can take at least one dog, especially since she said that dog is kind of his dog (likes him better.)

      • and now she’s saying that anyone who is asking how she can afford to buy a house in LA on a single income (versus her + kendrick) is being misogynistic

        what a mess

    • I used to tolerate Jordan, but she’s turned into a little ball of anger in recent years. No idea what Ken is like because he [mostly] has the decency not to air his laundry on the internet. I can imagine that Jordan’s only real relationship is with the people who live in her phone/comments section and agree with everything she says.

    • I really like her. But, hell, I like ILYR and Pointy and anyone f’ed over by the hosebeast donk. Don’t hate me. I’m basement through and through, but didn’t our very own mean aunt Alice hate on her before we got sweet aunt Gilly who doesn’t pinch us and threaten us under her breathe when no one is looking?

      • oh yeah, alice reeaaaaaaaallly seems to have it out for her

        I used to like her (jordan) and followed her on social media, but her constant “damsel in distress” act coupled with “girlboss” stories wore me out. She’d talk about how hard and tiring it was to be a parent and how we should embrace mombod, but neglected to mention she had a nanny and got fake boobs.

        Our daughters are roughly the same age and I totally fell into the trap of comparing myself to other parents online, and shame spiraled wondering how she was able to do so much when I was so exhausted. It’s cause she had a lot of help & $$. so I guess at the end of the day im just a sad jealous hater.

        • To be fair she did a couple posts on the fake boobs, she was not trying to hide them. I think in general she’s transparent about a lot of things.

  5. Hi RBD, this is the actual Kate Miltner (to be clear, I’m not Subtle Tweeta). I’ve written back to Gilly, and will be sharing my research materials soon (I am in the middle of a move and am just on my phone at the moment). USC’s IRB does consider any analysis of materials that are publicly available to fall under exemption from human subjects research approval, but I agree with Dust in your toot toot’s comment about online communities having a reasonable expectation of privacy, which is why any quotes I have used in the PowerPoint presentation are either from the guidelines of the site/FAQ or the interviews I did with Jacy and other commenters. I did not quote comments without permission. As for whether or not my lurking here was an online ethnography, that is a good methodological question. The project I ended up doing is more of a critical discourse analysis with some interviews rather than a true ethnography. However, I’ve been reading weekly since the Baugher days, and while I haven’t commented, I am familiar with many of RBD’s norms and memes and many of the jokes, so some would consider that to be ethnographic engagement. I’m not an RBD hater (although I had considered myself to be a peripheral Jealous Hater/Catlady). While I meant no harm, you’ve made some excellent points, and I apologize for any violation you may have felt/currently feel. I did this project two years ago (in the 2nd year of my PhD training) and my knowledge and experience has evolved since then. You should know that I see the many benefits that this community offers to its members. I know you support each other and talk about things that are not JA (indeed, all the travel tips, good advice, and excellent reading recommendations). And to be clear, my research positions RBD on a spectrum of other fan/antifan behaviors— the point of my presentation is that what happens here isn’t very different than what happens on for-profit celeb blogs, and that if people have a problem with RBD, they can’t let other celeb blogs off the hook. If this is “online harassment” (which, to be clear, I don’t think it is), then so are a lot of other blogs. Anyway, I wrote a longer email to Gilly, which I am sure she will share with you. Thanks for your thoughtful comments and critiques, and I will be sure to learn from my mistakes moving forward. I’ll be checking back here and am happy to answer any questions you may have.

    A few extra things to note: I did not do any thesis work on RBD, just the conference presentation. Yes, I do know Alice Marwick, and we are friends— but we have disagreed for years about RBD. Finally, I used to be a crappy 2nd string photographer for Gawker’s Team Party Crash back in the mid-aughts (Chris Mohney would send me to events that Nikola Tamindzic didn’t want to cover). I met JA once at a party, and she treated me (unsurprisingly) with disdain. We were probably at 4 or 5 of the same events, but we never really spoke.

    • Thank you so much for your thoughtful comments. What else can I say, well, other than #teamkate?

      Kate’s email:

      Hi Gilly,

      Thanks for your email. Yes, I did an interview with Jacy a few years ago, as well as some interviews with some longtime commenters (I’ve been lurking since the Baugher days on Tumblr). I actually used to be (a very mediocre) second-string party photographer for Gawker’s Team Party Crash back when I worked in advertising (and before I became an academic), so I was around Donkey in her heyday. We’ve maybe spoken once, but I wasn’t cool enough to be worthy of her attention at the time. I definitely have some old photos of her though (if you’re interested, I can dig those up).

