« A whispered post | Main | Photo Friday (vol. LXIX) [turnabout is fair play edition] »

Thursday, July 06, 2006

In which David sells out

No, I haven't sold out.

OK... maybe I have sold out... but just a tiny bit.  Alright, maybe a lot.

Perhaps a word of explanation might be in order.

When you clicked over to treppenwitz today you probably couldn't help but notice the rather, shall we say, eye-catching, fishnet-clad gams at the top of the right sidebar. 

Those of you who follow the 'spoken word' edition of my journal will have to take my word on this one.

Don't worry, I haven't started accepting ads for pr0n sites here at treppenwitz.  The rather eye-catching ad there on the right is actually for a new political satire blog.  The legs tie in with the site's tag line "The satirical website with legs".

Get it?

Just to be clear, treppenwitz is still, and will remain for the foreseeable future, a family-friendly site.  It's just that the 'family' I have in mind when I think of my demographic doesn't necessarily all live in Williamsburg or Mea Sha'arim.

Yeah, yeah, there's a lot of skin exposed over there... and I almost turned down the ad for that reason.  But the truth is, you see more skin than that walking down most streets in any big city.  If you really find the picture in the ad offensive, my advice is that you pretend you are walking down a street in New York, Paris or Tel Aviv... and simply don't look.

Needless to say, if anyone would like to advertise their blogs, websites or businesses here on treppenwitz, I think you'll find the rates to be quite competitive (for instance the ad we are discussing here cost a paltry $10 to run for a week)... and the site traffic and demographics here are pretty attractive. 

Of course greetings and wishes for birthdays, engagements, anniversaries, condolences and such are also gladly accepted.  Heck, I will even allow trolls to post unflattering things about me in paid ads... provided the language remains rated, shall we say, PG-ish or better.

To begin setting up an ad, click on the words 'your ad here' at the bottom of the advertisement section... or simply click here for more information.

This commercial announcement brought to you by:

'Cooper Tires... The Round Ones!'

[note: If anyone was seriously offended by the content of the ad with the legs, please let me know and I will refrain from renewing it.  If someone is going to be uncomfortable here, I would rather it be because of something I write... not due to advertising content.]


Posted by David Bogner on July 6, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In which David sells out:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I wasn't massively offended, but I was offended enough that I would hesitate to come back to the blog which i enjoy a tremendous amount. Im not mad at u(maybe a little disappointed) but it does make me not want to come back to the site even though ill miss reading ur 2 and a quarter cents. but then again maybe im an outta control prude(doubtful) bc i also asked chayyei sarah to link to a picture instead of posting it(she complied) im pretty sure ur not trying to limit ur audience purposefully, but placing that ad there does do that, esp bc the pic would be risque dress even for New York.

Posted by: brad | Jul 6, 2006 11:15:55 AM

Call me insensitive but I have a hard time seeing how someone would be offended by that pic.

To begin with unless you have an incredibly large screen it is size makes it likely that you will miss it.

And even if you do stumble across it you really have to spend a moment staring at it.

She is not naked, not even close.

Anyway, it is your blog so do what you want, but truthfully if someone has trouble seeing that they might want to spend some time considering their own hangups.

Posted by: Jack | Jul 6, 2006 11:27:59 AM

These Blogads people definitely have a terrific sense of humour- you get sent a rather sexy pair of legs (nice shoes too!), and I saw "Jameel" got stuck with one promoting a play about a Jewish girl who brings her Palestinian boyfriend home. Can't even imagine what I would get given: An ad for Aish? Or the Rush Limbaugh musical?!

