Showing posts with label Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Times. Show all posts

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Sarah Suffers from PSAS: Permanent Sexual Arousal Syndrome



Your Ad Here

Modern Woman, Modern Problems:
The Orgasmic Woman




The Pitfalls of Permanent Sexual Arousal Syndrome





Once depressed, Sarah is no more apparently. Her mood substantially elevated after the prescription of drugs. That is because Sarah has about 200 orgasms a day.

"Sarah, 24, suffers from Permanent Sexual Arousal Syndrome (PSAS), which increases blood flow to the sex organs.

She said: "Sometimes I have so much sex to try to calm myself down I get bored of it. And men I sleep with don't seem to make as much effort because I climax so easily."

As she chatted, Sarah became increasingly flustered.

"Sorry, you'll have to excuse me for a minute. I'll be with you in a sec," she mumbled before letting out a long sigh.

Sarah, from London, developed PSAS after being prescribed anti-depressants at 19."

...

"She explained: "Anything can set me off. Even the hairdryers cause funny pulsations through my body.

"As a skin care specialist I have to use tools which vibrate a lot of the time for micro-dermabrasion and they sometimes set me off.

"I find if I'm nervous I'm less likely to get over-excited. So sometimes I try to psyche myself up and worry to control my orgasms.

"Some of my regular customers know my problem. But with new clients it's hard to explain.

"I have been in the middle of a treatment and it's happened and I've had to carry on.

"I was doing a bikini wax and you have to really concentrate and keep your hands very still, and mine go a bit wobbly when I orgasm. "


The touchy subject has kept her smiling.


[ABOVE: Sarah checking out a tree for compatibility.]


Needless to say, the condition has not proved beneficial to the dating game. The men can't seem to do as well as her imagination, which causes a orgasm every time she thins about sex, which appears to be about 200 times a day according the DBKP mathematicians..


'It has proved to be a problem for Sarah in some relationships.

She said: "I dated one guy who was very selfish and he was that way in the bedroom too. He'd just lie back and expect me to please him.

"He just figured that because I could climax without him even having to touch me, he didn't need to do anything to please me.

"I just thought that was rude and inconsiderate. It didn't last very long with him."


Sarah does not share.


"With me, it was a means of releasing my orgasm, but now I know I don't have to have sex to do that."


Now many might think moaning in public while staring at a movie poster,riding a train, or doing a bikini wax, is a rather uncomfortable way to go through life. And the solution appears simple enough. Since Sarah's condition is caused by a sharp , permanent, increase in blood flow to the genitalia, that the simple thing to do would be to alter the anti-depressant prescription.


Ahh. Not a chance.


"Thanks to her understanding friends and colleagues, Sarah feels like she can now live with PSAS.

""I'm lucky because people around me are very kind and appreciate that sometimes this is a problem for me and it can be embarrassing."'



Sarah said in a high pitched yelp, trying to suppress a smile.



Oh, and certain members of the editorial board her a DBKP have a question.

"Why the hell isn't some drug company working on this? Move on it!"


by pat
* hat tip: Karagushihttp://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/5651/Woman-has-200-orgasms-a-day-Sarah-Carmen-suffers-from-Permanent-Sexual-Arousal-Syndrome-PSAS.html

* source:
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/5651/Woman-has-200-orgasms-a-day-Sarah-Carmen-suffers-from-Permanent-Sexual-Arousal-Syndrome-PSAS.html




Monday, July 28, 2008

U.K. Papers Help Break Media Blockade in John Edwards, Rielle Hunter Love Child Affair



Your Ad Here


The New York Times cite the "public's right to know" every time they reveal national security documents that aid and abet terrorists. However, when it comes to the Times' readers and the John Edwards Love Child Scandal, the "public's right to know" be damned.
--R.E. Bierce




The state of the media coverage--or rather, non-coverage--six days after the National Enquirer's reporters catch John Edwards at the Beverly Hilton visiting his mistress and their love child.

Two daily newspapers from the U.K. cover the news the American mainstream media won't. More specifically, the John Edwards Love Child news.

The Independent Sunday edition contained "Love child and mistress claims hit Edwards", while the Times also offered major coverage.

Guy Adams of the Independent has an entertaining account of the affair.

Amid scenes more suited to a Benny Hill sketch than the corridors of a luxury hotel, two journalists and a photographer chased Mr Edwards – whose wife Elizabeth is battling incurable cancer – around the building for several minutes. He eventually went to ground in the men's lavatory for a quarter of an hour, before being escorted from the premises by security staff.

The incident was reported in lurid detail by The Enquirer, and followed up in dozens of America's influential political blogs and news websites, which claimed that Mr Edwards and Ms Hunter were filmed entering the hotel room at 9.30pm.

