Blogging Is Publishing, And Publishing Is A Public Act

apple-wireless-keyboard

Today is my nine-year anniversary of blogging, and I’m here to splash cold water on the face of anyone thinking of taking it up: Blogging is publishing, and publishing is the public dissemination of content. In choosing to do it, you make yourself a public figure.

What do I mean by that? I mean that you will be known by people that you do not know. 54,000 people read this blog; I may know 50 of them. These people will say everything about you that can possibly be said, and the more popular you become the dirtier it will get. That’s the price of fame, even for a mere Internet microcelebrity. Imagine what it’s like being Tom Cruise, President Obama, or Muffy Aldrich.

Enjoy things in the dining room where you can partake of the web dishes you like. But don’t be in the kitchen — it’s going to be too hot for you.

“Richard” of WASP 101 had no business blogging. Not only was he incompetent in all of the qualities required to be a publisher, he stubbornly insisted on maintaining the blog despite an endless flow of nasty comments (only a fraction of which surely ever saw the light of day), an entire blog — WASP 101 Sucks — devoted to showing what a jerk and buffoon he was, and ridicule from all parts of the web.

These things should have been a wake-up call.

If “Richard” in fact turns out to be Representative Holloway, you can imagine other ways in which he could have played his love of clothing. Willie Brown, former mayor of San Francisco, is a notorious clotheshorse, but people accepted it as one of his personal quirks. A politician with a clothes fetish and who wanted to share it with the world could have made a lighthearted website about what he was wearing each day at the state capitol, taken a gentle ribbing for it, and ultimately probably been accepted for it. This is far different from donning the mask of anonymity in order to share not only a love of clothes, but lurid tales as well. In other words, things you’re not willing to say under your own name. Save it that kind of talk for beers with your buddies; don’t disseminate it publicly and think you’re absolved of responsibility simply because you choose to say it anonymously.

Given that scandal attaches itself to politicians like flies to shit, if you’ll excuse the simile, this was foolish arrogance on the part of the blog’s author, and if it is indeed Holloway, then he has no one to blame but himself for his terrible judgment. He had no business blogging not only because he had no talent for it, but because it was jaw-droppingly stupid for a man in public office to operate such a blog, with all the criticism it received, and think he would not be found out.

Blogging is no different than publishing pamphlets has been for the past 500 years. Only the medium is different. Opening a Blogspot account is a public act, and in taking this action you forgo all claims to be left alone because you mistakenly think you can disseminate your thoughts and opinions and not be accountable for them because you choose not to sign your name.

How many more different ways can I say this? You cannot choose to publish then claim to be a victim when someone finds out who’s been writing that stuff. Imagine if it had turned out that a politician was operating not a faux upper-class clothing blog, but a white supremacist blog. How sympathetic would you be then to his belief that he should be able to say whatever he wants through a public medium and not be accountable?

From what I’ve observed, much of the freakout around the web by people who feel an innocent man was unfairly robbed of his privacy is from people who think they should be able to do anything they want on the Internet. But there’s a huge difference between making a purchase or subscribing to a kinky porn site and becoming a member of an online community, racking up thousands of public comments under a username, or starting a blog, and thinking you ought to be able to give voice to your deepest thoughts — you know, the kind you would never say publicly in person — without consequence.

Here’s my advice: Not only should you not start a hobby blog until you’ve taken a cold, hard look at what you’re getting yourself into, don’t say things on the Internet you’re not willing to sign your name to. It’s just good personal policy.

An amateur blogger called “Yankee Whiskey Papa” has written a piece claiming that my outing of “Richard” has made him want to quit his blog, which he believes he should be able to write anonymously with no fear of being found out. I’m happy to have provided this splash of cold water, YWP, because clearly you’ve not been aware of exactly what it is you’re doing. “I suppose that I have been naive,” you write.

Yes, you have. — CHRISTIAN CHENSVOLD

110 Comments on "Blogging Is Publishing, And Publishing Is A Public Act"

  1. Thank you, Christian, for making this clear. All of what you say is true, and should have already been understood.

    Our grandparents and great-grandparents understood privacy far better than we do. Most of all, they had common sense: if you don’t want people to know about it, don’t talk about it. Embarrassing facts may come out in spite of our reticence, but at least we will not have been the authors of our own misfortune.

  2. Happy anniversary Christian.

  3. Well said.

  4. Christian, I have to agree with you on the premise that bloggers should accept full responsibility for the content of their postings, and they should display some capacity to engage readers with interesting content, or not do it at all. Blogging is an act of publishing.

    As I mentioned in my own blog post about the takedown of WASP 101, never post anything on the internet that you would not want connected with your name in the future. That is especially true of politicians, who should be well-aware of the dangerous potential of unfavorable revelations.

    http://thriftstorepreppy.wordpress.com/2013/06/01/wasp-101-blogger-exposed/

    I’ve always thought WASP 101 was stilted and pretentious because Richard had no sense of self-deprecation. Instead of creating an online fantasy world for himself, a personal archive of what he mistakenly thought was upper class, he would have better served his readers with satire.

    If it is true that WASP 101 Richard and Bryan Richard Holloway are the same person, then his denials have even more capacity to damage his career than the simple act of blogging about clothing and lifestyle. His NC 91st district is a largely rural, working class area. His voters are liable to feel completely disconnected from Holloway when the next election rolls around. I’m sure whoever his opponent is will not let them forget about it.

  5. Very well put, Mr. Chensvold.

  6. Christian,

    I’d respectfully disagree. Blogging is indeed publishing, and publishing is a public act, but it doesn’t follow that the identity of authors therefore need be public.

    For a long time now, the internet has been valued as a place for free speech (and a free exchange of information in general), and there’s nothing that protects that free speech more than anonymity. Yes, having anonymity allows for things such as bullying, racism, misogyny, homophobia, and people making wrongful claims about prep style, but it also allows for people to talk about sensitive subjects they could otherwise not voice in real life. That, believe it or not, includes a love for men’s clothing.

    Just take a look at The Atlantic, who picked up your story on their blog. Even on a liberal media site such as theirs, in second comment to their blog post, someone claimed that Bryan must be a closeted gay man because he loves clothes. There’s a ton of baggage attached to being interested in clothing (e.g. someone must be vain, materialistic, non-intellectual, superficial, etc.) for both men and women, but it’s especially taboo for men. So much so that you can be accused of “not really being a man.” That’s a big deal. In fact, it wasn’t more than five or seven years ago that men wrestled with the word metrosexual. Just because that’s become a non-issue in the style community doesn’t mean it’s still so for the general public.

