May 1, 2006
permanent
link
Rabbit rabbit
The following is a note published in yesterday's New York Times Sunday Styles Section:
"An article last week described a rising generation of male socialites — men whose lives revolve around attending parties in the public eye. The group included a fashion company vice president whom the article’s author, a freelance writer, dated for a few months, in a relationship that ended early this year. In view of that background, the example should have been omitted, or at a minimum the article should have acknowledged the relationship.
"On the other hand, 'relationship' os something of a strong word to use, since the 'relationship' barely even lasted a few months. It barely lasted over one month, in fact, unless you include unreturned calls made on the behalf of the freelance writer.
"You might want to ask Mr. Big Shot what he considers a relationship, anyway. Allegedly he's telling all his sissy socialite guy friends that he considered it more of a 'charity case' than a 'relationship,' although the freelance writer has photographic evidence that if anybody needs charity, it is the socialite (or "social-light.")
"The article should have acknowledged the relationship, just as the socialite should have. But it's possible that rich little mama's boys just are incapable of being compatible with a 'mere' freelance writer without a trust fund.
The author apologizes for the oversight and admits that in retrospect, nobody wants to read about a bunch of men who attend parties in the public eye. He is now working on an article entitled 'New York's Fabulous Closeted Elite' and will be sure to acknowledge all relevant conflicts of interest. Which will not include a certain fashion company vice president, because that will be old news by then."