Comments on: Newsstand-up Comedy

By: BT

BT — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 13:14:23 +0000

Thanks for sharing. I re-upped by subscription to Details. It soes have some noteworthy gay content sometimes. Yea, I read it for the articles.

By: bstewart23

bstewart23 — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:05:28 +0000

Gee, ~~decades~~ years ago, when I used to buy the sort of stuff that GQ includes in their editorial content, I was swayed more by what I saw in shops than what I saw in magazines. I understand your point, though, and in an effort to make amends for the (arm's length, once-removed) hand-biting, guess who's going to be wearing his ________ shirts and underwear every day this week?

By: taverbeck

taverbeck — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:01:29 +0000

unfortunately gq is the men’s style-arbiter for the pedestrian masses - albeit the straight ones. we try to not bite the hand that feeds us in the ultra-glam fashion business. in the words of ‘project runway’s’ heidi klum: ‘one day you’re in, the next day you’re out.’ truer words couldn’t be spoken when you’re desperately hanging on to your brand’s shining moment. but hey - relevant is subjective all around.

By: bstewart23

bstewart23 — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 19:55:20 +0000

Kind of an arm’s-length relationship in your case, though, isn’t it, T? And, my guess is that there are rags more relevant to your particular livelihood than Esquire or GQ, right? I mean, if I wanted to look at the newest clothes, I’d go for the thicker, glossier, $$$ier magazines. And besides, implicit in my categorization is “irrelevant” to me.

By: taverbeck

taverbeck — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 18:42:36 +0000

careful buddy…you’re pissing all over my livelihood. some people bring home a paycheck due to these ‘irrelevant rags’….