Dear Gawker,
The Spunker removed Gawker from our blogroll. With the insularity of Kruckoffgate, the 'gee look it's a story' of Braunsteingate and the ceaseless banality of drunken blogger parties, coupled with your refusal to link to our posts--Gawker, it's over.
Staring into the pixels, we realize our love died a long time ago but the rose-colored woolen blinders finally lifted when you ignored our TV Carnage party tip. That would've been fine, we know you're busy, but then you posted a "night-life to-do list" topped by a 3-day Kwanzaa party at the Museum of Natural History??? Not cool. We're sorry that made us say, "I thought an entertaining video romp...would've superseded [the Kwanzza party]. Perhaps Gawker should start a new 'Kidz Korner' page? Call it,
"Peekaboo." Syndicate to Yahoohilgans. Distribute on gen2 Tamigachis.
AOL Keyword: poopyinthepantsNYC," but we felt vulnerable. You'll always have a special place in our sitemeter log-- we'll fondly remember that illicit evening when you linked us all night long with 8,000+ visits... sigh... We'll still cruise by and sling comment rocks through your window, albeit, with diminished frequency.
Despite our best efforts, this relationship is going nowhere. It's time to move on, for both of us. Accept our sincere wishes for your bright future, we're sure one day you'll get that rich media McDonald's popup ad you deserve.
Regards,
TheSpunker.com
* * *
UPDATE: Gawker writes in a trackback, "Dudes, I’m sorry! Please love me and welcome me back! The barrage of email is harder to keep track of than you’d think" - only demonstrating they're just not ready for a serious relationship.
Didn't anyone tell you that it's rude to break up over the internet-
;-)
Posted by: adamsb | 01/25/2006 at 02:35 AM
Thank you, Nick and for all you anonymous Gawker proponents: those who throw stones should live in glass houses.
Posted by: Ben Popken | 01/01/2006 at 10:52 AM
Commenting dudes, it is all in good humor. Let the blog man do his thing.
Posted by: Nick Douglas | 12/31/2005 at 10:04 PM
Point of fact, Jmc, The Spunker is ignoring Gawker and has removed it from its blogroll. Gawker tried to entreat us back by linking to this post and offering us comment privileges (which we already had (Screenhead will always be true)), but our affections aren't bought that easily.
Posted by: Ben Popken | 12/31/2005 at 03:36 PM
*Cry cry cry*
Poor widdle ickums! Is you get all ignored by the bigger boys in de playgwound?
Posted by: Jmc | 12/31/2005 at 12:12 PM
The Spunker is not mad that people gawk the Gawker. Reread the post and you'll discover that's not what it's about.
Posted by: Ben Popken | 12/30/2005 at 08:17 PM
Don't get mad at another blogger because people actually pay attention to them. At least you need no particular talent or experience to write the kind of shit thrown up on gawker, though I see no evidence of any advertising experience on your part.
Posted by: satanshelper | 12/30/2005 at 08:01 PM
Because we were working on building something. Something now spurned, black and pokey.
Posted by: Ben Popken | 12/30/2005 at 04:27 PM
Dude, why do you care whether Gawker refuses to acknowledge the existence of your fine blog. They jumped the shark as soon as they started letting that feeb Mark Duffy post.
Posted by: Satan | 12/30/2005 at 04:12 PM