Speakeasy reports that the Regretsy mastermind is April Winchell, well-known comedic human. Notably, her new book publishers admit:

"We're not going to use everything from the Web site," said Jill Schwartzman, the purchasing editor at Random House. "The ones we're going to pick are the ones that work for a book-reading audience."

So read everything on Regretsy.com for free, or buy the book and read less, for a fee. Just mail April Winchell a check and continue to read her website!

The NYT reports that ASME is "adding 12 new categories [to the Magazine Awards] covering online media." But! Rather than present these awards at the already-interminable fancy magazine awards ceremony in May, they "will be handed out at a lunch during a March online magazine conference." At lunch!

In fact, that real magazine awards used to be a modest affair like that, before they started taking that "The Oscars of the Magazine Industry" thing too seriously and inviting random wack people like Jimmy Fallon to present awards (suck it, Jimmy Fallon). Now, the Ellies get to siphon the nerdy, unglamorous online media reporters such as ourselves off into a preliminary affair, saving the real awards ceremony for the Beautiful People. It's genius, really. But what do these categories even mean?

"The Huffington Post, if it defines itself as a magazine, we would accept the entry. If it defines itself as a newspaper, then of course it should enter the Pulitzers," he said.

Haha! But what if it defines itself as the most specialest Magazinemediainternet Thingamajig in the whole wide world? Will there be a special category for that? And what are we supposed to enter? I assume there will be several categories dedicated to fameball coverage? And make sure there's something for Julia Allison!

We're not really winning any awards. But we are going and eating a free lunch, so SCORE. The internet continues to suck the magazine industry dry, one way or another.

An announcement for a coming two-day FTC workshop called "From Town Crier to Bloggers: How Will Journalism Survive the Internet Age?" appeared on Wednesday in the Federal Register. The meetings, to be held in December, will seek to assess the "fundamental financial challenges to many news organizations" and how to address them using government policy. Here's what the FTC will be considering:

• "Proposals for new tax treatment for news organizations"
• "Proposals for changes in copyright law and doctrine, including the 'fair use' of news stories"
• "Proposals for an antitrust exemption applied to certain conduct of news organizations"
• "Proposals for greater public funding of public affairs news."

The idea of a bailout for newspapers has been gaining momentum lately, and the FTC workshop shows that it's not going away any time soon. It's a horribly bad idea, for reasons that have been rehearsed before: It makes an ostensibly watchdog press beholden to federal policy-makers for its continued survival; it interferes with a rapidly changing marketplace to the explicit benefit of established behemoths and disadvantage of emerging competitors; and it seeks to use the federal bureaucracy to encourage certain kinds of speech over others.

Would Gawker be eligible for a "new tax treatment"? Hell, we're a news organization—we even called an FTC spokeswoman for comment on this very blog post. What about TMZ? They break news every day. Do they need a tax break? Or does Andrew Breitbart's budding empire at BigGovernment.com, which recently broke a couple compelling stories about ACORN and the National Endowment for the Arts that certainly qualify as "public affairs news," need any public funding? How about Politico?

We presume that the answers to the above questions in any proposed FTC scheme for rescuing the newspaper industry would be no. But the distinctions and conceptual gerrymandering required to find a way to subsidize the lumbering giants at the expense of their upstart competitors—to find a reason that Rupert Murdoch, whose Fox News Channel is firing on all cylinders as the Wall Street Journal faces secular decline, merits consideration while Talking Points Memo's Josh Marshall doesn't—will, we suspect, render the whole project foul and reactionary. The simple fact that some news organizations are facing competitive pressure and shifting business models isn't an argument for government intervention into the content business.

The workshops come on the heels of the FTC's announcement on Monday that bloggers, Facebook posters, and Twitterers will be at risk of an $11,000 fine if they endorse a consumer product and fail to disclose compensation—including, potentially, receiving free samples for review. We certainly support full disclosure of freebies and deplore undisclosed paid shilling, but $11,000? For Facebook posts? It's a ridiculously out-of-whack expedition into online marketing. UPDATE: The FTC disputes the $11,000 figure here, and points out that fines are administered only after a hearing in federal court. But the new guidelines do clearly put bloggers who don't disclose freebies at risk of administrative action.

