for 3 April 1998. Updated every WEEKDAY.

Geriatric Terry

Why is Terry Colon
pictured with a walker
in the Suck Staff
column? At the risk of
sounding tactless, is he
really old? My undying
devotion to Terry Colon still
stands.

pissgirl ji

Those illustrations were drawn
almost two years ago, but we
like them so much we've kept
them all this time. You can
only imagine how old Terry
must be now!

Just joshin'. Terry's not old
at all, he's just not a
youngster like the rest of us
were back then. It was a
toss-up between Terry using a
walker (his idea) or the rest
of us shaking baby rattles
and sucking on pacifiers.
Teething rings and play pens
seem far more appropriate in
retrospect, particularly
considering how often, in the
early days of Suck, hair got
pulled and lollipops got
stolen and favorite teddy
bears got thrown across the
room. Poor Terry, rolling his
eyes and quietly taking his
Geritol among all the
screaming and crying and
shouts of "No Fair!" and
stinky pants.

Stinky Fish

Today's Fish section (20
March) features letters about
the 9 March column - 11 days
ago. Isn't that an almost
print-publication delay
length?

Sheesh!

Why such a delay? Are you
waiting for witty and verbose
mail to come in before
publishing? If so, why? We
are Suck readers, after all.

Finally, enough with the
Kornheiser already! Please!

Kara Catherwood

All right, you. Simmer down. You
think we've got a staff of 50
over here, huh? Is that what
you think, little missy?

We've got like two people
doing this whole damn site,
and that's including Alan
Kornheiser.

Anyway, just for that ...

Hit & Run

Subject: Giving You The Finger

Much better. Real monsters,
efficiently slain. But
shouldn't you have given a
credit to The Finger
somewhere in there?

This is actually a real
question, looking for an
answer. What is Net etiquette
when you borrow another
site's graphic but, in turn,
provide a URL for the site?
In this case you seem to
have, at least to some
extent, used it as a resource
for your own "reporting" as
well. Is a credit needed? Or
is the embedded URL credit
enough? Just curious.

Alan S. Kornheiser

Most sites are more than happy
to get a link in exchange for
a borrowed graphic. Most
sites can't handle the
traffic that ensues after we
feature said link. Most sites
write us glowing thanks when
we crash their servers in
such a way. We're that
special.

In fact, let's take a moment
of silence and think about
just how special we are right
now.

Suck say: I'm the king of the
world!

Well guys -

I'm a web admin at Boston
Museum of Science and I was
checking our logs and noticed
we had lots of references
that came from your page.
That was very cool. Then I
went and looked at the
referring page and was
appalled at the tabloid-like
misinformation you were
passing off as fact.

The movie Everest is NOT about
the tragedy that happened to
take place on the mountain at
the same time the movie was
shot. This movie was not made
because of the tragedy. It was
years in planning (including
the design and manufacture of
a special lightweight omni
camera). I've seen the movie.
It was VERY well done. The
movie does not show any death
or dead bodies. It does spend
time dealing with the tragedy
as any documentary should. If
you were filming a
documentary on Everest and
some of your friends and
fellow climbers died, I don't
suppose you would edit it out of
your film and act as if
nothing happened.

The two mannequins in the
lobby are a part of our
exhibit on Everest and are
there as an example of the
type of clothing and gear one
would need to climb Everest.
Not to "[stand] in,
presumably, for the eight
climbers who perished."

You went to enough trouble to
go to our site and steal our
graphic. You should have gone
to enough trouble to read the
text and realize this is not
a sensational movie about an
expedition ending in death.
It's about going to the
highest point on the planet
with the best climbers in the
world to film the view with
the largest format camera
available.

Lance Lockwood
MOS WebTeam

Mr. Lockwood,

Thanks for writing.

I'm very sorry you were
offended by our comments on
corporations' willingness to
sponsor almost anything. But
forgive me for thinking you
almost willful in your
misunderstanding of the
intended target of our
sarcasm.

Has Nike, for example,
actually used news footage of
Heaven's Gate-niks to sell
shoes? Of course not - but
Suck arguably gained crucial
rhetorical leverage by
writing that, "Unlike Christ,
[the Heaven's Gate cultists]
failed as myth. Like Christ,
as a marketing campaign, they
may yet succeed."

Did Phil Knight actually lay
off 7 percent of his domestic
workforce last week to
heighten interest in The Big
One, as I suggested? A film
in which he makes a total ass
of himself by defending his
use of child labor in
Indonesia? Of course not -
but the irony of the layoffs
occurring smack in the middle
of Michael Moore's
promotional blitz for the
movie was simply too much to
pass unremarked.

