Has anyone seen this piece in the latest WIRED blog?
[url="http://blog.wired.com/tableofmalcontents/2007/06/berrygirls-body.html"]WIRED story on body inflation[/url]
They seem not to know about this site at all.
Instead, they point to some other site as being the "official" body inflation site, when all that site has is a bunch of pictures.
Odd, huh?
My money is on the notion that they threw the page together themselves just to degrade our image further.
Personally, I don't think this is a case of WIRED setting out to hammer us as it is one where they feel they can sell ad space by renewing that tired old refrain, "Look at the weirdos!"
It still sucks, but it's a different kind of suck.
"Attribute not to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
If they wanted to take a jab at us, they could have done much worse than that. I'm guessing that whoever wrote that article was sent a link from someone who claimed it was the "official" site. The author just wrote it up without even bothering to Google "body inflation fetish".
Either the author was lazy, inept, or it just never occurred to him that something so bizarre could have a following that warranted anything more than a poorly crafted one-page site.
Well, why dont you guys write to them about it. I mean, they are an ezine, and an ezine is still a magazine right? Magazines recieve mail all the time regarding stuff like this.
Also, that site they link too is legit. The human balloon site. Ive seen that site since quite a few years ago. That ugly guy at the bottom created it. i have no idea who he is within our community. I think he was the one who made a collage video of body inflation on youtube. He was the first guy I ever heard saying stuff like "body inflation" in my life, which I regret. (Ive never seen lips saying those words before. Remember, my only link to this has always been the internet)
Well, in my case, I'm new here, though not to the fetish, and not to the fetish community in general. I wanted to let people know about it as a courtesy before I started writing. I certainly will respond to it, and let WIRED know that I am disappointed in their lack of due diligence in reporting this fetish--never mind the clear bias.
Well the one commenter had the right idea at least...
The site they link to doesn't look like anything any of us would have done... we wouldn't just post a few pics and say 'look at this' furthermore we would have known who Johnny Swell was... I think CattyN may well have something to say about his work being posted on it too.
I'm glad you mentioned CattyN's piece being stolen for that page, carnatic. It figured in my reply, as the site basically attempts to usurp copyright for quite a few different artworks clearly not created by the maker of this page.
CattyN will definitely have something to say, especially given the rotten experience he's had on DeviantArt.com with having his art stolen.
So, yeah, I said a few words to WIRED'S Mr. John Brownlee:
Mr. Brownlee, some due diligence would have been nice, along with a bit less of the "Ooo, look at the freaks" editorial stance that far too often accompanies a piece on any given fetish.Bodyinflation.org, run by Luther V. Kane, is not only much closer to an "official" body inflation fetish site, but is actually well-constructed, and has excellent discussions of the fetish of body inflation, along with how and why its adherents get into it. The discussions are also very supportive, since, as with any fetish, fear of ridicule is ever-present (and judging by your exhaustive 143-word article, justifiable).
Additionally, there is an image on the page you cited, just above the "Bizarre Adventures of Berrygirl" comic, that was created by an artist not affiliated with the page, and used without permission. Given the poor quality and inept writing of the page, the boilerplate theft of copyright at the top of the page, the lack of attribution given the artists who created the images the page's creator is using without permission, and the lack of contact information, the page to which you linked above should never have been cited. (Well, it never should have been written, quite frankly. But so it goes.)
Most embarrassing for you is the fact that a simple Google search brings up bodyinflation.org and a host of other legitimate, credible links for people to explore and maybe even learn. Nearly every body-inflation-related site ever is better than the example you cited.
I encourage you to rewrite this story after a suitable period of due diligence. Given the raison d'etre of "Table of Malcontents," I don't begrudge you the snarky voice in which this piece is written. However, it is wise to back up attitude with facts.
This is why I prefer MAD.
This is why I prefer MAD.
Their research is generally much more accurate, yeah. 8)
The key word here is "blog." This has little to nothing to do with the magazine itself; it's just one of their writers or freelancers or contractors reacting. No journalistic research is even implied when it comes to snarky blogging.
Meh. We're a splinter group. Every once in a while, we're going to get under someone's skin and make them uncomfortable.
I'd like that last line on a t-shirt, please.