The country's upmarket newspapers and major broadcasters refused to investigate The National Enquirer's claims. Tony Pierce, the editor of The Los Angeles Times, went so far as to order staff "not to cover the rumours or salacious speculations". Its unofficial blackout appeared to be holding firm until Friday night, when the presenters of Fox's 9pm talk show, Sean Hannity and Alan Colmes, ran a report that confirmed several major details of the Beverly Hilton incident, and asked: "Why were the reporters chasing Edwards, and why is this story nowhere in the mainstream media?"




As mentioned, The Times also carried big coverage of the scandal in yesterday's Sunday edition. We're not nearly as enthusiastic about that story however. The Times' reporter, Sarah Baxter, lifted quotes from DBKP's John Edwards Affair: Interview with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer without giving credit to DBKP.

[Nearly 3 days after we alerted the Times to the problem, they still have not acknowledged it. Someone at the Times is aware of the problem, however. Two comments left on the story voicing plagiarism concerns went unpublished, while other comments--submitted later--were. MSM Stealing Blog Content: Times Online Joining Growing MSM Trend?. What we once thought was surely an oversight is now apparently Times' policy.]

Doug Ross, who discovered the problem, has the story: "Sunday Times runs John Edwards-Mistress-Love Child story, rips off blogosphere"



But, as the Soviet government found out, it's hard to control the flow of information in the Digital Age. The lesson remains lost on MSM editors, but it's a lesson that will be taught nonetheless. Media watchers scurry to find a pulse on a MSM that insists on selling a dying product of warmed-over liberal socialism and "all the news we decide you can handle" to the dwindling few who rely on them for "news".

There's no pulse on a corpse.

However, the American media blockade of the story is slowly being penetrated. The Hartford Courant's Kevin Rennie raises a point that MSM editors might consider:

Edwards serpentined around the hotel, before reaching the rooms where both his alleged paramour and baby were staying, according to the Enquirer, which appears to have had a platoon of reporters in strategic spots. Edwards probably thought he would not be noticed when he left at 2:30 in the morning, so he alighted upon the lobby from an elevator. Reporters greeted him when he stepped out.

The former presidential aspirant and vice presidential nominee took refuge in a men's room until hotel security could escort him out and block the five reporters who wanted a few words with him. Edwards later issued a brief statement criticizing the tabloids. He didn't address the love child story, though it was the right time to deny it if it isn't true. Whether it's true or not, his behavior was bizarre for a potential attorney general.
--Kevin Rennie, Hartford Courant: A Star Turn For Elizabeth Edwards


Did Wikipedia join the MSM news blackout of the Edwards affair?

[See: John Edwards Scandal, The Press: Edwards Campaign’s Curious Connections with Rielle Hunter Excite No Mainstream Curiosity and John Edwards Scandal, The Press, The Enquirer and the Blogosphere, among others.]

Apparently so. Newsbusters carries an account: Wikipedia Disallows Any Mention of Alleged John Edwards Scandal.

Wikipedia, which allowed verb tenses for their Tim Russert entry to be changed from present to past tense about a half hour before the official announcement of his death, is suddenly going ultra legal in its refusal to allow their John Edwards entry to be updated with mention of the alleged scandal which was reported in the National Enquirer with many of the details confirmed by Fox News. Suddenly Wikipedia has become a stickler for confirmation detail before the Edwards entry can be updated. To get an idea of how much Wikipedia is twisting itself into a pretzel to justify their refusal to update their John Edwards entry, one needs only to look at their pained, but comedically entertaining, discussions of this matter in their "Tabloid scandal accusations" section:


Gawker also notices, as it continues its yeoman work this time around on the story with "John Edwards' Wikipedia Page Strangely Love Child-Free".

Gawker stepped in with enlightened coverage to supply an Internet searching for news of the affair, the site's Pareene noting that there will always be ways for the creative to disseminate information.

"(Kudos, of course, to the enterprising editor who buried mention of this scandal in this unread entry on a book by Rielle Hunter's ex-boyfriend Jay McInerney.)"

In a curious bit of irony, Newsweek mentioned more about Rielle Hunter's involvement with Edwards in 2006 than after the Enquirer broke the story in October 2007. In an article titled, "John Edwards, Untucked", Johnathan Darman wrote more about Hunter and Edwards than Newsweek's readers have seen since.

