Dan spreads his wisdom.
I am disappointed, in both myself and Dan. I should work on my subtlety; my repeated questioning revealed my bias. Dan answered only one of my questions, which was my last and most cynical. I need to change my ways.
But Dan avoided my questions about his questionable associate and his propensity for factual errors.
Instead he fielded a bunch of softball questions from people who know no better than to ask CHB questions about the Pats offseason and the Red Sox starting rotation. These people are competent enough to manipulate their computers to enter a boston.com chat, but aren't smart enough to go to the many websites that offer more knowledge and insight than Shank? God help us.
A few of the highlights as Dan spent more time chatting than he probably does writing a column:
: Dan types like a 14-year old girl on IM. It's great when a professional writer abuses the English language while it is in its dying throes.
: Dan claims the Sox didn't sign Loretta because of money. The Sox didn't sign Loretta because of his collapsing skills. Their biggest question in the lineup isn't their second baseman hitting ninth, but their aging catcher and third baseman.
: Dan missed Francona's statement that Papelbon will not be a closer because the medical staff has ruled that out.
Provide your own thoughts regarding Dan's "insights" in the comments.