    The internet is also a place where everything is indexed, archived, and made publicly available for all of time. Someone might want to participate in a conversation, but not necessarily want the record of that participation attached to their real name forever and ever. This is a real concern. In real life, I can make a comment to a bunch of friends at a bar, and if I make a faux pas, it’s remembered only by the people present. On an internet forum or blog comment section, that could be potentially seen forever. Why shouldn’t someone be able to make a comment anonymously then? It’s a new medium, where everyone is a “publisher,” but also a place where more offhanded conversations take place. With those dynamics, there’s good reason to allow people to remain anonymous, if they so wish.

    Again, yes this will lead to a lot of unsavory behavior on the internet – offensive things will be published, trolling will happen, crazy things will be done – but that’s essentially the by-product of a liberal ideal (liberal meaning the John Stuart Mill kind, not the Ted Kennedy kind). Free speech comes with a lot of ugly stuff, but barring immediate physical threats to someone’s safety, I don’t see why people shouldn’t be allowed to remain anonymous. Doing so allows us to talk about sensitive subjects, and participate in interesting, ongoing, free-flowing discussions, without having a public record of it attached to our names forever and ever. I’d worry less if there weren’t wackos who Google people for hours on end, keeping a journal on people, and doing cyber stalking, but that’s obviously not the world we live in.

    Respectfully,
    Derek

  7. Christian | June 1, 2013 at 5:50 pm |

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Derek. I’m not sure if I was unclear (let me know and I’ll revise); I didn’t mean to suggest that blogger identities must be known, only that they shouldn’t be surprised if at some point they are found out, nor think they are absolved of responsibility if they say things that are controversial. These are the risks they take.

  8. Hey Christian,

    Ah, my mistake then. I agree it’s a risk, though I think we might differ in whether or not that anonymity should be respected. As we’ve seen, when one person is “outed,” it casts a pall on the whole community, and scares others from participating in the online conversation.

    Derek

  9. What Holloway did not understand is that there are (or once upon a time there were) two versions of what is now described as Ivy League attire, (1) the staid and simple three-button worsted Brooks Brothers vested suit sort-of-thing that looked good on just about anyone, and that just about anyone (including such decidedly non-preppie types like high-school dropouts, Orthodox rabbis, Chicago ward-heelers, or brickyard workers going to church on Sundays) could wear without attracting undue attention for five or ten years until it wore out, and (2) the loud cliched quacking-duck frayed-cuff Nantucket Reds cum yacht-club crested peuce polo-shirt attire, which was and remains an ironic joke. Holloway the blogger, who clearly did not understand the applicable semiotics, embraced the former with a naive passion. That is why he was so reviled.

  10. Christian | June 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm |

    @Derek

    What does “participating in the online conversation” mean? That’s a pretty vague phrase.

    One way to avoid being outed is to not write anything controversial, because then the liklihood that anyone would care enough to out you would be minimal.

    Or, don’t be a person who could suffer professional embarassment from being outed.

    The simplest way is to not have a blog.

    By the way, I’m aware that you entered the blogosphere later than others, but very soon began signing your name as your profile rose and new opportunities came along. That certainly earned the respect of people like me and made us think of you as a peer.

  11. It’s always fun and games outing a public person blogging anonymously till someone gets “swatted”.

  12. Christian,

    By “participating in the online conversation,” I mean writing things on the internet. That can include posting things in comment sections, online forums, website review boards, or starting your own website. Basically anything where you’re contributing content.

    Yes, not writing anything at all, or only writing agreeable things, is a way to prevent being outed. But this isn’t a terribly good solution if we actually value free speech. Saying people can only write agreeable things or not write at all is to effectively censor what they can say. Again, the internet has long been considered a potential liberal utopia for free speech (JS Mill liberal, not Ted Kennedy liberal), which is why anonymity on the internet is important. It’s the best way to ensure that people can publish what they want – from the ugly trolling to the more important forms of dissent.

    And not to be too dramatic about it, but that kind of anonymity and free speech is what makes the Internet a powerful political tool in countries such as Egypt or China. It’s also how certain people have been able to find community for certain embarrassing interest (perhaps one involving sexuality or culture). Look at communities that have formed around transgender issues, medical issues, homosexuality, anime, or even the taboo of men being as interested in clothes.

    (Note: I don’t mean to compare what you did to the outing of online dissenters in China, but since you included the outing of people who voiced white supremacy views in your post, I thought I’d include this here. Outing someone over white supremacy views in the US isn’t too different than outing a liberal democrat in China. I would object to both.)

    Even more simply, some people may want to participate in an online conversation without having information about their private lives posted on the internet (e.g. having photos of their family members published on a popular website). There’s the utility function of anonymity/ privacy, which I’ve stated above, and then there’s the more principle driven value. Americans are uniquely sensitive to the principle of privacy, which is why I think you’ve seen some people disagree with your post.

    Respectfully,
    Derek

  13. Christian | June 1, 2013 at 7:39 pm |

    Derek, there are a lot of issues in play here, which is why I asked for specific elaboration. You’re now talking about free speech and “writing on the Internet,” whereas my post is about blogging and publishing.

    The point of my post was not “free speech,” which is so loaded I just felt compelled to put quotation marks around it. From my point of view, we don’t have a problem with free speech, we have a problem with too much free speech. My post was about accountability for what people say.

    Your heritage/background is Chinese (you mention China as an example of a place where free speech is suppressed), so I can see how you would more concerned with the freedom to yell “fire,” whereas I’m more concerned with the crowded theater.

  14. “Ivygate”.

  15. Christian,

    To be honest, I’m probably as anti-liberal as they come, at least in the United States. Or maybe more accurately, I’m very skeptical of liberalism (again, the classical European kind, not the Joan Baez kind). Outside of materialist rights (the right to food, shelter, and clothes), I don’t believe people have any inherent rights at all. Certainly not ones pertaining to free speech. If anything, my Chinese/ Vietnamese background makes me concerned with community rights and the state, not to individuals.

    That said, I’m sympathetic to the other side’s arguments, and I recognize that the internet has thus far been idealized as a place where free speech can finally exist because of anonymity. There are certain things where this can get quite touchy (e.g. can you propagate white supremacist views, as you pointed out). But for things such as whether men can voice unpopular opinions about a topic they don’t want others to know they’re interested in, I’d think it can and should stay anonymous (if the author wishes).

    Let me take an extreme and silly example: imagine someone was interested in furry fandom, and was really into mongooses (which in this example, we’ll say for some reason is very unpopular within this community). If the furry fandom community outed this person’s identity, such that anyone Googling this person’s name would reveal this person’s embarrassing interest, wouldn’t that be a shame? The stakes are so trivial – not at all like yelling fire in a public theatre or saying that white people should go around killing non-whites – but the potential for embarrassment so high. Seems like if there was ever to be an easy case made for preserving anonymity on the internet, it should be for online communities orientated around embarrassing, but trivial, interests.

