Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

Amy Alkon Is A Big, Dumb Meanie Who Won't Apologize
According to this thin-skinned "polyamorous" blogger chick, I'm supposed to be "haunted." (I'm working on it, really I am!)

The blog item excerpted below pretends to be about the beauty of apologizing. Amy Gahran, the girl who wrote it, apparently googled "polyamory," which led her to my syndicated column mentioning it in the headline in the Ventura County Reporter.

Complaining about perceived slights against the "poly people" in my column, Gahran e-mailed me repeatedly, copying the editor at the VC Reporter. (Wooooo!) In one of these e-mails, Gahan made sure to give me the link to the piece on her blog. Poor dear, most of her posts have zero comments. I guess she needs the traffic. Let's all help her out.

But, first, the big issue, in Amy Gahran's words:

The Ventura County Reporter yesterday published an advice column by self-described "Advice Goddess" Amy Alkon bearing the headline "Along Came Polyamory." Unfortunately, the article involved an issue of blatant sexual/emotional irresponsibility in a relationship, not polyamory (which means being open to having more than one intimate, committed partner at a time with the full knowledge and consent of all involved). Alkon claimed in e-mail that she clarified that distinction, making her headine merely "ironic" -- but in fact she did not. Her off-target attempt at humor ended up perpetuating offensive misinformation and stereotypes about a growing community. That ain't funny.

Seeing polyamory conflated so prominently with irresponsibility bothered me, so I contacted Alkon to politely let her know about her error. I promptly received a very snarky e-mail response from Alkon accusing me of not grasping her "irony." Hey, that's something you shouldn't say to an editor -- something I just clarified by e-mail to Alkon and the Ventura County Reporter.

I'm hoping Alkon or the paper will apologize for the error -- but it's a shame that, given a polite opening to acknowledge her error and rebuild her credibility, she instead opted for denial and dismissal. I'll bet that will probably haunt her worse than simply owning up and moving on...

Oh, please. First, the definition of polyamory in Webster's:

participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships

And here's a reply I posted on her blog:

Regarding apologies: Amy, you seem intent on hammering me, and seem to take some enjoyment from repeatedly e-mailing me and the VC Reporter about how wrong I supposedly was -- despite the fact that what you clearly didn't read the column closely enough to see that I'm quite precise (and quite correct) about what ethical polyamory is.

Perhaps you were just looking for fodder for your apologies blog item -- regardless of whether it really fit the bill? I have to tell you, I'm big on accountability, and when I make a mistake, I own up to it. About a month ago, my friend Rob Long told me I'd been a jerk about something. My response: "Yeah, you're right. I was."

In this case, I maintain my point from before: The headline was ironic and I made clear in the column that what they had wasn't polyamory, but a case of a guy cheating.

The real shame here is that I have about 30 requests for advice, just from today, and I'm repeating the same thing over and over to you, which is kind of a waste. By the way, I got only three complaints, all from Ventura. None from any other paper that runs me, and there are quite a few.

If I felt I'd been cryptic, I'd apologize. If I felt I didn't understand polyamory, and didn't advise well on it, I'd also apologize and educate myself further. On the contrary, I put a lot of work into that column, into being precise about stating what polyamory is and isn't, and I feel I stated it rather clearly.

By the way, Nena O'Neill herself was a fan of my work and of my thinking. Obviously she certainly had a clear grasp on what it means to have a sexually open marriage, as do I. -Amy Alkon

In response to a comment on her blog from Howard Owens, who really didn't understand why she was getting her polyamorous panties in such a wad, and said he thought most columnists don't write their own headlines:

I do write the headlines for my column. Daily papers tend to write their own. Alts will run mine.

I hope it isn't all polyamorous people that have such a hard time with irony! Here, I'll strip it down and explain it for the oversensitive and in need of assistance:

The headline in question: "Along Came Polyamory." It wasn't consenting polyamory, but the guy was groping a whole bunch of women; ie, he was forcing polyamory on his girlfriend without asking for her consent. To explain further: Along came polyamory without her consent...well, how fun for her.

There's a book I recommend often to readers called The Ethical Slut. It talks about consenting polyamory - that's the ethical part. Fantastic book.

Ultimately, this has been a really silly waste of time spent on a manufactured problem. I wish I'd spent it giving free advice to people with real problems, but there are women with blog space to fill with huffy bits about uppity people who won't apologize, so...so be it!

Additionally, I'd never get out of bed if I were this sensitive. Luckily, I'm a godless harlot with a rather thick skin.

There has been one pleasant note -- connecting with Howard. Hi, How, hope you're well. Hope to see you down here in LA one of these days!

More fun at the link above, including my policies on remarks that "could be construed as offensive to people in the poly community."

Oh, how tragic. Guess what: If you don't have a sense of humor...don't read my column.


UPDATE: Play "Spot Amy's Huge Member" at this link.

Posted by aalkon at September 30, 2006 12:52 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/mt4/mt-tb.cgi/1721

Comments

People often imagine that the world is transfixed with fascination about their sexual boundaries, but it turns out we're not. Polyamory is never going to appeal to anything but the tiniest fraction of the population.

Posted by: Crid at September 30, 2006 1:56 AM

"Luckily, I'm a godless harlot with a rather thick skin."

Best. Line. Ever.

Posted by: Melissa at September 30, 2006 6:53 AM

Ok, I just read the "offending" column, and I think it's one of your best. I don't see how anyone, poly or otherwise, could get offended by that. Except perhaps people with spines "the consistency of soup." And, let's face it, they're prone to getting offended by anything and yet somehow lack the gumption to, oh, break up with/stop reading your "offensive" column.

Posted by: Melissa at September 30, 2006 7:04 AM

Anyone's philosophy "could be construed as offensive to people" is SOME kind of community or other.

Frankly, I just don't have the time to be offended by other's notions unless they affect my life, liberty or perfute of happineff.

Posted by: Deirdre B. at September 30, 2006 8:55 AM

If you can't make fun of the "growing community" of polyamorists then what's the world coming to?

Seriously, Amy, I sort of hate to see you bother with such a tiny nitwit as this. She desperately wants attention, and now she's got it although she doesn't deserve it.

