Well, why then did Wikipedia write that, Spitznagel. http://www.ericspitznagel.com/esquire/nick-kroll/
Why did it go missing? I'm sure there are many Georgetown grads (and professors and parents,)who can tell the truth, but Eric Spitznagel is too well paid by Nick Kroll to ever investigate before saying, " Contrary to popular belief Nick Kroll didn't expose his genital at graduation." Spitznagel lets Nick tell us all that this Wikipedia was wrong. End of story now that a "reputable publication" has stanched that popular belief... See, Nick wanted to get famous now and people don't like the idea of guys exposing themselves. Spitznagel to the rescue.
Look how Eric Spitznagel has covered Jules Kroll's son... Give it a google. For Billboard, for Rolling Stone, for Laughspin, for Rolling Stone. Eric is paid extra to push this unfunny flasher. http://www.ericspitznagel.com/esquire/nick-kroll/
No Cuddahe he: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2010/08/a-spy-in-the-jungle/60770/
I am too tired today, and will likely be too tired for awhile, to find out if indeed Mr. Nick Kroll exposed his nasties, but I'd bet a lot that he did.. The old kid is perverse and unorignal enough, to think that flashing his henious penis is some wondrous bit of social commentary.
Come forth Georgetown peeps and tell us how Wikipedia got it wrong...
No comments:
Post a Comment