post-script to the idea of joe appearing in the magazine (see 09.01.05): it turns out that being married was a factor after all. that's okay, as it would have been beyond our budget to give our kitchen the makeover it so desperately needs. my colleagues agreed, on the other hand, that my swanky friend grant is just the thing, so he and my dear ex-roomie valya will be wowing america with their excellent new place out west. huzzah vant! i should warn you that my pimping fee is the right to wear our resulting spread as a tee shirt. on a related note, i could be in another shoot: a number of staffers will pop up in a piece next year, and the word is that those of us who haven't appeared recently can expect a call. the prospect of said call has reduced me to a pile of neurotic goo - though cameras and i have a hate/hate relationship, i won't pretend that being deemed fly enough for print doesn't matter. there's always the argument that short, flaming red hair and an eyebrow bar knock me out of our demographic, but if simon doonan is to be trusted, i'm not as far out of the mainstream as i used to be. expect news and/or recommitment to operation infinite pulchritude soon.


lauren said...

editor's note: i had to delete and re-post this entry because 1) a commenter mentioned my magazine by name and 2) i lack the kung fu to edit comments via haloscan. i have since learned 1) how to wrangle comments and 2) that joe is a turkey (he was the name-dropper).

sara said...

to satisfy curiousity, i googled and no offenses remain in evidence (aka cache or dns servers, etc) so i think you're safe.

joe, don't let that stop you from commenting in the future though! it's always good to know you're being read (as one blogger to another).