The negative comments about New York Resident Magazine sound like pure sour grapes from someone who was not printed in the magazine or from a competitor looking to damage its reputation. To say that only certain ethnic groups are included, all you have to do is read the masthead and byline names to see what a load of BS that is.

The writer names almost every ethnic group as being included. It doesn't say who is not included. The names the writer pointed out were men and women, various religious groups, gays, straights, different nationalities. This is not the U.N. where, of necessity, there are some 150 different groups included. But it's close.

The next complaint challenges the circulation figures by saying that it can be found in high-end buildings and other locations. OK? So? I've also seen them in street corner boxes along with other publications such as the Village Voice. It never actually challenges the figures. That doe snot sound like a negative to me. There's something missing here. Could it be a disgruntled former employee? A writer whose story was not accepted? Another publication? 

Also, virtually all of the name slisted in the negative report have not been associated with Resident for close to a year. This is a fluid business and people move on. 

Another writer complains that there were no negative articles about Obama. So? Read the New  York Times if that's what you ar elooking for. The publisher and editorial staff have every right to determine the political bent of any publication.

The writer complains that the magazine is: "The writers are obsessed with taste, style and smart designs and go on endlessly about the art stuff but say nothing about core values." What's wrong with being "obsessed" with stayle and smart design? What core values? Illegal immigration? Welfare? Foreign affairs? If that's what you want, Read Newsweek.

The complaints sure sound as though someone took a bitter pill before wiriting these complaints.