Look, Gawker. We know there’ve been some hard feelings this year. First, you discovered Charles Mudede—”a blogger for the The Stranger, the alternative weekly that serves cutesy raintown Seattle,” as you put it—and chastised him for teasing the victims of an alleged con man for openly loving their own money too much. Then, to tease you, we launched a “war” against your hometown of New York City and made all sorts of arguments about why Seattle is superior (as one of our staffers memorably said, “If it weren’t for Boeing, they wouldn’t even have 9/11”). In spite of the hyperbole, you took our “war” to mean that we were very upset with you. Then a few weeks later, we published a parody of Time magazine’s fawning, schmaltzy, overblown, poorly written profile of “Great American Novelist” Jonathan Franzen by copying Time‘s cover (with Tao Lin’s face substituted), and you replied by taking us seriously: “Tao Lin Foolishly Celebrated as a Genius by Rain-Soaked Latte Zombies,” your headline read.
We like you—we just don’t think you really get us. And we don’t want you to keep embarrassing yourselves, so we are explaining the jokes in this issue so that even an idiot like Richard Lawson can understand them.
First of all, why a Regrets Issue? Do Stranger writers really live lives consumed by regret? Does everyone in Seattle annually flog themselves with flannel whips to the beat of Soundgarden at the base of the Space Needle in some sort of rainy ritual of regret? Don’t be silly. With the Regrets Issue, we’re just combining the important newspaper tradition of printing corrections for errors made and the stupid media tradition of vapid year-end retrospectives.
Rule of thumb: If you’re wondering if something in this issue is a joke, it probably is. The piece written by leek farmer Henry Earl Wicky? We’re about to blow your mind, Gawker—it’s not really written by Henry Earl Wicky! No, this column is just a play on the name “WikiLeaks” and a way of getting a mention of WikiLeaks into our year-end issue, since WikiLeaks was such a big story this year. Likewise, the piece “written” by a can of Four Loko isn’t really written by a can of Four Loko—we just employed a literary trick called “personification” to ridicule the government’s demonization of a malt liquor beverage. And maybe now it’s becoming clear, but just in case, the nation of Chile didn’t really write an editorial for us. We were just taking the opportunity to point out that nobody in America cares about Chile unless there are a bunch of miners stuck down a well. What a bunch of scamps we are!
Sorry to “rain” (get it? It rains here!) on your parade by explaining our jokes, Gawker—but don’t cry too hard! There’s a whole wide internet beyond The Stranger waiting to be misinterpreted in your daily quest to outrage your six readers. Good luck! 
That 9/11 joke kills me every time. And by “kills me” I mean that it makes me laugh, and die a little bit inside.
I don’t understand why you guys have a war. I love Richard Lawson, and I love you! please stop fighting (sob sob).
I’m sorry, guys, but, to be honest, I had no idea this whole Gawker thing was going on. Didn’t mean to check out on you, or anything. It’s just that I read a Gawker story maybe two or three times a year, and that’s mostly by accident of circumstance.
Really, I thought they were a celebrity porn site. You know, Kim Cattrall upskirts, and the like.
However, I don’t criticize you for this article. Indeed, you’ve probably given them something to do over New Year’s, taking a break from looking for Lindsey Lohan’s crusty thong, getting drunk, and puzzling over whether or not your guide to jokes is another joke they don’t get.
I am curious, though: Did you get any hate mail from Gawker’s dirty half-dozen mousebanging fans? And did you write back, “I read Gawker because I’m paid to. What’s your excuse?”
That song about the Stranger Newspaper.
“Oh yes they call him the streak the fastest thing on two feet he’s always making the news in just his tennis shoes guess you could call him unique”.
look at that! look at that!
@4 does that make Dan Savage “Guitarzan”?
Those with a brain firing on all pistons knew Gawker had it horribly wrong, and it was hilarious. This piece, unfortunately is smack. It’s taunting on the playground after completely fucking up in class, and it’s simply not as funny as it would have been had you referenced their half-brained analysis of half-read articles with some finesse and creativity. You took the makings of a fantastic running joke and you smashed it to bits.
So, has anybody formed a band called Latte Zombies yet?
Well, at least it’s a relief to know that the article written by Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders really was written by Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders. LOL.
Oh shit, which group of snobby assholes can be EVEN more fucking snobby and dismissive of nothing that fucking matters in the first place?!?!?!
Richard Lawson an idiot, really? You should have aimed your at Gawker and not singled out a true, snarky talent.
Richard Lawson is an idiot, and Gawker commenters get stupider every year. Gawker was such a smart fun blog five years ago. A shame, really.