Splinters? Oh, no! *sssssssss* ;)
You're a newbie here, Inflate123? Now, I really feel like the newbest of the newbs. :)
Seriously, though, I respectfully disagree. Yes, blogs are not normally subject to the same scrutiny as the full-blown magazine (no pun intented). However, this one is published under the aegis of WIRED.
Here's where I'm going with this: I figure that if any of us out in the Joe Sixpack workaday world can be fired if we say something in our blogs that makes our company look bad, then John Brownlee should have to exercise even more care, since he's a writer who could conceivably make a magazine look bad. The same would be true of Bobby Flay posted a really awful recipe or restaurant review in his blog. Of course, he'd add corn and cilantro to it to make it all better, but that's not my point.
My point is that if you're blogging for a journalistic organization, you should be held to a higher standard than if you are blogging what you had for breakfast last Thursday.
After all, technically, Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanack" could be considered a proto-blog, and he was very much a journalist. :)
I'm not pinging Brownlee for his opinion--I'm pinging him because he misrepresented us and should know better.
"I'm pinging him because he misrepresented us and should know better."
Right, let's blow him up!
lol you think Inflate123's a newbie? he's one of the elder statemen of the community.
lol you think Inflate123's a newbie? he's one of the elder statemen of the community.
Sorry, perhaps my phrasing wasn't clear: I was questioning the very idea that he is listed as a newbie, considering his site was the first inflatable-oriented site I ever accessed. My apologies for not making that more plain.
god not that site again... that's the ONE site that won't take my artwork down. In fact, when I tried to contact the owner via e-mail he sent me a scathing reply and then promptly blocked me so i couldn't contact him. I can't stand my work being up in a public place like that, but to add insult to injury now it's part of someone's BLOG! God-damn-it! You all wonder why i freak out and don't want my stuff seen? That's why. Cuz it's just gonna get used as hate against us. ARGH!
And whenever I try to contact Lycose to remove the image they request copyright dates, names, figures, and all sorts of crazy things that I can't 'prove' that I own.
I just wish that site was GONE! It's just a horrible site run by a horrible person.
Sorry to have been the bearer of bad news, CattyN. :( It's a pity that the site didn't show up on Slashdot, or the Slashdot Effect would solve the problem in your favor.
Interestingly enough if you look at his other writing you learn two things. One, this blog has been canceled already. With such insightful writing and careful research this is a big surprise isn't it. Two he certainly seems to have his own bizarre fetishes. A rather lot of squid, Nazis and vaginas in his writing.
double post...
Sorry to have been the bearer of bad news, CattyN. :( It's a pity that the site didn't show up on Slashdot, or the Slashdot Effect would solve the problem in your favor.
The Slashdot effect would probably spread from that site throughout the community though.
Chances are good that this being one blog out of several million on the internet that in the long run, it's going to be wholly inconsequential whether he leaves it up or not.
On the other hand, if you really want it taken down, I know some people.
Sorry, double posted.
I happen to saw this make-shift article during a google-ish search one time. In a way, it doesn't surprise me that there are some yolk heads out there who still we're weird because we like this and only see the images on the surface without any knack for delving into it further other than for their own opinions and just replacing "that" word with the word "fact".
*And I think I could do a better, simple website design for an inflation related site but with some added pizazz to it that I can do.
On the other hand, if you really want it taken down, I know some people.
I'll take you up on that offer. I would VERY much like to get that off his website.
Almost 300 posts of pure Newbie, yep. :) Methinks LVKane didn't assign any ranks to posters beyond Newbie when he set up the forum.
Meanwhile, let me pull back the curtain to clarify a bit. Wired bloggers don't follow the same procedures as Wired print folks, whether you like that or not. Because of what I do for a living, I run in the same circles, so I know some of them, and I have discussed how their work differs from the articles seen in the magazine (which I've written for in the past). The bloggers are kind of doing their own thing; they are authorized to post under Wired's content banner, posting what they want as often as they can. But they have autonomy in the name of expedience. Nobody is reading their copy before it's posted. If someone takes issue with it, it's retroactively edited.
Should he have done more research? Yes, personally, I agree. But strenuous research is not the nature of most blogs out there, including Wired's. It's more from the hip and opinionated, and Wired has simply chosen to not change that formula in embracing that method of "reporting." So it's by its nature more biased, more personal, and therefore more "inaccurate" than your average print media story. He didn't actually research it. He just reacted to what he saw. It's the nature of the blog medium, not the nature of the outlet. To wit: Most blogs haven't embraced actual journalism in the last five years; why would you expect hard-hitting focused facts on blueberry girls now?
Also, keep in mind that, while we respect each other, we are a punchline outside of this site. Who's going to get offended by a punchline, except the punchline itself? I can't imagine why anybody else but us would take issue with this story; even if there was an editor on duty, I can't imagine they'd find it offensive. They might have even agreed. It's editorial opinion, varnished or unvarnished. And like many blogs, this post is disposable, a content quick-fix.
I don't know Brownlee. I just don't think it's worth giving him this much power for...just another blog post. Even a "loud" one from Wired. And the fact that it's not responsible journalism even under that respected name just shows me that the medium has a long way to go before it grows up and gets real.
PS - Vertigo are you suggesting you know people at Wired, or that you just know some l33t h4x0rz? If it's the latter, meh. If it's the former, OMG, have we met in real life?
I don't know Brownlee. I just don't think it's worth giving him this much power for...just another blog post. Even a "loud" one from Wired. And the fact that it's not responsible journalism even under that respected name just shows me that the medium has a long way to go before it grows up and gets real.
Given that there is such a disparity between the magazine and the blog, I'm glad you've written for the magazine.
Still, as you point out, the blogging medium has a long way to go. I think that eventually, we'll start to see a sort of measurable version of street cred similar to "whuffie" in Cory Doctorow's excellent Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. And like "whuffie," it will necessarily be peer-based and broadly distributed, and therefore only as accurate as the peers doing the review--however, if the peers' own credibility is linked in, there will be more consensus.
As to our status as punchlines outside the community--eh. I guess I'm aware of that on some level--I'd just rather us be punchlines when people see a more proper picture of us. What do I mean by this? There's an old joke that goes something like this:
An American went back to Scotland to discover his roots. On travelling to a tiny hamlet, he asked around for Clan MacGregor. The townspeople exchanged knowing looks and said, "Ye'll be wantin' Rob MacGregor then... he's o'er the next hill". So he strode out to meet his kinsman.
Rob MacGregor was more than happy to show him around. "There've been MacGregors here tame out o' mind", said he. "Everywhere you look, you'll see traces o' yer ancestry". As they walked down the country lane, Rob pointed out a bridge. "Me Da built that bridge... but do they call me MacGregor the bridge builder? Nae, they don't, laddie".
Soon they came to a large and impressive fort. "Me Great-Granfer built that fort, don't ya know. But do they call me MacGregor the Fort Builder? Nae, they don't."
Finally they came to the ocean and there was a huge wooden vessel moored to the dock. "I built that ship wi' me own tae hands, I did. But do they call me MacGregor the Ship Builder? Nae, they don't..."
"...but you fook one sheep..."
Anyhow, if Brownlee had pointed people to your blog, or this site, or something else that at least does a good job explaining us, he could have been downright vicious, and I'd have been much less upset. As it was, this would be like posting about how bad the Air Force's new F-22 Raptor fighters are, and sending people to a Web page constructed by a six-year-old with scanned loose-leaf sketches drawn in shaky ballpoint and labeled "f22 Raptaur!!!!"
So maybe we're all punchlines. But if that's the best blogging he can do, so's Brownlee.
I think that eventually, we'll start to see a sort of measurable version of street cred similar to "whuffie" in Cory Doctorow's excellent Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom.
Good book. :D Yes, ultimately, blogging kind of starts down that road of peer review. The citizens come together and say "this is the standard for the community" in both cases.
Anyhow, if Brownlee had pointed people to your blog, or this site, or something else that at least does a good job explaining us, he could have been downright vicious, and I'd have been much less upset.
I totally agree. A Google text search would have shown this to be the top result of "body inflation" but a Google image search shows that site. His sources, without a doubt, suck. But remember...his editorial point in the post was not to enlighten; it was to mock. So maybe we're lucky he didn't find our real home.
PS - Vertigo are you suggesting you know people at Wired, or that you just know some l33t h4x0rz? If it's the latter, meh. If it's the former, OMG, have we met in real life?
The latter. I don't know anyone at Wired, but the first step I'm going to take is to try to contact the webmaster there, since the person running the blog itself is not too well-learned in matters legal.
Ok I don't know what insults me more...the article itself or the fact they call some cheap, tacky "thrown-together" site that probably took all of 5 minutes to make our Official Site :(