The interesting issue to me is: How should these blogospheric attacks from people so far beneath you be handled? My policy is to generally ignore them...other than an occasional tangential mention.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp at September 30, 2006 12:42 PM

Forgot to add that "Along Came Polyamory" is obviously just a play on words and a clever headline, not an insult. That you do write the heds for your columns sometimes is unusual. One of the marks of a clueless dweeb who should be ignored is assuming that writers are responsible for headlines.

Posted by: Cathy Seipp at September 30, 2006 12:56 PM

It's a good point, Cathy, about ignoring the tiny nitwits. When they write me irate e-mails about my column I usually write them one reply explaining why they're wrong, and then if they write again, I reply, "You're still wrong. Refer to previous e-mail."

This woman, however, wrote to the editor at the paper. Repeatedly. And included the blog item in one of the pieces. Hence, I felt more compelled to defend myself.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 30, 2006 4:55 PM

Hi, Again, Amy A.

Cute post, glad you're obviously having fun with this discussion.

To set the record straight here:

  1. I first tried to address this issue to you via a comment to your blog. Since your column was already published, I felt a public discussion was appropriate. You elected not to publish that comment, since you thought it was off-topic. Which is fine, it's your blog and up to you what to/not to post.

  2. Although you claim knowledge of polyamory, your column to me indicated possible significant misunderstanding or misinformation on that topic -- and your later comments on my blog appear to bear that out. Since you're in the business of giving out advice, I thought it would be appropriate to provide you with some useful information. Apparently that attempt offended and perhaps even angered you. Sorry, it was not (and still is not) my intent to pick a fight.

  3. You were the one who e-mailed me and brought the editor of the VC Reporter into our conversation, since you chose to copy her on your abrasive and dismissive reply to my attempt to comment politely on your blog. I figured since you brought the editor into the conversation, it was appropriate to keep her in the conversation.

  4. I realize it may seem trivial to you and many of your readers, but articles such as yours which conflate polyamory with unethical or irresponsible behavior are pretty offensive as well as inaccurate. This isn't a matter of failing to distinguish between fine gradations of leather fetishes. Rather, it's about differentiating between ethical and unethical behavior -- something pretty important in an advice column, I would hope. (Your mileage may vary on that point, of course.)

  5. I wasn't aware at the time I tried to let you know about your error that, as you commented on my blog, you don't care whether you're offensive. And again, that's your prerogative -- for all I know, offensiveness may even be your selling point in the column marketplace. If so, that's fine, whatever works for you. However, I assumed that you would care whether you're spreading misinformation or inadvertently feeding negative stereotypes. But perhaps I am mistaken on that point.

I don't expect these points to get a warm reception from you or your regular readers. Well, that's the way it goes sometimes.


Best,

- Amy Gahran

Posted by: Amy Gahran at September 30, 2006 5:38 PM

Amy A --- me thinks you doth protest too much.

Posted by: David at September 30, 2006 6:16 PM

Amy, you're most tiresome. I'll take Cathy's very good advice above and let my column speak for itself. Here's the relevant passage:

There are "sexually open relationships," but none other than the late Nena O'Neill, coauthor of Open Marriage, admitted to me that few couples can make a go of them. Of course, without an explicit agreement for, let's say, a feel-up free-for-all, you don't have a sexually open anything, just a partner who's cheating.

Now shoo!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 30, 2006 7:03 PM

Can I be against polyamory because all the people who practice it are really annoying about it?

Posted by: MissPinkKate at September 30, 2006 8:19 PM

*Sigh* Well, she could at least show her appreciation for getting her blog so much traffic, Amy *A*.

Crid, I hope the "tiny nitwit" responds to your post over there, because it was right on target, and damn funny.

Posted by: Brenda at September 30, 2006 10:42 PM

It seems to me that what the guy in the column was requesting WAS polyamory. He wanted to have emotionally and sexually involved relationships with other women while retaining his girlfriend as his "primary" and keeping the other relationships secondary and tertiary. That's the basic definition of polyamory.


Of course, he was being a dick about it, but that doesn't mean it wasn't polyamory. Polyamory and monogamy are both morally neutral ways to define a relationship. Polyamory can involve "unethical and irresponsible" behavior just as much as monogamy can. Having practised both types of relationships, I personally don't think that either side should get to define their type as being somehow magically exclusive of all the normal travails and messiness of relationships.

Posted by: jill at October 1, 2006 3:47 PM

Exactly. Now how come this is so hard for others to understand?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 1, 2006 6:12 PM

Are you a man? Your picture makes me wonder a bit. Totally fine if you are..Just wondering.

Posted by: Charlie at October 2, 2006 6:33 PM

Whatever I am, my dick's clearly much bigger than yours, as I would never post anything so rude and insulting on your site. What's your last name, Charlie? Not only do you post rude remarks about me on my own site, you post them without standing behind them with your identity. I think I'll just call you Charlie Pussy, how's that?

Lemme guess, you're a huffy, humorless polyamorist?

PS Here I am in a dress. If you look closely, maybe you can see my huge member!

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2004/07/left_coast.html

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 2, 2006 6:38 PM

wow, i had no idea who you were until this popped up in one of my communities. now i'm rather wishing i still didn't. yes, i'm a "huffy, humorless polyamorist" and i also found your column offensive. it might not have been so had you explained your so ~obviously~ limitless understanding of polyamory. you know, in little words for those with no knowledge of the term. and then to run on a nasty tear to someone that just tried to politely point out the offensiveness to a particular demographic.... wow, what are you, five? it's rather akin to flinging lincoln logs and tinker toys while the recess lady's back is turned. there was no call for you to get nasty in the first place, much less to turn vicious about it. as i can tell from your thread, undoubtedly this won't get published in your blog, heavens, it might actually bear out the point the other reader was trying to make, and we can't have that, now can we...? oh, and if you must give me a last name, do use cunt! i've always liked that term. or maybe that should be yours....?

Posted by: Deb at October 2, 2006 7:04 PM

I thought you were clear on your definitions as well, you gave the woman good advice- he doesnt sound like a good guy to be with whether he defines himself as poly or a cheating mono.
People are a little too quick to jump on anything they might see as 'bad press' for whatever subculture they belong to- I've noticed it a number of times, for a number of differnt subcultures..they're all so ready to see oppression that everything seems to be that.

