Ok, I get little rss feeds from my Google homepage.

And this link popped up.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/25/lindsay-lohan-released-from-jail-after-posting-bail/

It is obviously important.

And I am reading the so called story, and there is a link about her nails. And a secret message(to somebody), and here is the link...

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/07/08/the-lindsay-lohan-how-to-guide-ensure-no-one-takes-your-apologies-seriously/

I don't get it.

And where did the link for uploading pics go to?

You're interested in washed out actors and their nail polish?

No, washed up media outlets.

It's kinda cool watching the complete and total collapse of an industry or company while it's happening, during the process.

The topic of the thread was not about the subject of the Time articles, it was about Time.

We can only imagine the desperate moves and gasps of buggy makers and buggy whip makers after cars were invented. This we can watch while it happens.

Kind of like watching the gay marriage opponents.

When was Time in its prime? I suspect it might have been before I was born, because I never really "got" it--at best it was the magazine I read in the waiting room at doctors' offices because it was slightly more interesting than People or Entertainment Weekly or...whatever the alternatives usually were.

I ask because "washed up" implies that it was a good read at some point.

Then again, while growing up about the only magazine I'd have been eager to read (that was likely to show up in a waiting room) was Discover, or Scientific American, or maybe Popular Mechanics. I suppose my tastes have broadened a little bit since then.

It's always been a pretty popular magazine, especially with the Time, Man of the Year nonsense and all that.

I never much liked it.

Time Magazine was somewhat relevant yet in the 60's and 70's, but quickly slid into just another liberal p.o.s rag.

Time Magazine was somewhat relevant yet in the 60's and 70's, but quickly slid into just another liberal p.o.s rag.
Please! This liberal thinks it's a piece of trash too. Find some other ideological group to assign it to.

No, I don't think so.

It was common to hear the phrase, "Time and Newsweek" or "Newsweek and Time", in the 70s. Referring at the time to the two leading weekly news magazines.

I am sure we could all argue on how far back we could go to the point when Time was first irrelevant.

Time was the first weekly news magazine. There were critics back in the twenties that called it fluff.

I would point the finger at irrelevance, when you have three successive years of 30+% attrition in circulation. 1/3 gone, 1/3 gone, and 1/3 even still gone.

And what is left is an online webblog that has articles about Lohan's nails. It did not take a whole lot of dead trees to get that message out, at least.

Please! This liberal thinks it's a piece of trash too. Find some other ideological group to assign it to.

Gratz on thinking Time is a piece of trash Panama, regardless it is still a liberal biased rag.

Will call Time a progressive rag if re-branding it makes you feel better.

I am sure we could all argue on how far back we could go to the point when Time was first irrelevant.

I would nominate the jump the shark moment for Time when in 1974 they spun off thier 'people' section into a separate (and loathesome) magazine.

Sunny

Gratz on thinking Time is a piece of trash Panama, regardless it is still a liberal biased rag.

Will call Time a progressive rag if re-branding it makes you feel better.



I would nominate the jump the shark moment for Time when in 1974 they spun off thier 'people' section into a separate (and loathesome) magazine.

Sunny
Bleh, that's even worse.