Garbage Much Too Good To Ever Throw Away

The Kind of Thing People Write Footnotes About
The new interest on somebody's part regarding my sketch idea, "Teddy Tinyfingers", as manifest from the most recent Monk/Steinhoff videoclip (see my previous blog) may have perhaps made sufficiently relevant the time Brooke Shields' fingerless image appeared on a TV Guide cover (Sept. 19, 1987), all because of me and a section from my wastebasket collage. And so I've created (and posted yesterday) a little presentation, "A Guide To Brooke Shields", viewable at archive.org and at YouTube. If they say right, it was personal between Brooke Shields and me, then why, in the mid-'90s, when I returned to NYC to help my father pack up the co-op for his move to Houston, and my neighbor came in telling me to go a few buildings down the street, Madonna was having a party, so I went, but couldn't get in, and so there is Brooke Shields also not getting in, on this quiet edge of the West Village street with just a few people around, did I say nothing to Brooke Shields? True, when Madonna came out, and Brooke Shields, standing next to me, had a conversation with her, it may have appeared to Madonna that I was with her, from the way Madonna acted, but that's her story (by which I mean, what is her story?). By the way, David Rabe, the son-in-law of the neighbor who told me to go there (Sandra Church, widow of the late Bill Clayburgh), wrote a movie Sean Penn starred in, "Casualties of War", which was in the works when Madonna and then-husband Sean Penn came into the same restaurant I was in, very much noticing me. I have been something of an influence on Madonna and Sean Penn as well, quite significantly at times.

Footnote
Returning for a moment to the July 18, 2009 statement I made in response to the July 14, 2009 "review" of "Teddy Tinyfingers", a response and "review" referred to in my Monk/Steinhoff videoclip of several days ago: I mentioned in that July 18th posted response at archive.org that I knew from the digit counter that the "reviewer" had not even read the sketch idea. I will explain. It so happens that I had posted on HuffingtonPost a comment (July 14, 2009, 2:48pm) wherein I included the archive.org web address of the very same "Teddy Tinyfingers". And so, curious as to whether posting this web address would generate traffic to the sketch idea posting, I checked the digit counter for it at archive.org before and after. I found that it did not. However, it did suddenly occur, and this was the only time this has occurred since I have ever posted anything at archive.org, that it was later on that very same day that the "review" showed up at the "Teddy Tinyfingers" archive.org web address.

As to the idea that digit counters on the web are not to be trusted, I've pointed out before that this would be not unlike tampering with Diebold election machine results. Indications of web address traffic have a most serious impact on things. Why would anyone undertake to alter information about the number of people who visit my postings of work on the web? What could they accomplish by doing that? And so why should this cross my mind.