IN THE COMMENTS: Joe said:
Urban legend/joke. This story has run several times in the past years. Probably goes back decades.I said:
But it's Reuters!wgh said:
IMO, you have to question any story that spells it "dumfounded."Pogo said:
The reprinting of urban legends as true stories by news organizations that supposedly run rigorous fact-checking tells you much about the sorry state that afflicts journalism.To be fair, the story is dated Jan 9, 2008. I picked it up yesterday because it was teased in the sidebar of another Reuters story.
Revel calls it "the triumphant cult of voluntary ignorance", staffed by "docile instruments of disinformation".
It exposes why Reuters, and the NYTimes, and CNN, and others should not be trusted in anything they write at all. And that is a terrible thing.
Chip Ahoy said:
Ha ha ha ha ha X 1,000,000He's right about that.
I mean, très horrible
But this is soooo one year ago.
^^^ + What Pogo said.Actually, none of those links establish that it was a hoax, but they do show it's all very one year ago. The big lesson for me is: Watch out for sidebar teasers. But also, I wonder, where was I last January 9th that I missed this story? I try to keep up on current prostitution news. Oh, I see: It was the morning after the New Hampshire primary."I listened to you and, in the process, I found my own voice," said Hillary. Was there a Bradley effect? Obama had just unveiled a new campaign theme: "Yes We Can." Distracting, it's true. Still, this is an eclectic blog, and it was wrong to do post after post about the campaign unleavened by doings in the world of prostitution.
Museum of Hoaxes 1/14/2008, status undetermined.
Snopes messages 1/09/2008
Digg 1/10/2008
पोस्ट्स
३४ टिप्पण्या:
Her: Serving lunch... What are you doing here?
Him: I just ordered lunch...
Now that’s enough to make you die standing up!
She was making some extra money on the side, he was spending some extra money on the side. Someone should have taken them both aside and explained to them how, man, if you'd only skip the middle man, you'd have the money and time to screw each other silly with still enough left over to go out to dinner, dancing, and maybe even a movie.
This is a not a necessarily uncommon activity among women in Chicago housing projects, according to the book "Gang Leader For a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets."
"If your child was in danger of going hungry, then you did whatever it took to fix the problem."
The author estimates that 25 percent of residents in the projects use crack on a casual basis, while another 15 percent are addicts.
The husband was obviously a Creep
So...why are they divorcing?
Offsetting penalties. First down.
Blake has a point. They share interests.
Maybe the sex with her in the brothel would be cheaper than the same thing at home! I mean, does your hooker ask you to take out the trash or vacuum? That's extra, right...?
Hey, she was just learning new tricks.
In a logical world it should be offsetting penalties.
In the world of feelings the outcome is quite different: His perspective might be, "I cannot love a woman who has sold herself to the kind of creeps that go to a brothel". Her perspective, "I can't believe my husband is just like the creeps I've been servicing..."
What we have here is a failure to communicate . . .
Some men you just cant reach.
I like the ending in the Pina Colada Song much better.
Could've been worse. Could've been his daughter. I've heard versions of that particular story recounted to me, but maybe they were urban myths.
What are you doing here?
Hey, isn't this a recycled story? I could have sworn I read this last year.
I think what you've got here is the basis of a real bang-up Obamanomics "stimulus package."
What if, rather than a direct tax rebate, the government were to pay wives to have sex with their husbands as they normally would anyway? Hmmm...
Adapting Greg Mankiw's analysis in How Not to Stimulate the Economy, which he applied to the government paying people to sit at home and watch reruns of Mork and Mindy as they normally would:
Let's begin by comparing cases A and B. These two scenarios are identical in terms of final allocations and economic welfare. Joe's [wife] is doing the same thing, and all the money flows [to the familiy unit] are the same. But note that the macroeconomic statistics would be different. In Case B, Joe's [wife] is employed producing a government service. If we used standard data to compare Case B with Case A, Case B would show more hours worked and a higher Gross Domestic Product.
Q.E.D.?
Though the circumstances were different, that line came up in tonight's episode of the Simpsons when Homer and Marge met at an out-of-the-way motel.
Urban legend / joke. This story has run several times in the past years. Probably goes back decades.
But it's Reuters!
It's old Reuters.
IMO, you have to question any story that spells it "dumfounded."
The reprinting of urban legends as true stories by news organizations that supposedly run rigorous fact-checking tells you much about the sorry state that afflicts journalism.
Revel calls it "the triumphant cult of voluntary ignorance", staffed by "docile instruments of disinformation".
It exposes why Reuters, and the NYTimes, and CNN, and others should not be trusted in anything they write at all. And that is a terrible thing.
Ha ha ha ha ha X 1,000,000
I mean, très horrible
But this is soooo one year ago. ^^^ + What Pogo said.
Museum of Hoaxes 1/14/2008, status undetermined.
Snopes messages 1/09/2008
Digg 1/10/2008
I just awoke to a horrible dream.
Let me digress for a moment. When I was younger I actually used to date guys. Decent guys. They were white, successful and definitely the type I could bring home to mother who would of approved. Not sure where I went off the path of now wanting to have sex with men of color, who generally didn't speak the english language well, who were generally from another country and had no future. I am sure a therapist could probably help me with that but no thanks.
Anyways, my dream was that Obama selected one of my boyfriends from my 20's to be in his cabinet. On a sidenote I actually googled the guy now (I actually knew my tricks first and last names back then) and called his work number-he is still employed in a high level position at his company and he was really pretty spectacular...and I dropped him-how sad. During his confirmation hearings it came to light that he had sex with me. The southern republican red neck senators made me appear at the hearing and devulge all of my sexual escapades. My sexual escapades were all over the newspapers and cable channels and the media were at my parents home asking about me being such a whore. The respectable gay guy that was elected to the cabinet and that I dated was devastated and I ruined his life. He had to take his name out of consideration.
How are you?
Now I am worried that my phone number and name will be on the respectable gay guy's voicemail at work and he will wonder what the hell I was doing calling him.
Maybe it can work now?
His parents had a home in the hamptons, he was originally from Nyack, we could of been great together. He had a great hog too.
Who knew Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich were Polish? And married. To each other.
But this is soooo one year ago. ^^^ + What Pogo said.
So what's the big fuss?
I thought recycling was good?
It's a slow day.
Staff has been cut.
We need to futher reduce expenses.
We save on energy and resource use.
We help with reducing global warming and with saving the environment.
We deserve a Nobel Prize
Maybe Reuters should first google their own writing:
From Reuters, June 26 2001
"Berlin - A man seeking gratification in the red-light district in the German town of Aachen was surprised to run into his wife, who was secretly working as a prostitute.
Prostitution is not illegal in Germany but police were required to calm a row between the couple that broke out after the chance encounter in the small hours."
"I try to keep up on current prostitution news."
The important thing is that you learned your lesson. I'm sure I'm not the only who turns to Althouse for all my latest prostitution news. Let's put this incident behind us and move on. I acknowledge and respect you for your willingness to try to do better in the future. The world of prostitution is just too important not to get this right.
You will raise your game. Good. And for that, we salute you.
Plus, we have an early entry for next year's "Worst Blog Post"!
Blake, it's still this year!
Well, now, look, Althouse, you have to have a cut-off somewhere, and since you already solicited nominees for last year's--well, I just don't see how we can give a pass to anything you post in the past two weeks just because of some calendar issues!
Integrity! Excelsior!
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा