Wednesday, May 16, 2007


For those of you checking back for OB and Dan's latest, I have some posts from over at Barstool Sports.

Here is a very clever take on how to write your own Shaughnessy column

Here is piece on how Dan attacks guys with character while ripping others for lacking it.

Here are some people over at BSMW offering their own take on a Shaughnessy column.


Anonymous said...

Maybe old news but everyone should have a gander at what the Phoenix had to say about the Shanky-Skank:

Anonymous said...

You guys are reading my mind. Before checking out tonight's posting I was thinking that asking for mock CHB columns would be a fun idea. To go with that I think it's important to incorporate the voice that one thinks Mr. Shankworthy's inner voice sounds like. For example, I think he sounds like the voice of my old Golden Retriever Liam, yup Ido.
Welp, I've been thinkin....

Dave M said...

I was the proud author of one of the entries in the "Write like Dan" contest. Really enjoyed doing that

Anonymous said...

We All Rejoice: A Mock CHB Column.

Welp. They did it. Yet again. Those sons of Tito. Like the Titanic rising from the waters.
The olde-towne-team snatched victory from the yawn of defeat. Down five runs, in the last frame, facing a mighty O-Birds rookie reliever starting and lasting eight plus innings. Chased him from the contest after a towering pop-up to the catcher was dropped. Those sons of Tito then proceeded to big-dig their way out of a hole. Manufacturing the W after Julio Lugo, like a diminutive thorough bred, nostrils flared, charged down the home-stretch, with no other horse in sight, to first base to reach safely as the O-birds colt couldn’t handle the toss from former cement-footed Red Sox Nation first baseman and idiot, Kevin Millar. Not since the Curse of the Bambino was temporarily stopped one October night in Busch-city in 2004 have the Fenway faithful rejoiced in such celebration. And we celebrated with them. Happy Mothers Day. Not Pedro. Not Bob Stanley. Not Oil Can Boyd. Not Earl Webb at the plate (look him up) could have saved this band of brothers from going down with the ship. Co-coh-no saved the day with the mighty pop up and tonight we go home and to bed happy. And we celebrate mom. Because she’s the real hero. Not an athlete on a playing field, court or gridiron.

objectivebruce said...

The Phoenix piece is utter rubbish. Moss has faced charges of committing a felony. Wells for "mouthing off to a cop."

So much for braying about double standards, in one of the more immature pieces of writing I've seen in a long time

Anonymous said...

"immature pieces of writing"

Hello, Pot? This is Kettle.

Anonymous said...

Ummm, okay, using the same arguement, Wells was arrested for bad mouthing a cop, Meriweather was LEGALLY self-defending himself (i.e., did nothing illegal, hence why he was not charged), yet that makes him "gun-toting" . And yeah the stompping was bad, but are trying to tell me Wells has never thrown a punch in a on field brawl that happens all the time in baseball? (no he never stompped, so maybe not as bad, but I can bet it's more then just one incident, you can't tell me he's only been in one brawl out of the many that happen, just between Yankees and Sox there's almost one every year)

dbvader said...

John Tomase had a nice article about Meriweather and his two incidents. Apparently, FIU receivers, one in particular, were playing dirty all night, hitting DB's in the head after the play was over and such. Meriweather never responded until the melee when he boiled over. Not an excuse to go stomping, but the guy did hold back for most of the game while being baited.

Monkeesfan said...

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!! I have to try this for my own blog, for laughs

Anonymous said...

Thank you, OB, for continually coming to this blog and reading all the hatred sent your way. It's great knowing the bullets are hitting home. Your retorts here are so easily swatted away.

objectivebruce said...

Sure, Mr. 9:19, whatever you say.

Your comments are quite amusing, actually, since a substantial number of the regular hate-spewers not only don't understand what they read in the first instance, they don't understand the replys that are made to their foolishness.

The best evidence of this, of course, are the silly remarks that I am Dan and Dan is I, which indicates a rather warped perception that the only person who could disagree with their view of Shaughnessy is Shaughnessy.

The Taibbi piece in the Phoenix is so badly written I would think all these self-styled critics would be jumping all over it. My point of view on the quality of the writing has nothing to do with his opinions, he simply writes poorly. But the writing apparently gets a pass because he is a Shaughnessy-hater. Now there's a delicious bit of irony.

But then, that's what this blog is about -- hating. Clearly it's not about reasonable discussion concerning a columnist of fairly substantial influence (Exhibit One of such influence being that the mere title of a book he wrote was used in a Page One hedline, subhed or cutline in 90 percent of the American newspapers featuring the Red Sox World Series victory on the front page.)

Oops. I forgot. He's wallowing in self-pity because (as this absurd piece of logic goes) the Red Sox won a World Series and he's therefore not selling any more 'curse' books.

Kevin said...

"(Exhibit One of such influence being that the mere title of a book he wrote was used in a Page One hedline, subhed or cutline in 90 percent of the American newspapers featuring the Red Sox World Series victory on the front page.)"

Bruce, are you conscious of the fact that there isn't a Sox fan alive would wouldn't love to see every single copy of that God forsaken booked torched?

He derives his influence from the fact that the clueless sports editor keeps him as the featured columnist, so when guys like Jim Rome pick up the Globe, they think that what Dan says carries some weight. Little do they know.

paul said...

OB - "But then, that's what this blog is about -- hating."

Isn't Shank's column all about hating as well? You said yourself that he doesn't "love, love, love" the home team.

Most people who leave comments on this blog aren't envious of Shank and are lashing out at him. If you read the comments, a lot of people don't like him because of his tired clich├ęs (Sons of "fill in the name of the team's manager/coach", Dice-K's posting fee, et al), esoteric and sometimes inane sports references and inaccuracies (Clemens riding a horse when it was Boggs).

