Interesting piece today on several levels. Lets start at the end and work backwards. Shaughnesy has not written a piece in a week and yet he proudly acknowledges that he has been in California for a week "watching Manny take over the town". Apparently he has been so busy shopping for Manny dredlock wigs that he could not turn in a column. A wise use of Globe dollars?
Shaughnesy also makes a big revelation. The Boston Globe has learned that MLB is investigating Manny's final days with the Red Sox. This is a big scoop, right? Then why is this scoop buried halfway down the column? (By the way, is this a column or is it a hard hitting investigative report?) Is this scoop buried because the source is weak? And who at the Globe found this piece of info? Shaughnessy does not take credit for it as he employs the passive "the Globe has learned" technique. Is Shaughnessy being modest? Doubtful. Is he taking someone else's scoop? Likely. The vision of Shaughnessy burning up the phone lines doing investigative reporting is almost laughable. Maybe this big scoop is buried because Shaughnessy is embarrassed to be breaking the story because it's not his source?
Nevertheless, news of this investigation emboldens Shaughnessy. Is he taking columnistic license when he suggests that Ramirez' strikeout against Mariano Rivera several weeks ago was intentional? Or does he have some proof of this claim? Again, doubtful. (Objective Bruce's words from the other day ring in my ears: "Lesson Five: "Unsubstantiated rumors" ought not see the light of day without an examination of their source or veracity.")
No doubt, Manny's last days with the Red Sox have every sign of being sordid and there are many signs of unethical behavior. But there is a good discussion in the last thread about how people like Shaughnessy have totally neglected making the effort to examine Ramirez perspective. Is it the case that the duplicitousness of the Sox front office alienated Manny to the extent that he felt like he had to do what he did? This absolutely would not justify Ramirez' behavior but it would provide some meaningful context. Of course, Shaughnessy is either too lazy or too biased to pursue that angle. After all, he has wigs to model.
Well, since the Globe's parent company owns 17% of the Red Sox, maybe it was "leaked" to the Shank-miester?
ReplyDeleteWe all know the Globe carries the Sox's water even though they like to play it as though they're objective.
From today “Manny Mania takes over LA”
ReplyDelete“Theo and the Trio will be accused of letting their emotions get the better of their good sense”
Aren’t you accountable?
From “Now he's a guaranteed out” on July 26, 2008
“Manny has punched his ticket out of town. It's over. O-VA. Adios, amigo. Good night, Irene. Turn out the lights.”
Feels like a lot of emotions there.
I am sorry Shill’ock but you missed a great opportunity of investigative reporting. Imagine if you had taken a step back and explored … Hold on here, we are talking about a Future Hall of Famer, what torments him so?
Instead, your sensationalism got the better of you.
You fractured psyche is on display when you put the blame on others (i.e. “longtime enabler Terry Francona”), get out from behind your mothers dress and take responsibility for what you do.
You led the charge to humiliate another person without giving him due process. By the way, when does your star witness, the “64-year-old traveling secretary Jack McCormick”, take the stand? The Herald reported he was an ex-cop, you know, a rough-and-tumble type of guy. He fits the mold of an “inside” guy keeping an eye on the inmates. The plot thickens doesn’t it?
In your July 26th article you also said “Call me a cynic. Call me a nitwit.” Thank you we will.
g
I have a hard time believing that Selig is seriously investigating the Manny thing. Bottom line, how can he really prove anything. I personally believe that Manny tanked it, faked injuries etc. to force a trade to get out of the team options. But what I think and what I (or anyone else) are two totally different things.
ReplyDeletethe above should have said:
ReplyDeleteBut what I think and what I (or anyone else) can prove are two totally different things.
The inability to read and comprehend leads to still more issues with Dave.
