Ron Rosenbaum, Writer

December 28, 2009

JFK Hoax Photo Reveals Most Hilariously Ignorant Blog Commmenter of the Decade

Filed under: Uncategorized — ronrosenbaumwriter @ 3:26 pm

It’s so tempting to give a group award to some of those on a recent post here. But I have to admit that when gossip site, TMZ, admitted this afternoon it had been hoaxed in publishing “The JFK Photo That Could Have Changed History” this morning, one of the commenters (anonymity shielding brainlessness as usual) earned a place in the ignorant commenter Hall of Shame.

TMZ admitted the photo, of nude women cavorting on a yacht while “JFK” sunbathed, supposedly taken in 1956 (and thus might have “changed history” by denying him the presidency if the scandalous pic was published back then) was actually a Playboy photo-shoot from 1967. But at least two commenters felt theyneeded to share the wisdom that it couldn’t have been JFK in the 1967 Playboy nude photoshoot because he’d been assassinated in 1963!

I’m not making this up. Here’s one:

“6. Photo can’t be of a 1967 playboy shoot with JFK….. He was already dead!!!! If it is a playboy shoot, that’s not JFK.”

Good catch! It was an anonymous commenter (of course) though I wouldn’t be surprised if one of the historically ignorant commenters here came up with this brilliant deduction. C’mon fess up. That’s the downside of your cowardly anonymity. It makes you a suspect for any random stupidity.

Of course, as with all ignorant commenters there was a dark side: one of the first reactions–before it was revealed to be a hoax–was (I swear) an anonymous (natch) commenter who wrote in “I’m glad he was assassinated”. Nice. But not, alas, untypical of anonymous commenter mentality. In fact all too typical.

Why am I not surprised–at both the stupidity and the ugliness?



  1. Ron, Ron — snap out of it! It’s starting to not look good.

    Comment by Banjo — December 28, 2009 @ 7:04 pm | Reply

  2. Wow…

    I’m afraid I’ll have to bring in some slang.

    So by your logic anyone with insufficient “papers” is indistinguishable from anyone else. I do wonder what your standards are to “clear” someone in your mind. What it takes to differentiate the anonymous, ignorant, paranoid, cowards from the others.

    I used to wonder why you didn’t shut down the comment function here, and clearly it’s because you enjoy it.

    In the classic troll behavior I expect more posts of this sort.

    But here’s the funny part, your ire is at a “Hilariously Ignorant” comment.

    This one: “6. Photo can’t be of a 1967 playboy shoot with JFK….. He was already dead!!!! If it is a playboy shoot, that’s not JFK.”

    But… what is ignorant of that? Logically it’s correct. Yes it’s quite obvious, but that could be the point.

    It’s especially strange given you tout that as a nadir of ten years of comments.


    How sheltered are you?

    Comment by Jack — December 28, 2009 @ 8:29 pm | Reply

  3. I’d also like to stress this point.

    Mr. Rosenbaum, if you don’t want anonymous comments on your blog, contact your site support at Pajamas and have commenting turned off.

    Granted it won’t allow any comments, but right now Pajamas doesn’t have a validation process that meets your approval.

    Really, if comments give you that much of a problem, take care of it.

    Again, Prof. Reynolds has comments disabled on his blog.

    Sure, you’d still go to other websites and freak out over them, as you are doing here, but at least you won’t have any on your site.

    Comment by Jack — December 28, 2009 @ 8:38 pm | Reply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: