Friday, February 26, 8:45 p.m. A University Heights house at Georgia and El Cajon is illuminated by the retro neon “Boulevard” sign, lending the epithet “The Big Pink.” The theme is “Walmart Rollback.” Leif opens the door and I behold an unholy image. It’s as if I’m looking in the mirror. Leif, too, wears obscene daisy dukes. His too-small tummy shirt mimics my own. “Red stag,” it reads. We even have identical moccasin leisure slippers. The coincidence is unsettling. We drink a beer to come to grips. Nobody is here, yet.

We rearrange the living room, establishing a dance floor. Sarah, a roommate, shows us her fake redneck teeth and describes her booty shorts, which are even more scandalous than ours. “We invited, like, 200 people,” she says. Another roomie, Markus, arrives with the DJs, who drove from L.A. to play the party. We all meet — Abstract Buttafingaz, Phoniks, Alcendor, and NSOK from the Five Signs crew. “It’s a Walmart party,” Markus explains. “That’s why they’re that.” They all sit down in the backyard and eat some fish tacos from El Zarape. “Man, we don’t get tacos like this up in L.A.,” Buttafingaz laments. NSOK tells us about bike culture in the Wicker Park neighborhood. “There’s maybe one street with a bike lane in all of L.A.,” he says.

The band, Knockout Bell, pulls up around 9:50. While they unload their van, a few newcomers discuss libations for the evening. The high-octane energy booze Four Loko is a prominent theme. “I had to leave North Carolina because of Four Loko,” one guy says. “Well,” Sarah says, “I’m pre-gaming now because this jacket is coming off and then everyone will see my strawberry pasties.”

The topic shifts to post-university existentialism. Some say they hate their jobs, which have little to do with their college degrees. “I blame the economy,” says Leif. “It definitely can’t be my fault.” Alice arrives in decidedly regular attire and relates her ambitions. “I want to hop a marine biology research cruise to Costa Rica.”

Around 10:15, about ten kids on fixed-gear bikes arrive, having just departed from the Critical Mass ride. Someone produces a glass bubbler and pungent California reefer makes its way around. My friends Lauren and Jeanna arrive on their bicycles. Jeanna’s get-up is so elaborate, I hardly recognize her. She wears sweatpants, a leopard-print jacket, a nappy silver wig, and a fake mole. A Sharpie tattoo on her stomach says, “Head south.” “I’m all high off my yoga class,” Lauren says, smiling. Katie shows up with a fifth of Jack Daniel’s. “I’ve had a tutu incident,” she says. “I spilled my soda all over it.”

Inside, the Talking Heads play over the stereo as maybe 30 costumed partiers pour drinks and jabber away in the kitchen. “I could so see you at Walmart buying beef jerky and beer,” a girl named Lana tells me. A dude in dukes hollers, “Hey, nice shorts!” We take a photo.

Knockout Bell kicks-off in the garage, alternately reminiscent of Tortoise, King Crimson, and Wharton Tiers. About 20 trashy party-goers in sleeveless Wrangler button-ups and false muffin tops wiggle around to the music. A wide-eyed Leif grabs me by the shoulders and proclaims, “It’s like an aural orgasm!”

Out front, Mark shares a bottle of Spanish wine, explaining how to pair it with food. A recently certified sommelier, he says, “A lot of it is improvisation. But there are objective values like sugars and tannins. Certain cheeses react with particular tannins in the wine, which is important when pairing.” A few KSDT radio jockeys smoke cigarettes and discuss racial tensions at UCSD.

One of the Four Loko bunch takes a liking to Lauren’s hot pink bobbed wig. “I like you,” he slurs. “I’m not gunna lie. I have too many shortcomings to be with you at the moment, but...uh...” Lauren makes a peacock sound and gives me her wig to snap a few photos. “You gotta suck it in,” Katie says. “Use your MySpace angles.”

Later, I see Four Loko inside waiting for the restroom. “A fight’s about to break out over there,” he says, pointing ominously toward an empty room. “Oh, yeah?” I ask. “Between who?” “Me and some meat heads,” he grins, cross-eyed. A group of maybe 15 people dance around to Michael Jackson and Gorillaz in the living room.

The band ends around 12:30. Bassist Bob tells me about plans for K.O. Bell, a side project of Scribe Amidst the Lions. “We want to tie in the funk. Get a few horns.”

Katie and I give each other sharpie tramp stamps. “Will you tell me what it says on the small of my back?” Katie asks a latecomer. “Wait a minute,” the girl responds. “Is this a dress-up party?”

More from SDReader


SDaniels March 6, 2010 @ 9:18 p.m.

I'm 'n' luv. Ok! Here's the right vibe for this column--a guy who can write, and imagine this--he actually parties!!! Doesn't hurt a bit that he's easy on the eyes, either, from abs to iris. Your real name or no, welcome, Chad 'Crasher' Deal! ;)


MsGrant March 6, 2010 @ 11:23 p.m.

SD, I thought the same thing!! WTF were they thinking having a "party" crasher that didn't party!? Chad Deal - it's a match made in heathen!!


PistolPete March 7, 2010 @ 12:59 a.m.

Sandy Eggans don't know the first thing about throwin' a party. Get-togethers? Yes. Soirees? Yes. Brunhes? Yes. Fetes? Yes. Cocktail hours? Yes. Affairs? Yes. Festive occasions? Yes.Balls? Yes. Bashes? Yes. Shindigs? Yes. Parties? F-to-the-U-to-the-C-to-the-K NO! When people are passing out left and right and there's a virtual SWAT Team of cops knocking on your door, THEN you're partying. ;-D


Jay Allen Sanford March 9, 2010 @ 5:46 a.m.

Wait, so now there are TWO Party Crasher columns in SD? Josh is doing it again at, and the Reader has revived it with Chad Deal.

Daniel Ridge was the Reader's Party Crasher in 2003 - late that year is when Josh took over the column, which he did for around six years.

Are there really enough parties in SD to keep TWO Crashers busy?? It'll be interesting to see!


MsGrant March 9, 2010 @ 7:06 a.m.

I never read the Crasher column in the Reader. After a few attempts, I could not fathom why they would pay someone to write about parties in such a generic fashion. Clicking on that link, it all came back like a horrible, horrible dream. Chad seems like the real "Deal". I like his style.


antigeekess March 9, 2010 @ 4:38 p.m.

Ditto, Daniels. It was this, wasn't it? The moment when he said...

"post-university existentialism"

Can you imagine the previous "writer" of this column using that phrase?




CuddleFish March 9, 2010 @ 5:25 p.m.

Interesting that jayallen doesn't say boo to his new colleague's work, but goes out of his way to give a big shout-out to Board on this column. Kinda rude, there, JAS. Wassup, mein? Give your homies first love, don Sonya gonna be calling yo a$$ looking for that Bro-Ham.


antigeekess March 9, 2010 @ 6:32 p.m.

I don't think Chad is staff, is he? It still looks to me as if the Reader is outsourcing Crasher, and that any of us could write it.

We could all just party amongst ourselves, chronicling the latest articles of debauchery each week.



SDaniels March 9, 2010 @ 6:46 p.m.

re: #3:

I love ya, Jayallen aka "sdreader" on CityBeat, but why are you splashing all over the place to promote Board's drivel? Seriously!


SDaniels March 9, 2010 @ 6:48 p.m.

re#5: Yes, it was that moment!

re#7: I like the way you're thinking, AG...except partying amongst myselves is how I tend to get into trouble ;)


MsGrant March 9, 2010 @ 7:10 p.m.

Anti, I think he is staff. And hot "staff", at that.


CuddleFish March 9, 2010 @ 9:21 p.m.

I believe jayallen said that Deal was the new Crasher, and so I figured from that that he was staff. Maybe the Reader decided to hire another Crasher when the outsourcing got no takers?

Hey, y'all gonna party like it's 1999, I want video! :)


Jay Allen Sanford March 9, 2010 @ 9:30 p.m.

Strong thread here - I'm not "promoting" anything, other than topical discourse. Chad's debut Crasher is very strong indeed -


CuddleFish March 9, 2010 @ 9:52 p.m.

"Tho the Reader's Crasher column existed before Josh Board wrote it (Daniel Ridge had the gig until late 2003), Josh seems to have taken the column name and format with him to -- meanwhile, the Reader revived its own Party Crasher column on March 3rd, with new columnist Chad Deal"

Here's where I got the info re him being staff, from jayallen's neighborhood blog.


CuddleFish March 9, 2010 @ 9:59 p.m.

"Ditto, Daniels. It was this, wasn't it? The moment when he said...

"post-university existentialism"

Can you imagine the previous "writer" of this column using that phrase?



And I fracken bet you he was hung over when he wrote that, too! Deal the man!


SDaniels March 9, 2010 @ 10:06 p.m.

re: #13: Jayallen, I don't mean to quibble, but I don't think it is my imagination that you were promoting Board's new crasher elsewhere. Why else would you make an "announcement" on Dave Maass's (finished) thread on Board, as well as create a topic here and announce in two places on the Reader, creating a thread to discuss it? And the posts are all the same, viz. #3 here?


CuddleFish March 9, 2010 @ 10:08 p.m.

Oooh, dang, jayallen went over to CityBeat, too???

Gonna take a little peek, be right back ....


CuddleFish March 9, 2010 @ 10:20 p.m.

Well if you google Chad Deal, you get hooked up to origami astronaught, who as we all know wrote bohemian 'rito.


antigeekess March 9, 2010 @ 10:22 p.m.

Doh! What am I thinking? The Deal's gotta be related to THIS guy:

Like a glimpse into the future, ain't it?

Crasher, indeed.


antigeekess March 9, 2010 @ 10:32 p.m.

Re #19:

Yeah, I clocked the tea on that one already, CF. For a while I thought OA was the return of the Pikester (not to be confused with the Pecker). Hey, we never really knew who Pikester was though, right?


CuddleFish March 9, 2010 @ 10:39 p.m.

Nope. But he refered to OA several times as "brother." And they do write quite a bit alike. Wouldn't surprise me if they were bloods.


CuddleFish March 9, 2010 @ 10:42 p.m.

Ooooh, jayallen, no you didn't!!! you did not go over to CityBeat and write THREE TIMES about JB's new gig!!!


Jay Allen Sanford March 9, 2010 @ 11:29 p.m.

RE "I don't think it is my imagination that you were promoting Board's new crasher elsewhere."

My apologies for apparently being unclear, but that's absolutely incorrect. My own job security depends on the success of the Reader, in print and online. I've never been shy about being a company man - my indebtedness to the Reader in general and to Mr. Holman in particular dates back to a bout of near-death illness I suffered around the turn of the century, during which the Reader helped me out in ways that I still credit as akin to lifesaving.

Hence my fierce loyalty and defense of the Reader when I see it or its publisher or its columnists attacked -- I proudly wear that particular bias on my sleeve for all to see and consider.

So I'm the last guy to "promote" a competing publication on this website - I only posted the link to the "new" Crasher column because one cannot (or at least shouldn't) discuss a topic without examining what sparked the discussion.

With so many newspapers struggling, it's no secret that "As goes the website, so goes the Reader" - for the record, anyone who likes the Crasher column and concept should support the Reader's version over any copycat incarnation in the same market. The column began here and belongs here - regardless of any consideration as to who's writing it at the time.

Luckily, Chad's take on the Crasher concept is off to a stellar start! Kudos to him...

...and Viva la Reader!


SDaniels March 9, 2010 @ 11:45 p.m.


Oh agreed, no shame whatsoever in being a company man--you must have been trying to stir up some controversy in a way you thought would benefit the Reader, then, and lead readers to Chad.

Of course, AG showed us that the concept may not have originated with the Reader, or even a single source (my guess? it's quite banal), and since writers do quite different things with the concept, I don't think it is quite a matter of sticking with the original shampoo formula, ya know? ;)

We'll see. I'm happy enough here without a Crasher, though.


antigeekess March 9, 2010 @ 11:57 p.m.

So why is this still up?

Just looks like the guy submitted one Crasher story, to me. Still no real evidence that the column is his. In fact, it appears that it's still up for grabs from week to week.


Fred Williams March 10, 2010 @ 12:09 a.m.

Back to the topic:

This party crasher attended the "poor white trash" version of UCSD's infamous "Compton Cookout".

Makes me wonder...if the target of derision is poor blacks, it's clearly a racist assault worthy of international headlines.