I hate to think you're basing your entire veiw on poly on this one person's knee jerk reaction..

They're creating more bad press for us than anything they think you might have implied.

Posted by: Jenny Wren at October 2, 2006 7:26 PM

Still the same stuff.

You are absolutely 100% clueless. You do NOT knkow what polyamory is, you have not provided a single reference to anything you have written that indicates that you do, and you are rude.

Bye.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 7:28 PM

No, Jenn, of course I don't base my entire view of polyamory on this experience. I have a number of friends who are polyamorists, and I knew Nena O'Neill (and know Albert Ellis, who was one as well for quite some time). If anybody has a sense of humor, it's Ellis -- the only shrink I know who has crowd screaming with laughter when he gives a talk.

I just think this girl Amy Gahran saw a lot of zeros in the comments section on her blog, and saw and opportunity to get some traffic.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 2, 2006 7:33 PM

> I just think this girl Amy Gahran
> saw a lot of zeros in the comments section
> on her blog, and saw and opportunity to get
> some traffic.

No, I suspect she saw a just one zero.

Your IQ.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 7:38 PM

Well, Tom, I may be many things, but I'm not dishonest like you. "Tom" is also "David" above, posting from the IP address:

66.171.48.222

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 2, 2006 7:39 PM

You can not possibly be serious.

Good god. You really have shown your ignorance. you're even stupid about IP addresses!!

That is the IP address of the router that services this DSL realm. You can't POSSIBLY be that clueless.

About the only thing you can say about me and "David" is that we are (currently) in Los Angeles.

If you want to actually talk to me (yeah, right) you can reach me on chat:

ICQ: 13921752

But I know you don't have the guts.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 8:09 PM

Tom, I have no desire waste a single moment talking to you, and it has nothing to do with a lack of guts. I comment publicly on my blog. Feel free to continue to huff humorlessly here.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 2, 2006 8:19 PM

I am just curious here, if I say something like 'Amy Alkon is a fat cow' and then you tell me I offended you, so long as I say it was irony, then I don't have to apologize? Wow, I think I will read your advise more, this kind of stuff could be handy. I always wanted to be a weasel.

Posted by: Bill at October 2, 2006 8:33 PM

I apologize for the double post, the server kicked a 500 error for some reason.

Posted by: Bill at October 2, 2006 8:35 PM

> Tom, I have no desire waste a single
> moment talking to you,

And yet you do! Repeatedly! How interesting!

> and it has nothing to do with a lack of guts.
> I comment publicly on my blog.

No, you don't.

You refused to post Amy's first comment to you. You deleted it; never so much as let anyone else here see it.

Interesting "editorial policy."

> Feel free to continue to huff humorlessly here.

That's pretty easy to do, given that there isn't anything resembling "humor" anywhere on this little site of yours.

Nothing resembling "advice," either.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 8:45 PM

> I apologize for the double post,
> the server kicked a 500 error for some reason.

That's 'cuz she's using "Movable Type."

The choice of imbeciles, everywhere.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 8:46 PM

If you say I'm a fat cow, you're blind.

Luckily, I'm not so thin-skinned as all you fierce defenders of polyamory!

PS "Advice" is spelled like so.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 2, 2006 8:47 PM

> so long as I say it was irony, then I don't
> have to apologize?

That's pretty much it.

The Don Rickles school of humor.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 8:48 PM

Amy posted off-topic. I don't post off-topic comments on my site. Clearly, I don't censor on-topic comments, or I'd erase yours.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 2, 2006 8:50 PM

Bullshit.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 8:50 PM

I'm near Colorado and Cloverfield if you are interested in hashing this out.

But ... I know you aren't. You just want to play around in your little sandbox. You don't actually want to discuss the issues.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 8:53 PM

What I see is Amy A. being defensive, nasty, and spiteful, whilst Amy G. is factual, rational, and sincere.

I wasn't offended when I read Amy A's piece, but nor did I laugh. Of course, that's because I'm humorless, not because Amy A isn't funny.

I know which author I'll seek out in the future.

Posted by: Robert at October 2, 2006 9:06 PM

I just can't see how you, Amy Alkon, can say your article explains what polyamory is. You don't even use the word in the piece, except in the title.

> Along came polyamory without
> her consent...well, how fun for her.

Then that's not polyamory. Thus, you are demonstrating a profound ignorance as to what it is. Thus you have no business writing about it, let alone using it in the title for this piece.

> There's a book I recommend often to readers called
> "The Ethical Slut." It talks about consenting polyamory -
> that's the ethical part. Fantastic book.

Yes, it is widely know in the poly community. I'm having a hard time believing you have read it if you can describe polaymory as something she entered into without consent.

Finally, there is no discussion of the relationship. All you do is bash the man for his behavior, and bash the woman for being spineless.

If you were actually writing about polyamory, I'm sure you would introduce the word to the original writer, and explain what it is. You could then compare and contrast what he is talking about and what he is doing with what polyamory is.

Nothing in this man's behavior can be nailed down as "polyamorous." He's describing what he likes, what he would like, and disclosing it to his partner. That's a great opportunity for communication.

Instead, you advocate "running away."

Your depth of understanding of couples and polyamory is truly unimpressive.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 9:07 PM

What I see is Amy A. being defensive, nasty, and spiteful, whilst Amy G. is factual, rational, and sincere.

I wasn't offended when I read Amy A's piece, but nor did I laugh. Of course, that's because I'm humorless, not because Amy A isn't funny.

I know which author I'll seek out in the future.

Posted by: Robert at October 2, 2006 9:08 PM

yet another server error.

Sorry, Robert. She's using a pile of shit to host her so-called "blog."

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 9:11 PM

Luckily, I'm not so thin-skinned as all you fierce defenders of polyamory!

Luckily, I don't have ADHD and noticed the change in topic. The topic here is taking responsibility for causing offence. You will note, I said nothing about polyamory here.

At what point did it become somehow ok to just declare that anyone who is offended by something one says simply has a 'bad sense of humor'?

The fact is, under any definition of the word 'irony', you failed to actually demonstrate within your article that you were actually using it. What I find disturbing here is that you have managed to completely absolve yourself of offending large groups of individuals, not with a simple 'screw off' which would at least be an admission that you did indeed offend someone, but by blaming those you actually offended for being offended.