Posted by: PP | Jul 6, 2006 11:41:59 AM

Brad... I'm trying to measure your reaction and not having a lot of success. Your name is the first thing that is confusing me. I admit that names are a poor hook on which to hang assumptions, but I know very few Hasidim named 'Brad'. May I ask about your religious/communal affiliations so I understand your worldview a bit better? I also want to ask an honest question: If there was a cafe where you especially enjoyed the atmosphere, coffee and pastry... and this cafe was located on a busy street in a city where passers-by and customers typically dressed with a lot of skin showing (mid-town Manhattan in the summer comes to mind), would you stop patronizing the cafe? If so, can you think of any real-world places you would enjoy visiting but currently avoid because of the way people dress (or perhaps don't dress would be more correct) there?

Jack... Sensibilities and sensitivities to issues (what you have called 'hang-ups') such as this are not something we are born with. Each community has its norms and comfort zones... and no two communities will ever completely agree on the definition of 'inappropriate. The question is: How much must neighboring communities wishing to stay on good terms with one another do to accommodate (or at least avoid offending) such sensibilities?

PP... Each of us could have done far worse. :-)

Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 6, 2006 11:57:37 AM

The easy way out is to use bloglines...then you only see it if you click on your site...and now that bloglines only gives me the first four lines of your blog, that is more frequent!

Posted by: Safranit | Jul 6, 2006 12:11:50 PM

I can't see the advert at all (viewing you from the UK).
Best wishes


Posted by: Hettie | Jul 6, 2006 12:49:25 PM

I saw the verbiage of the ad, but not the picture. :( Are there settings I need to set. I would not be offended but now I'm feeling left out of the loop, not being able to see the subject matter being discussed.

Posted by: val | Jul 6, 2006 2:48:10 PM

I didn't even notice the ad until it was pointed out by you. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Posted by: seawitch | Jul 6, 2006 3:05:19 PM

Doesn't bother me. I'm not exactly a fan of fishnet-covered legs (and I'm wondering about the demographic and marketing research that went into making that ad), but it's no big deal. Your text is lots more interesting.

Posted by: Rahel | Jul 6, 2006 4:00:48 PM

Can't see the legs at all in Firefox. I checked using Internet Explorer, and I have to say, David, they're a bit of a let down.

They remind me of being a little girl and watching my mother do that bicycle legs exercise in front of the Ed Allen exercise show on TV in the mornings. Does anyone do bicycle legs anymore?

(and no, my mother did not do them in fishnets)


Posted by: Talmida | Jul 6, 2006 4:33:40 PM


OK, I'm with the prudes on this one.

Yes. I find it offensive. If only a little bit...

More than the offense, I am a little disturbed by a few things you said in the comments:

"I know very few Hasidim named 'Brad'. May I ask about your religious/communal affiliations so I understand your worldview a bit better?"

It's a safe bet that any Ultra-Orthodox (even non-Hasidic) visitors would be offended -- and plenty of them have and use English names. Not to mention the fact that some non-Ultra-Orthodox may be offended as well.

Besides, he stated his position very clearly. I don't see how his name or communal affiliation are relevant.

"If there was a cafe where you especially enjoyed the atmosphere..."

Sorry, bad analogy. You yourself have stated on many occasions that Treppenwitz is not a public space -- it is your private domain. So let's revise the analogy: If I especially enjoyed the atmosphere at Chez Treppenwitz and one of the other guests in your home walked around in that outfit... Yup, I'd avoid visiting when she was there.

"...dressed with a lot of skin showing (mid-town Manhattan in the summer comes to mind)..."

There is a *big* difference between "a lot of skin showing" and this ad. Bathing suits and underwear both show off the same amount of skin. But many people who would wear a bikini to the beach would be horrified to be seen publicly in their underwear.

The ad doesn't just show "a lot of skin". The outfit and the pose are deliberately sexually suggestive. Yes, it's a cute play on words. Yes, it's a gimmick to get people to click over to his site. No, it's not pr0n. No, I won't stop reading Treppenwitz because of it...

But I still think it doesn't belong here...

Posted by: wogo | Jul 6, 2006 5:12:26 PM

I can't see it either, but I really doubt it would offend me. I've been known to wear fishnets myself once in a while....

