• Rob Spectre
  • 20
  • Jul
  • 08
This entry is part 12 of 7 in the series Male Gods Are Dangerous

Folks have been writing in questioning our resolve. “Have you forgotten so soon?” they shout. Crying allegations of betrayal, they wonder if we have abandoned our campaign against the hippies. Where the latest front of this conflict erupted – the spot where we, the pure, visited this war on their doorsteps – all seems silent. They look upon the fascist wasteland where Jeri Studebaker’s blog once stood and ask if we are finished.

“Have we finished?” we reply. “Have we even begun?”

Two weeks have passed since we caught the hippie New Age “author” Jeri Studebaker stealing Daniel’s photos. Over a brief three day blitzkrieg, the global (d)N0t crew descended upon her dainty bullshit blog and sowed the kind of rhetorical scorched earth policy that still burns the packets that pass it by. Producing a singular, twisted victory, Studebaker resorted to fascist censorship in an effort to cover up her intellectual dishonesty.

Folks from our camp have visited her blog in the days since, only to have everything but affirming posts from her deluded followers deleted. The fine supporters of our cause have written in asking if we were satisfied with this win. Was turning this unsuspecting thief into all she claims to hate subversive enough to satisfy justice?

Enough is never enough for the truly gonzo. Worry not flame fans, for we have merely tendered our targeting towards vicious.

1) Future

As we’ve warned numerous times, it appears that Studebaker is spewing a work of unquestionable illegitimacy this fall. Already posted on Amazon, the book is on pre-order until its publication until September.

Conveniently, Amazon has a forum available for every item in its inventory. This forum is intended to facilitate the exchange of pertinent information between consumers so they may make an informed purchase decision. This forum, most importantly, cannot be censored.

We’ve already started a thread about her intellectual dishonesty, which will remain with the book for as long as it is sold. Everyone trying to buy her pooprag pulp self-help hippie hooplah will get to read what we have to say about it.

By all means, help yourselves.

When will this crazy hippie woman learn?

When will this crazy hippie woman learn?

2) Present

Having had her fill apparently of Flickr after our careful readers alerted staff and photographers of her thievery, it seems our darling Jeri found another website to steal from. StockXpert.com is a great service for small budget publications as they provide micro-pay or subscription pricing for a load of quality stock photos royalty free.

Here’s where the enemy commits the tragic error. Evidently, radical goddesses believe “royalty free” means “take whatever the fuck you want.” Obviously, this is not so. The photos are not free at all, just available for a very small fee with a perpetual use license. The photos on her site would only cost a dollar, yet the watermark on the photos betrays her theft.

Let us refer to StockXpert’s terms of use:

Stockxpert grants You a limited license to download low resolution watermarked images to test if they suit your purposes, but You are not allowed to use them in any final material. You must download and replace these images with their non-watermarked high resolution version in the final work.

Clearly oblivious to the conditions of the website, Studebaker even goes so far as to thank the gracious photographer she’s stealing from, saying “thnx to windowseat for making this foto open for all to use and see.”

I’m sure Windowseat really appreciates you ganking the photo without paying for it, jackhole. Though we’ve already taken the liberty of notifying stockxpert.com of the infringement, extra voices can’t hurt. Hook it up here.

3) Past

Among the wreckage of our first skirmish is our adversary’s good name. Depending on the time of day, we are between the sixth and eighth result on Google for the search “Jeri Studebaker.” 55 people have come to the site through that route, reading three posts and sticking around on average for 7 minutes. Each person that finds us by looking for her is a glorious victory.

But why stop there? In a recent post on her site, Studebaker lay claim to the invention of a new word while preparing the index for her crappy book.

A few minutes ago, while I was writing the index for Switching to Goddess, this entry just popped out of my pen:

“Dark Ages: Goddesslessness as a cause of”

Never heard nor seen the word “Goddesslessness” before, but it feels useful to me.

Way to go Rear Admiral Cornhole. In addition to making up excuses, lies, and logical fallacies, her enterprising ways have tried to give birth to new language.

Well, we here at (d)N0t are pretty good with the wordsmithing, so after a little research and congress with the other writers, we’ve decided to make up a new word ourselves. This new word is:

Douchethirsty

The definition:

douche-thirst-y [DOOSH-hûrst]

  1. The desire to drink a theraputic fluid commonly used to irrigate vaginas.
  2. A condition caused by repeatedly speaking bullshit remedied by douching one’s own mouth.
  3. Jeri Studebaker
The soon to be rewritten history of Jeri Studebaker

The soon to be rewritten history of Jeri Studebaker

There are currently zero entries in Google for this word. Our plan is to link douchethirsty to Studebaker’s website (http://www.jeristudebaker.com) in as many locations on the internet as possible so that her name is synonymous with our new wonderful word. Forums, blogs, comments, signatures, Facebook profiles are all fantastic places to put this link, letting Google rewrite the history of our language for us, forever linking our enemy to our creation.

You really thought we were done with this? Shit people, this kind of bastardy is not something you can ever turn off.

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati

» You can leave a comment, or trackback from your own site.