So, you are the 'advise goddess' here, if someone wrote in to say that they had been offended by someone who then went on to tell them that it was 'all a joke' when they complained, what would you tell them to do? Grow a thicker skin? Is that what you would tell a woman complaining about constant sexually suggestive jokes? How about a black man complaining about black jokes?

Are you seriously suggesting that if your intent was humor then those who are offended should just ignore it and you are in no way obliged to either apologize or admit that you cause offence and just dont care?

By the way, I did look at your picture, anyone who had would have recognized that 'fat cow' was specificly choosen because it is ironic, if you cant see that you simply have no sense of humor.

Posted by: bill at October 2, 2006 9:13 PM

(Okay, you guys seriously. Is the picture in the upper left hand corner male? Because it's starting to wig me out not knowing.)

Posted by: Dorotea at October 2, 2006 9:29 PM

>.. is the picture in the upper left hand
> corner male?

I was thinking I would stop by the office in Santa Monica and try to find out for myself.

Posted by: Tom at October 2, 2006 9:36 PM

Hey, motherfuckers. Give peace a chance!

Debbie Harry once said that writing a good pop song means being able to get your act together in 3 minutes or less. Amy writes a column with a seriously stringent word limit (600, I think), and there's never enough room for doing justice to the nuances of concepts like polyamory, while also getting down to the work of giving advice and making a few good wisecracks. Anyone who regularly publishes their work knows that keeping it simple is key. I've published a couple dozen papers, none of them more than 4000 words, in scientific journals -- and I never, ever feel like I can flesh things out in sufficient detail.

So, give us writers a break. I've known Amy for a long time, and I know how serious she is about doing good work. I'm sure the constructive comments you've made in this thread won't go to waste.

Posted by: Lena Cuisina, PhD at October 2, 2006 10:54 PM

If they're doing this on Gahran's behalf, and she's associated with Poynter, it makes 'em all look bad!

http://www.poynter.org/profile/profile.asp?user=1893

Poynter is generally highly regarded in journalism circles.

She reminds me of Jerry Springer...plays it straight, and surrounds herself with assholes.

Posted by: Doobie at October 2, 2006 11:11 PM

if she didn't have the room to flesh it out, then mayhaps it ought not have been used for the article at all. instead, people in the know are upset and horribly offended, and people that don't know anything about poly are going to automatically associate it with cheating and sneaky, creepy behavior patterns. we've got enough bad press with the mistaken impression that all poly folk are like the polygamist assholes they end up arresting and plastering all over the tv, without her misleading people with that trash she calls an advice column. with poly in the headline, and nowhere else, it's misleading. and instead of acknowledging that fact, she got offensive and nasty, and has accused almost every other poly that brought it to her attention of having no sense of humor. if we appear to have no sense of humor, it's because we rarely laugh at ignorance, we seek to correct it, tho she doesn't seem interested in even thinking she might be off-base. forgive me, mum, didn't realize you knew everything there is to know on the subject....

Posted by: Deb at October 3, 2006 5:13 AM

For the record, I'm polyamorous. I also think that Ms. Gahran is way out of line, and told her so when she posted in a LiveJournal community to complain about you.

The problem that the Poly Nazis seem to be having is that your column title used the word "polyamory" but that the letters and your responses are actually about cheating, which has "nothing to do" with polyamory. But that is clearly what you are trying to point out in your response to the first letter, and why your column title is appropriate.

They don't really teach reading comprehension in schools anymore, do they? Anyway, nice column, nice rebuttal.

Posted by: Lothie at October 3, 2006 5:45 AM

I had plenty of room, and I fleshed it out fine:

No, humans aren't naturally monogamous — which is why people say relationships "take work" while you never hear anybody talking about what a coal mine an affair can be. There are "sexually open relationships," but none other than the late Nena O'Neill, coauthor of Open Marriage, admitted to me that few couples can make a go of them. Of course, without an explicit agreement for, let's say, a feel-up free-for-all, you don't have a sexually open anything, just a partner who's cheating.

The error would be where?

The main reason anybody would associate polyamory with creepy behavior...would be the creepy and mean comments posted above. This entry you're reading now contains the singlemost nasty series of comments ever left on my site -- anonymous commenters attacking me for my looks, and most hilariously, for use of Movable Type software for my site. (My boyfriend, who maintains my site [ie, rebuilds it when I crash it] and would give just about anything for me to change to Expression Engine software has to be secretly thrilled about that one.)

My experience with polyamorists other than those posting anonymously here, has been just fine. They're just people.

To call somebody humorless who fails to see irony in a headline isn't nasty and horrible. To refuse to apologize to that person, simply because she was unable, in light of her own apparent oversensitivities about polyamory, to stomach what I wrote, isn't wrong either.

Again, to say some of the stuff posted here about me, well, that's creepy beyond belief. What I'd love to know is all the last names of all these cowardly commenters. Brave boys and girls, all of them, when they post without their last names.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 5:52 AM

Thanks so much, Lothie, for posting. You get it exactly.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 5:56 AM

Wow! You show an amazing amount of ignorance and bile.

Posted by: Chris L at October 3, 2006 6:35 AM

Really? Where?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 6:37 AM

UPDATE: Play "Spot Amy's Huge Member" at this link.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 6:44 AM

Wow. All of these "Polly's" either have truly wonderful lives (you figure their lives must be truly glorious for them to be THIS offended over sometihng THIS trivial), or they just like to revel in drama and spend all of their free time looking for any excuse to feel "persecuted" over a play on words.

I'm surprised no one threw in a "Along Came Polly" joke in here somewhere. I'm presuming that was the idea for Amy's title. Never saw the movie, so I'm not that qualified to make fun of it. But I'm sure everyone here is qualified to google Jennifer Anniston and Ben Stiller jokes on their own.

Jamie

Posted by: Jamie at October 3, 2006 7:06 AM

That was the title behind the title.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 7:12 AM

I'm a good friend of Amy G. but I disagree with her for calling out for an apology or an explanation from Amy A. for her headline and article. However, I find Amy A. to have put herself in a very unprofessional position by beginning the name calling and continuing with it. Amy G. showed her true professional side through her statements.
I also am extremely unhappy with the poly people here who participated and ridiculously carried on the cat fight.
On behalf of a lot of poly amorists I would like to say we are not all this defensive or mean.