Posted by: Shifra | Jul 6, 2006 5:15:31 PM

I'm not offended, but what neighborhoods in NY, Paris, and Tel Aviv are you talking about...? You might see more (a lot more) skin on a beach, but I haven't seen any women walking around dressed like that anytime I've been to any of the metropoli... unless you count drag queens during parade season...

Posted by: stepima | Jul 6, 2006 5:50:21 PM

Safranit... I actually made a decision a few months ago to limit my feed to sites like bloglines. I would rather people come to my site to read. There is something more personal that way. I'm glad you stop by.

Hettie... I'm betting you use Firefox. Several people have told me they can't see the ads with that browser. I wish coders would get the hint that a growing portion of the world hates Microsoft and will do anything not to have to use their products.

Val... Try it from another computer if you can.

Seawitch... OK, that's promising. Thanks.

Rahel... I'm betting they didn't spend a lot on focus groups and such. But a lot of their content is damn funny.

Talmida... Sorry to disappoint, but I appreciate the feedback. :-)

Wogo... I said up front to Brad that "I admit that names are a poor hook on which to hang assumptions". I really couldn't have been more clear. I was just trying to understand a bit more about who Brad is so I could weigh his reaction according to the right scale. If he is a Hassid, his reaction would mean one thing. If he were more towards the center of the religious spectrum (in any religion) his reaction would have to be weighted differently. I do not profess to keep a site that will be acceptable to ultra-religious people who are by definition culturally hyper-sensitive to exposed skin and profanity (even though I almost never allow either). But if something I post here makes people with more 'real world' sensibilities uncomfortable that is something I should be watching closely. I hope that makes sense. As to my analogy, a cafe most certainly is a private domain. The proprietor has the right to set the standards for his/her clientele and can decorate the walls with whatever artwork he/she wants. I'm flattered that despite your strong feelings about the picture you would still want to keep visiting my cafe. The ad is booked for a week. Let's see what happens next.

Shifra... Rowr! Er, ahem, I mean thanks for sharing. :-)[blush]

StepIma... I worked in Mid-Town Manhattan for many years and I can tell you that in the summer it was well worth the trip downstairs to eat my lunch outside. Weather-wise, that is. ;-) Glad you weren't offended

Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 6, 2006 5:58:48 PM

I'm surprised you'd have this ad, but I'm hardly offended.

I'll take a stab at the analogy. I too, think your analogy isn't quite correct. I think it would be more like a cafe with posters on the windows and walls like this ad. Would I go into a place like that? If I knew the ad was satirical, but at first glance I would wonder. Would I bring my kids in? If it's just one ad, maybe. But, here at Chez Trep, my kids are not likely to enter, so it's not a prob.

Posted by: Tracey | Jul 6, 2006 6:19:21 PM

Can't see it (thank god for ad blocking), but may I suggest an alternative? Research has shown that text-based ads are just as effective (or more) than other media, and are far less obtrustive to a normal browsing experience. I don't know if textads are an option for whatever service you're using, but it's just a thought.

Just checked in IE. *shrugs* Not exactly a big deal. You see worse in the ads in the Sunday paper.

Posted by: matlabfreak | Jul 6, 2006 6:49:37 PM

I like the legs...but I suppose this should surprise no one. ;o)

Posted by: lisa | Jul 6, 2006 7:02:28 PM

Out of Firefox and into the fire... Nothing wrong with the pic. It's clearly satirical, just like the pose is clearly exaggerated for humorous effect. *Shrug*. I'm a girl; woman's legs don't bother me in the least.

Posted by: Irina | Jul 6, 2006 7:07:43 PM

It would take a LOT more than that to offend me. I probably would not have even really noticed it if you had not said anything. I trained myself to ignore most ads :)

Posted by: Essie | Jul 6, 2006 7:23:39 PM

Whatever image you're comfortable putting next to your daughter's picture is fine with me.

