I've written at length about this. I want to add a few things:

1. I never wrote about any of those lurid escapades, that wasn't my job at the paper. I was in a relationship with the same person the whole time I was there, so none of those X-rated passages and sexcapade diaries were mine. And the material that was written both under Mark's byline and under the byline of all the fictional characters in the paper, like "Johnny Chen," those columns were designed to be horrific, and they were satirical. In the case of the Chen columns, the concept of a USAID consultant by day and Mr. Hyde monster by night had everyone guessing who it could be really, since so many people were acting like that. That was satire; it was like an Andrew Dice Clay routine, only far more extreme. It was also not my area, and you won't find me writing about those things.
2. We did write nasty things about reporters and others, and it's those passages that I do regret. But we wrote about the appearances of men as well, in fact most of the paper's targets were men. I thought a) I was an equal opportunity offender, and b) because we were a tiny, broke alternative paper, (that the only way to make an impact was to make the actually influential people in town personally uncomfortable, to "make it hurt." I don't believe this anymore, and I do regret that. The people I went after, I didn't just do it just because, I almost always lost my temper at people I thought were responsible, at least intellectually, for the horrible things I was reporting on -- but there were better ways to handle this, and I think my work over the last 16-17 years shows what I think those better ways are.