?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

More Asimov's

it appears that my sudden interest in the lolita porn rag asimov's is one built upon the sensationalism of journalism. oh, how could i be so bamboozled! yes, thank you, i am here all week, look for me in the cowboy hat tomorrow. anyhow, asimov's has given a reply, which states that the story casting them as an evil mag unfit for your children was, unsurprisingly, last Thursday that was full of distortions, misrepresentations, and omissions.

Comments

( 3 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
ironed_orchid
Feb. 19th, 2004 06:56 pm (UTC)
Well they don't deny the sexual content. They mere deny that they advertise the magazine as suitable for children. They also make a point of mentioning that they are a literary magazine (which we all know is a secret code for drugs and deviant sex).
benpeek
Feb. 19th, 2004 07:12 pm (UTC)
Re:
the article (dunno if your ead it or not) described that it was full of 'panties being taken off, panties, and white socks,' or some such thing, and they are sort of denying that. but mostly i was just having a bit of fun--having read issues of asimov's, i think it's largely boring and fit for children, though most likely they wouldn't find it interesting either. the idea that someone would get into a spin over it is a bit silly.
ironed_orchid
Feb. 19th, 2004 08:52 pm (UTC)
Re:
I read both the articles.
I just don't see Asimov explicitly denying that the story in question appeared. I do see them denying that their magazine is being promoted as suitable for children.

However, it may have been implicitly suggested in the first (shock horror) article that this story was representative of Asimov's general content.
( 3 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )