This just in:

According to one visitor to the site, Scary-Crayon is "like the site of a fifteen-year-old kid." That visitor found it "disturbing" that the site would belong to a "grown man."

Would anyone who's read the site care to e-mail me some comments on that one? (Make sure to replace "-at-" with the "@" symbol.) I'd be interested in hearing what you've got to say, whether you're a fan of what we do here at SC or not. I honestly don't know where to begin to respond to a comment like that. Certainly I can't say anything really substantial by way of reply, since it's not that kind of comment. But let's see. My rejoinder:

SC is "like the site of a fifteen-year-old kid," you say? Possibly. I did have a site up when I was fifteen, and it did resemble SC in more than a few ways. Also, Meighan was part of the "staff" on that one too, so yes, SC may very well be "like the site of a fifteen-year-old kid." Your point being...?

Thank you.

Given the harsh and thorough criticism to which we subject certain media at SC -- here the reader singled out the Oprah article -- the person who made that comment also submits the following oh-so-novel wisdom: "You have to look at trash to know treasure."

I'm not sure that I disagree with this point entirely -- as worded -- but the real point that the reader seems to be suggesting is a bit different. No one who actually read the Oprah article, for example, can deny that I looked at the magazine -- on the contrary, I probably examined that single issue of the magazine with more scrutiny than my mother (who is a subscriber) has given to all of the issues delivered to the house in her name. I will admit, however, that I did not even open the December 2003 issue -- the review of which will be appearing on the site in a week or two -- but found enough stupidity on the cover alone to fill an article. I do not pretend that I read the issue; hence that review will be called a magazine cover review. But again, I certainly looked at it.

But perhaps this reader really means to say, "One must look for trash to know treasure" -- which I don't agree with at all. If you only look for trash -- and endeavor to be successful in your task, and look in all of the right places -- then you will only find trash, so you really won't know treasure at all. Occasionally I go looking for trash, but it is not "to know treasure" -- it is to know trash, and to treat it like trash, and to urge others to avoid it and to throw it away. But if trash is what you really seek, then by all means you should love SC -- with the Oprah article alone, for example, I've done your work for you. If you want trash, go snag a copy from the rack at your local supermarket. Victory!

But there may be another interpretation to the person's comment, which follows: "One must look at trash and treat it as treasure." This is really what I think that the reader meant to say. How else would one believe that one has gained knowledge of treasure by fondling trash? Why else would one criticize us at SC for calling trash "trash"? These are not difficult questions to answer. "One must look at trash to know treasure" is the response of morons self-proclaimed "intellectuals" who think that they're conveying great wisdoms by spouting senseless cliches. It is also the response of persons who not only actively seek out trash, but don't really believe that it's trash that they've found. Why else would they attempt to defend themselves -- and the trash -- by offering up "lofty" platitudes in reply?

If you find me flipping through a copy of "O, The Oprah Magazine", and say, "Bloody hell, Wes, what are you reading??? That magazine is trash!!!" rest assured I will not respond by saying, "One must look at trash to know treasure."

I'll say, "Bloody right it is!" and add, "I'm reviewing it for SC."

Welcome to Scary-Crayon: Where we call trash by name.