Posted by: Bob | Jul 6, 2006 7:43:31 PM

Oh yeah, and I look damned good in fishnet! (Can I have a "Rowr!" on that?)

Posted by: Bob | Jul 6, 2006 7:51:46 PM

Hey, I didn't say my feelings against the picture were *that* strong...


Re. "real world sensibilities": OK, understood.

Re. the analogy: I think my issue was more with the "passers-by" (public) and less with the "customers" (private).

And I admit, I haven't been in NY in a long time, but I think there is still a difference between "very-revealing-business-attire" and "fishnet-stockings-and-not-much-else"

Posted by: wogo | Jul 6, 2006 7:55:17 PM

I don't like it, but more for feminist reasons than prudish ones. The ad's effectiveness hinges on one's reaction to a provocative photo of a woman's legs, which is objectification if I've ever seen it (since the word-image pun is legs/walking, it makes sense that all they want to show is legs, but the result is that the legs are completely dissociated from any "personhood"). Sure, using women's bodies to attract men to a product is a huge part of advertising and this one is hardly the most graphic out there, but you, David, can still set higher standards for your blog.

If you think I'm being too harsh or sensisitve, ask yourself how many heterosexual men this ad would "work on" and then how many heterosexual women. If, as I suspect, the numbers are much higher for men than women, then that would support my thesis that the ad is more about sex than being clever.

I do think there's room in advertising to use sex in the context of satire, and this website (self-defined as satiric, no less) would have scored way more points with me if it had gone that route instead of this one.

Posted by: Temporary Delurker (Delurked?) | Jul 6, 2006 8:16:55 PM

YAY! for commercialism. It makes the world go round.

If the add was selling something pornographic it would be offensive. That it is a humorous play on words erases all that.

I might add that it works too. I read it. I successfully ignore 90% of all blog adds.

Posted by: Scott | Jul 6, 2006 8:25:29 PM

Well after all this discussion I had to click on the add. No WONDER they have to advertise!

Posted by: Scott | Jul 6, 2006 8:32:53 PM

I can see the 'legs' - they are surely not yiddisher legs are they? I am not troubled at all by them - as you say I see a lot worse every day in the streets of Leeds (we have had a heat wave). But I some how have the feeling that can be expressed better in Yiddish and it is "As past nisht" - which is translated to 'it does not fit the style of the Blog. enough of that - I have become Savta again - In Ichilov hospital in Tel Aviv to Gavriel - who will be celebrating a Pidyon Haben on 17th Tamuz coming Thursday. Do I sign from now on as savta Baribua?

Posted by: savta yaffa | Jul 6, 2006 9:22:46 PM

See "Lazer Beams" blog about "Two more rockets slam Askelon"
A little bare skin is not innocent. Remove the ad.
Simcha Moshe Gerzoff

Posted by: Simcha Moshe Gerzoff | Jul 6, 2006 10:14:33 PM

The only thing that bothers me is that you're worried abt a pair of legs. This is your blog, the add is not distasteful in the least and iI hadn't even noticed it, and where are you willing to you draw the line anyway? Someone's leg pair is someone else's bare arms or hair. Frankly, the garter may be sexy but the leg position really isn't, she looks like she fell head down off the stage. Sexuality is very much in the eye of the beholder, I personally do not look at those legs and feel the need to wildly fornicate and be wanton. Even if you put a sock-clad penis there I'd still not.

If you do feel comfortable abt the legs (and no reason why you shouldn't) then you should leave them bcs, as I said, you'd be giving your readership too much power. Since when do we decide how you tend to your house? That wouldn't be respecting us as much as it'd be kowtowing to us. What will you do if it's an add abt breastfeeding (minus boob) and someone is offended by *gasp* the word "breast" bcs breastfeeding is immodest anyway? replace Breastfeeding w whatever and you have French ghettos in your hands. I still say losing 1 or 2 readers bcs they're offended by harmless pictures is preferable to losing a few bcs Treppenwitz suddenly aims to please all and loses in the process.

