I am very much amused that not a single one of you understood what jerrysfriend's point was. Â Having read many of his comments before, I have little doubt that when he does make an observation on style, he is being very serious about the matter. Â Recall that he made a comparison between articles in the Times on men running around with their shirttails hanging out and young boy ads and products for slutty underwear. Â These articles appeared in the leading newspaper of record in the United States. No one really Â believes that the articles describe the great tradition of men's style handed down to us over the last hundred years or more. Â One can hardly imagine George Frazier writing about these matters in Esquire magazine. Â Yet, our leading newspaper, one of the repositories of the tradition, seems to believe this kind of trash deserves our consideration. Â Does anyone really believe that? Â These are not matters that involve substantial people, and they really have nothing to do with style or a sense of style. I agree with jerrysfriend. Â The New York Times continues its slide into oblivion.
i am very much amused that you think he was speaking purely about 'style' or the quality of the NYT's writing. first point: he used the word 'disgusting' to describe the article. if the thrust of his post (HA. pun intended. ) was to suggest what you are saying - i.e. that the times was simply not writing to a certain standard with regard to 'style' reporting - then he could/should have used a more appropriate word, such as ...mmm, 'lamentable', or 'disappointing', or something like that. however, and this leads to the... second point: his subsequent replies betrayed his true intention, which was to publicly denigrate some brief (HA. another one. ) mention of homosexuality in the context of underwear marketing. his self-righteousness based on his (implied by himself) lack of rational thoughtfulness trumps any sort of considered opinion he may have about style. this was an opportunity he was taking to inject a narrow, specific morality into the forum, by pointing at something he disapproved of morally
and implicitly asking us to join in the snickering. i don't care a bit about the article. i neither know nor care if the new york times goes down the tubes. what i do care about is his ignorant attitude serving as the basis for cultural criticism. i know some of jerrysfriend's other posts, and i agree many of them are most enlightening. that is what makes this revelation of attitude all the more perturbing. now i will have to think twice about where he's coming from, when i read any of his posts. this could have been a useful discussion about the relevance of market reports concerning men's underwear to the culture of men's style and fashion, but instead he made it sordid by fixating on a very minor aspect of the article. what would freud say, i wonder. /andrew <- neither latent nor overt (not that there's anything wrong with that Â