ReplyDeleteThe Rivera at-bat has been much discussed. It's not something Shaughnessy raises for the first time in the column -- he refers to something that has been discussed and debated publicly, with comments from those involved. Even so, the columnist just ticks off a list of controversial matters surrounding Ramirez, and PARENTHETICALLY, includes "maybe even looking at those three strikes against Mariano Rivera.." Clearly a reference to a previously reported, on-going controversy. Any talk of Ramirez' performance in the three-strike at-bat long ago saw the light of day as a performance issue based on an act witnessed by millions. It's not gossip and rumor; it is speculation as to why he did what he did. Please learn that simple distinction, even as you offer the unfounded notion that Shaughnessy is "taking someone else's scoop."
Globe editors probably should have had the investigation pulled out for a straight news story.
Manny has been offered numerous chances to explain the "Ramirez perspective" and has basically passed. Shaughnessy's column does provide his take on why Manny acted as Manny did and he has a response from the player's agent. In a technical sense, the column should have included a pro forma "no comment" (or, to use Manny's current phrase, "brain on pause").
There is, however, a danger in reporting on ongoing investigations which may explain how it was played. While organized baseball may be looking into it, the issue of whether players are dogging it has historically been an issue for the clubs unless there is some circumstance that implicates the integrity of the game (and something beyond the mantra that every player must give 100 percent effort every inning of every game.) Probing whether players loaf is a rather slippery slope for the commissioner.
Finally, you really have no idea why Shaughnessy is in California, whether he has vacation or another assignment and stretched the purpose of his visit to do a couple of columns. Please don't even try to serve up a load of nonsense about how its okay to debate whether a columnist is working enough days during the week because he debates whether an athlete is doing his job. In sports, you're supposed to play every game; there is no expectation that columnists will appear in every issue. That would be as goofy and illogical as the calls for an in-depth piece (which the poster has decided to assign to Shaughnessy) about "what torments him so" with a subject who won't cooperate.
Now if you'll excuse me, I must run off to teach a class at Harvard Law on the exciting new defence against assault and batter charges, the "he was a rough and tumble guy so it's OK" defence. I shall follow that with instruction on how it was okay to rob the bank because they have lots of money.
Brucie,
ReplyDeleteYou may want to pick up a dictionary before heading over to that law class.
It's "defense".
OB
ReplyDeleteSorry in the delay in getting back to you. I just got back from My Job with Life where I had to deal with some issues; you know, tiffs between staff members, name-calling between office rivals, motivating the “mob” fandom, and making money, etc. Tough day, but since I’m the boss I will think it through and turn into my benefit.
“off to teach a class at Harvard Law”
I didn’t see it posted that anyone was defending the supposed “assault and batter charges”. As innocent bystanders trying to understand, we need to know the facts about the incident not just that it was over “the 16 tickets”. Tell us about the ex-cop. What was his perspective? Possibly he signed off to keep his mouth shut for the right amount of dough. Now wouldn’t that be a scoop to share with the fans. However, you only report that Manny had to agree to anger management classes. This seems a convenient strategy for the prosecution. However, you are asking us to be juror, and something seems incomplete here. Fill us in, you say it is the “smoking gun”, let us see the residue patters proving who shot his load.
“how it was okay to rob the bank because they have lots of money”
There is only one side that claims there was robbery. The other side made a very simple argument – I have worked hard, I am getting old, let me retire with dignity, please renegotiate my contract. So, Mr. Harvard Law, teach us how to resolve this conflict. It seems that all the “intelligentsia” signed off on the deal. So where is the problem? Who got robbed, who reported a crime?
“That would be as goofy and illogical as the calls for an in-depth piece (which the poster has decided to assign to Shaughnessy) about "what torments him so" with a subject who won't cooperate.”
I guess you finally admit that Shaughnessy has no relevance in reporting. He is just a tool of his own imagination.
g
OB:
ReplyDelete"Now if you'll excuse me, I must run off to teach a class at Harvard Law ..."
Oh. My. God.
Your pal,
Timmy
OB posted: “That would be as goofy and illogical as the calls for an in-depth piece (which the poster has decided to assign to Shaughnessy) about "what torments him so" with a subject who won't cooperate.”
ReplyDeleteOB question for you. You always defend how shaughnessy takes unpopular view points. I believe you have used the words "brave" and "intrepid" to describe him at times. Well, given that he has this reputation for being the most powerful writer in Boston and for being contrarion, wouldn't he have been the perfect guy to at least attempt to defend the actions of Manny, as g's scenario suggest could exist?
I say hell yes, he would have been perfect in that role. He could have gotten to take an unpopular view point, people in Boston would have been howling mad at him. In previous posts (especially when it came to Randy Moss and Belichek, if remember correctly) you had suggested that this type of stance was Shaughnessy's M.O.
However, I think that Shaughnessy has burned some many bridges with players in this town that he didn't even get the chance. Manny would not trust him to write a fair piece about him giving another perspective on the matter. As a result, the most powerful writer in Boston just became another one of the sharks that were out looking for blood.
vin
So, OB, according to you, it's come to this: The CHB is speculating on the speculation.
ReplyDeleteWow, that's a mighty fine use of what's left of the Globe bank account.
Interesting, too, how the Globe is publishing these CHB pieces without his byline on the Sports page, so the reader must make a decision whether to click the link based solely on the hedline and deck.
ReplyDeleteWonder if they noticed a downward trend in The CHB hits, and this is a move to remedy that?
Globe editors probably should have had the investigation pulled out for a straight news story.
ReplyDeleteYou sure seem to be using the 'Globe editors shoulda / woulda / coulda' defence with greater frequency lately. It's probably your best card to play when trying to let Shank off the hook...
OB
ReplyDeleteConflicted In Boston
From CHB the 080808 article “Manny Mania is all the rage in LA”
“Here's why Selig's office is looking into the matter:”
Blah, blah, blah ….
We fans understood that many ages ago. What took you so long? Probably you truly didn’t want to resolve the issues before it became The Matter?
In your article today it seemed as though you were trying to wash your hands after sealing Manny’s fate by deflecting to the “higher authority” of MLB.
You can’t make up your mind can you? Take a stand will you.
Let us get to the root of Your Problem CHB - Tell us who you truly are!
Are you Lucifer and then Pontius Pilate?
We’ve heard your story before. See Sympathy for the Devil" by The Rolling Stones circa 1968 on the album Beggars Banquet.
“Please allow me to introduce myself
Im a man of wealth and taste
Ive been around for a long, long year
Stole many a mans soul and faith
And I was round when jesus christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
.
.
.
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out,
Who killed the kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me
.
.
.
But whats puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
.
.
.
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me lucifer
cause Im in need of some restraint”
So, the Devil made you uneasy by providing you with conflicting impulses? Nice defense Shill’ock.
Accuser and Executioner; then you Hide Behind the “Mother’s” Dress. Nice storyteller you are.
The Manny Story is clearly simple. He stood up to the plate and made his stand. It was up to the Sox to make The Pitch.
As a reporter, if you wanted to engage the fans, tell us about the duel that reflects our daily grind. Don’t tell us about how Theo rolled his eyes, the look on Francona’s face, the scuffle with an ex-cop, the timid teammates voting him off the team, Gammons wanting him kept out of the Hall of Fame, Manny Begging. That is just gossip fodder.
You missed an opportunity to tell a Classic Americana Tale – The Story of the Cowboy as Sly as the Fox he Hunts.
g
looks like CHB got it wrong again
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/sports/la-spw-dodgers9-2008aug09,0,1264658.story
Responses to Dan Goes LA LA on previous post
ReplyDeleteVin
You are correct.
Monkees fan ...
There is more to Manny than hitting a ball. He is an entertainer. And enetrtainers think in an abstract way. They don't like being locked up.
to: none had the courage that Manny had. (contract issues)
The Sox set the precedent by renegotiating with Papplebon and Youkolis. The Sox can not discriminate otherwise they will have a revolution at hand. even if it consists of one. All the Sox had to do was negotiate.
g
The Sox set the precedent by renegotiating with Papplebon and Youkolis.
