Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually know her and she is quite nice. For whatever that is worth.

It's worth nothing with these posters. They would tear Mother Theresa down on these boards in a NY Minute if she were still alive.

I know her too and she is lovely. I really hope she doesn't read DCUM, I feel so bad about how she is getting ripped apart and undoubtedly never saw it coming.

Anonymous wrote:I actually know her and she is quite nice. For whatever that is worth.

It's worth nothing with these posters. They would tear Mother Theresa down on these boards in a NY Minute if she were still alive.

here's a good one:
http://www.thesimpledollar.com/

There are recommendations for others on the site.

jorts = jeans shorts.

What are some great frugal blogs anyways?

Anonymous wrote:

I actually know her and she is quite nice. For whatever that is worth.

I don't doubt that at all. I just don't see how an article about her is supposed to be of interest.

Same here. No one is saying she isn't nice, doesn't seem nice, etc. We are saying:

1) Why was an article written about her?

2) She is not frugal.

This is 11:34 here again.
I actually like her blog! But then, I'm a Martha Stewart-type person anyway and have made some similar lifestyle choices for my family.

The issue I have with the article and to some extent, her blog, is that she's held out to be unique and someone that people like me (on an actual tiny budget) should take advice from. She's not forging a new path, just presenting it in a neat little shiny package.

There are better, more comprehensive, more frugal blogs and gurus out there. Not to say there's not a place for her, she does have some good ideas, I just think the WaPo did a poor job of explaining what that place was.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo quality is heading down the tubes.

You are absolutely right about that.

No kidding. This is why I only read the New York Times now.

This article is like a paid placement for some crappy blog.

Completely agree. I wouldn't have seen the article if it hadn't been for this thread. It would be one thing if the bad editorial/writing was confined to the Style section, but the News section is just as bad!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo quality is heading down the tubes.

You are absolutely right about that.

No kidding. This is why I only read the New York Times now.

This article is like a paid placement for some crappy blog.

+1

The Post is unreadable. I no longer subscribe, especially when they got into the testing business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WaPo quality is heading down the tubes.

You are absolutely right about that.

No kidding. This is why I only read the New York Times now.

This article is like a paid placement for some crappy blog.

That was a very dull and uninspired article!

I actually know her and she is quite nice. For whatever that is worth.

I don't doubt that at all. I just don't see how an article about her is supposed to be of interest.

It seems like the irony of success -- if you read "about me" she's had gigs with TLC and others in the past few years. So maybe she started out blogging as the frugal wife of a grad student, but when the money started rolling in from her own ideas, and now that DH is working, the budget issues started involving Brooks Brothers shirts.

Kinda ironic that she has priced herself out of her own market. But there's something to admire there, too. I think.

I actually know her and she is quite nice. For whatever that is worth.