Are you making AFTER THE BLOOMP happen?

That's fetch.

I've got big plans for the BLOOMP.

DID YOU KNOW: the night of 100 stars was filmed and released on vhs?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0970162812/qid=1151379148/sr=8-5/ref=sr_1_5/103-2158964-0668625?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=404272

Maybe 3 or 4 years back there was a used copy on the amazon marketplace for a staggering $192. I guess someone finally shelled it out. Someone needs to make it available.

Timeline was great. But the writer - of course, a "comedian" (and if you want to know how the world works, click her link above and note that they let her go on last night) - bought into the pr bullshit that a monthly show somehow affords greater opportunities for eccentricity, chanced-taking and exciting line-ups, which flies in the face of reality.

I meant chance-taking.

"Did you know Eating It did a "webcast" all the way back in the year 1999? Must of been like watching cavemen try to control fire. Webcasts, lol. "

Thin ice Apiary... I hosted many times at Luna, including that webcast. (And if you don't lay off I'll hit you with my club and yell, "ook ook ooooook!")

Hey Andrew, Colette asked me to do a bit with her last night. I didn't ask to go up. "Also" the Chicago Tribune has "written" about me as a "comedian" so I'm not a complete retard for identifying myself as such. Partial retard, sure. At the very least, I'm glad I helped show how the world works.

Mandy - I'm sure you're very nice and I had neither right nor sufficient knowledge to cast aspersions on your comedic credentials, so forgive me for that. (I kinda meant it more symbolically than specifically, anyway.)

But I do think the Post article read, to a great extent, like unexamined pr. In particular, the point I singled out begs questioning -- how is it that a monthly show (and limited to a summer run at that) can possibly offer more opportunity for innovation, new talent, etc. than a weekly effort. (If there's an answer other than, "It can't," or "Well, they told me it could," it would have been instructive to see it included.)

I can't afford to make more enemies, so trust me, there's nothing personal in this. (Not in my feelings toward you, at any rate.) But having Jeff Singer's wife invite you to do something with her on the show the very day you've published a piece about said show is a lesson in how the world works.

Respectfully,
Andrew

I'm kind of a dick, really, but thanks for that. And you're right. You don't see enough investigative pieces on why a comedy show goes from weekly to monthly. Pitch it somewhere. I'll read it.

And you're right. You don't see enough investigative pieces on why a comedy show goes from weekly to monthly. Pitch it somewhere. I'll read it.

Posted by: Mandy Stadtmiller at June 27, 2006 03:50 PM

*****************************************

Now, now . . . You know that's not what I was suggesting.

It's just that I thought that one assertion seemed kinda ridiculous when I read the article in the paper, so when I saw this Apiary post, I thought -- "Oh, boy. Now, I can make my big, important point!"

It was, in my mind, rhetorical in the extreme; a tree falling in the forest.

So, of course, it turned out otherwise and at a time when I'm anything but in the mood to make a sound.

One thing I do wanna say, though --

It occurred to me while I was out a little while ago (I do get out) that you thought I was accusing you of some kind of corruption with my little seeing "how the world works" remark. I can honestly say I never thought that; never considered there was any quid pro quo in exchange for you being on the show or anything like that.

I was just referring to the basic, small-scale cronyism that permeates pretty much everything in life. I'm not necessarily against it. I have most definitely benefited from it. It's simply the way it is.

What do you want from this girl? How can you come here and argue these ridiculous points when the entire paper drips with corrupt journalists (page 6), bs right-wing bias, and the most exploitative cover stories you'll ever see? And you publicly admit to buying this rag?? Read The Times for godssakes, you dimwitted cheapskate.

Is this the quote that drove you insane:

"What's more, the formerly weekly show has gone monthly, allowing for a more planned-out and eclectic mix of performers."

?

I'm not a producer, but I would argue that 30 days DOES equate to more planning time than 7 days.

Yeah. I went looking for the quote a little while ago, which -- when I read it in the paper -- really annoyed me. (Sheepishly) Does seem kinda small now.

I think "more eclectic" is what seemed preposterous to me. Equally likely, the quote summoned to mind all of the ridiculous claims I always read in these articles that go unchallenged by the writers.

At the time that I read it, I didn't know I was going to comment on it; it was just a reaction to something I read in the paper. Shouldda read it again before I did comment, though, 'cause even if it is an example of the regurgitated pr I hate, it's a pretty mild and inoffensive one.

But it's probable that my feelings for the Eating It enterprise in general seeped into my reaction as well.

I confess to a certain schadenfreude when it comes to the show's recent travails. The reasons are not worth getting into here and I had no intention of dissing the show in my comments (and I didn't), but I think the "disinformation" I perceived in the original article was probably magnified by my negative predisposition.

I did the show a bunch of times during a relatively brief period and I don't do it anymore and whether I am to blame for that or not, it creates a prism within me through which I view all Eating It-related items. Said prism's refractions have this time 'round enveloped me in bullshit.

I will shut up now.

Except -- oh, yeah -- my original complaints about regurgitated pr still apply. (Again sheepish) Just not to this.

And you publicly admit to buying this rag?? Read The Times for godssakes, you dimwitted cheapskate.

Posted by: Leroy at June 27, 2006 05:18 PM
******************************************
Post is only 25 cents, so the cheapskate part is right on the money (so to speak). I would, however, argue that I am a quickwitted cheapskate.

Also, the Post is compact and easy to tote.

And it doesn't have an obituary page, so I don't have to have perfectly good days ruined by the news someone I admire has died. You read the Times obit page, you end up regretting the deaths of people you never even heard of.

Andrew's actually right about the regurgitated PR. I interned at a PR firm that repped a big show at the Javits center every year. The Post printed word for word an article my boss wrote for them and then credited a Post reporter. Funny shite.

I've worked at a bunch of newspapers around the country, and I've seen that happen everywhere. This piece, I must say, is pure reporting. Including my crack divination of the more planned out lineup allowed via a monthly show.