As you "astute" observers that are referred here from his site have clearly
not noticed, I had completely dropped interest in
that whole
David Thorne debacle eight months ago.
So it was to my great surprise that just today I read this comment from the article
Can I Pay for this with Fake Comedy?:
I would like to thank
trk for his (or her!) input on the matter. I thought that my
original article would have sealed the deal, but apparently a lot of you don't believe plainly obvious things. So here, for your own assessment, are the two pages in question:
The original picture of a shirtless man, sans writing. (
Screen shot).
The modified picture (the fifth one from the top) on Mr. Thorne's own site. (
Screen shot).
Update (2009-09-10): Mr. Thorne has been so sufficiently embarrassed that he's removed the Belly Messages page, replacing it with his parody of me! I'm flattered, but spoken for, Mr. Thorne.
You can see that I've included links to screen shots of the two pages. "But Scott, why would you waste your time doing this?", I'm sure you ask yourself. It is because David Thorne will
remove or change anything on his site that demonstrates inaccuracy!
@trk: If you have any other insight, clues, or would like to share how you came accross this little jewel of a half-nude man, please email me at the address on the left side of the screen! Perhaps I'll throw in a
Quality Mintred T-Shirt to sweeten the deal!
And to all of you wonderful David Thorne fans with an IQ low enough not to understand my articles, but high enough to use a computer:
Suck it. For all your talk of my being pompous, an asshole, retarded, racist, and so-forth, I am still right and David Thorne is Faking You Out.©±Θ®™
Update (2009-08-24): trk has responded in the comments section below, thusly:
It appears he is correct! The
root of the site says so.
Unless perhaps a deceased gentleman is writing messages on his stomach and emailing them from the grave. If this is the case, we should set John Edward upon it!
Oh, and this spurred my interest a bit:
Not because I wanted to purchase it, of course. But it made me think, "Wouldn't litigation be more of a concern with a book, rather than a website, as then the publisher would share some liability in a legal proceeding? I mean, who wouldn't want to get their hands on the pocketbook of a big-time publisher like Conde Nast or Random House, rather than a website with just enough revenue to run a server?"
It was then that I hovered over the link and saw this:
Cafepress. And the world made sense to me again! Except, of course, the part about the litigation. Perhaps the stories that did not make it to the web site are all about
Ally McBeal? Or
Law & Order: CSI fan fiction?
If anyone has purchased the book and actually read it (or had their literate friends read it to them), please do let me know about that mysterious missing content! It almost has me scintillated enough to buy one myself, OMG LOLCATS5000!