Posted by: Lioness | Jul 6, 2006 10:25:46 PM

All right, one more: when people say Es passt nicht (I speak German, not Yiddish) what they're saying is, it doesn't fit in with the nice little category we have placed your blog in. And that means Treppenwitz is not allowed to change, ever. Sorry but that is wrong, wrong, wrong. I for one was delighted that a religious Jew could have a pair of legs on display without making a fuss of it, without treating it as the decline of civilisation as we know it. I thought it was highly educational for those of do not know much abt Judaism, and maybe also for those who do. Legs don't have to be dirty and these weren't and I was delighted to see Treppenwitz entering adolescence.

But at the end of the day, you will do with your blog what you want, even if you didn't want to originally. So God bless, rant over.

Posted by: Lioness | Jul 6, 2006 10:33:43 PM

I personally do not look at those legs and feel the need to wildly fornicate and be wanton. Even if you put a sock-clad penis there I'd still not.

From my vantage point this was the comment of the day.

Posted by: Jack | Jul 6, 2006 11:06:37 PM

If it isn't needed to keep your blog alive, get rid of it. The picture makes your blog off-limits to an important segment of the Jewish community. And probably off-limits to significant segments of other religious communities as well.

I'd prefer not to see it and will not click on the link. When I first saw the pic I guessed it might be of a cross-dressing man. The legs look hairy on my screen.

Posted by: Warren | Jul 6, 2006 11:13:36 PM

Damn, I finally have a reason to visit Treppenwitz every day.
Seriously, while any community or member therein has the right and indeed obligation to set standards for itself, you would be doing a disservice to those in the larger community who are unconcerned with playful displays meant to be politicially provocotive. I mean, I am all for sensitivity, but it is not porn, and I don't see any reason we have to make believe it is just to make sure we don't offend people who set standards I am not obligated to follow. It does no harm, but repressive, blue nosed, priggish behavior does. While we look so hard for offense in the innocuous, we miss the truly offensive.
The objectification argument is a more interesting one, but I think this display does not quite meet that standard. Erotic does not equal oppresive porn, and we shouldn't lose sight of the real struggles of misogyny to claim it does.

Posted by: Jordan Hirsch | Jul 7, 2006 12:14:54 AM

Well first off - if you are feeling uncomfortable about the ad and worried that you may be scaring off a democratic - it is usually useful to listen to ones discomforts.

Secondly, I don't like the ad for both religious and feminist reasons. Unlike a cafe, where I can turn my back to the window the ad is in my optical view until I scroll past. Even if only submliminally noticed.

The religious reasons I need not go into, but for the feminist reasons check out write up in the comments of Killing Us Softly on IMDB http://imdb.com/title/tt0156707/

Posted by: Leah Guildenstern | Jul 7, 2006 12:17:33 AM

Feminist arguement!? You're kidding right? We laughed that kind of feminism off the stage a long time ago. Jumpin Gee Whilikers! Let's get rid of Degas too. That pig.

Posted by: Scott | Jul 7, 2006 2:22:17 AM

As a pediatrician, I'm not a big fan of objectifying the human body. As a SNAG (sensitive new age guy) I agree with the earlier comment about sexism and showing a scantily clad female leg as an eye grabber. I'm particularly amused by the comment about how happy someone was that an Orthodox Jew can post a fishnetted leg on the blogosphere. I also liked the comment about that it's OK with them if you can post that next to a picture of your daughter. Face it, your blog is a public reflection of who you are, and perhaps that ad is not representative of the persona you present on Trepen. Also, on a personal, completely nonreligious level, everytime one lowers one's standards, one cheapens the world just a little bit. Perhaps it's an infinetismal amount, but there it is...
I would still read Trep., and personally, I might not have even noticed the ad if you hadn't mentioned it, but this is your space.