Posted by: Lalie Hoaglund at October 3, 2006 8:53 AM

Although Lothie said it best first, I'll say it again.

I am completely astounded that so many folks have completely missed the ENTIRE point of what you wrote, Amy.

I read it as advice for a woman to leave a disrespectful, dishonest partner who was calling what he was doing 'polyamory', when it was, in reality, cheating.

Seemed pretty clear to me.

And to add to the record, I've been in a poly relationship before (a real one, not the 'he's cheating on me and calling it an open relationship' variety), so I'm certainly not unfamiliar with the ins and outs (no pun intended) of them.

I'd also like to mention that am utterly disgusted with the childish, hateful comments that have been posted here. There is absolutely no reason to insult someone personally because one disagrees with an opinion.

Posted by: Peggy Archer at October 3, 2006 9:18 AM

Hey, all you who say that Amy only allows one opinion or whatever...I could quote one of the guys who said simply "Bullshit." to her having comments.

Amy G isn't allowing comments anymore. I'm sure she was offended by some of the comments, but I'm insulted by the level of ignorance you people are showing. I'd ask Crid to repost the response on that stupid girl's website again, and then maybe some of you should actually think about it, and not shut down and think that the whole world is out to get you.

And Lothie is in the minority of people here who exercise their brains. You people need to stop being hateful, because it's a bad trait to have, especially when you're stupid.

Posted by: Brenda at October 3, 2006 9:37 AM

Amy,

About those readers who didn't get your "irony":

As a newspaper and magazine editor, I've had a rule for 30+ years: When the reader doesn't understand you, it's your fault, not the reader's.

I've repeated this to dozens of writers in training (as I was told it in my time).

BTW, irony in print is like irony by a mime. When the audience can't hear it, only see it, you have to exaggerate it if you want it to be understood.

In particular, readers always take headlines at face value.

Posted by: Alan at October 3, 2006 10:25 AM

Alan, that's all probably true for newspaper types. And there are probably girlyfight underpinnings to this that are not of interest to anyone. But a lot of these comments give the impression that poly-types are desperate for respect, and will niggle to the death in order to get some.

Whether you call it refinement or marginal behavior, the need to fuss so aggressively over the definition shows exactly how small the market for this stuff is. If large numbers of people were into polyamory, they'd do it. They're not, so they don't. The problem isn't that it doesn't get enough press, or that headline writers cheat the truth.

Nobody wants to sit for a half-hour for an intricately detailed, didactic conversation about how your approach to eroticism and intimate fulfillment (or mine) is best. We all have strong preferences. Statistically, polyamory is an also-ran.

Posted by: Crid at October 3, 2006 10:34 AM

"When the reader doesn't understand you, it's your fault, not the reader's."

I'm mentoring a young scientist right now who's drafting a response to anonymous reviews of a paper she submitted to a medical journal, and I keep telling her pretty much the same thing: Just because some reviewers "get it" doesn't mean that the ones who didn't get it are stupid... so be respectful of these people who've taken the time to read your work at all, and strive for clarity.

I've always had a great deal of anxiety about not being understood, because it makes me feel isolated. I think this little bit of psychopathology has served me well as a professional writer.

Posted by: Lena Cuisina, Our Lady of Self-Help at October 3, 2006 10:53 AM

Amy,

About those readers who didn't get your "irony":

As a newspaper and magazine editor, I've had a rule for 30+ years: When the reader doesn't understand you, it's your fault, not the reader's.

I've repeated this to dozens of writers in training (as I was told it in my time).

BTW, irony in print is like irony by a mime. When the audience can't hear it, only see it, you have to exaggerate it if you want it to be understood.

In particular, readers always take headlines at face value.

Posted by: Alan at October 3, 2006 11:15 AM

> I read it as advice for
> a woman to leave a disrespectful, dishonest
> partner who was calling what he was doing
>'polyamory', when it was, in reality, cheating.

> Seemed pretty clear to me.

Where did she once use the word "polyamory" in the initial article? Where did she once quote this man as saying what he was doing is polyamory?

Pretty clear to me. He never used the word. Nor did Amy A.

Posted by: Stephen at October 3, 2006 11:43 AM


OK, here is what I don't understand. You say that what this guy was doing was polyamory without the consent of his gilrfriend.

There is no such thing. If you truly understood polyamory as you claim to, you would know that it can only exist when ALL people involved give full consent. The behavior described in your column is cheating, nothing more, nothing less.

Now admittedly, it does sound like what this guy might want in his life is polyamory and he might not even know that such a thing exists. But you did not address that issue or how the couple could effectively open their relationship if they both chose to. While I am not as outraged as some, I would suggest that there was no reason to use the phrase polyamory in your column at all, especially if all you were going to do was focus on the fact that the boyfriend in question was cheating.

When it comes to polyamory, I think you may find that many, especially those in the online community, are quite defensive. But given the amount of negative press polyamory has received recently, and the frequent connection made between polyamory and polygamy (and the amount of very negative press that has received recently) I would hope you could understand. No polyamorous person would want their lifestyle associated with this creepy guy and his highly questionable behavior.

Posted by: Tim at October 3, 2006 1:58 PM

"No polyamorous person would want their lifestyle associated with this creepy guy and his highly questionable behavior."

Tim, I get 10-12,000 visitors a day on my site. I think polyamorists real PR problem is with all their own terribly rude lot posting with such anonymous viciousness on my site.

I'm not an enemy of polyamory. Polyamorists are lucky I'm rational, because I consider the individual instead of the group responsible for such things. But, others may not give the polys such leeway. Just think about all the people whose first exposure to polyamory is through the rudest people ever posting on my blog -- all of them, polyamorists. (And no, not all polyamorists are rude, cruel, and too cowardly to post their names on their attacks, just almost all of them posting here.)

Frankly, I was quite upset last night, and not at what was said -- I look like a man, Movable Type is for imbeciles -- but that people would stoop so low to post it. I'm sorry for them for whatever they're missing in their lives that makes them feel such a need to lash out, but at the same time, grow the fuck up and act like adults.

