He’ll be calling himself a feminist in no time.


I think a suspension (how long?) is appropriate, even if at all just for sending a message to the wrong person. But let's say she was the intended target of his DMs, should that be a career-ender? Do we have other options in our society than for people to atone?

Personally, I think Jane comes of as 1) definitively not traumatized 2) petty and retaliatory. I'm sure she's advancing her career by making this as public and refusing to accept an immediate apology and offer to amends. Wrongs don't make rights, and anyhow, the sublimation between his act and her response will become so mixed that the distinction can't be made.


What a nasty woman. She could have dealt with it some other way. And they were lamenting the sad affairs of journalists too. The irony.
At four am, it’s easy to not notice who the text is for. Wonder who it was for. He spelt cum wrong, it’s come.


He should have said it was for an anonymous post to Savage Love.


wtf? He apologized as soon as she told him it was inappropriate. That should have been the end of it right there. But she demands he tell his wife and delete his account? It's none of her fucking business. He'd already apologized and said he sent it to the wrong person. Unless she's got some reason not to believe him she just sounds like an asshole.


Ok, so obviously this guy is in the wrong. He said some stupid shit. Honestly, it didn't even make sense in context which is why I thought maybe he did actually send it by mistake. But even if he did, he's in the wrong.
So let's ruin his entire life, his marriage, his career and treat him worse than Trump, simply for saying something highly inappropriate.
An eye for an eye right?


This is the world we live in. Same scarlet letters, different justifications.


It's way too late in the game for you to be disturbed, Herhog. You need to stay on the absolutist side of the fence, or you too should be made the subject of a witch hunt. Remember the way McCarthyism works: if you aren't all in, you are out.


Well at least he didn’t end the conversation with “baby it’s cold outside“.


Talia Jane sounds like a very vindictive and unpleasant woman.


Oh. Come on. (Pun intended). Fuck this guy.

It doesn’t matter if it’s “accidental” or not. It’s not even the potential sexism or appropriateness. Anyone in 2019 who has a job that relies on digital communications and exists purely on public good will and does something this god damned stupid, something so preventable and basic? Fuck him.

He’s not Joe Schmoe in an anonymous job. He’s a public figure with a byline.
I would fire him if he worked for me. No employer whose business relies on public trust needs the aggravation of someone this dumb.

At best? An incompetent idiot. At worst a creeper asshole. So. Sorry. No. There’s no room for these people anymore. As a journalist he should know that people are gunning for you.

He fucked up. He won’t starve. But nobody owes him a journo gig if he doesn’t understand that basic fact of existing as a defacto public figure in 2019. There are a hundred better smarter reporters out there desperate for a good gig.


@2: "I'm sure she's advancing her career by making this as public and refusing to accept an immediate apology and offer to amends."

I doubt it. Because who is going to want to associate with such a vindictive person? Professionally or otherwise. Everyone makes mistakes from time to time. And if I can't just move on with an explanation and/or apology, my best move would just be to steer clear.


"If what we do outside of work doesn’t impact our performance at work, why should it be the boss’s business?"

Really? So you could deal drugs on the side and if you are still a good writer and meet the deadlines, who cares?

How about this one (which is true). You're the lead for teaching about racial issues in a teaching setting. You do a pretty good job despite not getting all the help/support you think you need for your job. However, in your off-hours on Twitter and other social media as well as your own blog, you disparage educators and administrators as well as headquarters staff that you think are "racist" and part of a "racist" organization.

This person isn't saying this AT work but their colleagues probably might have something to say about his/her efficacy (not to mention having to sit in a room with him/her knowing, by his/her own measure, that she thinks half the room is racist). What then?


Wait. This is confusing. Reading more on this. There is definitely more than being reported here.

These were not “text” messages in the sense of requiring a phone number like iMessage or SMS but through Twitter’s own proprietary DM system and only requiring a Twitter handle? Right?

So it’s super unlikely he was “sexting” through Twitters DM. Or is that a thing people do now?

People “sext” through Twitter? Because, though I realize I’m old, but for fuck sake that is even stupider. Sexting through a platform that is clearly not remotely private and owned by Facebook has got to be the dumbest dumb thing ever. If that’s what he was doing. I can’t even.


@14 I would assume breaking the law is an exception that most people already understood.


Bad analogy 14. Depends on the drugs, I guess.

The dude who dressed up as a burrito and drank way too much tequila pulls that stunt. The girl gets her 15 minutes to shine and does all she can to create a larger number of anatomically correct transsexuals.



“He spelt cum wrong, it’s come.”

Oh dear, does someone want to explain this to lavagirl?

Gentlemen, it’s very simple. Never say anything to a lady you’re not romantically committed to that you wouldn’t say to your mother or sister (and if you are willing to say that to your family, you need to move into a different trailer).

Conversely, if a lady you’re not romantically involved with enjoys that kind of talk, she’s probably not a lady.


This is the perfect example of #metoo taken to the extreme where you lose even the people who want to support you.
Girls say stupid shit, they don't lose their jobs and marriage over it.

Next we will be prosecuting construction workers for hollering at girls. I realize it may be wrong, it may be inappropriate. It might even be harassment. But where is the line?
You're at a bar hitting on a girl, everything is going good. You're not her co-worker, you're not her boss. She's into it. Then you say something dirty and wrong, and she gets to post it to social media and ruin your life?
Whatever happened to, screw you get a life and a slap in the face?


More Sirwalterraleigh:
“... and why did they cancel Mattlock! And another thing; those teenagers taunt me for my high-waisted trousers! And. Don’t get me started on that President McKinley!”


@15 where you been the last decade. Where do you think the term "slide into the DM's" comes from?


@12: Not only should she be charged, but if her threat was made across state lines, that should be a federal offense.


If Mike Rosenberg was anything other than the self-proclaimed progressive urbanist that he was on his Twitter feed, you’d all be calling for his head. Even though I disagreed with his politics, I thought he was a damn good journalist. He definitely shouldn’t lose his job over this horseshit.

Mind you, going forward, I wouldn’t want to be in a meeting with him if I was a woman, accidentally catching his eye, and wondering what’s going through his head. Because I think we know now.


I'm glad several previous posters have validated my initial impression that there seems to be something very off-kilter about the woman's reaction. She could have told him to FO and ended the conversation. He held no power over her and she was free to cut off contact with no repercussions.

I like Mike's reporting in SJ and Seattle well enough. If this is the extent of his off-hours transgressions (and who knows, maybe he was a bit drunk doing this), I really hope he doesn't lose everything over something so minor.


Maybe he can get a new position at the Seattle Times writing about love and romance.


There are thousands of reporters who can keep the musings of their boner to themselves. The world doesn't need one who can't. I don't even think he's a bad guy for sending those messages, but like, he's revealed himself to be a PR liability, and if I were one of his female coworkers, I could see being pretty uncomfortable around him.

There are billions of humans on the planet. Surely some of them are better journalists who know how to manage their social media communications better.


@15: People have been sexting in DMs on twitter since the dawn of twitter DMs. Do you not remember Anthony Weiner? Most of his dick pic shenanigans happened on twitter. Which, by the way, is not owned by Facebook.

Katie does make a logical error in her reporting, though. He can't show the proof that he meant to DM someone else since she made him delete his twitter.


Too bad we're all being randomized by this pseudo new story.


@ 12 &n 22, IANAL, but if she isn't asking for something in return, quid pro quo, there's no blackmail, I think.

IDK, I've hit "reply all" when that was a very bad mistake. And no, this is nowhere near Bill Cosby territory at all. But in a world where there is no harassment, this probably gets laughed off as awkward. We don't live there.

And if you'e willing to forgive him for being creepy, why aren't you cutting her slack for busting him?


So I'm saying, if whatever winds up happening to him seems disproportional in your opinion, maybe consider blaming the people who created the context, and not the woman who's evidently HADITUPTOFUCKINGHERE and then some.


@31: “@ 12 &n 22, IANAL, but if she isn't asking for something in return, quid pro quo, there's no blackmail, I think.”

She demanded he give up something which was valuable to him, his Twitter account. He noted giving it up could negatively impact his livelihood, and she still demanded, under threat of exposing his mistake, that he give it up anyway. How was this not extortion?

“And if you'e willing to forgive him for being creepy,”

How is mistakenly sending a message to the wrong person “being creepy”?

“...why aren't you cutting her slack for busting him?”

Because he did everything she demanded of him, and then she went public anyway. Her demands may have been extortion, and her going public was in bad faith — and cruel, to boot.

@32: I do blame the me-too movement in part, but her actions were her own.


@32, right on. I usually don’t run with the torch and pitchfork crowd, but this reporter had all the notice in the world this behavior isn’t cool. At least have the foresight to use a fake Twitter account and not drag your employer into it. Must have been drinking.


Wow. Now that we have talked about him, perhaps we need to talk about Ms. Jane?


I'm with @27. This guy has a very public-facing job, so if he's texting multiple women at the same time, he needs to figure out how to keep professional texts separate from "THERE IS SO MUCH CUM ON YOUR FACE" texts. Surely there are other good writers in the world who aren't massive idiots -- why go to the mat for this guy?


@SirWalterRaleigh you are too fucking stupid to live. There are laws on the books against street harassment and this girl was not in a bar, you FUCKING. MOUTH BREATHING. IDIOT. JESUS.

What a cesspool this group of commenters is.

Should she have gotten him fired? Maybe not. Is she exploiting her "fifteen minutes"? Maybe. On the other hand, men who make this complaint don't seem to understand women don't actually like a bunch of stupid mouthbreathers like the company here knowing their names and observing on their looks and all this shit. Who wants to give idiots like the lot of you the great pleasure of shitting on women for calling out this stuff?

And here's the thing, dicks-in-handers - this guy was talking to a woman he knows wants to write for a living, talked about the field, and then direct messaged something disgusting out of nowhere. Maybe it was an accident, but in a direct message that's a harder mistake to make if you can see someone's avatar.

She reported it b/c odds are she is not the only woman he has something something like this to. Fucking DUH.

I am not sure as to whether I would have felt it necessary to do the same...until I found out six months later he was a serial creep. We don't know yet, but of course, men act as if they do and will say everything from requesting she be jailed to commenting on her ugliness. A brain trust if there ever was one! You should show us dumb broads, fellas!

BTW, Yelp was paying her $12.30. Despite the observation she "could have lived somewhere else" - people go where jobs are. In 2019, a wannabe-writer turning down a social media job at a company like Yelp is very unlikely...but the people that wrote that piece and the assembly of imbeciles here is too stupid to consider that. She wrote about a national urban labor problem.

All of you seriously need to go to Dumbass Island and be segregated from the general population.


@35 - I wasn't surprised by the details in that post. I wouldn't hire her. Way too caustic


@38 Like our mothers said, "don't fuck crazy".

Same goes for hiring them.

"Yelp was paying her $12.30"

@37 Then work 50 hour weeks and get two room mates.


If Rosenberg gets fired, he should hire @12 and @22 to represent him against the Times. Those two clearly understand legal good. Real good!


@40: I’m no lawyer, but I can read:

“Many statutes also provide that any threat to harm another person in his or her career or reputation is extortion.”

I sincere hope our intrepid reporter is talking to the police, including the feds. (And not about his employer.)


I have a deal for all the guys on here: defend Mike Rosenberg without attacking Talia Jane, and i won’t think you’re arguing women should have to put up with being told they have cum on their face by men on the internet. It’s easy. Just don’t call her nasty or ugly or vindictive or opportunistic, and then say stuff like this:

“He meant beautiful in a spiritual way!”

“He meant that text for some other woman he was harassing on twitter!”

“It’s okay for a serious reporter to use his twitter account (that he admitted is part of his professional reputation) to send women errant sexual messages.”

“That wouldn’t be harassment anyway! For it to be harassment, you have to say ‘shit on your face.’ Cum is good! Everyone loves cum! I’ve got cum on my face right now, and I love it!!”


@41 - Pop quiz, legal eagle!! What is the statute in Washington State that defines extortion? How many legal precedents have there been affecting its application? How many revisions has the legislature made to the law in response to legal precedents?

I mean, you so smart and stuff, I bet you know all that and aren’t just doing a litte wishful thinking because you like Mike and hate the wimens.


I don’t get what she trippin’ about, bruh!! “So much cum on your face” is a COMPLIMENT! Everyone knows it means “job well done.” I must get 10, 20, 100 guys DM’ing me that everytime I write a funny tweet.


@43: You can’t do your own research? Google too difficult for you?

Then there’s the little matter of her communication crossing state lines...


@41 - I “sincere [sic]” believe that you can read, but you sure as shit can’t write. Your comments are like a water buffalo performing a bouncy house.


@45 - Okay, so that’s a “no” then? As in: “I have no idea what subchapter of RCW defines extortion, ergo (ooh, latin!) I have no fucking clue as to whether or not what she did meets the legal definition of ‘extortion,’ but I am going to keep on saying stuff like ‘across state lines,’ because I got my law degree from UC(si)LA.” Uh hunh. Cool.


Hey, everybody! I am starting a campaign to free Mike Rosenberg. Sign my petition! He does not deserve to be in jail!! Actually, it’s more an addition to my existing campaign to free the political prisoner of conscience, Matt Hickey, an unjustly accused brave entrepreneur who was trying to empower women by offering them employment. Rosenberg respects women. He doesn’t subscribe to some outdated Victorian sensibility that treats women like precious flowers who faint at the sight of “So much cum on your face.”


“So much cum on your face”

The man has control over English, it is not his second language. Without context, completely out of the blue, I would expect this sentence to be from some foreign Twitter account full of comments about "bobs".

So, for an English speaking person, the only sensical take is that he intended to send that to either a pornstar (who do post pics of that nature on their accounts) or someone he was having an affair with (who sent him a pic of cum on their face).

Both above reasons would give him reason to not wish to tell his wife. But, for this woman who as far as I can tell has not posted a pic of her taking a facial, this and the other dms seem out of place and not at all likely intended for her.

I think she had every right to give him a scare to teach him a lesson on being more careful where his messages wind up and even tell his wife about it. I don't think destroying his career is on par, though.


Cum on your face. Cum on your face. Cum on your face.

Oh, shoot, I’m sorry! I meant to send that to @tensor’s twitter account. I know he can’t ask me to apologize! That’d be ipso facto habeas corpus amicus brief, your honor!!


CRWT, I'm really sorry that you have to deal with this kind of shit on the regular. No one should have to live with these kinds of disturbing, exploitative situations. That said, people fuck up. I've accidentally sent a coworker a, "whatcha up to, huh bun? love ya smoochems", kind of text that was embarassing for both parties before. A similar situation could have totally happened where it was sexual. And, had that occurred, I would be extremely mortified and apologetic.

Like my previous post, what he was telling her screams to me that it wasn't intentional. And, because it didn't seem intentional and because he apologised, the push back that he is getting is not on the same level of his actions. Yes, it was highly inappropriate. Yes, he should be extremely embarrassed and apologize in every way imaginable. No, he shouldn't lose his job. No, he shouldn't have been outed to the public.


@49 - As long as we’re playing syntactic detective (my favorite kind!), his prior two statements were also unsolicited and out of context. One could argue that he twisted her silence into a sign that he could go further, and he decided to try, “There’s so much cum on your face.”


@51 - Let’s review the other aspect of your little supposition. How easy is it to be sexting someone (let’s pretend, just for maximum benefit of the doubt: his wife) in one thread and accidentally wind up in another thread where the last thing you wrote is: “Anyway you’re so hilarious,” get confused, type out “There is so much cum on your face” and press send? And only when a freelamce reporter writes you back do you suddenly realize: oh, shit, that’s not my wife! My wife likes it when I talk to her like a filthy whore! Oh god what have I done?

And then, when freelance reporter says it’s not appropriate, you don’t tell her “I was sexting with my wife.” You don’t even say “I was sexting with someone else.” No, you say it was merely “meant” for someone else, and then you start groveling and offering to make it up to her by donating to NOW like someone who knows he fucked up on purpose.

It takes at least a swipe + a tap + typing + send without glancing three inches up to “accidentally” DM a sext to “someone else.”



I'm with Jane. It's not her responsibility to help him keep his job or help him keep a secret from his wife. She's not destroying his career. He did that by himself.

Anyway, the screenshots suggest he asked for it. Literally he asked for it. After she told him it was inappropriate, he claimed he was trying to message someone else, and she rejected his claim (with a good explanation I think), he wrote, "really, anything I can do I would." That's when she told him what to do.


@52 "his prior two statements were also unsolicited and out of context."

I fully agree, they were equally bizarre and out of nowhere and sounded like he was messaging a pornstar like I stated above.

"One could argue that he twisted her silence into a sign that he could go further, and he decided to try, 'There’s so much cum on your face.'"

See, I'd agree if he had commented on how he wanted to cum on her or do another act but he was making a statement that he was seeing her with cum on her face. At which point, I'll bring up the option that he's one of those creepers who jizz on photos of women. But, I don't know the lingo those guys use either and I'll still lean on this most likely being a case of missext. That, unless further proof us provided, seems to be the most likely scenario. I'd also point out that these kinds of dudes are not one time offenders so if this weren't a mistake I would suspect more people to come forward.