      I’m currently moving from LA to Amsterdam so am not on my computer much at the moment, but I am happy to send you a copy of the PowerPoint plus my talk. I didn’t end up going to Crossroads because I was sick, but I did give the ICA (San Diego) talk. The main argument that I make about RBD is that while the site may seem like “cyberbullying” to the uninitiated, that the practices that take place on the site are very similar to those that take place on other mainstream fan/anti-fan/snark sites, especially those concerning reality TV stars. RBD calls into question issues of public identity and publicness (where is the boundary of who is considered a public persona and who is a “private” citizen) and also holds up a mirror to the same behaviors on more mainstream sites (for example, it’s okay to rake Kim Kardashian or LuAnn deLesseps over the coals on for-profit celebrity blogs, but not okay to point out JA’s questionable behavior?).

      As a general rule, the work I do is less about making judgments about the people and practices that I study and more about looking at the societal power dynamics inherent in different types of digital media and digital practices— how do they either perpetuate or counter pre-existing power dynamics, and what does that tell us? My talk is less about RBD as a discrete entity/community and more about RBD as a case study that we can use to understand some of the dynamics of communities like it.


      • Thanks, Gilly! I am very honored to get a #teamkate. Will send through a PDF once I get on WiFi. Again, happy to answer any questions in the comments.

        • Marvelous! I will write you back later today. We have more in common than you’re aware. Right now, dealing with medical issues, a frantic client, and trying to get our patreon page up. Oy!

    • Hi Kate. I know this will sound like snark but it really is not: in all written forms — academic, creative, or otherwise — each time you make a parenthetical statement, you’re signaling to your reader your own hesitation. Either cutting the phrase or replacing the parentheses with other punctuation will make your prose more muscular, and cause your reader’s eye to move more fluidly.

      With softness,

      • I use so many parentheticals, this is really great advice for me to consider! Thanks!

      • I know this advice was for Kate but as a nonstrong and frequent writer I always look to improve. I never knew it conveyed hesitation. Makes sense, I thought I always used it as clarity/detail but hindsight suggests otherwise.

      • Hi Handbag, thanks for the suggestions. Will definitely take them on board.

      • People pay for this class, and we get it here for free. Handywoman, you are, as Albie has said, a national treasure. Thank you.

    • Thanks for the additional information, Ms. Miltner. I very much appreciate that you are not quoting comments verbatim without permission. “Anti-fan” is, I think, a very good characterization of the site (rather than “hate site” as Ms. Allison describes it).

      • Yeah, there is a distinct analytical difference between “hateblogging” and actual hate sites. “Haters” are different from people and groups who peddle hate (like white supremacists). RBD and, say, Stormfront are on completely different planes. A better comparison would be RBD and TWoP, but no one is calling TWoP a hate site.

        • I refer to it as #ForcedAccountability for otherwise unethical & or illegal behavior where the subjust pathologically lacks shame, remorse guilt or accountability.

    • Thank you for this. I respect and appreciate your transparency and engagement here which was probably not easy to do.

      I was thinking last night about how anti-fan subcultures are gendered and coded female while hate blogging or hate communities have become the realm of angry guys (gamergaters, MAGA forums etc). The only comment I do have about your research (which I have been reading about last night) and, to use the RBD jargon I do mean it with softness, is that it leaves out the racial aspect of the construction of white womanhood through the characters that populate RBD (JA but also all her guest stars). Of course I will readily admit that I am biased in this observation since I know of very few non white passing or white adjacent WoC who would get away with this behavior. This is, after all, what drove me to this site in the first place. To eschew the academese, when I first started reading about JA in the Gawker days, my first reaction was WTF is this shit and how can someone so mediocre get so far and so many opportunities?! that same reaction has extended to her supporting cast every single time… and every time, the same answer came to mind: whiteness and the projection of behaviors we associate to a certain class (even when, if it wasn’t for her father’s money, she would not belong to the class she projects since she is perpetually broke due to not working).

      Anyways, I do wish you well and I will be reading you since I am very interested in your area of research which only very tangentially touches on mine (to put it succinctly: the formation of right wing communities).

      • Hi Dust, you’re totally right that not engaging with the racialized aspect of all of this is a weakness of the work.
        I just sent a PDF of my talk to Gilly, and you’ll see that I do focus on the gendered nature of snark practices. Tbh, I only had 10 mins for the talk and I had a lot of basic ground-covering to do. The fact that JA squandered endless opportunities is something I do focus on, though.

