ohbabyitsbess: if I have to write ‘goldman sachs’ or ‘bonus’ one more time I’m going to kindly ask you to run a sharp object across my throat.
jfcarney: I was just going to say that. except I was going to say “if I have to write ‘goldman sachs’ or ‘bonus’ one more time im going to choke on my own vomit.”
ohbabyitsbess: same sentiment, different accoutrement.
ohbabyitsbess: make something else happen that we can post about.
jfcarney: I’m trying
ohbabyitsbess: try harder
jfcarney: lay off me, I’ve got pink eye, it’s hard to look at the screen for too long
ohbabyitsbess: pink eye, pink eye. Is that what you're calling your hangover these days? You may be on to something there—can you think of a business angle for that?
jfcarney: I’ll work on it

That conversation occurred over an hour ago. In that time, we’ve received 12 emails pointing us to articles about bonuses and Goldman Sachs, described by senders as being “new” (lie), “interesting” (lie), and “provocative” (LIE!). I was about to have to go and collect some of the pieces of broken glass on the sidewalk outside our office and John was on the brink of seeing this afternoon’s lunch again. And Subway doesn’t tend to look as pretty the second time. Then, a vision! AS IF FROM GOD. A mêlée the likes of which we could only hope to see in our wildest dreams—a brouhaha between the Times’ DealBook and the oft-linked-to-in-Write-Offs Long or Short Capital, per the similarities (of which LSC’s “Drinky McDiligence” thinks there are many) and differences (of which the DealBookies think there are more), between hedge funds and love. The roots of this catfight seem to date back to a post by Mr. McDiligence, in which he called DealBook out for referencing a line from “All My Children,” wherein “Ryan” tells “Kendall,” “Love isn’t like a hedge fund, you know?”, a springboard from which the DB scribe offered, “For the sake of lovers everywhere, let us hope not.” On LSC, McDiligence wrote, “Obviously, the writers have no idea what a hedge fund is. In reality, love is exactly like a hedge fund.” BURN.

Not about to be the only ones on the online financial commentary block without their claws hanging out, today, DealBook responded.

Mr. McDiligence even includes a graph, whose shape would be familiar to any securities analyst, suggesting that a pre-nuptial agreement can work like a “put” option for the wary husband- or bride-to-be. “It floors your downside, and there is unlimited upside,” the post reads. “If the love falters or a better substitute arrives, you can walk away with no marginal pain.” We are left wondering whether there is a Mrs. McDiligence.

You can’t buy that kind of satisfaction.

Love and Marriage, Hedge-Fund Style [DealBook]
Hedge Funds and Love [Long or Short Capital]