Also, how unsurprising, sadly, that in Katie's detailed retelling, she omitted the reason Jane gave for why she thought he was full of shit when he claimed to have "meant" to text someone else, and she also omitted that part I just pointed out where he offered "anything" he could do.


Speaking of money, it looks like NOW isn't going to get that $1000 from Rosenberg.

I am confident that NOW is not the least bit upset with Jane about that..


@53 I guess I just see that as far too plausible, especially since I did far less and was adequately embarrassed over it. I've also read enough mistake message posts on Reddit to believe that it is an everyday occurance.

If I ever sent someone something like that I'd likely act like an idiot too. Also, you make it seem like I believe he was intending to send sexts to his wife. I don't believe that to be true.

@55 There's a line between not taking responsibility for someone else's actions and actively taking a situation and ensuring another human being loses their job. It might be how the article is written but to me it just seems calculating. Had she taken a less public approach, had she contacted his work and wife individually to allow them to investigate his actions, I feel like this would be less of a grey area.

Wasn't there a similar situation to one of the letters sent to Dan recently?


@57 Well that sounds like a bit of juicy context that I'd be glad to hear.


The Champs. Tequila.

We should totally start posting links to relevant songs like that one dude did.

I mean, I know it’s embarrassing because they’re old and dead and aren’t literally talking about their pussy on Instagram, but let’s bond.

Well played, Rosenberg.

Totally followed by The Tokens.



Shit like this, with Trumpty Dumpty as a perfect example, is why I avoid Twitter altogether.
I know I'm not missing anything good.


@35 The fuck sort of bullshit website did you link to? Why is this blatant spam post even allowed here?



It's in the screen shots, and her twitter account is really interesting. Check it out. Like @32 put it, she "HADITUPTOFUCKINGHERE and then some." But in the explanation I was referring to, she basically said it's implausible that he's mistaking her for someone else if he tells her she's beautiful, gets no response, then tells her she's hilarious, and gets no response for 40 minutes, and then tells her something very explicit and crude. You would know who you are sexting.


@51, 59

I think your mistake is actually kind of cute. I'm getting the sense you're nervous that an innocent mistake like that could irreparably ruin your reputation. But there are some significant differences between what you did and what Rosenberg did. First and second, it was, as you said, far less than what Rosenberg did, and you were adequately embarrassed, and third, you didn't follow up, especially 40 minutes later, with a sexually graphic remark.

I don't think you are in danger.


Sorry, but I actually agree more with sirwalter here.

He sent crude messages.

She told him to stop.

He apologized and said it was a mistake and then he stopped.

AFTER HE STOPPED... She threatened him.

He panicked.

She attempted to destroy him.

Fuck her. I hope HER career is ruined and he just goes along being a stupid dumbass (yes, what he did was stupid. Lots of people do it. He should be briefly publicly humiliated for being a dumbass and then this should be mostly forgotten).


Did she get pissed off after realizing that the "you're beautiful" comment wasn't intended for her? (I googled her photos, cute at best).

I wonder who sexually harassed who in this case. Let's flip it around. A woman accidentally sexted to a wrong man. She tells him it was for somebody else and apologizes but he orders her to tell her husband, delete her account, posts the screenshot publicly and, in addition, shares it with her employer. As she made it clear it wasn't intended for him, should it be treated as a violation of her privacy, blackmail and harassment?


I hope anyone thinking of working with Talia Jane or employing her takes a look at this situation and realizes she’s a mean woman and walks quickly away from her.


@69 - Yes, yes, yes! That is the man lesson here! Thank you for your courage in pointing it out! Women don’t get punished nearly enough for telling guys: it’s not okay to tell me I’ve got “cum on my face.”

(I just wanted to post comment #69. 69, btw, is how you get cum on your face. Cum on your face. Cum on your face. Who writes shit like that? I mean, I wouldn’t even write that to someons who literally had cum on their face. I might write: “Um, you’ve got, not, more over in this know what, here, let me get you a tissue...”)


Whoops, I meant @68 / @dickcanceroftheanus.

Guess I got too excited! Don’t I just have cum on my face?!

OMG, maybe THAT’S how he meant it. It’s like “egg on my face” for a pornified world. Man’s a jenius!!

Katie Herzog: “Maybe we’re being too harsh.”

Crowd of Angry Men: “You’re right! Fuck that bitch!”

Katie Herzog: “Uh, no, that’s not what I men...”

Angry Mem: “Fuck that bitch! Fuck that bitch!”

