smallbanner.gif (1847 bytes)
September 10, 1998

Weekly Week article called confusing, is run anyway

WALTHAM— A reporter, yesterday, who identifies himself by name, said, "I’m not sure what you mean. I think it’s more of an issue of comprehension, rather than understanding."

In response to questioning, the local fire marshal answered, "Yes, I think that is a bit impertinent. No, I don’t think this quote would make any sense in the context of your story."

Deven Kent, who was upset by this misappropriation of fact, had this to say in his letter of complaint: "Sincerely, Deven Kent," and "As a concerned member of the community ... and ... comprehension ... yes ... how did you ... Dear Weekly Week."

Jelly Ga-g, who works at an un-re-named fast food restaurant, had commented, "Yeah, I saw that. What ... you wrote it? Get the fuck out of here before I call the cops."

The reporter, who is a self-described follower of Marshall McLuhan, wrote, "It’s that the medium is not just the message!" He later admitted that he thought "medium" and "massage" were both good ideas, in and because of themselves.

A spokesperson for the Weekly Week refused to comment, but in a misdirected rebuttal said, "We have to print his articles. His father owns a lot of stock."

Dan Robbbeensn from the ACLU (an anecdote for the American Civil Libraries Union), said, "No, of course it’s not illegal. We’re all about protecting people’s right to say whatever they want to say. But this sounds like listening to one end of a phone conversation." Robbbeensn later admitted that one of the things he thought it was good to protect was the word "fuck," and that he doesn’t even have a phone.

Clinical psychiatrist Ana Windover described the article as "poorly written." After declining the offer of tea, she added, "The writer of this article could have been severely beaten ‘in a state of youth’... No, really, I’m fine, I don’t want any tea." She denied that her only reason for comment was to clear her own name.

lowernav.gif (10023 bytes)