GMontag's Journal: The slop from the date post

The followinf is the "slop" from the end of an earlier post. A more concise rebuttal is over there.

Looks like I got an article out of it too, but mine cost $38.00 and change with tip, she got paid for hers. If her article had never been posted with me included I really would not have had anything to say in my journal about the "date" I had with the author, nor the antics that followed, other than telling people about her well crafted articles. I certainly would not have had enough material to tie the other two encounters into a story of decent length. Also, if she had written an accurate article I would not have much to complain about, other than the misrepresentation of her intentions and ethical issues with her method.

Note: I did go through my e-mail archives to check accuracy of my recollections and any detail that was correct and in an e-mail is correct here. Also, I first assumed when glancing through her article, that the discrepancies were a "disguise" of my identity.

After writing my post and reading her article in a bit more detail, I failed to see how changing both mine and the author's shirt and boots, then pretending it was a coincidence that the fictional versions "matched" added anything to a "non-fiction" story. It certainly made for a colorful story, but one that did not actually happen. Add in the "hybrid" business and everything else, the only thing left is Kinko's, at a stretch.

Actually, using the updated profile information, calling me "Shooter" and the "black stompers" detail caused me to be recognized more easily. Several folks e-mailed me asking if I had read the article and if it was me or someone I knew with a hybrid! (the ones who did not mention hybrid missed that in the story and one person, who should know better, asked if I had bought one) Sent them this JE.

My main concern was that people from the office not know I was in the article.

Added a "bit more detail above" after a lady-friend of mine e-mailed asking why I never whistled when we were out. Had to go back and look at the author's work. Nope, no whistling by me, nor by others at The Capital Grille. Also, no screeching, shrieking. shrill tones or other synonyms for whistle emitted from any patron while I was there, including the time the author was there. I offered the location as a quiet enough place to speak and hear each other and get martinis, as I thought was her want. She made the final selection of location.

Leaving my name and employer out of the article is the only thing that accomplished hiding my "real world" identity.

What was my real "inspiration"? My Jeep becoming a "hybrid" in her article, of course ;-) Don't be messin' with the Jeep. If I had brought up the "Hydrogen Powered Six-Pack 318 Rallye Charger" I might be able to write a novel. Mentioned below (I think) I almost passed out when I saw that line.

After the article posted I did write the editor and say thanks for disguising my identity, but I had no idea how my "hydrogen powered Jeep" became a "hybrid", they never replied.

[another at-request addition of sorts]

Would you people, ESPECIALLY THE LADIES, stop e-mailing me about how I should react and just post to the Journal? It is real easy, get a slashdot account and post unless you become a "foe".

Folks who are contacting me privately: no matter how much you want me to be, I am not mad, fuming or furious. When I saw the first paragraph I did the "what?" thing, then I paged down and laughed my butt off at the "hybrid" thing. Yes, almost passing out. I really did think she was smart until then. I was calling her the ONLY smart Ivy Leaguer I had ever been out with (vs. Cornell and Columbia). Maybe if it had been accurate and I had not been told it was being published I could be mad, but I went directly to laughter at the author.

Edit: I am reminded via e-mail that I should have been saying "only the SECOND smart Ivy Leaguer", by a good friend, former date, who now counts as the only smart Ivy Leaguer in my experience.

No, I am not going to send another e-mail, nor any snail-mail to the editor (it does not matter in the slightest to them anyway). 28 June 2006: Well, I did send e-mail to both editor addresses and the author noting the inaccuracy of the bits of the story I was involved in and a couple of other comments. I seriously doubt that it matters, but I should keep the high ground and be fair.

Please stop talking about eyeballs and scratching, no matter how much you may or may not know that I like a good catfight (see several Hitchens JE here from a couple of years ago).

The *story* was slightly more accurate than anything Jayson Blair ever wrote, save the Kinko's passage (makes it approach accuracy in a way), which was open to interpretation, and she did actually meet me for real. Kinko's was not a political statement, just a statement about arrogance here vs. there. Who knows, she may be entertaining thousands at the NYT in a few weeks or at the desk of a Kinko's?

[/another at-request addition of sorts]

Found a fact! No, two! Yes, I am a NASCAR fan and I shoot. End of list. "stock-car racing" lover is a bit much, but I am a fan. The Rush Limbaugh detail is incorrect as *I* did not even know that I was on his website before the author and I went out. That detail was added to my profile where noted above, right before I stopped asking her out.

Why the heck did Ariana Cha have to start working in China? She is an honest reporter and quite hot too. (see my *brief* Washington Post interview from 17 April 2001 with photo featuring my baldspot, Guy Montag)

27 June, 2006: I think the details are done, but I need to continue editing for correctness and clairity.

All of the thoughts above are exactly what I was thinking when the events happened.

Eve Fairbanks also writes for The Examiner