And sometimes, I respond right back!  Names have been changed for no real reason.

Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 4:45 PM

To: Jack Jackson

Subject: Go Take a Nap!

From: Jack Jackson

Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 4:00 PM

To: Mrs. J. M. Jordache

Subject: Re: Go Take a Nap!

Dear Mrs. Jordache,

It’s always nice to receive nice emails from nice people who have nice things to say about nice things.  I think that’s Really Quite Nice!  [Read: Splendid!—Eds.]  The Editors of Go Take a Nap! also would like to thank you [We would?—Eds.] for the nice email [The French call it “couriel”—Eds.] {The Brits call it “email”—Jack Jackson} [we know.—Eds.] {Stop bragging.—Jack Jackson}.

In response to your suggestion that the Editors get their own forum or column beyond the constraints [Stifling constraints.—Eds.] of GTaN!, much has been bandied about and ballyhooed and other fancy-pants-type-styled phrases but the focus groups maintain that it is still the thoughts of Jack Jackson and not the Editors what people want to read [That is an outright lie.—Eds.].

So, until the focus groups change their . . . um . . . focus, the Editors will continue to be relegated to editing [On a scale of 1-10, 1 being lowest and 10 being highest, how satisfied are you with the current email?—Eds.].

Sincerely,

Jack Jackson [Turd.—Eds.]

Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 12:09 AM

To: Jack Jackson

Subject: Bob Barker and Chuck Norris!

From: Jack Jackson

Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 3:17 AM

To: [Name removed]

Subject: Re: Bob Barker and Chuck Norris!

Maybe I should hire you as my intern so I don’t make so many mistakes!

You must agree, however, that if Bob Barker were to receive an award for television, it should be given by someone who is more important than he is when it comes to TV.  Let’s assume it was not Chuck Norris, or that Chuck Norris was not Bob’s friend.  At that point, it would have no meaning.

My question is this: how did Chuck Norris even get to that position?  It would make more sense for Bob Barker to have given himself the award, much like Napoleon or Charlemagne did when they crowned themselves emperor.

Think about it this way: Chuck Norris giving Bob Barker the TV Hall of Fame Award is like Henry Kissinger giving George W. Bush the award for Fascist of the Year.  When you put it in that perspective, it should all become very clear. 

Thanks for reading my column!

And [Name removed], Go Take a Nap!

Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:08 PM

To: Jack Jackson

Subject: webpage

I wandered across your webpage - I've found parts that I agree with, but this upsets me ---

"Rosie O'Donnell is publicly defending Martha Stewart without any knowledge

of the facts of her case. That's smart. She said that women of America

shouldn't let 'them tear down one of the most successful female

entrepreneurs in our country's history.' She didn't say who 'them' were,

and I'm sure the quote was taken out of context, but who cares? I think

Martha cheated, lied, and stole her way to the top, and I'm not going to

let 'her' get away with it! Having more than $100million needs to Go Take a

Nap! No one gets that kind of money without being a royal bitch."

Rosie is correct -

I do agree with you; Ms. Stewart was very selfish in her actions. However,

so was President Bush; He did the exact same thing!

Everyone is making a big deal about DUH!bya (my personal take on the

nickname) not cracking down on the bigshots pulling these stunts ... How

can he do ANYTHING about it without being a complete hypocrite? Haven't you

heard what happened with his baseball team ...? Anything he did while in

charge of a huge corporation...?

Back to my original topic - Rosie. While her statement may have been taken

out of context (I didn't hear her make the comment, so I don't know what

was said, either) people - I generalize this by saying "people", as it's not

just egotistical men - don't want to see a woman make it "to the top" .

Martha has done this, and it just horrifies the nation!

That's the end of my rant.

From: "Jack Jackson"

To: Anonymous

Subject: RE: webpage

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 15:28:39 -0600

Hmmm...

I don't know what to say to you, because I don't really feel like responding at all.

But here's what I think about what you've said.

You say you are upset. About what? That I don't spend equal time bashing

George Bush? If you didn't notice, my webpage is devoted to bashing any

and all celebrities. I avoid political discussions as much as possible.