The FTC's argument for looking into the news business is premised in part on the special nature of reporting traditionally done by newspapers: "The reduction in news staffs raises questions over whether certain types of news are receiving less coverage as a result," reads the Federal Register announcement. "Some economists believe that public affairs reporting may indeed be particularly subject to market failure." Susan DeSanti, an FTC spokeswoman, explained to us that "it may be that there is less than socially optimal demand for investigative reporting," a circumstance that may require government redress.

The prospect of a federal commission bemoaning the demise of investigative reporting is howlingly perverse. First off: There has never been a "socially optimal" demand for investigative reporting. It's boring and expensive, and it has always been subsidized by the crossword puzzles and recipes that most people buy newspapers for. But we can think of one way the FTC can help out investigative reporters: Go back and release in full the results of the 354 Freedom of Information Act Requests that it denied last year. And pledge right now to fully cooperate with every reporter who requests information from the commission. While they're at it, maybe they could call the State Department and tell them to respond to the request for incident reports from each instance of contractors in Iraq fatally discharging their weapons that we've been waiting on for two years now. Or tell the White House to return the various calls and e-mails from us over the past nine months that they've ignored. Or tell the Federal Reserve to release the 6,000 pages of bailout-related documents that it has gone to court repeatedly to keep away from Fox News. Etc.

The federal bureaucracy exists to frustrate the efforts of investigative reporters, and the FTC's bizarre, romanticized sympathy for "public affairs" reporting strikes us as a proxy argument for their establishmentarian inclination to protect the status quo. DeSanti says the workshops are purely informational in nature, designed to "pull information together and have a discussion." The FTC routinely produces reports, with policy recommendations, assessing the state of play in given industries, and while DeSanti says "it's not at all clear" at this point that such a report will result from the proposed workshop, we suspect that they're not simply whistling Dixie.

If the Obama Administration wants to help reporters, and their employers, engage in public affairs journalism and investigative reporting, they should start by answering questions and providing information—like, say, photographs of what our servicemembers have done to Iraqi and Afghani prisoners—to anyone who asks for it, irrespective of whether they work for a newspaper or a blog.

[Via Cryptome.]

What do you get when you combine this dying meme with the other "Look At This Fucking Hipster" hating-hipsters-from-the-inside meme? You get Stuff Hipsters Hate, which is the type of Tumblr that you people will just keep sending us the link to until we write about it.

Here you are. Enjoy it while it lasts, because, god, [meta].

The blog's explanation for pulling the post:

Basically, we believe that parties who are the subjects of an extensive and sensitive post like yesterday's should know they are being written about. This is both the neighborhood-y, Local thing to do and simple journalistic ethics.

In this case, the author of the piece identified himself to several climbers but not to the people who run the space. We were unaware of this lapse. We had concluded, based on the author's initial pitch, that he planned to be upfront with everyone, and we neglected - our bad - to confirm this after the piece was filed.

Well that's all well and good and friendly, but it's really the type of thing to decide before you publish the extremely extensive post about "this bizarre hybrid of subterranean climbing gym and hippie speakeasy" in Fort Greene. Because the entire thing is, of course, cached by Google. All anyone has to do is click here to read the whole thing, or visit AnimalNY, where they put up a screen shot of it. Now, Jed Lipinski's post on "one of the best kept secrets in Brooklyn" is going to get far more readers than it would have had you simply left it up.

See: The Streisand Effect.
[The Local's 'Why We Unpublished" statement and the original post, via Animal NY

We had high hopes that Peter Getty would give our "nakedly hateful" rant against him the full rich boy-thrashing, but alas. And alack. We're greeted with only diplomacy!

Seriously; we knew it wasn't going to be a stroll through the park sharing our thoughts about growing up rich at any time, least of all during a recession. But we had to introduce ourselves somehow. What was the winning move? If we point out the things we might have in common, we're patronizing. If we point out the differences, we're rubbing people's faces in it. If we mention any difficulties that accompany wealth, we're self-pitying. If we simply ignore the subject, we're Marie Antoinette.

Just address it frankly in our first post, we figured, get it out of the way and go for a few laughs, so that's what we tried. We expected a little initial hostility, but we have to admit we were surprised to see it go international this fast. A guillotine has yet to be erected in Union Square, so maybe we didn't bomb as drastically as all that.

At least any uncertainties about a subject for our second post were removed quickly enough. Still, we don't want this to become a series of writings about the last thing we wrote, so we'll try to move on. Join us if you like.

