http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:57:09 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-142833 he isn't dead - this was a joke. Look again at the title of the story ]]> 142833@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:57:09 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-142830 hello, i'm claudia i come from holland i cant believe, dustin is dead i look every day to save by the bell on nickelodeon. when is he dead?? and way?? ]]> 142830@blogcritics.org Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:52:28 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30804 Thanks, Eric. ]]> 30804@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:14:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30803 All of these considerations are important, and I will see if we can move the subcategory listings up to the top of the page, but I also think it will usually be pretty obvious, such as with the nightclubbing Saddam post. ]]> 30803@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 19:01:15 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30801 I have no problem with satire, but is Blogcritics really the place for something like this? I'm not picking on Crushkill or anyone else, I'm trying to point something out. This kind of satire can really upset people, and since BC isn't really known for this kind of content, it may tar us with a bad feather, so to speak, if things like this continue to pop up. Since the category of the item shows up only at the very, very bottom of the piece, even after the Amazon links, it's easy to miss. Maybe the category listing should be moved to the top of the entry, under the title, so it's easy to determine what you're looking at. We're definitely not The Onion, so this kind of content might mislead a lot of readers. It's something to think about, at least. ]]> 30801@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:54:26 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30800 okay Nat! ]]> 30800@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:52:25 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30796 In other words, someone has to get to the end of the damn thing before they realize that this is a hoax. In order for the categories to be visible to me, I have to change the text size on the page, and I may not be alone in that. Is it possible to insert the word Fiction, Hoax, Satire, Nasty Rotten Joke, or something similar in the title so that there is not room for error here? ]]> 30796@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:44:12 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30792 Okay, we have resolved this and any future confusion/alarm by adding a Humor and Satire subcategory under Et Cetera, which this post has officially been dubbed. ]]> 30792@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:38:15 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30789 I was pretty startled too. I don't have a problem with satire, fiction, faux news, etc, but we need to be very careful to designate it as such so we don't have these kinds of reactions. Most of our news is NEWS and we can't confuse people. ]]> 30789@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:20:28 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30787 The witness' exclamation made me think it wasn't true and that is why I posted for a link. War of the Worlds this is not. ]]> 30787@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:18:12 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30785 I did not see any fiction designation. I thought it was real, and as a onetime fan of "Saved by the Bell," the news was upsetting, not only to me but my family, who heard me exclaim, "Oh my god, the actor who played Screech was shot to death!" This isn't funny in the slightest. Had there been a "fiction" designation, it might have been, esp. the chess reference. Instead, this was pretty rotten. ]]> 30785@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:14:40 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30784 Here's the punchline : http://www.crushkill.com/archives/dustin.wmv ]]> 30784@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:14:23 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30782 Umm... not that I would be overly affected either way, but where is the punchline? ]]> 30782@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:08:41 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30780 I have designated it "fiction" ]]> 30780@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 18:01:34 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30778 Crushkill's website indicates that he has spent a lot of time reading The Onion. This article is just more of the same, I feel certain. ]]> 30778@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:58:56 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30775 I find no reference to this anywhere - we need to designate if it is fiction. ]]> 30775@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 17:44:38 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/11/29/162531.php#comment-30767 Is there a link to a story? ]]> 30767@blogcritics.org Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:29:59 EST