And if you're going to attack me for my looks, do it under your own full name or not at all.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 4:59 PM

While I can not address the 'looks like a man' or 'mt is for idiots' comments as I didn't make them, the 'fat cow' comment was clearly ironic in nature.

As you stated that you feel that irony requires no apology, I will thank you to withdraw your accusation of rudeness. That was simply humor. (ie I will apoligize when you do).

Posted by: bill at October 3, 2006 7:23 PM

Oh, please. No apology required.

PS "Amy Alkon is a fat cow" is not irony, simply a dumb statement, since there are plenty of pictures on my site and it's clear I'm a pretty skinny chick.

What amazes me is how people who don't know what they're talking about have no compunction about posting as if they do. I meticulously research my column, and I don't write or blog about subjects -- global warming, for example -- that I have a hard time understanding. I'll always admit when I don't know something -- that's the only way I learn. I will not, however, be bludgeoned into apologizing when I'm not wrong...much as the anonymous thugs posting here have tried.

Here's a definition of irony:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

By posting "Amy Alkon is a fat cow" you're not conveying any meaning whatsoever -- you're simply stating something clearly untrue. Here's a similar example: "There's a giant purple vagina hovering over my house."

This is not irony. Like your statement, this is a blatantly untrue contention, and therefore, quite silly.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 7:39 PM

Thats true, its simply a statement when taken out of context, but then most things are, aren't they. The entirety of the post was

I am just curious here, if I say something like 'Amy Alkon is a fat cow' and then you tell me I offended you, so long as I say it was irony, then I don't have to apologize? Wow, I think I will read your advise more, this kind of stuff could be handy. I always wanted to be a weasel.

Which is irony.

I will admit that I am having trouble with the statement I'll always admit when I don't know something -- that's the only way I learn. People who actually are polyamorous have told you that by juxtaposing their life style with 'sexually open relationships' you are in error; this simply is not the same thing. Yet you persist in telling poly people that if they are poly then they must fall into this preconcieved notion.

In other words, people who live this lifestyle have told you that your assumptions are incorrect, but rather than recheck your research you've said that you are convinced that you are right and refuse to find out for sure the truth. In effect telling poly people that they are wrong about what their own lifestyle is.

Silliness is yet another type of humor, imho vastly underated. Actually, I find the idea of a giant hovering purple vagina quite amusing.

Posted by: bill at October 3, 2006 8:32 PM

Here:

http://www.openweave.org/NCPoly/PolyTerms.html

Open Marriage, Open Relationship. A form of polyamory relationship in which there may also be other lovers who are not partners in the given relationship. Most commonly, this refers to a primary couple who may have secondary relationships. The term "Open Marriage" was coined by the O'Neils in their 197x book by the same name. The bulk of the book was about expanded options for self fulfillment in a less confining relationship, but one chapter explored the idea of this including having other lovers, and it is this aspect of openness which the term refers to today.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyamory

Polyamory is the practice or lifestyle of being open to having more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, with the full knowledge and consent of all partners involved. The word is often used more broadly to refer to relationships that are not sexually exclusive...

...Webster's New Millennium Dictionary of English defines polyamory as, "participation in multiple and simultaneous loving or sexual relationships."

Merriam Webster's Dictionary gives the definition as, " The state or practice of having more than one open romantic relationship at a time."

However, no single definition of "polyamory" has universal acceptance. Some object to the idea that one must currently be participating in multiple relationships to be considered polyamorous. It is generally agreed that polyamory involves multiple consensual, loving relationships (or openness to such), but beyond that the term is ambiguous as the word love itself. A relationship is more likely to be called "polyamorous" if at least one relationship is long-term, involves some sort of commitment (e.g. a formal ceremony), and involves shared living arrangements and/or finances, but none of these criteria are necessary or definitive.

For instance, somebody who has multiple sexual partners might form strong loving friendships with them, without feeling romantic love for them. Whether such a person identifies as "polyamorous", or as a swinger, or uses some other term, often depends more on their attitude towards other "polyamorists", "swingers", etc., than on the exact nature of their relationships. Different terms emphasise different aspects of the interaction, but "swinging" and "polyamory" are both broad in what they can refer to. This allows for a certain degree of overlap.

Similarly, an open relationship in which all participants are long-term friends might be considered "polyamorous" under broader usages of the word but excluded from some of the tighter usages (see further discussion below). There is enough overlap between these concepts that the expression "open relationship" is also sometimes used as a catch-all substitute when speaking to people who may not be familiar with the term "polyamory". However, some practitioners of polyfidelity have posed objection to the idea that having multiple partners necessitates that they are open.

Maybe your problem isn't with me, but in getting all these disagreeable little polyamorists who are busy, busy, busy attacking me to gather to agree on a single name for what they're doing. They can then work really hard to pass laws to prevent horrible people like me from calling it anything other than what they say it must be called.

Again, I have never experienced shittier, smaller, less intellectually adept people commenting on my blog -- and I have to tell you, when I'm wrong here, people slap me upside the head, and hard. Crid and Radwaste do it with regularity. But they do it with intelligence and decency. And they don't attack me when I'm right just to make themselves feel better -- because they're men, not gaping wounds.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 10:23 PM

> they don't attack me when I'm right
> just to make themselves feel better

Do too.

Posted by: Crid at October 3, 2006 10:53 PM

Crid, you come through like a brother!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 3, 2006 11:33 PM

Because a secondary source is so much more accurate than a primary source, right?

However from the quote you gave:

However, no single definition of "polyamory" has universal acceptance. Some object to the idea that one must currently be participating in multiple relationships to be considered polyamorous. It is generally agreed that polyamory involves multiple consensual, loving relationships (or openness to such), but beyond that the term is ambiguous as the word love itself. A relationship is more likely to be called "polyamorous" if at least one relationship is long-term, involves some sort of commitment (e.g. a formal ceremony), and involves shared living arrangements and/or finances, but none of these criteria are necessary or definitive.

While there is some overlap with those in 'sexually open relationships', there is also an overlap with 'gay' lifestyles, it doesn't mean you can just lump them together and refer to all gay people as poly either, an you would probably gotten the same response if you had had the same title and then had a content similar to the latest 'Savage Love'. It really has about the same comparison.