So you want us to "join" you, do you? Here is what we require to agree to your armistice:

• One gilt-laden vessel of Pharaoh's ashes from the tombs of Egypt.
• A procession of seventy peacocks, linked with a golden chain.
• Spoons of the finest silver; forks of the finest copper.
• A baronial estate on the highest San Franciscan hill, surrounded by Bengal tigers trained by the holiest Indian shamans.
• Babes.

The brothers' terrible blog "What the Butler Didn't See," you'll recall, is a failed attempt to obviate class rage with cheeky, self-aware disclosure, which can be effective if well-executed, but is not effective when it manifests itself in sentences like "You can easily make far better hot dogs at home than they give you in the luxury boxes," or in biographical entries that say "Peter Getty has flirted occasionally with real work, but finding it wearisome, has returned full time to his first love, watching television."

So that's pretty much what we said, in a more profane way, and we though that was that, but turns out Peter Getty went all over the internet leaving indignant comments on every blog that hated on his blog, including ours!

Since practically none of the comments here address the article itself, I'd like to express my relief that it was so poorly written, so filled with unwarranted venom, so nakedly self-contradictory, and so nakedly hateful and so smug in jumping to absurd conclusions about our motives, reasoning and "self-awareness" (although Mr. Nolan concedes that he doesn't even know whether we're "good guys" or not, he somehow knows better than we do how we perceive ourselves). I'm proud that we hold our writing to a higher standard than this.

But even more exciting is Getty's comment on SFist, which includes this:

The Gawker piece, in its completely unwarranted hostility, false presumptions, blatant self-contradictions, and errors of basic spelling and vocabulary, has provided us with an excellent subject for our next post.

The image associated with this post is best viewed using a browser.OOOOOOOOOOO. Ooo. Getty heir Peter Getty is going to bring the pain of an icy, cutting blog post directly into our area code! This will end well. Very well. Mr. Getty, we salute you for choosing to magnify this meaningless bicoastal internet class rage outpouring by a factor of one hundred. Never let it be said that you have something better to do than feud with underemployed "professional" bloggers, who decidedly do not have anything better to do. We are already composing a profanity-laced, grammatically incorrect and philosophically incoherent response in our head, clouded though it may be by the foul air of plebeian geography. Though your most recent comments on SFist indicate quite strongly that you may be a borderline wingnut by internet argument standards, we await your blow with grim determination, and neither Barack Obama nor a cat to assist us in our time of battle.

May our relationship be long and fruitful. I really think it will be.

[Previously. Pic: Facebook, Flickr]

First, here's more than you could possibly want to know about how qualified Zuckerberg is for this gig, courtesy of Abrams cohort/ Mediaite editor-at-large Rachel Sklar:

Her sister forwarded a listing from someone at Yale, presumably from the Yale Journalism List (we sent it to several university lists). Randi knew me and suggested Arielle apply. She did, and knocked Andrew's socks off in their phone interview (Andrew Cedotal coordinated the intern recruitment, and did a fantastic job because our interns RULE. I remember he was psyched because he made a "Dune" joke and she got it.) But more importantly, she's a genius - computer science major, knows Java and is an SEO whiz - interned at the NYTimes social media dept. last summer. She knows blogs inside and out and is just incredibly savvy, smart and is fantastic to work with. She's super smart and we value her immensely. I do want to emphasis that our interns with non-Valleywag-featured surnames are also amazing - we seriously can't believe how lucky we got.

Thanks, Rachel. And now, the big reveal of what you can expect when Mediatie Mediadate Mediaite launches soon. Thanks, The Google.

Not that we blame Berners-Lee for these things ... okay, okay, we do. The 20 worst things about the World Wide Web:

• 1. Julia Allison
• 2. Twitter
• 3. Jason Calacanis
• 4. Wikipedia
• 5. Henry Blodget
• 6. Dave Winer
• 7. Blogs
• 8. Dead newspapers everywhere
• 9. Congressman Jared Polis
• 10. Robert Scoble
• 11. The Pets.com sock puppet, and Michael Ian Black's subsequent career
• 12. Digg
• 13. Perez Hilton
• 14. /b/
• 15. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales's love life
• 16. Oversharing
• 17. Mark Zuckerberg
• 18. Chris Crocker
• 19. Internet commenters
• 20. Kevin Rose

We realize they weren't in your original spec, Timbo, but you should have anticipated them. Really.

