Well, what I would have said is that it's fun to watch when Sarah Boxer gambles -- almost always correctly -- that her editors know even less about the interweb than she does. In this case by citing a listing in uncyclopedia as an indication that something meaningful is happening.
Comments
What, no coverage of Pastafarianism making today's NY Times?
Posted by: Matt | August 29, 2005 3:35 PM
Well, what I would have said is that it's fun to watch when Sarah Boxer gambles -- almost always correctly -- that her editors know even less about the interweb than she does. In this case by citing a listing in uncyclopedia as an indication that something meaningful is happening.
Posted by: radosh | August 30, 2005 1:52 PM
Now Daniel, if you go on talking like that you will never be touched by his noodly appendage.
Posted by: Zebra | September 1, 2005 10:19 AM