In the midst of a short theme sequence that begins each Webisode, the camera lingers over the former senator's behind as he tucks a starched white shirt into his pants. Still, [Rielle] Hunter, now under contract with Edwards's organization, says she sees the untucked John Edwards coming more and more to the fore.
--Jonathan Darman | NEWSWEEK: Politics 2008: John Edwards, Untucked


Newsweek's readers are left to own devices to supply any updates of the "untucked John Edwards" after that Christmas Day 2006 article.

The New York Times continues its formidable non-coverage.

Occasional DBKP contributor, R.E. Bierce writes: "The New York Times cites the "public's right to know" every time they reveal national security documents that aid and abet terrorists. However, when it comes to the John Edwards affair, the "public's right to know" be damned. That information is too sensitive for its readers to handle.

The public's right to know is Times' puffery, to be trotted out whenever its editors feel like giving aid and comfort to an enemy that has already killed over 3000 American on September 11."

Six days on after it's been verified Edwards was at the Beverly Hilton with Rielle Hunter--in the same room--and the MSM is monolithic in its refusal to inform its readership.

Maybe the expected appearance of pictures in this week's edition of the National Enquirer will change their attitudes.

It will be then that their rapidly-disappearing customer base will finally get information that's been available all this time--elsewhere.

by Mondoreb
images: National Enquirer; dbkp file

Sunday, July 27, 2008

MSM Stealing Blog Content: Times Online Joining Growing MSM Trend?

John Edwards Love Child Story Goes International
No Attribution in TimesOnline Edwards story

Is This a New Business Model for a Mainstream Media in Trouble?




- - - - - - - - - -


"We contacted an AP senior editor and ombudsman both and both admitted to having had the article passed on to them, and both stated that they viewed us as a blog and because we were a blog, they did not need to credit us."
--Larisa Alexandrovna, Huffington Post & at-Largely

- - - - - - - - - -


DBKP.com was alerted yesterday to both a good news-bad news situation by Doug Ross, of DougRoss@Journal.

The good news was the TimesOnline had used several of our quotes from our interview this week with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer, in a story it ran on John Edwards' run-in with the Enquirer's reporters at the Beverly Hilton while visiting his mistress and their love child.

The bad news was that the Times reporter, Sarah Baxter, in her story, Sleaze scuppers Democrat golden boy never credited DBKP as her source for the quotes, which were taken word-for-word from our story, "John Edwards Affair: Interview with David Perel, Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer".

Doug has an account at "Sunday Times runs Edwards-Mistress-Love Child story, rips off Blogosphere".

As Doug points out: "When this story first broke in December I wrote that the blogosphere renders the mainstream media less relevant by the day.

Through its questionable behavior, the Times has done nothing to counter my assertion."

At first, we tended to attribute the non-attribution to an oversight. After all, the story was widely mentioned this week, among other places at Slate, The Corner at National Review Online, Ace of Spades HQ and made the front page of FARK.

But upon closer inspection, doubts began to arise. We sent a letter yesterday to the Times Editor-in-Chief asking that proper credit be given. We also sent a copy to the Times News Desk.

Easy enough, right? Just add the proper credit and link to the corrected story on-line and publish a small correction later for the print edition.

Then we received some disturbing news.

DBKP's LBG sent in an email: I posted a comment on the story at the Times yesterday noting that the reporter did not attribute the Perel quotes to the story written by DBKP. My comment was never published." She included her comment to the Times:

"The reporter who wrote this story did not attribute the original source of the Perel quotes, a story at Death by 1000 Papercuts.com."

I received another email shortly thereafter from Doug Ross with basically the same message.

Though other comments to the story made after both LBG and Doug Ross' had been published, their's were not. So, someone at the Times was aware of their concerns.

This got us wondering if this practice was widespread among the major media; we then started searching the Internet.

Yikes!

At least in America, the MSM is mining blogs for stories and flipping off the original creators/writers when reminded whose work they're using.

The Associated Press commenced suing bloggers quoting AP stories in June 2008. AP's Intellectual Property Governance Coordinator Irene Keselman had this to say in a letter to Cernig, of Newshoggers:

"... you purport that the Drudge Retort's users reproduce and display AP headlines and leads under a fair use defense. Please note that contrary to your assertion, AP considers that the Drudge Retort users' use of AP content does not fall within the parameters of fair use. The use is not fair use simply because the work copied happened to be a news article and that the use is of the headline and the first few sentences only. This is a misunderstanding of the doctrine of "fair use." AP considers taking the headline and lede of a story without a proper license to be an infringement of its copyrights, and additionally constitutes "hot news" misappropriation."
--Fair Use and the Associated Press

The above mentioned dispute involved Drudge Retort using excerpts--some as small as 18 words, according to many reports--under Drudge Retort's own headlines.

AP, thy name is hypocrisy.