Ezarik is one of a new breed of completely self-constructed celebrities. Like my friend Julia Allison, whose online self-­promotion recently landed her on the cover of Wired, she is a Web 2.0 version of the American everygirls with bleached teeth and fake tans who have enjoyed reality-show notoriety for a decade. But Ezarik didn't wait around for a reality show to cast her: she trained the camera on herself, controlling every aspect of how she was portrayed. And while her shtick is that she's just putting quotidian stuff online, she's actually as invested as a reality-show producer in shaping and policing a brand.

So, yes, reality shows are now micro-targeted and self-produced, but still just as vapid as they were on network television. Justine has fans, Justine has stalkers, Justine has a manager, but overall Justine likes the attention she gets from "lifecasting." Fair enough. The takeaway:

Attention's a touchy subject right now. As we trust cultural arbiters less and less to tell us who deserves attention, calling those who seek it—especially women—attention whores has become a dismissive, silencing insult. But here's the thing: understanding that your blog is less a shrine to your awesomeness and more a location where a like-minded community can form—and genuinely being okay with that—is actually pretty rare, even among Internet personalities.

We're genuinely okay with that. Now you, our like-minded community, can comment on this random video below if you so choose. [Technology Review]

Ad Age predicts a small amount of growth:

If trends hold, online advertising will grow in the low double digits or high single digits this year, driven largely by search.

But that may be way too optimistic. A pessimistic view would be to compare this financial crisis to the end of the tech bubble years, when internet advertising dropped by about 25%. And then to note that this crisis is actually far worse than that one was. So while search ads will probably not stop growing, it's possible that the rest of internet advertising could fall by more than a quarter, taking the ho-hum companies at the bottom of the market straight into oblivion.

Recent startups will be quick to fail. Aspiring startups will fail to get funded. There will probably be a rise in sites charging subscription fees, as the ad model stops bringing in sufficient cash—which may itself fail, since people are so used to everything being free. And what about our heroes, smartass blogs?

Publishers may not be immune to a big cull after growing up in what Spark Capital principal Dennis Miller calls a "fantasy marketplace." "You will probably see a healthy movement to two or three in each category that are delivering visitors and time spent on the site," he said.

Gawker, Drudge, and LOLCats: the only news left at the end of the internet apocalypse. [Ad Age]

It's not just this latest "PUNCH IN 'FACE BOOK,'" as the Post eloquently puts it. The media has been warning us of internet dangers forever!

• Myspace: Log on and have your children raped.
• Facebook is filling up with creepy old people (who are probably rapists).
• Also Facebook will ruin your engagement.
• Flickr: A place where baby rapists look at pictures of your babies and masturbate to them.
• The government uses bloggers to hide its role in the Kennedy assassination.
• Nasty internet comments in England could cost you eleventy billion dollars.
• And dangerous hackers are hacking your email and looking for pictures of your children, which is why we should all be thrown in jail.

A bunch of meaningless crap, just like non-Christians! Gospelr should soon be worth billions.

[via Adfreak]

It's not like the man has to start something new. His own news site, Breitbart.com, does huge traffic because it's where all of Drudge's wire report items link to. He also has a video site, and he worked on the launch of the now-successful Huffington Post (though he's since divested—he's a true conservative believer).

Breitbart works the afternoon shift at the Drudge Report. The two have remarkably seamless editorial styles, though some feel Breitbart has a lighter touch. More importantly, while Matt Drudge himself rarely speaks to the press or flits about in public settings, Breitbart is actually popular, and even a bit of a real-life schmoozer:

Before we left [a party at the Republican convention], the pundit Jonah Goldberg accused him of being the most popular guy in the room.

At the National Journal party, publisher David Bradley was delighted to finally put a face to the name. “That’s Andrew Breitbart?” he exclaimed. Walking into the Weekly Standard party, a friend from L.A. greeted him. “Have you had a chance to take a shower yet?” joked Steve McEveety, who is Mel Gibson’s producing partner.

Okay big shot! Breitbart is truly Dr. Jekyll to Drudge's Mr. Hyde. And a good man to know. We plan to get a good deal of comedy value out of his new venture.

[NYO]

Specifically, city manager Joseph Tanner added one widely-read local blog as well as the city paper to the list of sites inaccessible from city servers. Both of which like to write about how the stupid city manager has bankrupted the town, coincidentally:

"We blocked these because they are political in nature," Tanner said. "We blocked them because one is an anti-bankruptcy site and the other is a rag of a newspaper."

Now access to the paper has been restored, but city employees can't read the paper's message boards. That'll teach em. The two "join a list of pornography, social networking, gambling and hate sites that are already banned."

[via Romenesko]

He's a cheapskate.

Last week we noted how Tucker scoffed at a former blogger who wondered why he only made $82 for six months of work. Other employees tell us the standard pay for Rudius bloggers is somewhere in the $80/ quarter range, with one noting "I got just a tiny bit more than that when my site was doing really well." Sweet. So Rudius must be making a lot of money.

You work hard for the money.

One Rudius employee was ordered by Tucker to move to a different, more expensive city because Tucker thought that they could better do their job elsewhere. Once the employee had gone to the trouble of packing up and moving and finding a new, more costly apartment, we hear, their pay was reduced to almost nothing. Which seems like the standard Rudius pay rate, now that we think of it.

He's not popular with publishers.

We hear that at least one book agent quit working with Tucker because he flaked out on book proposal deadlines. (Not true? Email us!)

He's not popular with the bloggers that work for him at Rudius.

The emails we've received from disgruntled bloggers alone are ample evidence of this. He attracts bloggers he's interested in with the promise of writing for a wider audience—though, as you can tell by their pay, not necessarily more money. But when bloggers tire of Rudius and leave the fold, we hear, they are bizarrely wiped from existence in Tucker Max's world:

If an author leaves the site, the circumstances are never discussed. Not even on the message boards. It's reminiscent of some 1984 thought-crime type thing. The author is simply never mentioned again, the site stays up and repeated questions about "what happened" are ignored.

He's vindictive.

Those who have worked with Tucker say he's very protective of his "image," such as it is. We hear that his failed appearance on Opie and Anthony is a very sore point. This sensitivity manifests itself in both the disappearing of his fallen disciples as mentioned above, and in an atmosphere in which Tucker Max sycophants feel that harassment of detractors is a way to win approval. One blogger, Violent Acres, wrote a Tucker Max parody a couple of years ago. This resulted in 70 harassing phone calls from a crazed Tucker fan in a single weekend—and we hear the harassment is still ongoing, though the blogger has filed a police report.

Is it Tucker's fault that he has a crazy fan? Not necessarily. But it is Tucker's fault that he expressed his discontent with a cast member on his movie by taking a big crap in the toilet in the guy's trailer, taking a photo of it (do not click that link), and then blogging about it.

Can't wait till the movie comes out!

[Read all previous Tucker Max coverage here. Anybody else with Tucker stories, email us.]

• Google: WebsiteOutlook value: $1.2 billion. Market cap: $153 billion.
• Daily Candy: WebsiteOutlook value: $112,000. Just sold for $125 million.
• Amazon.com: WebsiteOutlook value: $75 million. Market cap: $33 billion.
• Ebay: WebsiteOutlook value: $134 million. Market cap: $33 billion.
• Mediabistro: WebsiteOutlook value: $459,000. Sold for $23 million. Then again, [joke].

[via Mental Floss]

Back when Calacanis' Weblogs Inc was competing for traffic and attention with Gawker Media, Jason basically led to the creation of Gawker Comments. Our publisher, Nick Denton, never cared for comments. Too much noise. Too many amateurs. Spam. But Calacanis' Engadget had comments, and they helped that site's traffic. "A blog is not a blog without comments," Jason used to say. Now, though?

Why should we all build our homes and give residence to the trolls under them? Comments on blogs inevitably implode, and we all accept it under the belief that "open is better!" Open is not better. Running a blog is like letting a virtuoso play for 90 minutes are Carnegie Hall, and then seconds after their performance you run to the back Alley and grab the most inebriated homeless person drag them on stage and ask them what they think of the performance they overheard in the Alley. They then take a piss on the stage and say "F-you" to the people who just had a wonderful experience for 90 or 92 minutes. That's openness for you... my how far we've come! We've put the wisdom of the deranged on the same level as the wisdom of the wise.

Hah. An about-face! Look what YOU ANIMALS did to him! Jason Calacanis is gone off the net, like so many others before him, because commenters are mean. And also homeless and drunk. From the wisdom of crowds to, as Jason later says: "For the record, crowds are really frackin' stupid and to put your stock in crowds is about as bright as putting your faith in a dictator." Harsh! But definitely in tune with the current internet zeitgeist.

Because he's not the only one! Emily Gould shut off comments! Most Tumblrs are comment-free!

But the personal blog comment-retreat comes too late, as most professional outlets, like print magazines and newspapers, now allow comments everywhere. And they're nearly all terrible! Even when they're heavily moderated, as they are at the New York Times, the signal-to-noise ratio seems to get worse every day. What the hell is to be done? Some Gawker Media editors semi-regularly express their barely hidden desire to BAN EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU and go back to the glorious olde days of undemocratic blogging-as-broadcasting, not as conversation. We're sure that sentiment exists at every media outlet that currently hosts the unhinged rantings of conspiracists and cranks.

But the genie's out of the bottle. Commenters are here. And the internet does seem, these days, to belong to them. Treat her kindly. We'll just keep posting funny pictures for you to riff on.

By his count, blogs actually beat the Times in Google results. But someone else beat both of them:

Wikipedia, which was only one year old in 2002, ranks higher today on four of the five news stories: 12th for Chinese exports, fifth for oil prices, first for the Iraq war, fourth for the mortgage crisis and first for the Virginia Tech killings.

Winer predicted a news environment "changed so thoroughly that informed people will look to amateurs they trust for the information they want." Nisenholtz expected the professional media to remain the authoritative source for "unbiased, accurate, and coherent" information.

Instead, our most trusted source on the biggest news stories of 2007 is a horde of nameless, faceless amateurs who are not required to prove expertise in the subjects they cover.

Long Bet Winner: Weblogs vs. The New York Times [Cadenhead]

I, (your name or handle here, unless it contains a year other than your birth year, the word "sux," or the number 69 — in these cases you're not yet ready for the pledge), pledge that:

I will never comment on a blog saying "Why do we care?" because if I don't care, I can go away from the blog. Instead I will sit back and have a good five-minute think about my life.

I will not sign up to Twitter or a blog just to write "I am getting my hair done" or other inanities. Every message I write will be entertaining and/or informative; e.g. "Getting a beehive hairdo so I won't fit under the parking garage clearance pole" or "I am on fire, please assist me." (Note: The latter is appropriate only if my hair is, in reality, on fire.)

I will not consider meeting people off the Internet "creepy," because look at me, I'm normal and I answered the Craigslist ad and here I am in the front of the bar alone, looking over my shoulder like a criminal, waiting for my Craigslist date.

I will only add up to one application per month on Facebook. This application will not be a zombie maker, werewolf maker, "top friends" maker, or anything that serves no purpose and is not, again, entertaining and/or informative.

I will hand my Yelp posts to a friend who works in writing or editing, and I will ask them to rip it to shreds, because I am not an awesome writer but in fact a terrible breezy writer. If I am a regular contributor to McSweeney's Internet Tendency, I will now stop writing ANYTHING on the Internet and will now back away from the keyboard.

I will trick people into seeing Goatse, because that is funny and will never not be funny.

I will not comment on YouTube.

I will not add a signature to my forum posts that is more than half the length of my average post. I will definitely not put ASCII art in my signature, because I recognize that 1993 is over and the Internet has pictures.

After one year of commenting on other people's work without producing any of my own, I will produce some work and allow others to comment on it. I am allowed to then lash out at my commenters, but I acknowledge that that polemic will become my only well-known work.

My new blog's title and tagline will not contain these words: random, musings, "just some thoughts," "my crazy/demented/unique brain", or by Perez Hilton.

I will not invite a "friend" on Facebook if I've never actually communicated with them, even if "we share like 15 friends so I guess it's time we connect." Instead I will wait until I meet these people socially, or get my friends to set us up on a blind date because let's admit it, that's all I really want.

I will never leave a comment expressing adulation or criticism in three or fewer words, unless I am doing so in an altogether unique way. "FAIL" is not a unique way. Neither is "LOLzers."

Photo by Getty Images. Nick Douglas writes at Valleywag and Too Much Nick. He pledges to the above, except for the bit about "LOLzers."