Katie Herzog: “Sure am glad I am standing up against rush to judgment! I journalismed good! Noneay my nuance will be lost on anyone!”


@59 - Send it to his wife? Is having a wife the reason a man shouldn’t tell a woman on twitter she’s got “cum on her face?” It is not his wife’s job to police his behavior. It’s his job.

Also his job (as he admits): maintaining a public profile via twitter. A profile he uses to send women notes like: “There is so much cum on your face” at 1am.

The most obvious explanation (still not an excuse): dude was drunk. I’ve been drunk lots of times, and the worst thing I ever did was mock awful people who say bald-facedly awful shit on slog.

Not once did I DM someone to tell them how much cum they had on their face.

No, seriously! Never! Weird.


@66 - Will the punishment be disproportionate to the crime? In some sense, yeah. Guy’s not Ted Bundy or even Harvey Weinstein, but he’s also not James Franco or Casey Affleck - not attractive or successful enough to get let off the hook. Life’s unfair.

That said, women have been bearing the brunt of shitty behavior like this for ages. Shitty behavior from minor creeps like him, and he’s a smart, educated guy who not only reads the news: he writes it!! Unless he really was sexting someone else (iffy at best), this probably wasn’t a one-time impulse. He knew better, did it anyway. His career depends on credibility. He gambled with it. He lost. Fuck him and guys like him.

And ironically, Katie Herzog in her quest to be objective and balanced got everyone talking about it at length. And showed him who’s on his side: the most strident members of the patriarchy.


@67 - YES, let’s deal in hypotheticals!! That’s always useful.

What if Talia was an alien from Zorgon-9, and she used her mental telepathy and took over Rosenberg’s brain? Would it still be okay for her to do what she did then? And what if she was a really hot alien, with, like, three boobs, all really proportional, not squished together or anything?

What about then? Huh? HUH?!?!?


@74 - Best summary/assessment of this comment stream and situation.


@74 - My head didn’t explode at Katie’s post. My head didn’t explode at all. It is really strong you know. A vein or two might have popped, though, at people who keep using the word “bitch” while asking: “Why on earth would she get so upset?”

Why indeed.


Also, I find a certain joy in arguing with patently awful, blatantly wrong hypocrites, i.e.: every manly man in this thread clutching his pearls at the sight of abusive behavior getting brought out into the light. Matie’s point is fine, such as it is, but that’s not why men are nodding their heads (and shaking their fists)...


@77 - Katie’s point.

And in case it wasn’t clear, men are agreeing not because they want to defend Mike Rosenberg, but because they expect women to put up with this sort of thing and to do so quietly.

That ship has sailed, boys.


The “Centrist” apparently prefers his journalism with more outrage.


@79 - oh, comments by other sloggers constitute “journalism?” Huh.


@53: ‘It takes at least a swipe + a tap + typing + send without glancing three inches up to “accidentally” DM a sext to “someone else.”’

So, if a communication device required, say, spinning a rotary dial a pre-set number of times, with a different length of time required to input each digit, AND a pause of different lengths between different digits, then it would be pretty much impossible to connect with anyone other than the intended recipient?


@81 - Wait - I thought you were busy bringing her up on charges of interstate extortion. How’s the case coming? Oops, I said “coming.”

As user interfaces and mistakes go, getting one digit wrong on a rotary phone dial (showing your age with your example, my friend, not that I didn’t already know what era you visit us from) only shows how much harder it is to DM the wrong person. The name, the profile photo, the clarity of choosing and viewing a thread. A rotary dial phone is a veritable landmine by comparison.

I did send a dirty telegraph to the wrong person once, and that was after I sent a hand-written letter to someone via Pony Express telling them they had “so much cum on their face.” I meant it for my wife! We were having Pony Express sex (or, as the kids called it back then, “pone sex”) while I was in St. Louis and she was homesteading in the Louisiana Territory.

I was soooooooo mortified! Can you imagine?

Enjoy the rest of your commute!


She's not pretty. He's not pretty, either. But, I hope he keeps his job while she finds that her actions have consequences, too.

This was one of those situations that you share with your girlfriends and laugh at what a goober he is. Her reaction is over the top and mean-spirited.


Both the involved parties are behaving like assholes. IUnfortunately for him, our current world mistakenly conflates that with sexual harrassment. She was not a colleague, he had no power to wield. It's the equivalent of saying creepy things to someone you meet at a bar, who then goes and calls your boss. Which is also an asshole thing to do, which she did in this case. But it's not criminal. I, for one, hope the Times investigates and then finds there is no action to be taken. I'm pretty sure, however, Mike's wife is not currently happy to be married to an asshole. And Jane's gonna have a tough time getting a quality date for awhile.