Taking Chances with Celine Dion Fans - Rob Spectre, 24 November 2008
Technical Problems with Our Web Host - Rob Spectre, 20 November 2008
The Capital of Belarus is Underwear - Rob Spectre, 26 October 2008
The Future of Journalism - Rob Spectre, 7 May 2009
Four Reasons Google’s “Nuke” is a Dud - Rob Spectre, 9 July 2009
  • 1 CommentClose this window Jump to comment form
    Emily said...
    Hi.

    I know you've been deleting posts in relation to dreamnotoftoday.com and pictures you've used without permission.

    Simply, I'd like to say that even an artist getting 10 hits on their flickr would -still- never want their inspiration used without permission. You would never allow yourself to be quoted out of context? Despite the exposure, they are devoted to their images .. and you still have no legal OR moral right to use them without asking first.

    I respectfully request that you remove the photographs you're using without asking and that you please apologize for the oversight. It's the least you can do.
  • aegis
    Of course, there's also the fun trackback feature that automatically links to this post at the bottom of her post...I'm not saying a word about that...
  • the other mike
    Being a mere midwesterner, I have no idea what the hell a Jeri Studebaker is--environmentally correct transportation?--but if it's "truly gonzo," count me in. And when do we start working to support the sewer plant named for bush?
  • Another from our crew takes Studebaker to task. Evidently "blogs" are now "homes." Seems like she has changed her definition quite dramatically since she last tried to convince us that blogs were "public bulletin boards."

    Awfully convenient that the Internet is public when you need to steal photos and private when someone calls you a thief.

    Anonymous said...
    Do you have a regular job? If not, when is the last time you actually worked full time to make a living? Are you really a hippie? How do you support yourself or do you depend upon the government to provide for you? Just wondering based on what some have written.

    anon,

    Where were you born? In a horse barn? Who taught you to go into a stranger's home and ask them questions such as "When is the last time you actually worked"?

    Don't bother to knock on the door here again until you've picked up some manners.

    anne, I might be in the minority, but here's how I look at it: My weblog is the equivalent of my home. Ya don't invite people into your homes if they're sassy and impolite. You give them at the most a couple of chances, and if the rudeness doesn't stop, you just don't ask them back again. Unless of course you're a masochist.

    With a blog, the equivalent of not inviting someone back to your house is either blocking or deleting them. And since I don't think we can block people on Blogger, the only option left is to delete them.

    If you ever get back to this post again, let me know what you think.
  • By way of updating some of the posts that got censored since our initial outing, here's a great exchange with another photographer that Studebaker stole from:

    The Novice said...

    Please remove immediatly the image of the white bull that you have misused and without my permission.

    You should know that this is ill mannered and I am not happy about your behavour.

    It seems that you have developed a habit of 'nicking' photographs without permission so I urge you to stop this unpleasant practice.

    Please do it now.

    Thank you.

    6:43 AM

    Blogger Athana said...

    What, Novice, you're turning down free advertising?

    At no charge to you, I'm sending hundreds of viewers to your pages at flickr, to view your beautiful photography.

    Of course, if you want to hide your considerable light under a bushel....

    As it is, your photos are hidden away in virtual drawers, where they're seen by a scant handful of other photographers. Again, if that's what you're after, its' your choice. I notice that a total of four have left glowing comments about your bull photo (not counting Warz, who came only to inform you that 100-200 more were seeing it on my blog, and that you should go bananas over that fact).

    I would love to keep your photo on my site. However, there are thousands more that would work just as well in its place. Yours was just one of the first I came across as I was hunting for good work to illustrate one of my posts.

    Rest assured I am making no money from the use of your photo. Although the fact that a publisher asked me to write a book about my blog might suggest to you that I *am* making money from your photo (since I'm now telling my blog readers about the book), there's an extremely weak link between your one photo, and the sales I will make on the book via what I say about it here at RGT. Both I and my publisher will do an immense amount and variety of advertising -- almost none of it on this blog.

    And I by no means use any of the photos on my blog in my book.

    So tell me again: do you want me to delete your foto, and the link I provide to your other photos, which will allow potentially thousands to view not just your bull, but all your photos? If so, I will do so happily. It will give me a chance to look again through all the great photos out there on the internet. Actually, I enjoy selecting the photos for this blog almost than writing the posts themselves.

    Please let me know.

    Warzauwynn said...

    Anatha, don't make it seem like your website had a bigger community than Flickr, that's a ludicrous statement. Flickr is full of thousands of groups for people to find specific types of photos. On top of that, 13 of Margaret's photos have been on the front page of Flickr, so don't talk down to her like she's actually a novice. People love her photos.

    You're also missing the actual point here, so let me spell it out. You are violating copyright. It's that simple. Free advertising or not, you're violating people's boundaries that they have set up for legal use of their photography. It's very unprofessional behavior for a woman who's about to publish her own copyrighted work.

    If you want to use photos like this, the graffiti, the santa clause photo, the fishbowl, etc., you need to actually get permission. There are innumerable photos on Flickr licensed with Creative Commons with Attribution, it's ludicrous that you're even trying to legitimize your behavior in this matter.
blog comments powered by Disqus