        My research agenda has shifted a bit since I worked on this piece, and I’m focused more on the re/production of structural inequalities in computing and corporate tech cultures now, so this is probably it for me for RBD for a while, but thanks for your comments! Your work sounds very interesting and important (and also challenging to do) so best of luck with that as well.

  6. all that academic gobbedly guck I found pointless
    When In read the word “discourse” I reach for my.. chooing tabaccy

  7. An interesting day at RBD. Who’d a thunk we’d be research subjects! Now back to running that fat maze in my back yard. A formal and belated welcome to the basement, Kate! Now you can come out of the closet and join in here.

      • Thanks, Gilly and GSOB! I am very honored to get a #teamkate. Will send through a PDF once I get on WiFi. Again, happy to answer any questions in the comments.

        • When you’re done with the screenplay of your dissertation, I’m ready for my closeup.

          • Thanks, Moroccanwear. I’m not sure whether the RBD presentation I did will ever move into a peer-reviewed journal article, but if it does, I’ll be soliciting more interviews in the comments for sure.

        • Ugh, #cankleshausen. The mobile site didn’t look like it posted my previous comment, hence the double comment. Sorry.

          • Not your fault! The site has a new bug or two, this is one and a fix is in the near future.

            Some posts appear not to ‘take’ but actually do show up in a few minutes upon refresh.

    • Haven’t we had a couple people come through here asking for interviews/experiences for PhD’s or whatever? I think I answered some questions for someone once upon a time.

    • adding my welcome, loving your use of rbd vernacular and username suffixes to convey current mood!

    • Hold on. Gilly locates Kate’s conferences by accident, posts about her research, and sends Kate an email. Kate responds warmly, explains her position regarding RBD, even calling us “anti-fans” rather than haters – a new paradigm! – and you want to castigate her? Shame on you, you lowlife dog!

    • I would love it so much if robert mueller was a basement dweller, its how he blows off steam

      • These days I would rather be discussing rump-sprung granny panties than briefs. The other day they made me watch the Manafort sex tapes and I thought I was gonna hurl.

  8. OT: A whacked-out Skankatron blithers on about ALI SHANTI, about being 45 years old and still needing someone to hold her hand when she takes a shit. The old raunch works out with her trainer in her bedroom. “He takes me to the places I wouldn’t go myself.” She then rattles on about her “three-million-dollar business and making the Inc. 5000 list,” which she couldn’t have done without her BFFs. I hope the bitch can now afford curtains for the master bedroom. I lasted three minutes.

      • Presumably with her kaboobies falling out of the bikini top. How else is she supposed to entice her 22-year-old trainer?

    • First time I’ve heard her voice. Yeesh.

      Sadly, that doesn’t look like a Coobie.

      The Ali Shanti Show podcast? Now my life will be complete!

      • I like the red curtain backdrop/screen. It is consistent with the overall “Muppet Show” vibe Ali conveys.

        Of course there is no readily available evidence that the New Law Business Model is on any Inc. 5000 list, but who really knows what “Company” she is even talking about. At least she finally acknowledges the difference between revenue and profit. So no, she probably still cannot afford curtains.

    • We thought about looking at her for money laundering, but we soon figured out she had not been close to any kind of soapy water in a very long time.

    • She is so cray , duet with her and cauterwailer? New Law Business Model
      Gives lawyers who are helping families and small business owners a business model to serve as a trusted advisor.

      2018 Rank #4897
      Leadership Alexis Neely
      2017 Revenue
      $2.4 M
      3-Year Growth
      Business Products & Services
      Redondo Beach, CA

      24 employees.. bwahahah

      I think the whole rating website is self reporting and paid content.

      aha, it is only

      $30 a year

      How are Inc. Verified Profiles verified?
      Upon receiving submission for Inc. Verified Profiles, we independently confirm that businesses are operational, websites are functional, social media links and phone lines work, content is appropriate and no obvious red flags exist. Inc. Verified Profiles are meant to save purchasers a little time by showcasing businesses that are part of the entrepreneurial ecosystem. They are not an endorsement of products or services, nor a guarantee of quality.

      In Your Own Words
      Tell your own story and stand amongst the world’s best small businesses in the Inc. Community.