Larisa Alexandrovna, Huffington Post and at-Largely wrote about a disturbing experience with AP in "MSM Plagiarism Strikes Again – AP Welcome to the Party"

On March 14, 2006, the AP did their own article, left out any attribution to me or my publication and lifted not only my research but also whole sections of my article for their own (making cosmetic changes of course).

We contacted an AP senior editor and ombudsman both and both admitted to having had the article passed on to them, and both stated that they viewed us as a blog and because we were a blog, they did not need to credit us.


Alexandrovna goes on to state in the same article:

"Unfortunately this is far too common and has happened to me and to other writers and bloggers far too frequently. This time, however, we made a point of tape recording the AP apparatchiks admitting to taking our work and using it without attribution, stating "we do not credit blogs".



She then goes on to list six or seven of the most egregious examples of AP plagiarism at the time of her article, March 27, 2006.

More recently, the New York Times tried to take credit for the Iranian Missile Fauxtography.

The Iranian thugocracy doctored a photo adding in a fourth missile, most likely to cover up a failed one. The blogosphere exposed the manipulated photo. Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs [Iran's Photoshopped Missile Launch ] was the first to the scene. However, the New York Times blog, The Lede, is taking credit [in a Iranian image, a missile too many] for exposing this even though their report was given much later. FOX, obviously slacking on research, also credits the lede. Mac's mind: Ny Times Commits Plagiarism on Fake Iranian Missile Photos


The above article cited Ace, of Ace of Spades HQ, [Shock: NYT Blog Claims Credit For Fauxtography Story They Didn't Break] who said:

"Whether CJ (Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs) deserves all the credit, I don’t know. I do know the NYT deserves little of it, and ought to stop claiming otherwise."

Exactly.

The New York Times, forced to eat the bitter fruit from its looney-left editorial policies, may have hit upon the only business model that allows it to survive the death spiral of falling ad revenue, circulation and stock prices: lay off its news reporters and rely on ripping off content from the Blogosphere.

But the AP and NY Times are not alone.

There is so much news theft going on, in fact, that Hamilton Nolan, of Gawker, had to explain "The Golden Rule" in The Complete Guide to Stealing New Stories:

Media outlets can only steal outright from other media outlets that are not their direct competitors, and do not fall in their same class. First-class outlets: National TV news networks (including the big three on cable), the top five national newspapers, top-level weekly news magazines, and a select few websites like Drudge. Second-class outlets: Niche TV networks, local TV news affiliates, smaller metro papers, smaller but still well-respected news magazines, well-known internet news operations that don't fall in the top handful. Third-class outlets: Trade magazines, niche magazines, smaller local papers, niche internet news sites. Fourth-class outlets: Others.


Nolan also includes tips for the aspiring news thief.

All this occurs after many pompous, blow-hard pieces have been written by ex-members of the MSM, now posing as "professors of journalism", about the defects of citizen journalists, and bloggers, in particular.

This was all touched upon in "Citizen Journalism: “911, I’d Like to Report an Unregulated Blogger”. In that piece, David Hazinsky, an ex-NBC-reporter-turned-journalism-prof had railed against the 'dangers of citizen journalism'.

The premise of citizen journalism is that regular people can now collect information and pictures with video cameras and cellphones, and distribute words and images over the Internet. Advocates argue that the acts of collecting and distributing makes these people "journalists." This is like saying someone who carries a scalpel is a "citizen surgeon" or someone who can read a law book is a "citizen lawyer." Tools are merely that. Education, skill and standards are really what make people into trusted professionals. Information without journalistic standards is called gossip.


As we noted then: "One images Hazinsky in the pre-Revolutionary American colonies: he'd be the one beating on John Peter Zenger's printing press with a pitchfork--or shouting down Tom Paine."

So while the MSM dismisses bloggers and other citizen journalists as the great unwashed, it's not above "borrowing" stories from the rubes when it suits them.

As Alexandrovna noted, "What the AP and others are saying essentially is that, while "your work" is good enough for us to steal, you are not credible enough to cite."

"Trusted MSM news professionals" was our nominee for "Oxymoron of the Year".

Although DBKP did not yell, "Stop, thief!" when first alerted to the Times reporter using our work without credit, the more we researched the subject, the more it became apparent that that may have been the proper action to take.

We've been checking our email hopefully; we sincerely hope that an upbeat update will be added to this article.

We're loathe to lump the Times in with the likes of the NY Times and AP. We hope we're contacted--sooner rather than later.

by Mondoreb

NOTE: Ah my! We originally left out one source (see how easy it might be?) but caught it within 10 minutes of this article going up. We marked the quote as a quote--just forgot to include the link. It is now corrected.