I hope at the very least the ST investigates whether Mike has a real history of making comments that are wildly inappropriate. Yeah, he wasn't on company time here, but he is somewhat a public figure--much more so than if say-an insurance claims processor.

Still if no untold transgressions are uncovered I hope Mike stays employed and learns from this. My worst mistakes communicating with woman were decades ago and pretty embarrassing to me, but at least the recipients didn't try to get me fired over them.


68 but that doesnt help Mike Rosemberg because he already blew his wad.


Journalism jobs which pay enough to afford to eat, pay rent/mortgage, and raise a family may have once been plentiful. But in 2019, I do not believe that's still the case. Meanwhile, kids keep graduating with these degrees.

In a situation in which many people would love to be able to write for a living, even about a topic that wasn't their personal preference... why would you prioritize keeping an employee who is publicly humiliating their company via harassing strangers on Twitter at 3am? Regardless of gender or context?

I suspect that his chosen career could've been a factor in her response. If you're out there trying to get a job in any profession, it sucks to interact with someone who already has the job you want & doesn't value it.

  1. The ST should IMO carefully consider actions regarding this. There's a real question whether this woman's (who I'm not even sure qualifies as a journalist) response (which is to destroy Mike) is proportionate to the offense.

Mike was thousands of miles from her so he was not a physical threat to her. He said he was very sorry. Why couldn't she had simply accepted the apology and moved on?


@82: I’m neither a law-enforcement officer nor a prosecutor. I merely noted a crime may have been committed, and the possible victim should contact the relevant authorities. In this case, that may include federal authorities.

If you have a problem with any of that, please feel free to explain what it is.


@90 - I have two “problems” with it. 1.) Darn right you aren’t a prosecutor!! You don’t know shit about the law, but you sure act like you do. So pompous. 2.) What about sending someone an unsolicited sexually explicit message? Did that inspire you to fire up the ol’ FindLaw search engine?

Of course not.

None of that surprises me. I know you. I know your schtick. I know where your sympathies lie. Of course you focus on her ostensible illegality and ignore what started this: a harassing message HE sent.

You just want to reserve judgment, you’ll say. Put down the pitchforks, kind villagers! But you are somehow immediately ready to say SHE is guilty of a crime (that you don’t even know the full definition of).

Unh hunh. You want to argue on Mike’s behalf? Funny how you don’t do that. Your first impulse is to attack her. Asshole move, bruv! Kobe Bryant likes your style, friend!

You want all of us to be fair to Mike, start by being fair to the person he messaged to say she has “so much cum on her face.”


Never apologize. That does nothing,.but admits guilt and is like blood in the water for the piranhas.

Context is everything.
Fuck #Meetoo.


@93 - Never [do something heinous and you will never have to remind yourself not to] apologize.

Fixed it for ya, sport. ; g


@94. Like I said: context is everything.
Never (let them tell you what you meant, when you never meant it, so they can force you to) apologize.
There you go. That is what I meant. So we are clear.


@95 - No one can tell him what he meant. No one meeds to. He typed it out. He meant “there’s so much cum on [her] face.”

His mistake wasn’t apologizing. His mistake was typing a “T,” then an “h,” then an “e,” then...[26 characters and spaces later]...finally one more “e” and then pressing “send.”


@96: You are 7000% awesome and I want to thank you for all that you have done in this thread. <3


@97 - Would it weren’t necessary.

Are you paying attention, Katie Herzog? Do you see how your meta-sanctimony is received? The holier-than-thou you chastise aren’t listening. The unholy are relieved to know they ARE being persecuted. And it takes an asshole with a heart of gold to prove two wrongs add up to something that feels vaguely like a right.

I hope the page views are worth it.


@91: “You don’t know shit about the law, but you sure act like you do.”

Go ahead. Show that I’m wrong. Quote the Revised Code of Washington, quote the legal cases, and show how Jane’s demand does not fit their definition of extortion. That instead you just keep saying I’m ignorant — in schoolyard language — implies even you know you can’t show it.

“Of course you focus on her ostensible illegality...”

Why, it’s almost like I think extortion is a bad thing, and we should investigate if we have evidence it may have occurred! (Don’t worry; I don’t expect you to understand.)