    • The things she lets drop are so sad. She works out via videoconference with a trainer for 20-30 minutes? Whoopdeedoo. She is looking to pay someone $120k/year? Chump change for a CFO.

      Those boobs! Theriouth buthineth lady.

    • Her voice and Eddie Murphy’s in the “you’re not gonna fall for a banana in the tailpipe” scene in 48 hours are creepily similar. Do we know for sure that Eddie Murphy is alive and well and didn’t change his name to Alexis Neely? And then change his name to Ali Shanti? And then presence a weed table filled with dildos and chocolate?

    • I wonder why, when I go straight to her site, this does not come up for me. I saw them talking about it on GOMI but, couldn’t find the announcement about it.

      I don’t really follow her, but, she doesn’t annoy me either. I do think that she is always at loose ends. Looking for something, thinking she’s found it, then realizes she hasn’t and launches herself towards something else. Though she would tell us otherwise, for her age, it doesn’t seem to me like she’s gotten to know herself very well. Who she is, what she wants, etc. I hope she explores a lot of that in the therapy she says she’s partaking in now. It makes me sad for her that she seems a bit lost all of the time.

      But, at least she does keep trying, doesn’t scam anybody, seems like a kind person who doesn’t actively try to hurt anyone, and, considering the majority of the nimrods we discuss in this venue, that gives her a leg up in my book.

      • I feel the same way. I get the sense that Jordan is a genuinely nice and sweet person (have had some very pleasant IRL interactions with her). But it ain’t easy being a golden child. I mean that with 100% no irony. When you have a basically charmed childhood/early adulthood, it’s very hard when things eventually settle down into something normal and not very shiny. In her case, she’s smart, pretty, grew up in NYC with what seem to be cool hippie parents, went to Harvard, dated some fairly famous dudes, moved around some interesting LA/NYC circles. When all of that settles down into a fairly average suburban existence, it can be hard to maintain a sense of potential or optimism for the future, or even a basic sense of self.

    • Shira Lazar was on the Speedway pump television screen while I filled my gas tank yesterday.

      • JFAing myself to add, I can’t wait for Julia’s instagram photo of herself posing inside an exhibit at the Holocaust Memorial Museum.

      • Apparently she’s still SWFing by dyeing her hair Myka black. I’m sure she loves when people ask if they are sisters. I wonder if Rob has gotten her scheming number yet?

        • Rob (and Myka’s hippie mother) fawns all over Donk. Threeway all the way … and a couch to crash on in Boulder!

    • Oh FUCK her. The Thinker has nothing to do with the Gates of Hell, which are outside in the Rodin garden at Stanford.

      So whose couch is this mentally challenged digital nomad surfing on these days?

      • I think she misunderstood how many casts of The Thinker there are. One of them is looking down into Hell, but I believe the figure is looking at the *poem,* not the characters, the way Dante would have mentally studied the scene before writing it?

        • Yes, what you are saying is 100% correct, but why would A Donkey get anything right, ever? Her Learn button is broken, remember.

    • “Campus police were called to the Cantor Center following reports of a middle-aged woman climbing on sculptures and drawing on paintings with a purple glitter pen. Officers followed a trail of plastic hair extensions and smeared lipstick to find the woman sitting on The Thinker’s lap, kissing him.

      As she was being removed from the premises, she shrieked, “Don’t you know who I am??!!! I’m a woman in technology!!! I mount summits for world leaders!” Confirmation of her identity revealed no employment history nor professional affiliation of any type.

      The woman was transported to the medical center for psychiatric evaluation. She was charged with trespassing and vandalism.”

    • “looking down at the suffering souls in Hell”

      ie the basement bunnies!


  9. I used way back machine/internet archive the other day to have a look at what NS looked like in summer of 2010. I had forgotten why I spent any time thinking about done at all. I had forgotten how many contributors NS had at its high point. There were around a dozen in total. That includes Brandt and his limited watercress knowledge. I had also forgotten that semi(?) legit media ppl were part of NS, including Szish, Lindsay Campbell, and that one eager beaver journalism grad student who still works in media.

    Anthrax, TJ, I can’t remember any of the other names, nor do I care to look them up.

    Hope everyone is having a decent summer.

    • Remember how puzzling it was, like at an existential level? What did they think they were doing? How was it in any way real? In retrospect we know it was a Magic Imaginary Corporation — like a glossary term — but what on earth were all those people THINKING?

      p.s. I’m having a lovely summer. I hope your family, especially wee AFF, is thriving.

Comments are closed.