Chicagoist: Students Are Going to be Pissed About This One

guest

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:32:41 -0600

"Columbus was an a--hole." My, how intelligent. And maybe AD was talking about a day she wishes there would be -- Cashmere Day -- but she misspelled that, too. If the 'writers' on chicagoist can't write, or spell, and they're not getting paid, well, what's the point of it, then? The Stranger [Seattle] blog puts this -ist to shame.

guest

Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:39:33 -0600

Hmm ... just checked back with Chicagoist after a week's absence and realize I haven't missed much. I've been a daily reader almost from the beginning (I miss Bowden), and I've been heavily commenting under my first name before registration and as guest ever since. But then last week, Alicia pissed me off so badly with her ill-informed asumptions that I gave it up. I couldn't do it any more. The site had gone down the toilet, and I had better places to waste my time. And now here we are again. I haven't missed it, and I don't think I'll miss it in the future. So thanks, Alicia, for helping me break a bad habit.

guest

Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:28:24 -0600

Holy crap - they finally corrected the headline.

guest

Fri, 31 Aug 2007 12:30:35 -0600

Nope, never heard of Pulaski Day until I moved here. Really, Chicago is the only place I've lived that celebrates its own holidays. Everyone else just goes with the federal ones, and not even all of those. But hey, at least when I was living down south I got MLK day off (that ended when I moved to the "more enlightened" north). (and by south, I don't mean Champaign-Urbana)

curmudgeon

Fri, 31 Aug 2007 06:24:22 -0600

Alicia, President's day and Columbus day are FEDERAL holidays, therefore not a second tier. Pulaski day IS a second tier holiday. In fact, I am pretty sure no one else in America observes it.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 22:46:20 -0600

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:57:48 -0600

Let's be honest: Few who write for Chicagoist are interested in being serious writers. They care mainly about hearing their own voices and, perhaps, getting a long list of comments as some kind of strange badge of honor (you know, the Liz Armstrong model of writing, where a woman seemed to willingly write crap week after week just because she could). They MAY think they strive to be real writers, but they lack the respect for the craft that writing demands. I mean, most of these people don't even know the difference between it's and its. That says a lot. And they seem to willingly ignore the needs for factual support for their opinions--that is, the ones they do not steal from the dreaded MSM. And when they are called out for stupid mistakes made over and over, they tend to get defensive--that, too, is evidence they are not serious writers or respectful of the craft. That ToC employs in some way a decent amount of the Chicagoist crew says a lot about the low standards of ToC-either that, or the editors over there are far more patient and forgiving than any editor I've known. That said, reading Chicagoist is like reading Liz Armstrong: You know you'll hate it, but it is so much fun to watch the latest installment in the ongoing disaster. Sick? Probably. But hey, that's human nature. And besides, some of us are really, really bored.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:15:35 -0600

17, for someone criticizing Alicia and Kevin's writing as much as you are, it sure seems like you spend an awful lot of your time reading it.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:08:40 -0600

okay - just to be clear, there are a few of us in here. i've only left a few posts (11, 12 and 15). i'm really not trying to be a bitch - i guess i can't resist throwing a little ascerbic wit in for good measure, and that's cheap of me, i'll admit - but the point is i don't read alicia's byline hoping call her out or make some disparaging remark. i really, really don't. i read her posts because i read chicagoist, and she writes for chicagoist. and when posts are as bad as this one is - and have shown a trend of getting worse and worse - i feel the need, as a member of her audience, to speak up. i just don't think she's that great of a writer. i think she can turn some funny phrases now and again, but otherwise she's a mess. and i agree with what another poster said in another thread - one of her posts ("the post") got dangerously close to crossing some ethical lines. perhaps you guys who are all trying to rah-rah her into staying the course should consider giving her some constructive criticism rather than dismissing members of her audience who have some very legitimate criticisms of her work. when was the last time the chicagoist writers got together over a beer and examined the quality of the posts here? might be a good idea. and it would be one thing if our comments were all critical of just subject matter, or tone, or opinions. it's quite another when we, your audience, are complaining that posts are DIFFICULT TO READ because the grammar and, yes, spelling are so bad. i can't believe colleagues would let each other off the hook for that. i can't believe anyone who writes for a major blog would have excuses made for her as in the case of guest 14's comment ("not that bad"). not that bad? suddenly "not that bad" is acceptable? nice standards, people. and how bad is it supposed to be? when are we supposed to speak up and say we can't understand what she's saying? again - i think as a community who reads and participates in this blog, we are trying to establish a standard. and i couldn't agree with guest 18 more. sorry if I've hurt your feelings, but c'mon here: write better. spellcheck. that's all we ask.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:24:03 -0600

alicia dorr's writing is the most inspired on this site and even though she probably doesn't intend for her responses to be so malicious, she also probably hoped that her writing would inspire people to respond in some way or another. most people read and think before responding, rather then seeing her byline, skimming a paragraph and thinking of insults. thanks for the inspiration, alicia. ;)

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:52:05 -0600

When mistakes interrupt the flow of one's reading, there's a big problem. I see "Casmir Day" and I stop, because a) it's Casimir, and b) it's Casimir Pulaski Day. Not a bad idea to use some of that banner ad money to pay an editor/proofreader.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:51:29 -0600

Scream, as in howlingly bad. Worse than yours, Kev, by far, and yours are pretty shit too. Why doesn't her obsessive stalker guy comment on Chicagoist? He leaves like 20-zillion comments a day on her personal site, which unsurprisingly reads just like her posts here: full of insouciant rabble rousing devoid of actual content. I guess since she doesn't post the 'This is my blog, I can say whatever I want, all you haters go the fuck away' tantrums that follow her usual ignorance this somehow makes her insipid output 'okay'. 'An aquired taste' perhaps, but if you drink shit often enough your taste buds will die and you'll cease to taste anything, which probably feels like relief after constantly drinking shit. Which actually explains a lot about Kevin's writing as well.