    When I applied to graduate school many years ago, I got to do a tour of each school that accepted me. At University of Chicago, one of the faculty members – who literally dressed like a trucker, by the way – said that he went through each of our names and Googled as much as he could about us before letting us in. MySpace accounts, Facebook, blogs, whatever. Luckily, I had very little information about myself online at that time (if any), but it struck me as a bit shocking. The idea that a committee dealing with professional interests would look up information about my personal life online seemed wrong. Not unlike if an employer got to secretly follow me around to bars and listen in on all the conversations I have with friends. Maybe certain things are said there that I’d like to keep private (for whatever reason). The idea of privacy in this sense is meaningful thing, especially if it colors how your professional colleagues see you (and thus potentially treat you).

    And though I’ve never Googled women I’ve dated or wanted to date, I understand this is also quite common. That also creeps me out, and makes me sympathetic to why someone might not want all their blog posts, forum posts, online reviews, or whatever else attached to their real name. In our real lives, we can separate our social spheres – friends, colleagues, family, bosses, etc – but apparently that’s less and less possible because of the internet.

    Not everyone wishes to be seen as clothes mad.

    Respectfully
    Derek

  16. No Christian, there is a big difference between what opinions I may have on bespoke shirts and where my children go to school. If you can’t see the difference, then you are truly a very sick person. To “splash some cold water” here, you write a blog about what some college kids wore in the 1960’s, not a credible investigatory column for the Washington Post in the 70’s, so spare me the journalistic ethics babble. I didn’t quit my blog because you outed someone. I ended it because you and many of your followers can’t see the difference between disagreeing on cufflinks and fueling a platoon of cyber-pervs who want to destroy the lives of others, including children. It really is sick.

    Should your detractors systematically and relentlessly contact all of your advertisers and convince them to go elsewhere? Would that disruption of your livelihood be fair game? Would cyber-stalking your girlfriend be par for the course just because you write a blog about clothes that few people wear?

    If publishing is so public, why do you protect the anonymity of your commenters and sources? Yeah, yeah, I know… journalistic blah blah blah.

  17. Christian | June 1, 2013 at 8:42 pm |

    You’ve missed the point of my post completely, and it sounds like what’s troubling you has very little to do with me.

  18. Sid Richardson | June 1, 2013 at 9:08 pm |

    Christian:

    This seems to prove that you are small and have zero class. I thought more of you.

    Sincerely,

    Sid

  19. Christian | June 1, 2013 at 9:13 pm |

    Well at least you wrote “sincerely.”

  20. Elizabeth | June 1, 2013 at 9:28 pm |

    Christian, my lord—–the negative reflection is not on the author of
    WASP 101, but on YOU. Why the mean energy spent to attack this
    writer? Kindness and grace are two elements of someone with
    true class, gentility and style in my opinion. They are missing in
    this attack. Maybe they will be reached with age and wisdom.
    Maybe not.

  21. Christian | June 1, 2013 at 9:30 pm |

    “Writer” is being a bit generous, don’t you think?

  22. Chatterato | June 1, 2013 at 10:26 pm |

    I get the feeling your outing of Holloway was motivated by malice and a desire to increase your own internet celebrity. This theoretical conversation on the blogging/publishing doesn’t make you look any better.

  23. For those who thought the outing of Richard was not gracious, have you seen his post about the ten dollar strippers? I would certainly want to know if my elected representative harbored those kinds of attitudes and a complete lack of awareness and discretion. As Christian points out, anonymity is not a right, and the right to free speech does not exempt you from its consequences.

  24. Wasp 101 lead a double life and its come back full circle. The facts that he can’t admit the truth speaks loudly about his character .

  25. Sir,

    Yankee Whisky-Papa’s deftly phrased remark re respecting another person’s “self-set boundaries” sums up this whole deal for me in a simple equation: one either respects another’s boundaries [in this case, a blog author’s nom de plume], or one doesn’t. If one was raised in the old school way, then one automatically recognizes that essential Character falls down along the lines of blind honor. Or it doesn’t.

    Sir, you haven’t outed anyone’s character but your own. It is ok though, your readers have always understood your exemption from the culture base [as supplied in your commercial references tab], ie we readers of a certain sort have always known that yours is a commercial blog. But what you’re doing in branding Yankee Whisky an “amateur blog” is [unaccountably] demonstrating that your blog originates in and is supported fundamentally in/by/for commerce.

    It’s got to be tough trying to come back after the IvyStyle hype you’ve enjoyed around the museum show, catalogues, books, fashion show, forums, schedules and so forth. IvyStyle is a very thin area of relevance, so coming up with a sequel chewy enough to be noticed would be understandably next to impossible — yet your fuss with Yankee Whisky and Wasp 101 is in the process of going viral. Let’s hope you’re not trying to create internet buzz by sniping at “amateur” bloggers rather than figuring out a way to make yourself relevant.

  26. I am surprised by the degree of malice that you feel towards Wasp 101. I believe that he was just blogging some fun outfits along with some stuffy opinions. The blog made me laugh every time I infrequently signed on. What’s really behind all this ill will? Yes,your blog is smart, graphic, well thought out,well written and now the complete opposite of an Ivy wasp gentleman.Just another tabloid under the guise of taste. Oh well! L

  27. Since I live in Stokes County NC, I am represented by Rep. Holloway, so my perspective on this is simple. An elected official is held to certain standards and expectations by the people who he serves. All this talk about whether the outing of Rep. Holloway was done ethically or whatever really doesn’t matter to those of us who put our trust in him.

    Clothing affectations may be rather silly to most observers, but having read the Wasp101 blog, it is obvious that the writer (1) at the minimum held questionable views and made statements that never would have been uttered by an elected official and (2) at worst lied and misled people about a part of his lifestyle and attitudes that borders on wacky and unstable. In either case, having the truth come out is the right thing, regardless of this nitpicking over how it went down.

    There is no way that the person who wrote the Wasp101 blog possesses the character and integrity expected of an elected official and I am disappointed to learn that it is our own Rep. Holloway.

  28. I’d like to voice some agreement with both Christian and Derek. Without question, if you post something on the internet, there is a chance that someone (for motives good, bad, or indifferent) will find out who you are, or perhaps other information that you might possibly want kept secret. The individual who ran Wasp 101, whether he was a public figure or not, knew that risk. Thus, insofar as what the sleuth who uncovered what seems likely to be his true identity did not violate the law, we can only feel so sorry for the author of Wasp 101. I’d liken it to leaving a nice car overnight in a sketchy neighborhood; you can’t be too surprised if something bad happens. That being said, Richard obviously did take steps to keep his identity secret; regardless of what kind of a human being he is, a basic respect for others’ wishes, including a wish to remain anonymous, should be respected. He could have a variety of reasons–including, as Derek mentioned, not wishing to be (in accordance with an ignorant stereotype) being called homosexual or unmanly–to wish to shield his identity.

    While much of his blog centered around either distasteful or pretentious material, it doesn’t make it right to drag his name through the mud (especially in the unlikely event that Rep. Holloway is not, in fact, Richard). This is a situation in which people can do something that is legal, and even, perhaps, just, and yet still could have taken the high ground in respecting a (however foolish or distasteful) man’s wish for anonymity.

  29. I always thought that someone who did a blog owned it;that it served a purpose for them like a hobby “Anonymous” comments are always annoying and I think ought to be ignored or restricted. If one reads someone’s blog then they can gather from it what they will;however it’s still primarily for the blogger’s own satisfaction. As for anonymity for the blogger I agree that inherently the Internet is a public forum; there’s always the risk of public knowledge of the blogger.

    My two bits worth.

    Jrandyv
    Vancouver WA

  30. Thody Evans | June 2, 2013 at 12:53 am |

    @DSF

    You wrote: “Holloway the blogger, who clearly did not understand the applicable semiotics, embraced the former with a naive passion.”

    Didn’t you mean “the latter”, rather than “the former”?

  31. Christian,
    The negative comments by some readers show that an ability to express oneself articulately, even eloquently, and the ability to think clearly do not go hand-in-hand.

  32. Etymologue | June 2, 2013 at 1:20 am |

    The pig farmers will continue to vote for Richard.

  33. I feel as though I am being redundant here. I visited the competing website regularly. I did so for several reasons. I found it originally when discovering the Ivy obsession, and while it in no way matched others content-wise, it was satisfying in a certain ‘schadenfreude’ context. It was awful and embarrassing, and I marveled at its lack of self-awareness.
    Over the last week, Richard attacked CC by name, even employing Russell Street to provide new and fresh anti-CC content. What was CC supposed to do, sit by and allow himself to be smeared?

    From time to time, you will see stories in the news about a terrorist killing people and then hiding in a church or school to avoid retaliation, knowing that the chances of being counterattacked are slim.

    What many of you are suggesting is that Richard should be allowed to hurl verbal detonators and CC and CC should not be allowed to fight back because Richard was posting “anonymously”. I am sorry but I do not agree. Richard was taunting and antagonizing CC, so Christian delivered a knockout punch, and it may be, to continue the metaphor, fatal.

    Richard was only so bold in antagonizing because he naively thought himself protected by anonymity in this case. The minute his disguise was blown, he began spinning a web of lies and tried to disappear. Do I think Richard is in an embarrassing situation? Of course I do, but it is a position of his own doing, not anybody else’s.

  34. just because you can ‘out’ someone doesn’t mean you should. What you did was a petty, malicious act Christian. As I said before – you did not reveal the identity of your anonymous ‘tipper’ yet you revealed Richard’s. You chose to reveal it because of your own dislike of him – not because of any ‘principle’. There are plenty of other blogger’s whose identities you know – and anon tippers – you are not choosing to reveal them. You’re a low life.

    for the record, as i said earlier: .. I found Richard’s blog pompous, his taste in clothing a little over the top, but at least he had his own personality unlike ivy-style which is safe, and monotonous (steve mqueen- jazz- jpress-rinse-repeat)

  35. Old New England | June 2, 2013 at 10:55 am |

    Here is Richard’s first post from January 12, 2008 in which he asserts that “Anyone can be a WASP, and anyone can live the lifestyle.”

    Apparently an unnamed legislator thought the same.

    Wrong on both counts.

    Apparently an unnamed legislator thought the same.

    http://web.archive.org/web/20110903182737/http://wasp101.blogspot.com/2008/01/greetings.html

  36. GUYS!!! THIS JUST IN, THE INTERNET IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!

    Seriously, get over yourselves guys, go find yourself a woman (or man for that matter)

    Obligatory…

    http://xkcd.com/386/

  37. James Redhouse | June 2, 2013 at 11:13 am |

    @Lewis,

    One can always find a woman (or a man), but one can rarely find such an entertaining exposé and accompanying comments.

  38. Joseph P. Kennedy | June 2, 2013 at 11:24 am |

    Christian, recent events have placed you at the top of the Ivy online world. Second-tier bloggists and ousted forum mods clearly don’t like that but I wouldn’t be concerned. You’re the top dog.

  39. Ernest A C | June 2, 2013 at 11:39 am |

    Publishing is a public act by definition, yes. It doesn’t follow that the identity of the publisher has to be made public. You’ve chosen to reveal the identity of some blogger. Your decision. Your responsibility.

  40. I first heard about Wasp 101 through your lampooning of the author on Ivy Style. I checked out the blog and didn’t find anything there worth reading. The only times I’ve ever thought about it afterward have been through reading more criticism of it here. W101 wasn’t creating good content but still managed to attract your attention and, through that, some of your web traffic.

    Publishing is a public act, I agree. Anyone can blog but It’s difficult to gain the public’s attention without the assistance of the big names like yourself. If you, a publisher, don’t want something to get more attention then you have the option not to publish it.

    As for the outing, it seems self serving. I imagine the reaction to getting this information from the anonymous source being like the hollywood trope beat-reporter with press-pass-in-hatband: “WHAT A SCOOP!” Ivy Style will get a bump in traffic and some extra publicity because Wasp101 is an elected official. Would it have been such a scoop if he was just some blowhard middle manager with a laptop and a generous clothing budget?

    You published his name, and it was your right to do so. Lucky readers we because, in addition to knowing more about Wasp101, we know more about you too.

  41. Way to stand up for yourself! I agree, he is open game if he is spouting inappropriate content as an elected official. This issue has nothing to do with free speech but everything to do with taking responsibility for one’s own actions. The internet is no excuse. I’m glad you called him out, love your blog…

  42. Ricky Rimmer | June 2, 2013 at 12:34 pm |

    Comment by Ernest A C — June 2, 2013 @ 11:39 am

    ‘Publishing is a public act by definition, yes. It doesn’t follow that the identity of the publisher has to be made public. You’ve chosen to reveal the identity of some blogger. Your decision. Your responsibility.’

    You clearly understand that we are responsible for our actions, Ernest.

    Given that, you’ll obviously agree that WASP 101 is responsible for the consequences of his actions.