“...ignore what started this: a harassing message HE sent.”

For it to be “harassing,” you would need to show he intended her to be the recipient. Your “evidence” for that consists of noting that you can use the same interface without killing yourself, and therefore it must be completely foolproof. While I fully agree you have a very strong argument there, it’s not strong enough, because no technology can make him infallible.

“But you are somehow immediately ready to say SHE is guilty of a crime...”

I said her actions are worthy of investigation into whether or not she did indeed commit a crime. That’s a very long way from being ready to issue a finding of guilt.

“You want to argue on Mike’s behalf?”


“Funny how you don’t do that.”

This from someone who eagerly suited up to play for a possible extortionist.


@99 - Do you miss Belltown Brewing? I ask apropos of nothing. It’s just on my mind, because I walked by there the other day. I walk by there a lot. On days like these, when the weather’s so nice, i sure miss it, sitting outside, enjoying one of their delicious lagers or pilsners. It was one of my greatest pleasures. Too bad they’re not around anymore.


Yelp did the right thing.


@102 - I know you know this as well as I do, but that’s not tensor’s speed. We’ve reached the point in the thread when he’s already been completely exposed, so now he gets belligerent: lots of demands, quoting me back to me as if that proves or changes anything, and repetition - oh god the repetition. It’s tiresome. For a self-proclaimed liberal, he sure comes off like an aggro male who wants to enforce his will on all of us and tell us the way it is. His sympathies always line up with the worst people. I’m not even necessarily on Talia’s side fully, but I have a lot more sympathy for her than I do for Mike Rosenrberg, and I understand all too well why she is under no obligation to respond in some theoretically perfect way to someone messaging her - whether intentionally or not - to let her know she’s got so much cum on her face. What is the “right” way to respond to someone telling you out of the blue that you have cum on your face?

The only thing that’s really clear in all this is that Rosenberg should not have sent that message. Whether he meant to send it to her or whether it was an innocent mistake, it was a wrong thing i do, and if he didn’t do it, none of the rest of this happens.

But who’s tensor mad at first and foremost? The person he sent it to. And now little ol’ me, for pointing out how wrong he is.

The only circumstances under which the most wrongest person in this scenario is NOT Rosenberg is 1.) she had written to him and asked: “How much cum do you think there is on my face right now?” or 2.) Rosenberg somehow correctly intuited from her comments about journalism that she was secretly a cum-hungry slut yearning for any man bold enough to strike up a conversation to tell her she has “so much cum on her face.”

I’m going to keep reminding this thread that the primary reason we’re here is because a man sent someone a message she did not want to get, and that message said, “There’s so much cum on your face.”

Men, you don’t want to be subject to twitter mob justice? Which is the more foolproof strategy? Circling the wagons around every woman who forwards DM’s to someone’s employer, or always making 100% sure that any person you message wants to know if fhey do or do not have cum on their face and how much cum that is?

It’s a thinker!!


The only silver lining to this is that all of tensor’s mental gifts are going into this thread. He’s not lecturing anyone else while he stews over his next brilliant reply here.

I picture him sitting on the toilet (dude is obsessed with poop, so I assume that’s where he get his inspiration...and hides his nasty slog habit from the fam), face all scrunched up and red from the exertion of squeezing out another rhetorical bomb, fingers pounding away at some long-suffering touch screen.

And he fires off @99 at us. Lucky us!


@102 - Of course, I know what’s coming next. He’s going to wait a few days, after he thinks no one is paying attention, then post again with the same tired shit from @99. It’s childish. It’s embarrassing. I hate that every once in a while there is a thread where the dictates of basic fairness are so obvious, I feel compelled to provide serve as a voice of compassion to the very end. I really wish it didn’t feel necessary to do so.


And tensor, if you’re listening (and I know you are, you sad sad excuse of a “man”), I know the warmth and compassion evoked in @100 probably makes the empty place where your soul used to be ache and the ache makes you want to rage for a bit; but you can feel that same warmth. All it takes is a scintilla of basic empathy. I know it’s scary, but you can do it. I know you can! Just take my hand and come out into the sunlight. Don’t be afraid. Yeah, there you go. See how nice it is here in the light with all the other nice people?

Wait, what’s happening? No, tensor. Put down your fist! No, tensor, no!!

God, what have I done? This was all a horrible mistake! I never should have tried.


Oops, i meant @97. So many comments to keep straight. Thanks, Lissa - you’re awesome!


@107: Right back at ya :)

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.