Kevin Robinson

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 17:06:55 -0600

I'm with markb; Alicia's posts are a scream, and I was her biggest fan before I started writing here. But they are an acquired taste, something that uptight New Yorkers might not get right away. If you can only see the trees, then you aren't looking hard enough for the forest.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:56:44 -0600

grammar, not spelling. and i'm not bitching about someone's private blog here, you know. i wonder how much those banner ads go for.

markb

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 16:38:59 -0600

I, for one, love Alicia Dorr's articles. They make my day. They're always funny, and each one starts with a huge blanket generalization about something or other. It's great. And calling a blogger out for spelling errors, by the way, is simply ridiculous. if you want spotless copy, read the New Yorker. I check copy for a living and trust me, she's fine.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:41:33 -0600

Tread; Zinn tries to CREATE NEW history to suite his agenda. This is no question, and is a consensus amongst historians. The push against 'whitewashed' history taught in schools that you note, has been pushed against for years by real historians who have made real in-roads against it by presenting true history and facts while preserving history as a whole. Howard Zinn on the other hand comes up with baseless facts, almost conjecture, and says 'this is the way it is'. History as you learned in school is no longer taught that way due to a legit move towards factual evidence that does not whitewash it. Zinn has nothing to do with this and is a breed all his own. The only reason people read his garbage is because they think it's the cool and hip thing to do; rebel against the norm. And it sounds so different and cool and really brings down this American Unity crap, so he must be right on.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:08:24 -0600

otherwise unchecked. ;)

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:59:52 -0600

I took Alicia out to the woodshed pretty good last week (I think) for "that one article." I felt a little bad for it after, except that it was so bad on so many levels. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings again, but maybe writing just isn't your thing, Alicia. I'm sure you have other talents though. You also might just need a little more maturity and experience before you write for public consumption. Or, you know, a really, really good editor - the kind that re-writes entire sections of stuff for you. (Yes, I know that was a sentence fragment. I did it for emphasis.) As for picking on the writers (guilty, maybe): I think if you post to a blog as large as Chicagoist, you pretty much ask for whatever criticism you get. It's about the only check on the destruction of grammar that goes on unchecked here. If blogs are supposed to be about building community, the community is just trying to establish some standards. You know, like literacy. (emphasis again). Do better, Chicagoist. And please correct the headline already!

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:36:33 -0600

The problem with Zinn isn't partisanship as such, though even he would call himself a partisan for crying out loud. It's his credulity to even the most flimsy of arguments. Founding his agenda on tenously supported research and polemics on the part of others, he consistently undercuts himself for those who read further into his material. For a stronger argument on these things, I suggest the research of Eric Wolf, probably best known for "Europe and the People without History."

Tread

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:22:20 -0600

#2: I beg to differ on your "critique" of Howard Zinn. I know it's all the rage to label someone you disagree with politically as a "partisan" and it's vogue to call someone who doesn't go along with conventional history a "revisionist", but could you possibly consider that what you learned about history has been white-washed and diluted from the actual events? I know it maybe be a challenge, but consider that most history that gets taught to high school students today is dishonest, boring, and just plain bullshit. There are plenty of historians out there who are disgusted with the way American history is taught because we overlook or bury the bad things that have happened in our past while highlighting only the "good" parts.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:17:26 -0600

Guest #1, 4 and 5 here. I don't think it's appropriate to pick on a particular writer. I personally only read Gothamist (being a former NYer, very happily transplanted here) and Chicagoist - Chicagoist's writing clearly lacks editing for both content and grammar. It makes Chicago look bad to any non-Chicagoan who happens to read it (probably many members of the -istaverse). Some may disagree. But as long as you accept comments, you'll continue to hear this.

Alicia Dorr

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:10:41 -0600

Contact the editor or the head copy editor. Their emails are on the staff page. You could also contact the heads of sections if you're interested in editing certain types of stories, I suppose. Chuck and Tankboy's emails are on the staff page too. Go hog wild!

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:09:01 -0600

Could we have a button for "Hide Alicia Dorr's Posts"? Because they're consistently crap.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:01:41 -0600

So, how do I sign up?

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:54:45 -0600

Touche, Alicia.

Alicia Dorr

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:50:12 -0600

Sure, you can do it for free. Just like we write for free.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:49:35 -0600

Ok, I give you that Columbus wouldn't have been a hero today; but c'mon linking to Howard Zinn - the father of political historical revisionism, is a pathetic attempt at getting your point across.

guest

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 13:45:13 -0600

This is a poorly written article full of grammatical errors. Is Chicagoist looking for copy editors? If so, I will do that sh*t for free. You need it.