I like all of the Post chatters but if you think about it, really, Gene and Hax are in a league of their own when it comes to the quality of their chats and the energy and time they put into them. Gene obviously does a lot of work on it before noon Tuesdays (I mean, sniffle sniffle, "DID"); he always is not only prompt but goes online with a LONG introduction; plus he writes some answers to posts before the chat even starts; plus who else UPDATES?
Meanwhile, Hax regularly goes two hours, 2:15, 2:30... some of the writers who do those chats barely do their hour and they're gone. There isn't much I'd gladly pay for on the internet, but I would pay to subscribe to the POST online, and Gene and Hax are two big reasons. Why isn't LIZ filling in for him? --- In [email protected], "Ellen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > He should have substitute hosts. A different one each week. What a > great gig. Internal Post people, external local or not so local > celebrities, the general public--have a contest to see who is the > biggest Gene fan and the winner gets to host the chat, etc. etc. > It's only an hour. No poll, no CPOW if the host doesn't want to, > almost no prep--just take questions and answer them. Gene is > obsessive. You don't need to prepare 10 hours or whatever it is for > a 1 hour chat. We'd love him anyway. More power to him that he's > that dedicated, but a likely result of all that work is burnout. > It's awesome that he and Dave are working on a movie together, > though. Can't wait to see it! > > > --- In [email protected], "Ray Bradley" > clavenia@ wrote: > > > > Yeah we should. Big get together. Plan it now. No last minute crap. > > > > Or, we could do our own chat. Maybe WaPo.com could give one of us > > a "Gene for a Week" thing. > > > > I'll see what we could use as a PsuedoGene... > > > > - Ray > > > > > > > > > > > > I think we need to plan a bang-up WC in-person get-together for > > > sometime within the next month or so, and demand that Gene join > us. > > > It's the least he can do, after abandoning us. And so close to > > > Festivus, too. (At least he gave us a major grievance to > air . . .) > > > > > >