Posted by: bill at October 4, 2006 12:12 AM

In fact, did you read what you posted, let me show you what you actually posted here

Similarly, an open relationship in which all participants are long-term friends might be considered "polyamorous" under broader usages of the word but excluded from some of the tighter usages (see further discussion below). There is enough overlap between these concepts that the expression "open relationship" is also sometimes used as a catch-all substitute when speaking to people who may not be familiar with the term "polyamory". However, some practitioners of polyfidelity have posed objection to the idea that having multiple partners necessitates that they are open.

Note that last line if you please. Yup, you really researched that.

Posted by: bill at October 4, 2006 12:21 AM

Bill, eat more fiber!

Posted by: Doobie at October 4, 2006 1:15 AM

Doobie, a clear and convincing arguement. I guess you showed me.

Posted by: bill at October 4, 2006 1:31 AM

A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T, Bill.

Posted by: Doobie at October 4, 2006 1:37 AM

Wow, I am so amazed at how well you have refuted what I have said without resort to ad hominum attacks. You have shown your true colors. True republican logic there.

Posted by: bill at October 4, 2006 1:41 AM

also, regarding And they don't attack me when I'm right just to make themselves feel better -- because they're men, not gaping wounds. while I disagreed with you, show me where I made a personal attack. (other than irony as we discussed)

Remember, you resorted to personal attacks first.

Posted by: bill at October 4, 2006 1:57 AM

"Republican logic"? Um, what does this have to do with Republicans? So...all polyamorists are not...say...RUDE...despite my experience here, that so many are (and I don't lump all polyamorists together)...but all Republicans, according to you, it seems...are...stupid?

You repost this thing:

However, some practitioners of polyfidelity have posed objection to the idea that having multiple partners necessitates that they are open.

Yes, some object. Not my fucking problem. Get your shit together as a group. Don't attack me because you haven't come to an agreement.

I didn't resort to personal attacks. I stayed on topic. Amy Gahran, for one, is humorless and out of bounds for attacking me for being wrong in my use of the words "Polyamory" and "sexually open relationship" (see Wiki def above to see why my use was correct). I said as much. I did not attack her for her looks, which would be rude, low class, and unnecessary, or for anything off topic. She kept trying to thug me into apologizing, and I refused, because I'm not wrong, she is. I noticed all those zeros in her comments section (except for the one post about me, which had other items tucked into it in an apparent pretense to be about apologies...not simply an attack on me), and I smelled a rat and said so.

Oh, and regarding the gaping wound thing -- did I say you were a gaping wound? Perhaps it hits a bit close to home. Those who attack my looks, etc. are. You're simply not that smart, not clued in that you aren't very smart, and tedious. Your posts here reflect a lack of understanding of the word irony and the very words you attack me about -- as do those of so many poly people posting here (with a couple of exceptions). You also aren't funny. I'm a humor columnist in over 100 papers. Trust me, I know what funny is.

And regarding the work I do every week to write my column, I'm extremely meticulous. Here, for example, is the post where Amy Gahran left her off-topic comments turd (perhaps because she was too lazy to write me an e-mail):

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/09/groping_for_mor.html

I broke news in that column -- news you don't hear anywhere else. I bet you two things: Few other journalists have even heard of Rosemary Basson or her work on low sexual desire, which I heard about in a talk at the Erickson Evolution Of Psych conference last year. Even fewer could understand her studies.

No, I don't allow people to shit off-topic comments all over my site. It's my site. If you don't like it, start your own site with a different comments policy.

I know about polyamory -- note that I didn't use the word "polygamy" as so many do -- due to a many-year investigation of it and many other subjects. Every year, I send myself (on my own freelancer dime) to a number of science and psychology conferences. Here's an example below.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2006/06/worming_your_wa.html

In fact, I even presented at the conference at Rutgers, on How To Build A Better Meme -- and was warmly reviewed in Jerome Barkow's latest book on ev. psych for my work.

My fan letters (about my work) from Nena O'Neill (who respected my work, and I, hers) date back to 2000. I regularly recommend "The Ethical Slut" to readers, along with "Open Marriage" (typically for how to have a "synergistic relationship" and how to understand non-possession-based relationships), and just helped two poly friends save their relationship.

If there's somebody you small-minded assclowns should be attacking, it isn't me. And yes, I just called you and the rest of the attack squad assclowns. Cuz you are.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 4, 2006 6:01 AM

Actually, Bill, if you reread, it was Charlie, Deb, and Tom who started personal attacks.

Before the troops were brought in, there was discussion that wasn't very respectful, but it wasn't directed at any one of you poor victims.

THIS: "However, some practitioners of polyfidelity have posed objection to the idea that having multiple partners necessitates that they are open.

Note that last line if you please. Yup, you really researched that."

is neither an argument nor an arguement. The use of the word "some" is a qualifier, indicating you and your little gang might object, but it doesn't say anything about issuing personal attacks or being ridiculous.

You guys need to get over this. Do what you want in your own bedrooms, but why do you think people want to hear about it, and worse, be corrected because you're SOOO misunderstood. Give me a break. Putting yourself in a quaint little sexual category is okay, but you can't expect the lines to be so cut and dry. Different people, even within your own group, are going to do different things. Hence, there are qualifiers throughout the entire definition. Because sex isn't the same for anybody, even people who have the same label for themselves.

Posted by: Brenda at October 4, 2006 6:09 AM

You know, speaking as a polyamorist, it's often difficult to deal with non-poly reactions to the concept of polyamory. People assume I'm a swinger; people assume that I will sleep with absolutely everyone; people assume I will prey on their partners; and so forth.

But that is no excuse for the illogical kneejerk reactions I've seen by Ms. Gahran and many of the self-professed poly commenters to this blog. Unless you identify as a nail and see everything as a hammer, there is nothing offensive in the original column, and nothing offensive about Ms. Alkon's views on polyamory. I just wish to god that every non-poly person would be as sympathetic to polyamory as Ms. Alkon is, and as understanding of what polyamory really means.

I'm pretty sick and disgusted at the members of the poly community who have lashed out at Ms. Alkon, without taking the time to truly read her words objectively. Way to go, folks. Way to stay a niche community forever!

