Paul Dacre, Mail editor, and Martin Clarke, from MailOnline: a question.
Which one of you has the biggest crush on Kim Kardashian?
I only ask because yesterday the Mail website had a story - quite high up on the right hand side - about how Kim's ass is shrinking (apparently).
I would have guessed you were doing your usual 'look how much weight this sleb has lost/gained', but you covered her weight loss two days before when Kim unveiled her 'bikini body' with pics on her Twitter page.
And you published three pics of her in various bikinis, just to be sure.
Four days before that, you had a picture of her at a film premiere. That was a day after you thought it imperative to tell the world she had changed her hair colour from blonde to dark. And that was a day after you carried some pics from her latest photoshoot.
You didn't write about Kim the day before that one, because you were too busy writing about her sister Kourtney instead.
And I guess you might have thought your readers could be getting bored of her after you wrote about Kim's car seats the day previous.
Which was three days after the Twitter pic of Kim in her underwear which you were very excited about. You put an exclamation mark in the headline and everything.
Was that just reassurance she was still hot after you ran pap pics of her 'bleary eyed' and without make up four days before?
In fact, were you both on your summer holidays in August? Because there was only one other picture of her, yet two of sister Kourtney.
July was much more like it. She couldn't go shopping, split from her boyfriend, 'flaunt her curves' at a film premiere, or wear a skintight jumpsuit without you rushing to tell your fascinated readers.
You also thought it necessary to talk about the milkshake named after her and the shoes she wears.
In June there were film premieres, award shows, and more insightful exclusives about her sisters.
May saw you carry two lots of pics of her in bikinis within three days, plus Kim in 'killer heels' and being voted the 53rd Hottest Woman in the World.
All those votes, eh guys, but not enough to get her in the top ten. Still, you are trying hard to get her higher next year.
There were four articles about her between 21 and 27 April, revealing such vital info as her being on holiday, getting sunburn, dying her hair and going to another film premiere.
Everytime she appears in public or opens her mouth or someone talks about her you can't wait to write about her and what she's up to and - more importantly - print lots of pictures of her.
Especially if she has her legs, cleavage or bum on show. Or is in a bikini. Or has her bum on show. Or her cleavage. But even if not you just can't get enough.
You even publish a pic of her on all fours in her underwear to accompany a film review of a movie she's hardly in.
I bet you were overjoyed when you had to write about her denying she had had a boob job. I mean, phwoar, then it's, like, your job to look at her boobs. And you got to see her as a teenager in her bikini. I bet that was a memorable day, huh?
And then there's another question - why are you so obsessed with this woman? A look at her Wikipedia shows she made a sex tape, appeared in Playboy, has done a little acting, came eleventh on Dancing With The Stars and her family has a reality TV show.
Is this really a life so fascinating that you have to inform us of every little detail, such as when she goes on holiday or dyes her hair?
Or is just, you know, she has big boobs and a big bum and you two like your women curvy?
Anyway, if you don't have some weird creepy crush on this woman (Paul, you know you are 33 years older than her?), then it can only be that you are using all those photos because you know people (men) are interested in seeing pics of her.
Given that her public profile in the UK is practically none, it is useful for pulling in the hits from across the pond. And for keeping that title of most hits to a newspaper website per month.
And Martin, one final thing. Is there anything you would like to say about your Press Gazette interview when you:
dismissed suggestion[s] that success of the website was down simply to the volume of show business and celebrity stories it carries....
'It does annoy me that people say its all driven by search and showbiz stories because it’s actually not driven by either'...
'News is far more important to us that showbiz.'
Because people might start to get the impression you weren't being entirely honest.