The Rolling Stone blog posted a chart-centric entry earlier today, and it ended with a by-the-numbers dis of our favorite ex-Wild Orchid member, Fergie:
Honestly, we don’t understand why it didn’t chart higher, because the record is alarmingly un-shitty and the woman and her tweed shorts are everywhere. Is it the pee thing, the meth thing or the face thing?
… but now the entry just ends with the line about the ubiquity of the singer’s tweed shorts. (We’re not quite sure if that’s supposed to be an insult.) Could that have anything to do with the pro-Fergie mini-riot that ensued in the comments section? The posters flamed the entry, and their missives ranged from really lame generalizations (“[get] some writers who like music!”) to really crass insults. But still: Why didn’t RS stick by the post? It’s hard to believe that a magazine that puts a crown of thorns on Kanye would back off from a too-easy Fergie punchline.
UPDATE: The post is now completely gone. Guess we’ll never find out whether or not they were being nice about the whole tweed-shorts thing.
Clay Aiken: Bigger Than Fergie! [Rock Daily]