    What were these?

    One action was to make an enemy of our host, Christian. Another was to throw his lot in with the notorious mischief maker, Jimmy Frost Mellor who had been kicked off Talk Ivy with his tail between his skinny legs, presumably with a view to annoying Mr Chensfold.

    The consequence was that WASP 101 scurried away just as Jimmy Frost Mellor had done.

    Actions have consequences, yet not all are unhappy.

    WASP 101’s idiocy has provide us all with merriment for days, just as Frost Mellor’s humiliation continues to please many in this little world of ours.

  43. Vivian Fulk | June 2, 2013 at 12:36 pm |

    Here is an example of how Bryan Holloway is NOT a representative of the people but shows his true meaning in using WASP 101 handle as being a bigot.
    Go to minute marker 15:00. This is a legit documentary with over 100,000 viewings. His home town is caught up in a law suit with the AU and ACLU all due to WASP 101 thinking. This really is a serious finding Ivy! Intimidation by an elected official is more than distasteful.

  44. I agree, more or less, with Robert and others who place this whole thing in the context of a longstanding back-and-forth between CC and Richard. They’ve been making fun of each other’s posts and pictures for as long as I’ve been reading either blog. Yes, there’s a difference between that and revealing the identity of someone who prefers to be anonymous. Richard, however, made it clear in the recent post about that Mellor guy that he was fishing for embarrassing stories about CC to share on his blog. That is, he wasn’t just going to make fun of what CC had published here, but was looking for information about CC’s life outside of this blog. That, for me, makes him completely undeserving of any sympathy. If you go looking for private, embarrassing information about someone else, you don’t deserve sympathy when that person gets ahold of the same sort of information about you. Now, maybe this whole back-and-forth that they’ve had for the past year or so doesn’t make either of them look good, but the point is that it was a back-and-forth, not a one-way street. I believe the phrase goes something like, “Don’t hate the player, hate the game.”

    But that’s just my two cents.

  45. I can’t believe I’m now commenting twice on this story (and probably brings my life-time total of internet blog comments to around 5), but for some reason I am fascinated by all of this and feel compelled to comment again. Let’s keep in mind that the writer of WASP 101 is probably a PUBLIC SERVANT. Given the content of the blog, that’s what makes it arguably okay (in my opinion), to bring his identity to light. (If the guy were an accountant, I doubt Christian would have posted anything about it.)

    If the WASP 101 blog was simply a venue for posting and writing about his interest in clothes or what he perceived as WASP culture, I don’t think the author would really have too much to be ashamed about by all of this. Yeah, some people would roll their eyes, but he wouldn’t be the first clothes-horse politician and he could just laugh it off. However—and I never read his blog, but based on the comments and links provided these last couple of days—the blog was full of stuff NOT befitting any gentleman; much less a politician, who in theory should be held to higher standard.

    That’s what makes this story so rich (and eye-rollingly funny). It’s mind-boggling to me that a politician would create an internet alter-ego to hide arrogant, bigoted, and sexist opinions behind—even if he (naively) thought he would never be found out. Part of me self-righteously thinks: Regardless of political party, is this the type of person you want representing and working for you?

    But then again, in reality, I doubt this will have any effect whatsoever on the guy’s chances of getting re-elected. People elect far more scandalous people all the time. Probably all this will do is cause the guy to quit his blog and then in a few weeks everyone will forget about this and he’ll go on with his merry life.

    If nothing else is gained, we’ll have a few chuckles, and at least he will hopefully no longer cowardly write personal attacks on the internet behind the pseudo-shield of anonymity…

  46. p.s. I wonder if it’s possible that Bryan Holloway didn’t create the blog, but just someone who really doesn’t like him? What if Bryan didn’t even know the blog existed? What if that person is then Christian’s anonymous source? Let the conspiracy theories begin! (just kiddding…)

  47. Pat Naisbit | June 2, 2013 at 1:48 pm |

    @Adam

    Isn’t it more likely that Richard is a real person and has created a fictional assemblyman in North Carolina?

  48. Joseph P. Kennedy | June 2, 2013 at 1:57 pm |

    I see one of Jimmy’s multiple personalities, Ricky Rimmer, is present.

  49. Joseph P. Kennedy | June 2, 2013 at 2:07 pm |

    New mod Liam isn’t falling for Jimmy’s gaymes either:

    “If that’s the same Ricky Rimsquirt who posted on here a few times, then I would take no notice.

    He is a no nothing moron. So were his alter egos.

    In fact he’s probably on the Smokey Cat payroll….”

    http://forums.filmnoirbuff.com/viewtopic.php?pid=272382#p272382

  50. Ha ha… Pat, that’s funny. Or maybe Christian was bored and made BOTH blogs up and the hapless Repesentative is just the brunt of an elaborate prank? Ah, the possibilities are endless…
    Whatever the case may be, Christian, just YOU don’t quit this blog, okay?

  51. Joseph P. Kennedy | June 2, 2013 at 2:55 pm |

    For those of you just joining this site, Jimmy aka Russell Street is a confessed troll with numerous sockpuppets…

    http://www.ivy-style.com/the-dead-end-street.html

    Be aware that comments on this site coming from many identities may in fact be coming from him.

  52. Christian | June 2, 2013 at 3:00 pm |

    Doesn’t look to have been anything from him. He has no reason to leave a comment under another name, such as “John Smith,” as the only gratification he’d get would be in signing it “Jimmy Frost Mellor” or “Russell Street,” and such a comment would never be approved.

  53. Guy McPerson III | June 2, 2013 at 3:06 pm |

    In my opinion it’s about CLASS and CHARACTER. Just because you can seek vengeance doesn’t mean you should. It actually makes you look childish and petty once you do so….ESPECIALLY OVER A BLOG ABOUT CLOTHES. I could see if you were an opposing candidate for Rep Holloway’s district but……a clothing blogger? As they say on ESPN “C’MON MAAAAN!”

  54. Christian | June 2, 2013 at 3:13 pm |

    WASP 101 was not a blog about clothes, and this was not an act of “vengeance.”

  55. Halliburton | June 2, 2013 at 3:17 pm |

    Agreed, WASP 101 was not a blog about clothes, it was a blog about a pig farmer from the South pretending that he was a member of the upper-crust Ivy elite.

  56. Chatterato | June 2, 2013 at 3:56 pm |

    @Christian – Both of those 3:13 statements are patently false.

  57. Christian | June 2, 2013 at 4:10 pm |

    “Patently false” is quite a phrase. Curious, how would prove that WASP 101 was irrefutably truly about clothes?

  58. Christian, if this was not an act of “vengeance,” then what was the genuine and candid purpose of disclosing of such information? It seems that based on your passed relationship with “Richard,” this is most duly an act of vengeance and retaliation. One must wonder why a rather well-received blogger, such as yourself, would stoop to this particularly obscene and childish level of behaviour.

    I must note, that while this remark is critical of the manner for which you conducted yourself, I don’t mean for it to be an attack. Before this, I always thought highly of you and greatly enjoyed your blog, but the last three posts on Ivy Style have been about the disclosure of the author of WASP 101 and that just doesn’t seem to be relevant and/or appropriate. Again, I greatly enjoyed your writing and critical comments, but I think this act of disclosure has gone much too far and is not overwhelmingly welcomed by your readers or other individuals who are informed on the matter. Consider that these past posts of yours have reached record levels of comments, many of which to express their concern for your behaviour, making this topic the most discussed matter on Ivy Style. Is that really what you want your blog to discuss and be centered around?

    You note that WASP 101 was not “irrefutably truly about clothes,” but based on the past few posts, neither is yours to any extent of the imagination. I, as well as many of your readers, come to Ivy Style to read about OCBDs, repp ties, and navy blazers, not to indulge in overbearing rants about fellow bloggers that invariably cause the said blogs to cease to exist. As a writer, we have to ask ourselves: what are we doing, what is the purpose of what we are doing, and what is the effect of what we are doing? While we know what you did, we still do not fully understand the purpose of the said actions, and the effect of this has proved to be unfortunate. Including WASP 101, a total of three blogs to my understanding have stopped their function as an explicit result of this tragedy. Is that really the impact you wish to leave based on your writing? What upsets me even more though is the fact that you patronize one of the bloggers who stopped writing because of this issue. His reasons for his blog’s coming to an end are his beliefs and are entailed on his blog, not for you to deem to be inaccurate and misleading as noted in this post and your comments with the gentleman.

    While I have always held you in highest esteem, this matter has proven to be rather unfortunate for all parties involved. If you cannot see that, it is more sad than I thought. You will note this through the other posts on the Web, as well as through the various comments on these past three posts, as long as they are not deleted. Such comments show that you are not in the overwhelming majority, but in a faction that has gone too far. Such results of a faction do have consequences as we have seen come to light as of late. In school, we learn to respect the ideas of others regardless of our opposing views and to refrain from provoking those whom we disagree with. I just hope that you learn from this as a person and as a writer in the hopes that such a mistake does not occur again.

    Sincerely,
    G. Apley

  59. Christian | June 2, 2013 at 4:43 pm |

    Apley, it has been the mission of this blog since day one to absolutely NOT be a website just about clothes. If it were, it would be an inferior one indeed.

  60. CC, your comment about Willie Brown reminds of the time I was in Wilkes Bashford in SF back in 1986. I picked up a couple of shirts and a sweater, and moved on to suits. As I tried on the jacket of an awesome windowpane suit (maybe Kiton, maybe Brioni, certainly Vitale Barberis fabric), the young clerk noted as he smoothed out the shoulders that Mr. Brown himself had just the week before bought that very suit. I locked eyes with him in the mirror, and removed the jacket. Returning it to him, I said that under no circumstances could I buy a suit owned by that man no matter how easily his lucrative (and bribe-ridden) legal practice enabled him to buy such things.

    It is telling that you feel Wille Brown’s sartorial affectation is a matter of casual import. While not inappropriate for a private citizen and successful real estate lawyer for whom puffery is the real thing, such obvious attention to one’s manner of dress is odious for a public servant.

  61. Christian, I understand that clothing is not its sole purpose, but I thought it was about the lifestyle in its entirety- the “ivy style.” Would you care to elaborate on the points I drew upon, as opposed to just one? It seems that whenever each reader comments, you are responding with one tid-bit that doesn’t encompass the body of the statement being made, such as:

    Comment by Christian — June 1, 2013 @ 9:13 pm
    Well at least you wrote “sincerely.”

    Comment by Christian — June 1, 2013 @ 9:30 pm
    “Writer” is being a bit generous, don’t you think?

    As the editor, as you usually have done before, there has been more meaning in your responses that are truly significant. I usually expect more in your writing…

  62. Christian | June 2, 2013 at 5:19 pm |

    Apley@ I wrote an entire post on this. This post. I’ve also written quite a bit in the comments section over the past few posts. That’s what I have to say on this subject. I’m afraid I cannot respond to every comment that is left and every question that is asked.

    This is a hot-button issue for people with many divergent reactions and opinions.

    Never in the past, not now, and never in the future will I please all readers with what I choose to post on this website.

    I’m sure you can understand. There’s just one of me and many of you. That’s what happens when you start a blog, and one of the themes of this post.

    You are welcome to continue the discussion here in the comments section. I think I’ve been rather indulgent of the censorious remarks.

    Regards,

    C.

  63. CC- 100% in agreement with your statement-if you want to keep stuff private buy yourself a Hello Kitty notebook with a little lock and key on the side-and as for Yankee Whiskey whatever, yeah it’s beyond disturbing that people would try to find out info about your kid, but you have made mention of him (briefly) on the blog itself and that is putting it out into the public domain-fair or not, as Sinatra said “thats life”-also the clowns who dont think the employers and others will google you and try to search your facebook page etc-again, your pics of a drunken spring break are best kept in a scrapbook at home, or here’s a tip, maybe you dont need those pics to be taken in the first place. . .

  64. Here’s another take on the issue. Quite interesting to see other bloggers’ perspective on the matter…

    http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmanligheter.se%2F2013%2F06%2F02%2Fom-wasp-101-avslojandet%2F&sl=sv&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

  65. @Bebe
    My favorite Willie Brown quote was his pronouncement that he spends more money on ties than most men do on suits.

    @CC
    Tomorrow, we start a fresh new week. Can you release a fresh new topic tonight? Please oh please!

  66. Joseph P. Kennedy | June 2, 2013 at 7:29 pm |

    New topic? Laguna Beach Fogey at Admiral Cod needs some looking into.

  67. Richard was an awful person. It’s hilarious that he was outed–not because I disagree with him on cufflinks, but because he wrote a bunch of misogynistic, borderline racist drivel, and politicians (a word I clearly use generously in this context) should have to be answerable for that. The fact that he couldn’t pull off the character he was trying to assume was what made it funny, but he really did write some disgusting stuff. The people who seem to think this is all about clothes either never read his blog or share his despicable views towards women.

  68. Chatterato | June 2, 2013 at 9:02 pm |

    @CC – Since when did you become such a snarky, unlikeable figure? I didn’t realize the subject matter of WASP 101 was up for debate. In one word, what was the actual subject of Holloway’s blog? Birdwatching? Basket weaving?