But if the target for derision is poor whites...*yawn.

Seems to me that the only "fair game" for everyone's insults today are the trailer park trash, rednecks, unwashed and uneducated no good lazy beer drinking slobs with two rusted out cars up on blocks next to the double-wide. You can degrade them as much as you like and no one bats an eye. Do the same thing with any other group, and you're in trouble.

Imagine, if instead of mocking white trash with crooked teeth and beer bellies, the party crasher wrote about attending a party where everyone dressed up in fake gold chains, called each other "niggaz and hos", and ate watermelon.

I understand the historical reasons for this imbalance, and certainly am NOT advocating for mocking any group...I'm just pointing out the double standard. You can make fun of poor whites all you like, but try the same with poor blacks, poor latinos, poor asians...

And in the end, wasn't it Josh's insult about Aaryn's adopted black kid (in a private email, not posted online) that really did him in?

Just asking...


CuddleFish March 10, 2010 @ 12:14 a.m.

Let me suggest that we've already seen the very best Crasher column/story/blog/article ever, with Bohemian 'rito. Nothing can top that!

Unless you want to count a few days ago when I was at the Denny's on El Cajon Boulevard and Pike came in with a bunch of women dressed in suggestive outfits and he grabbed the spatula from the fry cook and started whooping Robert Palmer's Addicted to Love with the ladies playing air guitar and dancing on the tables, kicking Grand Slams all over the place on a fine Easter Sunday morning.


SDaniels March 10, 2010 @ 1:21 a.m.

Well, if you are going "there," Fred, I'm going to assume you are doing it in good faith, and not as a way to set up some foregone conclusion of a fixed agenda.

I am surprised though, that you would omit any stronger reference to historical treatment of some groups in your post--you say you understand the historical reasons for this imbalance, but if you really do, then you have your answer.

In return, you can bring up rednecks and migrant workers, poor whites in the 30s depression, and Grapes of Wrath--still, there is not the history of abject conditions of torture, deprivation, and enslavement suffered by Africans brought here as slaves, and by any group of minorities here in indentured servitude--look at the history of the Chinese building the railroads (Chinese-Americans have recovered a positive identity to a great degree, which brings hope). The particular histories around this kind of enslavement have resulted in a tiptoeing around them--bringing up any criticism of a person of color is not going to be ok for a long long while, with this huge history of forming negative identities against which the very cultural institutions of "whiteness" have been formed.

As for having to take care when criticizing a person of color, I'm ok with that--not much of a price to pay considering the crime--whether mine or no--the history of the country I live in is in large part founded on institutions like racism. I can laugh with Chris Rock, then turn off the tv, with no need to emulate him. But why, you might ask, do we then tiptoe around most minority groups, then? Because there are multiple histories of cultural processes of "othering" upon which much of the ideology of being "American" has been formed. If you take this premise seriously, you can research any major institution in the US and find institutionalized racism. That crank who was buzzing around me on Brizzolara's thread talked of "subtle racism." Likely, this is what he was referring to--the way people of color are circumscribed, set off to the side, and defined as not as good as, not good enough, not white enough, etc. etc. etc. in subtle ways, inscribed in the commercial messages of our society--despite the attempts of a so-called liberal media to reverse some of it.


SDaniels March 10, 2010 @ 1:22 a.m.


The easy example I always give for this is to think about how you identify people you have met in the course of a day. Asked to describe some interactions, you might say that the black guy down at the courthouse is at it again, thumping that bible and shouting. You might also say that that homeless guy is at it again down at the courthouse. You would not in any circumstance say "that white guy" is down at the courthouse. You would just say "that guy." This is because whites are not defined by their racial background. They just "are." The only way you would say "white guy" is if you were describing the white guy in a racially mixed context. Then you might say "the white guy did xyz while the black guy said abc..." Now you are describing, defining the white guy against the black guy, against the "other" condition, which is blackness.

It's late, and I'm sure this is a bit clumsy, but hopefully you'll get what I'm saying.

Making fun of white trash functions as a curious outlet, a strange "safe zone" of cultural degradation by society as a whole. I don't profess to totally understand this phenomena, but I do see it as a kind of scapegoating, a pressure releasing valve of sorts...I'll have to look up some theory on this topic--by the way, that's the place to go--the subfield of literature called "cultural studies," a subfield that might sound like it belongs to sociology, but actually, literary texts of all kinds are its major vehicle for expression. Lemme know if you want some authors' names. :)


Jay Allen Sanford March 10, 2010 @ 1:28 a.m.

RE #28, that IS interesting, the Reader's solicitation for "Party Animal" submissions. First I've seen it. That would seem to be the same column as "Crasher" - perhaps Chad Deal can inform? Was this week's Crasher his one-shot submission? Chad also has a solid Blurt in the new issue - that column is always open to fresh-blood freelance submissions.

It looks like the Reader considered renaming Crasher "Party Animal" and sought public submissions, the same way the record review column went from staff-written to an entry-level open door column. As of this week, however, THIS column still appears to be called Crasher.

I'd like to see the Reader keep the well-established Crasher name intact, and ditch "Party Animal" as an alternate. And Chad's above column is so well-done that I think he'd be a fine full-time Crasher.

That said, tho, I'm a big supporter of the Reader's increasing willingness to publish freelance submissions under existing column mastheads - what better way to discover and nurture the A-list full-time staff columnists of tomorrow?

Perhaps one of the commentators above should crash a party and submit their account and photos to the Reader, in case the Crasher column HAS become open-door? It's a paycheck AND a chance to demonstrate what you think does and doesn't make for a good Crasher column ----


CuddleFish March 10, 2010 @ 2 a.m.

But I think most of us who have posted, Williams perhaps the exception, agree that Chad Deal is an excellent Crasher.

What's the matter with you, jayallen? No, seriously ...


Jay Allen Sanford March 10, 2010 @ 2:22 a.m.

Josh Board sent me the following email and asked me to post it - everything below is from that email, which I'm pasting unedited in its entirety, other than adding clarification as to who said what (I also posted below to the blog addressing this topic at ):

JOSH SAYS: Hey Jay, Can you post this entire email in your link about the Crasher? I just logged on to post a comment, and I see that the Reader has closed my account to even comment on stories. I figure, since you didn't tell me about this blog of yours, it's the least you can do. Thanks:

JAS SAYS: >>Tho the Reader's Crasher column existed before Josh Board wrote it (Daniel Ridge had the gig until late 2003), Josh seems to have taken the column name and format with him to -- meanwhile, the Reader revived its own Party Crasher column on March 3rd, with new columnist Chad Deal.

JOSH: You say the Crasher column existed before I wrote it, that's true. But ya know what? I think Daniel Ridge only wrote 6 stories. That's hardly "existing" before I arrived. And, to use the band analogies you use later in your post, I'll use a few. This would be like saying the Beatles had a drummer before Ringo, or Rush saying they had a drummer (and even an album released) before Neil Peart. Sure, they did, but who remembers them? Off the top of my head, I remember two columns Ridge did. One was about going to wrestling in TJ. Nothing about a party in that story. Another one was stepping in dog poop at a crazy party. He called me months after I started doing the column, to tell me that entire column was completely made up (not that that matters or means anything), but my point is...he did maybe six columns before I showed up.

JAS: >>>I'm retiring this blog after this edition, to focus on the Rock Around Town blog. But I figured I'd post on the Crasher's return, and invite comment - does the Reader hold a trademark on the Crasher name and concept?

JOSH: TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION: no and no and no. But, to be both on the safe side and because I'm still on good terms with our boss at the Reader, one of the few lawyer friends I have said to me before I launched the column over there: "Josh, 75% of the legal questions I have, I don't need to go research on. I just call the business up and ask them, and my question gets answered. Contact the Reader, and ask them."


Jay Allen Sanford March 10, 2010 @ 2:23 a.m.

JOSH (continued): So, that's exactly what I did. I sent an email to our head honcho, and told him another place ( ) wants to carry the Crasher, but I wondered if they had any legal rights to that name. I also told him I saw ads in the Reader for future stories, and it looked like they were going to call it "Party Animal" instead. I was informed that they were going to call it Crasher still, and that they had no legal right to the name, and that I should feel free to use that in any capacity I want, at any publication. I then responded with a short thank you. I had figured the Reader wouldn't own a name like "crasher" because it's a common phrase. But I still felt the bosses that had been good to me, at least deserved that courtesy. Or, had they felt strongly that I don't use it, we would've gladly come up with a different name (heck, I like "party animal" better besides...not sure why the Reader didn't change the name)

JAS: >>>How do you like Josh's new Crasher column? I like it fine - always did - tho I wonder why a competing paper wants to ape a Reader-created feature? How do you like the new Reader Crasher, Chad Deal?

JOSH: Thanks for the kind words. I've always enjoyed your stuff (but for the love of god, make your music blogs shorter...sometimes I'd see a headline that looked interesting, only to find a 3,000 word story!) The few things I happened to catch by Deal looked well written. I wish him well.

JAS: >>>Does a writer hired to take over a column then own that column name and format enough to take it elsewhere?

JOSH: Siskel & Ebert started at one network (PBS, I believe) and took that show elsewhere. It happens all the time.

JAS: >>>Do you think Josh even knew the Reader planned to revive its own Crasher column last week?

JOSH: AS I STATED BEFORE...yes, I did know it would continue. And was told it would continue on a monthly basis. Over at I will be doing one a week. I also write movie reviews. Feel free to come over and check them out!

JAS: >>>Did the Reader know that Josh would call himself and his column the Party Crasher at a competing publication?


JAS: >>>Did know that Josh didn't create the column, and/or did they know the Reader was relaunching its own Crasher column at the same time as Josh was debuting his version over there?

JOSH: WRONG. I had done about three Crashers that appeared in before the Reader released the first one.

JAS: >>>Are there even enough parties in San Diego for TWO Party Crasher columns??? What happens if they both crash the same bash??

JOSH: YES, Jay, there are. If you lived here, you'd know that ;-)

BOTH (?): Things that make ME go "hmmmmmmm" --


antigeekess March 10, 2010 @ 6:41 a.m.

Ya know, I didn't read more than a few lines of the above, and yet somehow, I'm done already.

You wanna give this obnoxious, hateful, narcissistic bigot some bandwidth, go right ahead.

Outta here.


CuddleFish March 10, 2010 @ 10:15 a.m.

jayallen! Your bosses fired this man! They took away his access! And you HELP HIM write comments on this thread and the other thread???

I ask again. Seriously, what's wrong with you?


SDaniels March 10, 2010 @ 11:51 a.m.

I can only hope that the editors remove your post, Jayallen. For shame. I'm outta here too--and here's hoping you are reprimanded for doing it.


CuddleFish March 10, 2010 @ 2:12 p.m.

You don't have to miss him. He's on another site, as you can see. :)


Jay Allen Sanford March 10, 2010 @ 7:39 p.m.

Jeez, I ask a bunch of pointed questions about a hitherto unnoticed and unreported topic (clash of the Crashers), several others chime in with clarification and alternate POVs, and it's all good and interesting, a lively debate --- until the one guy with the answers PROVIDES those answers, which I post. Seems worth a bravo rather than raspberries. Or, if you no longer care about the topic, silence.

Instead, I get tarred with the same brush once applied to the guy with the answers ---- kill the messenger, much?

Remind me never to ask questions of the Klan, lest I end up lynched by the public for daring to quote a reply --


SDaniels March 10, 2010 @ 9:03 p.m.

Hmm, wonder if it is subliminal on your part, these references to the Klan, and tarring and feathering? Or just coincidental to the fact that “the guy” you interviewed was fired for the kind of racism and bigotry we had to endure from him on this site ad nauseum?

“---- kill the messenger, much?"

Any writer worth his salt should understand that being coy, or writing as though your audience is stupid and can't understand subtext, is going to alienate intelligent readers.

To use as excuse some fictitious "lively debate" --to whom are you directing this, Jayallen? Who is your audience?

Oh--and if you hadn't been splashing Board's new gig all over the place to promote it, this reader might have been able to give you the benefit of the doubt.


MsGrant March 10, 2010 @ 10:15 p.m.

"until the one guy with the answers PROVIDES those answers, which I post. Seems worth a bravo rather than raspberries. Or, if you no longer care about the topic, silence.

Instead, I get tarred with the same brush once applied to the guy with the answers ---- kill the messenger, much?"