Similarly, can one honestly
assume Malden Mills invested
US$7 million in a documentary
about climbing Everest
because they hoped eight
people would die on other
climbing teams during
filming? Of course not - but
isn't it just a weensy bit
ghoulish that, despite the
deaths, Malden remains a
"title sponsor" and is thus
allowed "to refer to the film
in any international
advertising it does" (Women's
Wear Daily, 12 March 1998, p.
10)?

Regarding the mannequins: I
think it's simply
disingenuous to say that they
"are there as an example of
the type of clothing and gear
one would need to climb
Everest." Malden Mills
certainly didn't pay 7
million bucks to have just
any brand of clothing and
gear on display.

LeTeXan

The eight people who died
actually weren't with the
IMAX expedition. That doesn't
make climbing Everest any
more sensible. These
adventurers could save a lot
of money by having their
friends shut them in a meat
locker for a few days.

Alexander M. Yale

Mmmeat locker. That sounds
great. Except, can they
decrease the oxygen in the
air, too? Without the lack of
oxygen it wouldn't be nearly
as fun.

Seriously, though, we highly
recommend Into Thin Air for
those who know very little
about Everest. It's a great
book, it's incredibly sad,
and it's much more sensible
than trying it at home.

Suck say: If you can't be
sensitive, at least be
sensible.

I'm writing about Señor
Hammerm's comments in The
Fish on 18 March. I quote:

"The accusation that urban
hipsters adjust their
morality to meet their needs
(or wants) is immaterial,
because everyone does that."

I'm surprised you Sucksters
didn't take him to task for
saying this. Of course, Alan
Kornheiser has probably yet
to write you, so maybe there
will be a response soon....

Regardless, I am extremely
annoyed at the above
sentiment. It seems an
all-pervading idea today that
no human being has one shred
of genuine morality. More and
more I see this popping up:
that no one is willing to
take a stand, that morality
and ethics are only temporary
postures or accessories, used
like fashionable clothing to
impress other people, and
then to be thrown out as "so
2,000 years ago."

Well dammit, I intend to keep
my integrity. I intend not to
compromise my morality. I may
change my mind, I may come to
realizations that some things
are wrong that I once
believed were right (because
it is equally wrong to hold
on to untruths out of foolish
pride), but one thing is
certain: I am not going to
sway with every piece of
public opinion, and I am not
going to compromise myself
for temporary pleasures or
desires.

You or others may call me
naive or childlike; if you
do, then that is a blessing
to me.

I'll see you in eternal life,
Sucksters,

Timothy Tolle (Valis Luminoso)

Whoa, Nellie. We were right
there with you, up until the
"eternal life" part.

In our experience, urban
hipsters adjust their
morality to meet their needs
much more often than their
older, wiser, lower-key, more
sensitive counterparts do.
Maybe we should call them
"urban youngsters" instead,
since it's not the hipness
that makes them pure trouble.

Certainly a total vacuum of
integrity is hideous and all
too common, but there's a lot
of integrity out there, too,
and it takes some real
integrity to find it.

But now we're speaking in our
self-righteous tone, which
really isn't very becoming.

Urban, Youngish, Not-so Hip,

Sucksters

Hey all!

Been a big fan since the
beginning. I was a tad
disappointed to see you guys
not tee off on Gates in
today's Hit & Run. The new
commercials did seem like
they were softening up Bill,
but I can't help but be more
cynical. For some arcane
reason, I remember an
interview or story talking
about how much Billy hated
golf. Supposedly he sees
the game as a waste of time,
but could, in theory, be
dragged kicking and screaming
onto the links to help out
his sales staff.

So, I wonder, if Bill has gone
against himself and begun to
actually like golf - in spite
of hating it - does this make
him some kind of capitalist
Nietzschean superman remaking
himself in the postmodern
moment? Zarathustra coming
off his mount to give wisdom
to the masses?

Perhaps we need a new
appreciation for Gates.

Cheers,
Jason

P. S. How long do you actually
have to keep the crack
inhaled before you're called
"iron lungs"?

No one will ever let up on
Gates and no one needs us (of
all people) to speak out
against him. He's got plenty
good anti-fan clubs as it is.
Frankly, we're just haunted
by the image of him just
after his encounter with that
cream pie, looking shaken and
pitiful. Maybe he should
forsake the good-guy-golfer
ads for some footage of the
cream-pie incident. Because,
let's face it, the richest
man in the world doesn't win
points by looking friendly,
but he could win our sympathy
by looking pathetic.

Or by smoking crack, for that
matter. Look what good it did
for Marion Barry. Not to
mention us.