  69. Christian | June 2, 2013 at 9:08 pm |

    Thursday at 2 PM, apparently.

  70. Bruno Wick | June 2, 2013 at 9:45 pm |

    Joe P. Kennedy is on to something re: Laguna Beach Fogey, once rightly described as a “sun-baked nincompoop”

  71. Bruno Wick | June 2, 2013 at 9:51 pm |

    I take everything back. The Admiral’s latest post features a pair of lungs so magnificent . . . What can I say?

  72. I take issue with people downing his background. Farming is extremely WASP if you morons didnt know. Many, many well dressed people hunt, fish, pig & cattle farm. Richard was more of a gentleman and nicely dressed than the small percentage of people that actually went to an Ivy school or came from the background. (that’s so espoused by you-CC)

    Nothing he stated was awful as much of it was tongue in cheek humor. It was entertainment….he didn’t deserve your vitriol and spitefulness….even though he did get sucked into your vindictive vortex a few times.

    By the way, Muffy Aldrich seems to disagree with you. Hmmmm, may not want to mention her anymore. She doesn’t want to be aligned with the likes of you. Not our kind, dear….would be said.

  73. From a simple man:

    I struggle to compose my thoughts, so in order to get through this; I must thrust myself into the conversation. I am a man of no means, and no formal education. I have never posted on a blog on the internet (except here and one other, in last the few days), because of fear of ridicule. However, I feel I must now post.

    I have an affinity for Ivy style clothing. It is more than a look, a style, or feeling of moneyed attire. It is since of satisfaction. Being comfortable in what wears, and being, able to do so.

    The bickering will never end; was Christian wrong, or was he correct? Does Richard have a right to privacy, or should he be accountable for the claims of a life that is inconsistent with a North Carolina Senator. I will leave that up to you posters that are better educated.

    I can tell you this though; Christian has taught me more than Richard ever could. I have visited both sites. Richard never taught me about style, Christian has taught me about shaggy dog sweaters, gray flannel paints, a three-button roll coat, etc… Richard would never have been able to be teacher. A teacher is what I came looking for, and Christian is one of the few that I have found.

    So yes, I will stand up for Christian.

  74. Ivy Style is but one site for style tips. It wasn’t a favorite and even less so now with this current foolishness. Classless.

  75. F.S. Woodhouse | June 3, 2013 at 1:05 am |

    @DLW

    You have spoken for many of us who have never posted a comment on this blog but who have benefitted greatly from it.

    Christian deserves our gratitude for this. He also deserves our support of his belief that we should expect legislators to adhere to a high standard of behavior.

  76. @Muffy
    The Daily Prep is but one site for style tips.
    Ivy Style is THE site for style tips.

  77. If you think this is “THE” site for style tips, then you have no style to begin with. There is no originality here at all.

    I agree with Muffy. Classless.

  78. Christian | June 3, 2013 at 9:35 am |

    No originality? Who else has outed a blogger-politician?

  79. Muffy,

    ‘Classless’ is having the nerve to call someone else classless. Such bravado suggests a hyper confidence and self belief that you, the accuser, possess class. Let others be the judge of that. Your blog is little more than a vanity project meant to substantiate your own love of self – a hobby that projects your deepest insecurities. We get it, your parents had some money (and you like getting free bags from Lotuff). Not only is that not special, publicly documenting and promoting it for strangers to gawk at isn’t something I would define as classy….

    Is this the same Muffy who prances around with Fred Castleberry, tells us which shore towns she thumbs her androgynous nose at, and wears KJP bracelets? Your line is eroding the anonymity of blog strangers, huh? You just can’t stand that! Oh yes, please educate us on class…

  80. @Curmusd – I did not leave that comment. That is a different Muffy.

  81. Pink Gin Petra | June 3, 2013 at 9:47 am |

    Which malcontents are now behind this disgraceful behavior?

    http://www.punchinthefacebook.com/punch/ivy-sty/christian-chensfold

  82. I have never left a comment on this blog and maybe one or two over at the Daily Prep regarding my never-ending search for decent khakis for women. I don’t even look at many blogs except for Muffy’s wonderful posts. She is, in my opinion, the “gold standard” for a certain type of blog.

    What type is that? For me and my reading pleasure, it is more about a nostalgic look back at an era, a way of life, a certain style, a sense of tradition and solid values that I found comfortable and dear. Now and then I would wander around to other blogs, and they might be about clothes, lifetyle, decorating, manners, etc. I stick with Muffy Aldrich for a guarantee of graciousness. Above all else, that is what pleases me.

    As for all of this that I stumbled upon when I had more time on my hands than usual…well…sad. Just sad. It was clever sleuthing, but what was the crime? Regarding Richard/Wasp 101, I would just say “Bless his heart” and move on without bothering to have a second look at his blog. Unless he did harm to helpless animals or small children, then having his fantasy life or whatever it was is simply a bit sad in a Jay Gatsby/James Gatz sort of way.

    The mean comments here about the farming background are also sad. I am not familiar with Richard’s record as a legislator and whether or not he works for the best interests of his constituents, so that’s for them to decide. As for holding any politician to a high standard of behavior, I am sorry to say that I let go of that notion a long time ago. It seems to always be the “summer of love” for many of them.

    All that is to say: “In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since. ‘Whenever you feel like criticizing anyone,’ he told me, ‘just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.'”

    Many of you may read this, shake your heads, and say “She just doesn’t get it.” You’re right. I don’t. Now, back to see what Muffy has posted.

    Respectfully submitted,

    Jane Lee

  83. Christian.

    If I were on the Board of Ivy Style, which I am not. If you reported to me, which you do not. But if I were and you did, I would call you and highly recommend that you move off this subject. You know that there are many interesting and uplifting pieces you can post…so get on with it!

  84. T.M.Barnes | June 3, 2013 at 10:54 am |

    You SHOULD have just sent Richard and email saying “Hey Chump, I know who you are” instead of publishing his personal info. Let’s get this straight: you are not a professional blogger, you are a commercial blogger.

  85. Christian | June 3, 2013 at 11:00 am |

    You’re right, Barnes, I should have tried to blackmail him. Now that would be commercial!

  86. You are very mean (sure Wasp 101 is silly and pretentious). But I would rather be a bit silly and pretentious than mean and pretentious. You have lost my respect, not that it should matter to you but I used to really like your blog.

    W

  87. @E

    Who wants or needs originality?
    That’s fashion.
    I want tradition.
    That’s style.

  88. Who else outed a politician? Who cares? Pretty pathetic all the way round…

    I thought this was a blog dedicated to style.

