A Word From Our Sponsor


Reason Huggies

Last 5 posts by Patrick Non-White



  1. Nigel  •  May 8, 2013 @8:19 am

    Heh.. one of my local newspapers has that scheme going on. The other day I got to read a few sentences then had to click a few things only to discover it was hiding about 3 sentences.


  2. SPQR  •  May 8, 2013 @8:19 am

    Now that's hilarious.

  3. Xmas  •  May 8, 2013 @8:35 am

    Of course, if you register with them, you don't see the ads…but what sort of loony wants to be tied to a libertarian magazine sponsored by the Koch Brothers.

  4. John David Galt  •  May 8, 2013 @8:40 am

    Is it? Why bother? It just makes Patrick look like a bigger baby than the target audience.

  5. different Jess  •  May 8, 2013 @8:41 am

    That's a truly obnoxious scheme. And then after all that Doherty's article was insipid. Having "liberal" politics means you shouldn't seek remuneration for your work? That's about as insightful as telling me that my opposition to many government programs means I shouldn't drive on the highways. And what was Ani DiFranco doing there? She didn't like the terms available in corporate employment, so she started her own business, and Reason is criticizing that? Is entrepreneurship only for non-tattooed deodorant-using men?

  6. Ken White  •  May 8, 2013 @8:42 am


  7. Patrick Non-White  •  May 8, 2013 @8:45 am

    A private message between me and a couple of others that had to be delivered in this format.

    Please treat it, as I think Hugo Black described the Ninth Amendment, as an inkblot.

  8. naught_for_naught  •  May 8, 2013 @8:47 am

    JC! You delete my comment that asks a question in earnest about this image? HC!

  9. Orphan  •  May 8, 2013 @8:49 am

    Right click, view page source, read anyways…

  10. David  •  May 8, 2013 @8:50 am

    @naught_for_naught: Click on the image, and you'll see your comment. It appears we both commented on the wrapper page around the image rather than on the post itself.

    Call us clickhappy.

  11. naught_for_naught  •  May 8, 2013 @8:53 am

    Thanks David. I guess this is all the push I need to actually get some work done today. Shovin' off.

  12. Jim  •  May 8, 2013 @9:04 am

    It's blocked in Firefox 20.1 using AdBlock Plus. Just saying.

  13. Patrick Non-White  •  May 8, 2013 @9:12 am

    naught, if you click around for a bit, you'll find your comment. I've done nothing to it.

    As with "Where's Waldo," you might be surprised at its location.

    Think of the Purloined Letter.

  14. Windypundit  •  May 8, 2013 @9:35 am

    Patrick, Two comments: First, well-done rage post. You kept it simple. Kudos. Second, if you're going to keep this up, I think you need to get a graphics tablet. Works better than a mouse for entering handwriting.

  15. sorrykb  •  May 8, 2013 @9:56 am

    Windypundit suggested:

    I think you need to get a graphics tablet. Works better than a mouse for entering handwriting.

    I disagree. I think the mousewriting perfectly captures the crazy. :-)

  16. Jack B.  •  May 8, 2013 @10:07 am

    Fuck you and your black Jacket, Gillespie

    Isn't addressing Gillespie and his jacket as separate entities considered redundant? Sort of like saying, "Fuck you, Carnage, and that symbiotic suit of yours."

  17. different Jess  •  May 8, 2013 @10:27 am

    On this site, Jack, entities will be fucked separately.

  18. MZ  •  May 8, 2013 @11:09 am

    You have to wonder why they bother. Ignoring the whole adult diaper problem, presumably a huge portion of users will just click randomly so they can continue reading. How can the results have any possible validity?

  19. Kay  •  May 8, 2013 @11:48 am

    Because the point is to make you think about Huggies diapers, not survey you.

  20. John David Galt  •  May 8, 2013 @11:54 am

    @Jack B: I took it as an L.A. version of "you and the horse."

  21. Canonical  •  May 8, 2013 @11:59 am

    Rage written on a page called Rage On. It's really very meta when you thing about it. Or, perhaps, that's the cold medication talking. *goes back to really looking at her hand.*

  22. Laura  •  May 8, 2013 @12:55 pm

    I think the diaper questions are "Google Consumer Surveys": http://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/home. I found a third-party blog article on it here: http://www.medianama.com/2013/04/223-google-consumer-survey-marketers/

    Disclaimer: I work for Google but hadn't heard of this product before reading news articles about it, and I have no inside knowledge of it. We have become a Big Company.

  23. Pete  •  May 8, 2013 @1:51 pm

    Patrick broke Reason. Wait till Biggus Dickus hears of this!

    PING reason.com ( 56 data bytes
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 0
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 1
    Request timeout for icmp_seq 2

  24. mojo  •  May 8, 2013 @2:35 pm

    I, personally?

    Never, I'd say. They hadn't been invented when I was using such things.

  25. Daniel Neely  •  May 8, 2013 @3:20 pm

    I had to turn off my ad blocker before I saw what Patrick was raging about…

  26. naught_for_naught  •  May 8, 2013 @3:43 pm

    naught, if you click around for a bit, you'll find your comment. I've done nothing to it.

    I had hoped for once that the source of my frustration wouldn't trace back to me, but alas I am the perp one more time. (Deep sigh) Thanks for the clue, Patrick.

  27. me  •  May 8, 2013 @3:52 pm

    Well, that's not nearly as bad as when The Atlantic ran that "article" about Scientology.

  28. Nobody  •  May 8, 2013 @5:33 pm

    @me: Were they selling diapers then, too?

  29. Zac Morris  •  Jun 19, 2013 @6:55 pm

    Yeah, you should totally do this for Popehat, but with questions about Ponies…