And by the way, I am not ashamed to post my legal name (though many people know who "Lothie" is). My legal name is Mary Ursula Herrmann, and Amy Alkon has a new fan.

Posted by: Lothie at October 4, 2006 6:58 AM

Lothie, thank you so much. That means a lot.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 4, 2006 7:17 AM

> Unless you identify as a nail and see
> everything as a hammer, there is nothing
> offensive in the original column, and nothing
> offensive about Ms. Alkon's views on polyamory.

I would agree --- if in fact Ms. Alkon had actually expressed views on polyamory other than what is clearly indicated by titling that piece "Along Came Polyamory."

I have read a number of Ms. Alkon's other pieces. Though clearly peppered with a trademark snarkiness and humor, this piece just had a lot of lambasting in the *name of* poly.

That is what I think most of the polaymorists find so offensive.

It's hard enough explaining polyamory without people getting *very* wrong ideas about it from this kind of treatment.

I would have had no difficulty with this piece if it did not include the word polyamory in its heading.

I believe that is what Amy Gahran was talking about. That and the (apparently verified) unprofessional response Ms. Alkon had to Amy Gahran's query, and her original comment (which never was posted here).

I expect more from someone who claims to be a relationship "advice goddess."

Posted by: Stephen at October 4, 2006 9:34 AM

Amy, I have to apologize for Wow, I am so amazed at how well you have refuted what I have said without resort to ad hominum attacks. You have shown your true colors. True republican logic there. I realize it wasn't clear, but that was a response to doobie's comment immediately above it. Also it is a reference to the more recent forms of 'spin control' more frequently used by republican commentators, in which content is ignored and form is criticized instead. I apologize for linking you with these tactics, you have clearly not done this.

Posted by: bill at October 4, 2006 10:47 AM

Stephen, you bring up no specific points, simply blather on about how people will get wrong ideas about polyamory (as opposed to the ideas most of the polyamorists posting here will give them -- that polyamorists are rude, fascistic, humorless, and not that bright).

The headline is ironic. I explained it above. Sorry you don't understand irony. Cathy Seipp, above, is quite smart and a media critic and she got it just fine. I accept criticism from people whose minds and literary judgement I respect. If Cathy had a problem with my work, I'd listen. I have yet to see any intelligent criticism from Amy Gahan or any of the rudesters posting here.

There's no lambasting whatsoever -- in fact, I made a rather poly-friendly point -- that without an agreement for a sexually open situation, it's simply cheating. You'd do better to attack people who have a problem with polyamory. I don't. But, I wish I could work one up -- seems fair, considering the whirlwhind of rudeness and stupidity I've been dragged into.

I posted the wiki piece above. Hold the couple of sentences from that column up against the wiki piece, and it holds up just fine.

Again, if there's a worse bit of PR for polyamorists, I can't imagine what it is.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 4, 2006 3:10 PM

I read the article, and I have to agree with the original criticism. The article titled 'Along Came Polyamory' is not about polyamory, nor does it mention polyamory in either a positive or negative light. It's about a cheating partner, as far as I can tell from the writing.

And I think the defensiveness which Amy Alkon has reacted to any criticism of her article simply shows that she knows it was neither accurate nor amusing. Apologising isn't really such a big deal, surely?

Posted by: Sylvie at October 4, 2006 7:22 PM

Sylvie, the title is ironic. The guy is trying to force it on her -- which isn't polyamory at all -- which is where the irony is. Is that really so hard to understand? Or is it just because you, like so many polyamorists feel wounded and misunderstood, and are therefore offended at anything but a straightforward "Go team!"

And Sylvie, I'm very meticulous about my work, and the "defensiveness" is not defensiveness at all -- but a reaction to what is essentially defamation. I'm defending my work -- which is correct. Why should I apologize for being right?

See the multiple Wiki definitions above? Please explain how, vis a vis, that document, my column is in any way wrong.

I'm assuming you didn't because you can't -- which says you're just yet another yahoo piling on with the rest of the mob.


Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 4, 2006 7:29 PM

Here, Sylvie, is an example of irony, from an e-mail to me from Amy Gahran:

Amy, I wish you well, I hope you get the help you need.

- Amy G.

My reply to Amy Gahran:

Amy -- a wonderful thing happened when you wrote that last e-mail to me -- that was irony you used! You said one thing but really meant another! (Pretending to be sincere, just like when you disingenously signed your last e-mail "best," but not wishing me anything of the sort.) Now, do you understand what irony is?

Incidentally, she won't post my defense of my work on the members posting only poly BBS. Not a surprise.

Finally, as I wrote to Gahran:

The real issue for me, and why, contrary to the advice of my wise friend Cathy Seipp, I got into this with you: You made false allegations about me and my work -- as if I'm some shoddy writer who doesn't do her homework. That couldn't be further from the truth, and could be damaging to me in a business sense. I work very hard on my column. Sometimes, I read 20 studies just to understand an issue that will rate a one or two line mention. It means a great deal to me to dig for and put out the truth, which is why accusations such as yours mean a lot to me to dispel.

Unfortunately, it isn't worth suing for damages for defamation unless the person has money. Just a guess vis a vis my experience with Amy Gahran's vast wit and intellect, but I don't think she's raking it in!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at October 4, 2006 7:57 PM

Amy, I should sue Bill for defamation. He accused me of being a Republican!

Posted by: Doobie at October 4, 2006 8:41 PM

> I hope you get the help you need.

That's bizarre. As insults go, it's like a runny nose. It's snot without velocity. Do you remember when Sandra Tsing Loh got fired at KCRW? In her one-woman show about it, she described how was Ruth Seymour's parting shot used almost exactly the same words.

There's a clue in there. Something about human nature, or at least the nature of certain humans.

Posted by: Crid at October 4, 2006 10:17 PM

Part of this was somewhat overlooked:

I'm hoping Alkon or the paper will apologize for the error -- but it's a shame that, given a polite opening to acknowledge her error and rebuild her credibility, she instead opted for denial and dismissal. I'll bet that will probably haunt her worse than simply owning up and moving on...

Just who does Amy Alkon need to "rebuild her credibility" with? The fringe?

Posted by: Doobie at October 5, 2006 12:35 AM

Leave a comment