Because I didn't bash him doesn't mean that I've implicitly approved of

EVERYTHING HE'S EVER DONE. This works the opposite way. Just because I

DID bash Rosie and Martha, doesn't mean I bash EVERYTHING THEY'VE EVER DONE.

Where is your logic? Is there any logic in what you're saying? I think

not.

You said you agreed. Well, what is so upsetting? Are you trying to make

some sort of feminist argument that I need to spend equal time bashing rich

men and rich women? I bash men more often than I do women. I haven't run

a statistical analysis of my webpage, but I know that's true. If you want,

go ahead and run the analysis yourself and let me know what you find.

I guess I have no idea what in the hell you're trying to say.

-----Original Message-----

From: Anonymous

Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2002 3:52 PM

To: Jack Jackson

Subject: RE: webpage

I'm not stating you should be bashing anyone more or less. I just dislike

hypocrisy! The point I (tried to convey) was Martha Stewart didn't do

anything our country's leader hasn't done, and if he can get away with it I

don't see why she shouldn't be able to as well!

I wasn't trying to start an argument... I wasn't questioning your

intelligence or "fairness".

I was simply using my right to free speech by sending you a direct email.

DO excuse me!

To: Anonymous

Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 19:11:39 -0600

So where in my response did I say you didn't have a 1st Amendment right to email me?

And let's look at what you just responded with, shall we?

You're arguing that because one person gets away with lying, cheating, and stealing to gain a lot of money, it's OK that Martha Stewart should get away with it too?

Or were you arguing that because our president did it, it's OK for only Martha?

Or if anyone does it, so should anyone else be able to?

Or if just the president, then everyone?

No matter how I interpret your statements, you seem to be arguing the "my friend did it" defense that so many of our nation's children offer to their parents. To which I respond, "If your friend dove off a cliff, would you too?"

And if you're going to be sending emails to people that support such a theory that it's OK to do what Martha did since our president did it, I would amend our Constitution to say that you, and only you, don't have a right to free speech.

What would that be?

Amendment XXVIII

[Anonymous], by stating that it's OK for Martha Stewart to lie, cheat, and steal her way to the top, has so offended the use of free speech that her right to free speech has been revoked.

hi Jack Jackson,

I thought that you might like to know that it was recently revealed that the

Irish singer Enya is engaged, and is said to be on the verge of marrying her

boyfriend of three, and a half years, he is one of the Dublin based

architects responsible for the recent restoration of her County Dublin

castle, he is said to be several years older, and considerably greyer than

Enya, and is at this moment comfortably ensconced at the castle, alongside

his superstar girlfriend.

After reports of massive cost over-runs during the renovation work, it would

seem that at least one of the architects took Enya for a ride in more ways

than one.

Of course these facts will almost certainly be denied by her management

team, just as the truth about her many past relationships (lovers), always

has been.

At the moment she is back in the studio working on her next album, due for

release in November, 2004, I wonder if it will be as revealing as her last

album. I work for a record company, and it's well known in the London music

business, although seemingly not by any Journalists or Enya fans, that all

the song lyrics on Enya's album "A Day Without Rain", as written by Roma

Ryan her song-writing partner (who also happens to be the wife of Enya's

manager Nicky) are based on certain aspects or incidents which have happened

in Enya's own private life, of the two singles taken from the album, "Only

Time" is about lost love, and is thought to be based on the break up of her

first long-term relationship, which ended acrimoniously around mid 1997, and

"Wild Child", which is about the search for perfect love, appears to talk

about the several short-term relationships she experienced immediately

afterwards, although both women now claim that they are simply "universal"

themes, that's not surprising really, bearing in mind that the track

"Flora's Secret" is generally accepted by most music writers to be about

open-air sex, but you have to wonder why Enya allowed this to happen in the

first place, it may be that she is not the simple, uncomplicated creature

everyone assumes her to be, or it could just demonstrate the real power the

Ryan's, especially Roma have over her.

Steve (London).