Posted by: Jersey Boy | Jul 7, 2006 4:23:27 AM

Trep...it really looks like you open a can of worms here (but then again, they are great for fishing or fishnets - ok bad joke.)

Anyhow, I think everyone is making a too big of deal over this, though I know you did ask. Don't worry about it. If anyone truly is offended, I am sure you would eventually receive emails about it.

Posted by: jaime | Jul 7, 2006 4:59:46 AM

I have not heard that in a LONG time. In fact, I am pretty sure the last time I heard the "cooper tire" ad, was the last time you did a Seaboard Shabbaton. Thanks for the flood of good memories!

Posted by: Faye | Jul 7, 2006 5:26:18 AM

Trepp, I'm a little embarrassed by all of this attention to my leg. I look pretty good though, don't I?

Posted by: cruisin-mom | Jul 7, 2006 5:30:22 AM

Are you sure it's a woman?

Posted by: psychotoddler | Jul 7, 2006 5:34:49 AM

Sounds reasonable. Now I just need to find political satire with breasts.

Posted by: Doctor Bean | Jul 7, 2006 7:52:15 AM

Photo Friday- Fishnet Stocking Edition coming soon.

Posted by: Jack | Jul 7, 2006 10:26:36 AM

I'm not ultra-Orthodox, and I'm not "offended," but I do think the pic that *I* see now (not sure if it's the same one you referred to in the post) is cheap and tasteless, and beneath the classy image you generally build in your blog.

And when you tell people to "not look," you are inviting them not to come to the blog at all. If I don't want to see pictures of certain things, I'm not going to open up a site where I know they are there, and then hope I don't look at the thing I don't want to look at!

This is beneath you, David. It's not worth the 10 bucks.

Posted by: Sarah | Jul 7, 2006 10:48:40 AM

I wasn't offended by the original ad, but I just have to mention that I find the new version *hilarious!*

Posted by: Tanya | Jul 7, 2006 5:04:52 PM

Before I respond to more comments, please note that the site owner who placed the ad seems to have been reading some of your comments and has changed the ad on his own (I promise I didn't ask him to). You have to admire that kind of class. He even managed to poke a little fun at himself... and at some of the commenters.

Tracey... Scott raised a good point in another comment. What if it turned out that this leg was actually part of a famous work of art and had been cropped for the ad? Would that make a difference? Is some nudity OK and not others?

Matlabfreak... I agree with your point about worse exposure in the Sunday paper. But what some will ask is: Is it OK that the Sunday ads have desensitized us to so much nudity?

Lisa... I had no idea you were a leg man, er, I mean women! :-)

Irina... I'm a man and I don't mind them a bit either.

Essie... Which, as you've probably guessed, is why I drew everyone's attention to it. :-)

Bob... Even though I sense that your intention was to make me think twice about the close proximity of these nude legs and my baby girl... One has nothing to do with the other. A better question would be, 'does your daughter read your blog?' to which I would say Yes, and I don't mind her seeing that particular picture. As to your stocking fetish... TMI Bob... TMI!

Wogo... Fair enough. But keep in mind... a lot of people walking around big cities aren't wearing business attire. At least not the business you have in mind.

Temporary Delurker... I think that is kinda the point. Sex sells and advertisers are extremely unapologetic about how they go about catching our eyes.

Scott... Now, now... don't go bashing my advertisers.

Savta Yaffa... First of all MAZAL TOV on the arrival of yet another grandchild. Second, thank you for implying that this journal has any style whatsoever. And third, the guy who placed the ad was nice enough to tame it down a bit.

Simcha Moshe Gerzoff... Just who do you think you are coming into someone else's site... posting a plug for an unrelated topic on someone else's blog... and then commanding me to remove content from my site you find offensive. Who are you, the modesty police of the Jblogosphere? If an apology or explanation for your boorish behavior is not immediately forthcoming you will have set a new record for getting banned here. Let's hear it.

Lioness... truth be told, I'm not at all uncomfortable with them. My post was a combination of intentionally drawing attention to an issue that I find interesting... and wanting to know how my readers felt about it. Whether I want to empower them or not is really besides the point. The readers... and especially the commenters are a huge part of what I enjoy about keeping this journal. It would be silly of me to pretend I don't care what they think. By the way... I agree with Jack that your 'sock-clad penis' line was the highlight of the thread. :-)

Jack... Hands down (so to speak). :-)

Warren... You caught me. The legs are actually mine. My mother always told me I had great legs! :-)

Jordan... Other than your 'repressive, blue nosed, priggish behavior' comment, that was some of the tightest, most persuasive prose I have ever heard from you. Heck, without the 'repressive, blue nosed, priggish behavior' part it doesn't really stand up... so I take it back. Great comment!

Leah... I assume you meant to write demographic since I could care less whether or not I scare off democratics. :-) And no, I was not worried by the ad. I was, however, solicitous of my reader's views on a new aspect of my site.

Scott... Your Degas comment would have stood quite nicely without the barb at those who were offended for reasons of feminist sensitivities. I happen to think the whole nude art argument is quite powerful in this case. What makes one thing art and another smut?

Jersey Boy... I am not static and neither is this site. That I don't over-think decisions like whether to accept one ad and reject another is perhaps one of my failings. But I think the fact that I asked the question (or at least broached the subject) was constructive considering the wide ranging discussion that resulted.

Jaime... Eventually was last night. Got five of them, :-)

Faye... I thought you'd enjoy the reference.

Cruisin'Mom... Shhhhh, I told someone it was my leg! :-)

Psychotoddler... Would it make a difference to you?

Doctor Bean... Maybe I can get an ad from the La Leche League! :-)

Jack... Yeah... hold your breath for that one. :-)

Sarah... I don't think you realize how strongly your comment was worded. You may say you are not ultra-orthodox, but your comment says otherwise. And no... nobody ever accused me of being classy. :-)

Tanya... Yeah, I laughed out loud when I saw it.

Posted by: treppenwitz | Jul 7, 2006 5:08:18 PM


Why does thinking that a photo is cheap and tasteless make me ultra-Orthodox?

Maybe it just makes me *Orthodox.*

Or maybe it just makes me an intelligent woman who knows a cheap shot when she sees one.

shhhhh . . . don't tell anyone I'm opinionated.
shhhhh . . . .

Posted by: Sarah | Jul 7, 2006 6:08:51 PM

Hm. Maybe you thought I was saying that *I* won't come to the blog because of the picture.

That's not what I meant. What I meant was that *IF* I wanted to avoid such pictures, then telling me "come to the blog, but don't look at the picture" wouldn't work. I just wouldn't come - if I *were* religiously offended. Therefore, to the extent that you have more religiously sensitive readers, such a photo turns them away - and you should be aware that, no, "just don't look" is not really an option FOR THEM.

Personally I *wouldn't* stop reading your blog just because of that picture . . . though I do think the photo is tasteless and I'm disappointed that you put it up.

Posted by: Sarah | Jul 7, 2006 6:12:54 PM

Well, you know, sometimes you have to forgo the bazooka when swatting flies............but sometimes you don't.

Posted by: Jordan Hirsch | Jul 7, 2006 7:14:58 PM

Oooh I love the new caption, that man has a hysterical sense of humour, good for him! I'll click on the add a few extra times now, in its honour.


Posted by: Lioness | Jul 7, 2006 7:48:15 PM

"suspiciously shiksa"


I take back my earlier slight. I was talking about the structure and 'look' of the site anyway. I'll give it another go.

Posted by: Scott | Jul 7, 2006 8:14:10 PM

HILARIOUS new ad! : )

Posted by: Irina | Jul 7, 2006 10:10:21 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.