I don't personally hate the man. But I have a low tolerance for blowhards and cheap-shot artists. Each of his columns virtually drip with rancor, vitriol and sarcasm when none is needed. The only time he doesn't throw bombs is in his semiannual column about college sports and how the real heroes of Boston are the firemen and cops. (BTW, I agree with Shank that cops and firemen are the true heroes of Boston).

Anonymous said...

"The only time he doesn't throw bombs is in his semiannual column about college sports and how the real heroes of Boston are the firemen and cops."

Even a broken watch is correct twice a day.

grammarian said...

OB: Your comments are also quite amusing, but for a different reason. You argue that the Phoenix author "writes poorly." Interesting, given the fact that your ramblings are riddled with mistakes. So here are a few grammatical notes, as it doesn't seem to be your forte.

1. You wrote "replys" when the correct spelling is "replies."

2. Evidence is a singular noun, so it should read: "The best evidence, of course, is the silly remarks..."

3. You should have written "I am Dan and Dan is me" instead of the way you have it.

4. Finally, "the only person who could disagree with HIS view of Shaughnessy is Shaughnessy."

Now I think there's a saying about throwing stones in a glass house, but I'm not sure how it goes. You probably made these elementary errors on purpose, though, just to support your contention that you are not Dan and Dan is not you. You have me convinced. I may not like the guy, but he's a much better writer than you.

Anonymous said...

\\\"rancor, vitriol and sarcasm\\\"

There\\\'s a lot of that going around.

Anonymous said...

What I find funny, no one is ever always wrong just like no one is ever always right. The contibutors and commenters know this and have admitted the few times when CHB did alright (very few), the only person relentlessly defending their side is OB, who somehow has yet to admit an instance when CHB (no one is perfect, so it can't be because CHB has yet to be wrong, even the good writers have a bad article once in a while) much for being "objective"

Anonymous said...

"...who somehow has yet to admit an instance when CHB had a bad article"

Sorry, I left out a couple words

Anonymous said...

Have you seen this one?

This is a continuation of the Dan Shaughnessy thing from yesterday. If you didn't read yesterday's reader emails than click here to catch up. In a nutshell a reader sent Dan Shaughnessy an email with the above picture attached which prompted Dan to call the kid on the phone and yell at him. We posted the entire story. Now Dan has apparently gone one step further...

Dan Shaughnessy calling a kid’s boss who writes something mean about him?

Anonymous said...

Ooops. My html quotey thing didn't work. Those are two quotes from the website.

Objectivebruce said...


One of the tools of last resort for the basement blogging crowd is to parse hastily written comments with which they disagree for the occasional mistyped word or verb subject agreement errors and to proclaim it means something.

How trite. Does it make this Taibbi's rambling any more coherent?

Of course not.

Objectivebruce said...

Actually I have criticized Shaughnessy, most recently for mixing up the year in which Roger Clemens rode the horse.

I've never claimed to agree with everything he writes.

I do take exception to people who parade their ignorance and who serve up bile-laden commentary based on preconceived notions about someone simply because he doesn't worship their heroes.

Now it appears that Shaughnessy may have decided to respond in personam to someone who writes for something that calls itself an on-line magazine about a hit-and-run photograph accompanied by text that took the picture out of context.

The smart boys, always ready with an ever-so-hip comment (especially concerning their apparently recent discovery of sex) just can't take it when the tables are turned.

As for the latest book, the haters are so eager to rip it they refuse to understand that it's not a testimonial to one kid's athletic abilities. A lot of people can relate and maybe gain some insight, so it has a lot in common with Lupica's travel basketball fiction in that respect. Each can be read as athletic tome, but in each case, the true value of the book lies beneath the games.

It does, however, require some maturity to understand, maturity that people who believe invective is a writing skill simply do not yet possess. The 'editor' of this on-line skin/sports magazine has decided to "guarantee" that the protagonist in Shaughnessy's book "sucks" as a baseball player. Whether that is true or not is of absolutely no relevance. The 'editor' should probably go write some letters to Penthouse, since he clearly has trouble comprehending human interaction, such as that between a father and son.

Anonymous said...

O/B posted:

Actually I have criticized Shaughnessy, most recently for mixing up the year in which Roger Clemens rode the horse.

Wasn't it Boggs who rode the horse? I thought that was already established.

grammarian said...


One of the tools of last resort for OB is to use the "hastily written comments" excuse. He would have us believe he doesn't spend all day checking this blog from his basement to see who has responded to his comments, and trying to deflect attention from his beloved curly-haired boyfriend.

It seems like OB can dish it but can't take it. However, it seems like he found himself an editor (and a thesaurus and a Latin dictionary). Congratulations! Don't spend all day in your basement!

mike_b1 said...

Besides the obvious -- The CHB is so thin-skinned he feels compelled to call people names in print, then verbally attack those who protest -- he apparently completely ignores Globe and NYT protocols for interacting with the public.

He's a small, small man. (And not just below the belt.)

Objectivebruce said...

For the record, I can take anything the likes of "grammarian" might care to dish out. It is especially easy now that he or she is resorting to trite phrases such as "his beloved curly-haired boyfriend" or the even more trite "he found himself an editor (and a thesaurus and a Latin dictionary)."

It's been years since taking a pop quiz that required translation of Frazier's epic Tibialibus Rubrix XV, Eboracum Novum V.

Veni vidi vici.

Objectivebruce said...

xxx it's been years

makeread It has been years.

I would not want to stray off topic again.

Anonymous said...


Oh my God.
How pathetic are you?

Anonymous said...

Maybe he can tell you in Latin. or something.