It's been brought to my attention that I may completely be wrong about this week's New York magazine. (I said that the David Amsden cover story was an obvious ploy to drive down the value of the magazine so that New York media critic Michael Wolff could buy it with less strain on his lunch-at-Michael's budget.)

A wise reader writes: "There's an opposite (and equally plausible) theory: by doing a story that is freshness dated for 1998-1999, maybe they're attempting to recapture their valuation during those heady, high Nasdaq days? If so, maybe they can avert the economic crisis, make 9/11 not happen, and keep Bush out of the white house? Go, NY Mag, go! Reverse time!"