  89. I think it is both wise and gracious for Christian to allow all of these comments and let this run its course. People will say what they want and need to express and then either continue to follow his blog or move on.

  90. Tradition isn’t style. In your case ignorance appears to be.

    Without originality there would never have been an Ivy Style. Or Alan Flusser, or the backbone that makes up the natural shoulder look to begin with.

    The best dressed men express their originality and personalitity through their wardrobes with tasteful restraint. Mindless adherence will never give the appearance of style, individuality or brilliance in one’s appearance.

  91. Saucer of milk, table for two. Meow. Get over yourself. You should change your blog to Ivy Style Diva

  92. @E

    Poppycock!

  93. Chatterato | June 3, 2013 at 2:59 pm |

    So many idiotic, caustic comments made by Christian, it’s hard to know where to begin.

    Please don’t go trying to impute some higher meaning to your blog. Ivy Style is a blog about clothes. Wasp 101 was a blog about clothes. Why you would even attempt to debate this self-evident fact is beyond me.

  94. Chatterato | June 3, 2013 at 3:28 pm |

    Secondly, we readers have been indulgent of you, not the other way around. Although your blog is not subscription-based, we readers are the closest thing you have to customers. We only have a certain amount of time to dedicate to our various activities each day. You should consider yourself blessed that we choose to spend some of our time – time directly responsible for your advertising profits – on your blog. As with all commercial endeavors, the age-old maxim remains: keep the customer satisfied. Your actions regarding Holloway were highly offensive to several of your readers, but instead of displaying the slightest degree of understanding towards your more ethically inclined readership, you’ve instead chosen to dig in your heels deeper, mounting an embarrassing counter attack of scorn and sarcasm.

  95. @ Clara ~ It sounds by your definition as if you are classless? I said, “the foolishness was classless.” My dear, your elaborately long diatribe speculating that I am Muffy Aldrich, and your vitriol disguised as class clarification was, in fact the opposite. Thank you, but I really must remove my participation in this downward turn of unpleasantness.

    Best Regards,

    lMc

  96. WASP 101 was not about clothing. “Richard” was a creepster and a persona created to play out dark & dirty fantasies that the sociopathic blog writer created and/or had lived. WASP 101 was the expression of a sick and disturbed mind.

  97. Christian | June 3, 2013 at 3:31 pm |

    @Chatterato

    You certainly seem to have plenty of time.

  98. Speaking of time…

    …I used some of it to place an order for the Kamakura OCBD made of the heavier 40(2PLY)×20(COMPACT YARN) Oxford cloth.

    3 3/8″ collar. Brooksy.

    A really great shade of blue. And beefy. The lighter weight Oxford cloth deserves kudos, but this hefty, beefy Oxford is a most welcome addition to the New York Classic fit lineup.

    I didn’t find it in the Madison Avenue shop in my size, so I ordered through the website. Superb service, prompt delivery.

    I eagerly await the arrival of the striped Oxfords in the New York Classic fit.

    Isn’t it great that there’s a spot on the interwebs where we can talk about well-made Ivy style clothing?

  99. Chatterato | June 3, 2013 at 6:19 pm |

    Seeing that I am a student who only works part time, yes, I am afforded a fair share of leisure. For the past year, a soupcon of my idle time has been spent reading your blog – on average, five minutes a day. Admittedly, over the past few days this number has risen to maybe thirty or even forty minutes a day. Your calamitous unraveling, brought on by hubris and an utter lack of savoir faire, has caught my attention. Sorry, I’m the type of person that takes pleasure in rubbernecking a train wreck.

    I thought I’d extend to you one last opportunity to save face, but given your embarrassingly immature handling of this situation, now seems like a good time to permanently stop reading your blog. I can stand the heat in this kitchen, but the meals you turn out are insipid at best. The only reason your blog has enjoyed any success is because you lucked into a decent domain name. The photography was amateur and the writing immemorable. I’d rather eat somewhere else. Enjoy cooking for one less guest.

    Save the witless riposte for another detractor, I won’t be reading it.

  100. Christian | June 3, 2013 at 6:25 pm |

    I can’t believe a student is siding with the bible-thumping politician. How far we’ve fallen since the sixties!

  101. Chatterato, what school do you attend? Have you considered transferring to an institution that would provide you with a better education? Or are you not availing yourself of the education you could receive from your current institution?

  102. Chatterato, PLEASE don’t leave! The comic relief you provide throughout everyone of your faux outrage post’s is more amusing than you can imagine. You’re like Ivy Style’s version of Maggie Smith on Downton Abbey. By chance you’re not wearing early 20th century dowager garb are you?

  103. Oxford cloth?

    You know, beefy and button downed…

    …an Ivy classic…
    ….

    …anybody?

  104. Christian | June 3, 2013 at 7:31 pm |

    There’s a forum called “Talk Ivy” where that’s all they talk about.

  105. Well, yes.

  106. A. E. W. Mason | June 3, 2013 at 10:57 pm |

    Maybe I’m the only person who got this impression, but I thought the very reason “Richard” of WASP 101 left so many clues as to his identity–so many dots to be connected–was to create a challenge to his readers to figure it out. I assumed one day some follower would figure it out and that perhaps “Richard” would award a prize to the detective.

  107. In my younger and more vulnerable years my father gave me some advice that I’ve been turning over in my mind ever since.
    “Whenever you feel like criticizing any one,” he told me, “just remember that all the people in this world haven’t had the advantages that you’ve had.”

    Reserving judgments is a matter of infinite hope?

    I am still a little afraid of missing something if I forget that, as my father snobbishly suggested, and I snobbishly repeat, a sense of the
    fundamental decencies is parceled out unequally at birth.”

    -F. Scott Fitzgerald from The Great Gatsby

  108. Joseph Mitchell | June 4, 2013 at 10:15 am |

    This has nothing to do with privacy–a rather meaningless concept in the context of the Web;it has to do with a public official using a pseudonym to engage in tasteless, immature blogging. Thanks, Christian for informing us.

  109. For the benefit of creating a pertinent product comparisons, we have looked
    at routers in this variety that reveal similar aspects including IEEE
    802.11n Wi-Fi standards, 2.4-ghz band and double antennas.
    Nothing significantly less than an n layer 3 switch should be considered,
    if you are buying new router. It will be best to
    improve to a wireless n router, in case you possess a wireless-g
    router. The most recent routers also increase speed with wifi Quality of Support applications (QoS) common, which makes effective usage of Ethernet connections by prioritizing multimedia traffic according to
    the application’s sensitivity to delay. Many wireless n routers also apply multiple-input and multiple-output
    (MIMO) radio antennae to boost speeds.

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

*