Yes, Jay. We no longer care about the questions, which you asked (we did not and good not give two s***s about), the answers, and most important, the guy with the "answers". This is pathetic. Josh Board no longer works for this publication, is no longer employed by the Reader, and you are in serious danger of aligning yourself with someone abhorrent, therefore rendering yourself persona non grata.

This is an obvious attempt to garner attention to yourself using a nobody has-been who we all detested, and therefore bring attention to him as well. Despicable.


Jay Allen Sanford March 10, 2010 @ 10:23 p.m.

Yikes - I didn't intentionally liken both of the referenced interviewees, but I concede that "subliminal" means anything's possible in the subconscious ---- your keen mind and concise commentary always impresses, SD! Even if you're dead wrong about me wanting to "promote" a rival Crasher column --- it wasn't possible to open the subject without linking the topic.

The debate was intended for anyone who chose to read and participate - it's not often we break a story wholly online, between print editions, especially mostly within a comment thread, so this was a story worth posting about and seeking followup.

Tho I could quibble with the content of Josh Board's replies, and/or certainly complain about him taking 300 meandering words to make every 10-word talking point, he seems to have answered most all the queries I posed. At his own initiative, no less, since I didn't contact him. Doesn't seem worth wasting more words on a topic all but closed.

Much thanks to the many commentators who helped flesh out the tale.

Like, I had no idea about the Reader's "Party Animal" solicit, until posted by someone else....stuff like THAT is why I love this website's comment board and its commentators.

I'd posit that some commentators seem to be letting their dislike of the subject (Josh) color their views and close their ears. That's fine - I stand by the results. 45 comments, most all of them thought provoking and informative, and a story untold anywhere else on the internet -- a success by most any measure.


MsGrant March 10, 2010 @ 10:33 p.m.

Whore. Last comment ever on any one of your blogs. Topic officially closed.


Fred Williams March 11, 2010 @ 12:52 a.m.

Jay Allen DOES get it.

He is a writer, a communicator, with years of experience. He did the right thing. He followed the story, and he shared it with us.

Sanctimonious condemnation is no fit reward for such willingness to tell us all what's happening.

The mother superiors ought to get out of their habits. Prancing off with parting insults,as if leaving a comment thread unfilled by their pearls of wisdom is a devastating loss to the world, is childish.

Jay, ignore the magpies. They're just squawking for attention.


Russ Lewis March 11, 2010 @ 1:11 a.m.

"Whore. Last comment ever on any one of your blogs." Is that a promise?


Fred Williams March 11, 2010 @ 1:21 a.m.

SD, you wrote:

Making fun of white trash functions as a curious outlet, a strange "safe zone" of cultural degradation by society as a whole.

My reply:

That was the short restatement of my own comment. Thank you for responding at such very great length, but you didn't have any answer beyond touting "cultural studies", with which I'm already familiar.

Just 'cause I'm from the trailer park don't mean I'm all like ignorant 'n stuff.


SDaniels March 11, 2010 @ 2:26 a.m.

Fred, you are a bore when you get peevish. I'm tired of playing the game of "Oh, is Fred going to get peevish because we explained something he already knew?" Geez. Take a pleasant pill.


SDaniels March 11, 2010 @ 2:32 a.m.

Oh, and neither of our comments about 'white trash' were by any means complete, and I'm not sure why you would think they were. In fact, I left my own incomplete thinking you would come back and add to the dialogue, since it is rather the beginning of a topic to which I haven't given a lot of thought. Here's my parting 'peeve' back to ya: If you want to make fun of my clumsy attempt to dumb down a basic cultural studies talk, that is your prerogative, as the saying goes...


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 4:03 a.m.

Pete, dude. Chill The HELL OUT! I'm more upset than you are. Relax. Take a deep breath. Be smart, not loud. Please.


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 4:11 a.m.

Oooh, the Forum God is yanking the troll's chain!

'Bout time you finally woke up to the damage it does to you.


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 4:14 a.m.

You know, Forum God, I get it. I get that it's a point of principle not to cut the troll loose. But really, you ought to weigh the costs. So not worth it, my dear.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 4:27 a.m.

Oh, wait, what was that key...

Something about pounding sand up your ass, CF. You're a troll. I'm pretty sure everyone here is getting it by now. Except for you. You still think that you matter here. I'm honestly quite embarrassed. After all, how could I be a forum God if this isn't a forum? I keep pointing that out to you, but you're so stupid... Oh, hell, never mind. You'll never understand. Much luck with that sand, CF. Pound hard. It's your only chance.


MsGrant March 11, 2010 @ 9:32 a.m.

Oh, I'm sooo scared, russl -the bullies are back. And you fred? Magpies? Is that the best you can do? We know you miss Josh. He catered to your misogynistic needs. Everytime the women on this site comment on something, you a**holes jump in and try to silence us, equating our comments to a plea for attention. Lots of luck with that.


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 10:31 a.m.

That's the stinking bottom line here, MsG.

The boys are mad. Let them be mad. Who cares?


Russ Lewis March 11, 2010 @ 12:20 p.m.

And I quote: "Last comment ever on any one of your blogs." (cf #59)

If it sounds too good to be true....


MsGrant March 11, 2010 @ 12:25 p.m.

Oh, go bugger yourself, russl. What did I ever do to you except ignore you. Talk about attention seeking......


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 2:31 p.m.

russl, PistolPete got banned and he swore he wasn't coming back, well guess what? He's come back under two different names, and no doubt he will be back again tonight.

refriedgringo said his long goodbyes and said he wasn't coming back, well guess what? He's come back.

If you want to call people out as liars about not coming back, there are two people who need your attention. If you are just picking and choosing, go on with your bad self. None of us here is blind. :)

MsG, I am starting to think you are the only grown-up on these threads. Your voice is welcome here. :)


Origami_Astronaught March 11, 2010 @ 3:22 p.m.

Hey gang,

In response to your questions - with the blessings of the boys up stairs, I hope to continue writing Crasher monthly. I think I can do the bit justice for all you vicarious ragers.

While flattered at the suggestion, I must admit I am not Pike, though we still get out on a bike ride every once in a while. He's a def brotha from anotha mutha.

Fred, I sense the party was more about an excuse to show off some thigh meat than any sort of calculated racial assault.

SD, I'm intrigued by the idea of white-trash as the "safe zone." Keen observation.

I'm also writing the bi-weekly "Here's the Deal" and some Blurts.

Keep an eye out for my cover story in a few weeks about border policy and the Campo Minutemen.

Shameless self promo.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 3:26 p.m.

"refriedgringo said his long goodbyes and said he wasn't coming back, well guess what? He's come back."

First, you need to find where I said I wasn't coming back. Find it, quote it, or shut up about it. You claimed that you ran me off in one comment and then came back and were thankful that you weren't the reason I left. Hypocrites seem to have a difficult time making up their mind.

Second, you've managed to convince most people in here that you're bats*** insane, and I can't imagine that Grant isn't going to be the next person you try to align yourself with that won't reach the same conclusion, eventually. Anyone else want to try this experiment? Post a comment where you're mad at me, and I'll post one back at you. Then, CF will come running in and take your side (the argument won't matter, posit anything you desire). Then, pretend that you like me again, that we've made up. Oh, hell, you'll be amused at her reaction.

Third, CF, if you can only find one person here that you feel is "grown up", don't you think that you have a problem? If you've managed to alienate yourself to that extent, don't you think you might be in Pistol Pete territory?

I can disagree with and even get mad at some people in here, but I don't run around picking people to hate. And more often than not, I will go completely out of my way to make good with them. You, on the other hand, insist that this is a "forum", and that people should abide by your rules. And when they don't, you ATTACK! It's a joke. The Reader banned Pete for being outrageous. It's a shame they can't ban you for being an idiot.


MsGrant March 11, 2010 @ 3:51 p.m.

I didn't say I was not coming back. I said I was not going to comment on Jay's blogs. This is not Jay's blog.


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 4:14 p.m.

refried, here are the comments where you state that you are leaving, and when certain members urge you to reconsider you insist that you will not:

No, CF, you dropped a couple of clues, don't mind if I keep them close to the vest, as insurance. You've researched me and my family (at least, you've tried, and that's enough). I could go over there to your country and get a court order, or I can get the hell out of here. I think I'll get the hell out of here, it's quicker. I'll still read the Reader, I love it, but I don't think anyone will miss me here any more than I would niss my family if you offed them.

Maybe you're not the killing type, but I really don't want to stick around to find out. You can tell me all damned day that I don't matter, and I'll wish I didn't, because obviously I do.

By refriedgringo 1:45 a.m., Mar 5, 2010

Pete, I want to clarify one thing. My reasons for no longer participating here have nothing to do with Reader editors/administrators, I think they've been stellar. …

I'm quitting because I don't enjoy being stalked. …

Because, apparently, my infamous internet nickname invites some probing queries that, quite frankly, makes me nervous as all hell. God bless all of you, I want the best for you, and I sincerely hope that you can all love one another in spite of your differences. Because it's the human thing to do.

By refriedgringo 1:35 p.m., Mar 5, 2010

I'm sure that CF will embrace this comment negatively, but to hell with it. I owe you SD, so I'll make this my last.

By refriedgringo 1:29 a.m., Mar 7, 2010

Ms. Grant, this place will be just fine without me. I'm not leaving because CF enjoys running her mouth at me in here, although I'm sure she would like to think that she "took me on" and ran me off by her snarky comments. ...

And I apologize for this taking place in your blog entry here, I simply felt the desire to clarify something to Pete, then to let SD know that I think the world of her and that she has a great shot at making this a better place, and now to you to let you know that a couple of other things happened that night (not on this website, but elsewhere) that are too well timed to be coincidental, and that sort of exposure doesn't make me feel comfortable. …

I'll still continute to read your stuff with great interest and enjoy watching your writing develop and evolve (I can't wait for your next vacation!). I dig it.

By refriedgringo 12:11 p.m., Mar 7, 2010



CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 4:15 p.m.


Now personally, I think you owe me an apology for implying that I had something to do with a threat to your family, particularly your seventeen year old daughter. And I secondly think you owe an explanation to all the people you lead to believe that you were leaving. But I don't expect either of those things to happen.

As to who I've alienated here or not, matters not in the least to me. I only have to worry about pleasing the people who share my plate and my bed, and thankfully, I don't have to consider anyone but myself in those matters. Why you seem so concerned about who my friends are, just reinforce how much you've been made a tool of others' machinations, as I said before.

Now, it has long been obvious to me, my dear refried, that you only see what you want to see. But the obvious is right in front of your eyes. I have been pretty tough on the Reader, their writers, admin, as many people know who read my comments. But my comments have never been banned or sanctioned. Pete was banned. I was not. Get a clue, Forum God. :)


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 4:49 p.m.

"But my comments have never been banned or sanctioned."

Yes, because fortunately for you, the Reader does not ban mere stupidity.

I asked you to link where I said I wasn't coming back, but you've done a stellar job of making my point - you quickly found these comments! Did you have them bookmarked? Or more pointedly, should I now worry again that my Facebook and Twitter accounts will be hacked? You're not capable of it, so don't worry, but I was extremely concerned the other evening when, simultaneous to your stalking my comments here, I had some rather disturbing issues with several sites I use for social networking.

And nope, I'm not accusing you. You're free and clear. You, personally, are not mentally capable of it, and my worries about you having some friend around that was, is unfounded. That's why I split. I know you think it was because of your stalking me here, sorry to let you down, CF. But nope, it wasn't even related to this site. Awesome.


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 5:13 p.m.

"Now personally, I think you owe me an apology for implying that I had something to do with a threat to your family, particularly your seventeen year old daughter. And I secondly think you owe an explanation to all the people you lead to believe that you were leaving. But I don't expect either of those things to happen."

And RIGHT after you wrote that piece of crap statement, you write this:

"As to who I've alienated here or not, matters not in the least to me. I only have to worry about pleasing the people who share my plate and my bed, and thankfully, I don't have to consider anyone but myself in those matters. Why you seem so concerned about who my friends are, just reinforce how much you've been made a tool of others' machinations, as I said before."

Duplicit, much? Let's see, I owe YOU an apology for stalking me here, and I owe everyone an explanation. Yet, it's totally cool that YOU don't have to worry about anyone except for yourself.

Know what? Get bent. In your bed, alone, we'll all feel sorry for you for that, even though there is no doubt that you did it to yourself.


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 5:17 p.m.

Actually here is what we are going to do. Since apparently I can't comment on your threads without you claiming that I am stalking you, I am going to ignore your comments. Will that satisfy the boring little control freak in you? :)

But here's what I bet. You comment on my comments continually. It will be fun to see what you do, now! I'm thinking you won't be able to resist, darling, but let's hope you prove me a liar! :)


SurfPuppy619 March 11, 2010 @ 5:21 p.m.

Oh, go bugger yourself, russl. What did I ever do to you except ignore you. Talk about attention seeking......

russl is nothng but a butt sniffing public employee apologist!


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 5:22 p.m.

NOW i really have a headache and I'M going on vacation

how did all of this happen...a few months ago when i started my blog we were all so supportive and friendly

where did that feeling go???


antigeekess March 11, 2010 @ 5:22 p.m.

Look, why don't we all draw straws? We can do it every month, and take turns stalking each other.

It'll be fun.



antigeekess March 11, 2010 @ 5:24 p.m.

Ah, so we see who SurfPuppy is stalking. It's russl.

I think I'd like to stalk nan. Nan, where are we going on vacation?



MsGrant March 11, 2010 @ 5:40 p.m.

You've lost that lovin' feeling, ohhhh that lovin' feeling....

Nan, I'm trying!!! I try to blog about

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens Brown paper packages tied up with strings

to no avail!!!

And surfpoopy, you tried to run me off of DB's blog, you big meanie!!


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 5:54 p.m.

"You comment on my comments continually."

Nope. I only comment when you bash me, which apparently is a big part of your life. I comment on a story or blog entry, and you decide I'm the "forum God" (which defies all logic since THIS ISN'T A FORUM!). I comment to my friend Julio, in Spanish, and you decide that I don't speak Spanish (yours is appalling, by the way, which is funny since I'm the white guy and you're the Mexican girl, but since you have no sense of irony you won't find humor in that). I comment anywhere, and you suddenly show up with some snarky remark about my comment.

My email inbox is full of comments from kind people, half of which want me to ignore you, and the other half want me to tell you to go screw yourself. It kills me how people found Pete offensive. You know, at least Pete was up front about it. You, CF, on the other hand, enjoy the knife in the back approach.

There is no way in the world that you're not going to continue your behavior here, you can put on some lipstick and pretend to be pretty, but we've all seen what you look like without the make-up, it won't work. You are what you are. And the golden rule of that bible you tend to thump whenever you're grasping at that last straw says something about treating other like you would want to be treated. I'll assume, then, that want people to follow you around and harass you.

I'm not your brother in Christ. You don't even understand the first thing about your own Goddamned religion.


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 6:01 p.m.

Is this the real life?

Is this just fantasy? Caught in a landslide No escape from reality Open your eyes Look up to the skies and see I'm just a poor girl I need no sympathy Because I'm easy come, easy go Little high, little low Any way the wind blows Doesn't really matter to me, to me#



David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 6:14 p.m.

Well, CF, if it didn't matter to you, you wouldn't be commenting, you wouldn't have stalked my comments, and you wouldn't have changed the lyrics. He was a poor "boy", convicted of murder. Interesting you would be so sympathetic with that. You're not easy-come, easy-go. This stuff causes you to lose sleep. It's a sickness with you.

"..I am going to ignore your comments. Will that satisfy the boring little control freak in you? :)"

You never had the ability to ignore my comments, you LOVE them! Otherwise, you wouldn't be commenting, now would you?


MsGrant March 11, 2010 @ 6:51 p.m.

OH, God!! Refried has let Pete use his avatar!! Now he is Pete!! Or Pete is him!!

Is refried grooming Pete to get his message back here without being banned?

ENOUGH, already!! This is stupid.


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 7:03 p.m.

I remember when, I remember I remember when I lost my mind There was something so pleasant about that place Even your emotions have an echo in so much space

And when you're out there without care Yeah, I was out of touch But it wasn't because I didn't know enough I just knew too much

Does that make me crazy? Does that make me crazy? Does that make me crazy? Possibly

And I hope that you are Having the time of your life But think twice That's my only advice

Come on now, who do you Who do you, who do you, who do you think you are? Ha ha ha, bless your soul You really think you're in control?

Well, I think you're crazy I think you're crazy I think you're crazy Just like me

My heroes had the heart To lose their lives out on a limb And all I remember Is thinking, I want to be like them

Ever since I was little Ever since I was little It looked like fun And it's no coincidence I've come And I can die when I'm done

But maybe I'm crazy Maybe you're crazy Maybe we're crazy Probably


David Dodd March 11, 2010 @ 7:08 p.m.

Yeah, Grant, I'm Pete, and Jay, and Josh, and whatever. Apparently, I'm everyone else and not me.


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 8 p.m.

oh antiG pretty please

stalk the likes of me

i'll treat u

then mistreat u

fill ur bowl with cream

stolen from Ms Grant frig

which i will not demean

take u to the beach

cover u with sand

not let u up

til my wishes become commands

to give me lots of songs

like Petie used to do

when i'm hiding in my bed

recovering from the flu

Cuddles please sing songs to me

or i'll bribe Ms Grants cats

to loan me all their fleas

and put them in ur undies

so they can bite ur knees

so antiG pretty please

stalk me

hawk me

sock me

my skills r not so sure

i really hate to admit it

but at fighting i'm demure

and of that u can be sure

i think we should all get together and go see "Alice in Wonderland" was a political satire of the time and we can practice




xians421 March 11, 2010 @ 8:03 p.m.

Did i read this right? Did Pete get banned? Is Board no longer 'writing' Crasher?

Hell yeah! If the above is true, I'll be running naked in the streets.


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 8:05 p.m.

I want to stalk Cuddles ...cause i like FISH!!!

~~come hither tasty morsel~~


CuddleFish March 11, 2010 @ 8:22 p.m.

xians421, get ready to streak! :)

(And don't forget to post the video.) ;)


nan shartel March 11, 2010 @ 8:36 p.m.

like Cuddles said....hahahahahahahahaha


antigeekess March 11, 2010 @ 10:13 p.m.

"Hell yeah! If the above is true, I'll be running naked in the streets."

Why don't you do it on the last Friday of the month? At least Critical Mass would be somewhat interesting for blocked and delayed motorists.


Oh wait, Board might throw his gum or some rocks at you. Bad idea.


Jay Allen Sanford March 12, 2010 @ 12:52 a.m.

RE #49 "Jay Allen DOES get it...[snip]...He did the right thing. He followed the story, and he shared it with us."

Thanks, Fred! I welcome the dissenting comments, tho, and it matters not to me whether they're posted on my blog or on others' or on story pages such as this.

Some commentators apparently have the mistaken impression that me encouraging website discourse is somehow benefiting, promoting, or "getting attention" for me personally.

In actuality, lots of website activity means that the site itself becomes stronger, more seen by new visitors, and - yes - more profitable. Why in the world would someone COMPLAIN about comments that end with questions that invite further discourse?! That's the not-so-secret of success behind most every newspaper website operating in the free world.

It's not like I provoke comment with just ANY old thang, just cuz - I studiously only post blogs and/or comment on topics I'm interested in. The "Clash of the Crashers" interested me, and it seemed nobody else had noticed the dueling mastheads. I've never even met Josh Board, so I could only laugh at being threatened with reprisal for "aligning" myself with him somehow, just by mentioning his name (before I'd even quoted his later email response!).

It was especially funny since it seemed clear to all but a couple of confused commentators that everything I said on the topic was ultimately endorsing the Reader's Crasher above any and all copycat-competing columns elsewhere.

Terrific to hear from Chad that he'll be doing more Crashers - the Reader's Great Experiment in citizen journalism has paid off yet again, with another new columnist hired. Looking forward to more 'n' more ---

Now PLEASE play nice, good people, and don't forget to turn off the lights when you leave ----


David Dodd March 12, 2010 @ 3:06 a.m.

"I've never even met Josh Board,..."

Jay, that took balls to admit. I've met Josh Board. Never wrote a blog entry, nor a long response to one just about HIM. I can't speak for everyone (apparently you have as many negative fans as I do!), but I'd rather hear about more of the younger Jay, as in WTF did you do before this gig? The more I read you the more I get a feeling that there's a bigger story behind you than you care to admit.


JohnnyJ March 12, 2010 @ 11:56 p.m.



SDaniels March 13, 2010 @ 9:46 a.m.

Uh, Johnny, could you maybe turn off your caps lock? We can hear just fine, thanks :)

I find it interesting that so many enmities have coalesced on a single thread--even SP and russl's!

I owe Jayallen an apology, then:

JA, I now believe it when you say you were not acting to promote Board (I hope you can see why a few of us thought you were). For the record, I DID know him in person, as did AG--she knew him better. I only hung out with him a few times. Ok, now we have full disclosure, for whatever it's worth ;)

And I have chosen to stalk either Grant, AG or Nan--so many possibilities.

And re: Nan: This bears repeating:

"or i'll bribe Ms Grants cats

to loan me all their fleas

and put them in ur undies

so they can bite ur knees

so antiG pretty please

stalk me

hawk me

sock me

my skills r not so sure

i really hate to admit it

but at fighting i'm demure

and of that u can be sure"


SDaniels March 13, 2010 @ 9:51 a.m.

re: #65:

Chad/Origami: Being a fan, I am thrilled you are who you are, and that you are the new Crasher. I look forward especially to your upcoming piece on the border and those freaks, the Minutemen. I fervently hope you got lotsa priceless quotes, and did a good psychological profile of their median personality. If not, I surely will in the peanut gallery! :)


CuddleFish March 13, 2010 @ 11:49 a.m.

Every poster I've ever known who uses cap lock won't stop using cap lock, but I'm glad you asked him anyways, Daniels. :)


SDaniels March 13, 2010 @ 12:49 p.m.

Ya never know--actually, there have been a couple of times when the person just didn't know not to do it, and they stopped. :)


SDaniels March 13, 2010 @ 12:50 p.m.

Oh, and I just met Victoria for coffee, and then met Jessie afterward. That cat is a marvel to behold--and snuggle with. Will report duly on blog :)


Duhbya March 13, 2010 @ 1:40 p.m.

Re: caps lock. Is it really that bothersome? My wife, who has vision issues (no life partner choice jokes, unless you simply can't stop yourself) uses the feature as a vision enhancement. Just because you can view lower case effortlessly does not guarantee that the "accused" can. One of those impersonal internet aspects, I suppose.


SDaniels March 13, 2010 @ 4:26 p.m.


'Scuse, me. What were we saying?

Oh Duhbya, in case you missed out, do see my blog entitled "Jessie has come home!" or something to that effect. AG and I double-handedly found a lost cat in my hood. A purebred, much much loved lost cat. More to tell, but I'll tell it there. (Banker's Hill)

Re: CAPS LOCK: Well, I can understand your wife's need for it, and once I know that's the reason, I can bear it. Otherwise, it is a total nuisance. I teach online, and people who write in all caps (before they get advised) invariably turn out to be anti-social, ill-adjusted, and unable to write a paragraph. No kidding. I'm sure studies have been done ;)


SurfPuppy619 March 13, 2010 @ 9:30 p.m.

A purebred, much much loved lost cat. More to tell, but I'll tell it there. (Banker's Hill)

I used to live on Bankers Hill, right off of Laurel. Great location, but hated the airplanes.


antigeekess March 13, 2010 @ 9:38 p.m.

"I once had a cat. I got drunk on apple cider and used it for target practice."

Nice, Pete. Once a tool, always a tool.



CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 1:41 a.m.

No worries. The Waldo troll has explained on nan's thread that the cat target practice thing was just a trollish little cat lady joke.


antigeekess March 14, 2010 @ 10:44 a.m.

Re #106:

No worries, indeed. I see that RWE has already been vaporized.

Ahhhhh, it smells better in here again already.



CuddleFish March 14, 2010 @ 11:10 a.m.

I love the smell of Reader napalm in the morning.

It smells like ... victory.



SDaniels March 16, 2010 @ 12:10 a.m.

re: #104:

SurfPuppy, you are getting senile, perhaps? Every time Banker's Hill comes up, you remind us you used to live there. Should we be finding some kind of canine Aricept for you? ;)


Sign in to comment

Win a $25 Gift Card to
The Broken Yolk Cafe

Join our newsletter list

Each newsletter subscription means another chance to win!