<http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/magazines/playgirl_goes_all_outonline_only_90779.asp>
can anyone explain to moi why such -er- wildlife magazines are
invariably sold weeks and weeks (two months,in this case) before their
cover date? is it anything like the "200X model cars" going on sale
in approximately "September 200[X-1]" ? Me, I prefer it if postmarks
on letters are actually for the date the envelope entered the
mailstream, or at least was collected; dates reflecting the current
calendar, stuff like that.
manly hopelessly conventional panda
I love some of the comments on that page:
"Yes, porn can... nay, must thrive on the internet! So long as some
lonely housewife or gay guy needs to see a "rocker's" oiled up,
Photoshopped package, Playgirl will be there!
Wait, there are other porn sites? Really?
Oh, sorry Playgirl. You are screwed."
d
On Aug 6, 9:10 am, David Gartner <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:25:03 GMT, Dennis Lewis wrote:
> > Playgirl is becoming a "webazine" after the January/February issue
> > hits newsstands on November 18.
>
> > <http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/magazines/playgirl_goes_all_out...>
> On Aug 6, 9:10 am, David Gartner <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 00:25:03 GMT, Dennis Lewis wrote:
>>> Playgirl is becoming a "webazine" after the January/February issue
>>> hits newsstands on November 18.
>>
>>> <http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/magazines/playgirl_goes_all_out...>
>>
>> I love some of the comments on that page:
>>
>> "Yes, porn can... nay, must thrive on the internet! So long as some
>> lonely housewife or gay guy needs to see a "rocker's" oiled up,
>> Photoshopped package, Playgirl will be there!
>>
>> Wait, there are other porn sites? Really?
>>
>> Oh, sorry Playgirl. You are screwed."
> Turns out a large minority of readership of these magazines are gay
> men.
Wow, where did you hear that? I've never heard that before.
> Its men have an active interest in other mens genitalia.
they had full frontals on Cosmopolitan magazine for some while ---
many years ago [dim memory] as I rememer it was removed because the
genitalia were seen as offensive to the female readership.
http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/burt.jpg
a much younger than today burt reynolds
though yr panda remembers a poster of Bullwinkle J Moose ("eat your
heart out, burt reynolds!") in the same pose
chemist by day, panda by night
Pretty much that - it gives wiggle time at the beginning, and makes
the issue look not outdated if it sits a bit.
--
What use was it having all that money if you could never sit still
or just watch your cattle eating grass?
- Alexander McCall Smith, _The No.1 Ladies' Detective Agency_
> speaking of *cosmo*, here's the photo that got 'em going:
>
> http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/burt.jpg
>
> a much younger than today burt reynolds
I don't see anything wrong with that photo, personally.
da "much more hair than today, too" vid
nor me, other than being a tad heavy on the sepia tones
> da "much more hair than today, too" vid
hey, I know ALL about that one too
manly receding hairline panda
I detest all this shaving today. It's so gay!
And Burt had pretty legs and feet, too.