On Fri, 09 May 2008 20:21:17 -0400, "D.F. Manno" <dfmanno@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>In article <slrng29k0u.ft2.usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Lars Eighner <usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> The reason I don't look at you above the neck when you are talking
>> to me is because above the neck is where the stupid comes out.
>
>While we're on the subject, what is the point of these items in gossip
>columns? If you can't decipher the clues it's worthless, and if you can
>blinding it is unnecessary.
I used to write them for an "Anti-Social Column" in an unofficial work
newsletter. The point is threefold.
For the people who know who you're talking about, they'd like reading
something about people they know and would like to be snarky about,
without
anyone being sued. You'd also make those people feel in-the-know.
For the people who don't know, you make them guess. They may end up
in-the-know, they may be stumped, they may even make false assumptions.
For the people you're writing about, they'd get a little thrill that
something stupid they did got noticed but they still had a film of
deniability. Honest to God, the more I re****ted on people's idiocies and
peccadilloes, the more they seemed to like it, the more they made a point
of letting me know what they and their friends were doing, as much as or
more than they'd tell me things about people they didn't like.
It gets people talking and wondering. People just can't wait for the next
issue to see if they know what's going on and if they'll appear in the
column.
Yes, I would sometimes put in something I just made up if there wasn't
much
to talk about. It was rare, though.
JoAnne "Snow White didn't go to the reunion last weekend; wonder if it's
because she didn't want to run into one of those dwarfs again" Schmitz
--
|