ReplyDeleteApples and Oranges - When the Sox signed Papplebon and Youkolis , neither had options and would go year to year until they either became arbitration eligible or out right free agents. All the Sox did in their cases was eliminate the yearly renegotiation and sign them to longer term contracts. Manny was already under long term eight-year, $160 million contract with team $20 million options for 2009 and 2010. He agreed (without a gun to his head) to the contract in 2000 but decided this year he didn't like the fact that the team had all the power on the options and that if they picked up both he would be a 38 year old player looking for a contract. Well who's fault is that... all Manny's. So instead of being a professional and a grown up and making the best of a situation he put himself into, he chose to be an ass and make his presence on the team as untenable as possible.
What you had here was a case of a despised sports columnist being sent on a costly juggernaut while paper clips are being counted and paper is being copied on both sides. Our triumphant 'despised columnist' needed a bit of 'big news,' heretofore unreported by anyone else, in order to make the whole charade appear a bit more 'valuable' than it otherwise was. Indeed, sent on a trip to report on one Manuel Ramirez, Shaughnessy got not one single in-person quote from the subject of his journey. Not one. So, looking at turning in a massive expense report and wondering how he'd explain it all to his lowly coworkers back on the Boulevard, Shaughnessy decided to fashion a 'big' story out of a non-story. In point of absolute fact, the story has indeed turned out to be much-ado-about nothing. And Shank still has to turn in that expense report.
ReplyDeleteApples and Oranges - is that a new card game being promoted by the ESPN Poker Gurus.
ReplyDeleteHow do you play it? See if you can read my hand? or call my bluff?
Actually, you nailed the answer to the dilemma when you said – ‘All the Sox did in their cases (Papplebon an Youkolis) was eliminate the yearly renegotiation and sign them to longer term contracts."
So why didn’t the Sox “eliminate the yearly renegotiation” for 4 years and capitalize on the Manny Bonanza as he marched towards 600 hrs and plenty more RBI’s.
The Sox had a choice. The are plenty of precedents throughout history that could've guided the Sox & Manny through The Impasse; any Harvard Lawyer would confirm that.
Maybe the Sox want to serve us only vanilla and not rocky-road.
Or maybe, someone in the Sox Orgy had to prove how "BAD MAN" they were.
g
Bruce
ReplyDeleteDan concludes
"A little souvenir from a week in Los Angeles, watching Manny RamÃrez take over the town."
So he admits he is been in LA all week watching Manny Ramirez and so I assumed that he was there on behalf of the Globe reporting on Manny. A reasonable assumption? He has had two columns published over a week...if he is not writing every day, I would assume it was because he was doing some behind the scenes reporting (I have a hard time keeping a straight face as I type that) Yet, todays effort is devoid of any substance - oh yeah, there is the big scoop that MLB is denying. Granted, MLB could be lying in their denuial but you would think Shaughnessy would at least ask MLB before running with this story, no? Because, after all, in your words "Unsubstantiated rumors" ought not see the light of day without an examination of their source or veracity, right?
I am too tired to respond to your other inane blabber.
The only kind of reporting Shank could ever do is of the 'behind-the-scenes' variety, simply because he's so universally vilified and unwanted anywhere near the front. Seeing Shaughnessy 'cower' near the back of the media throng at this past Super Bowl media day is a lasting image I have of this 'sports media titan,' who really is a milktoast upon further and more critical review.
ReplyDeleteOff topic, but I would lay even odds that Shank will pen a 'bitter/clinger' column with respect to the Olympics. Because he doesn't like the Olympics, you might wonder? NO! Because Ryan was sent there instead of him. I GUARANTEE that Shaughnessy will interject something negative about the Olympics in an upcoming column, and it will be because he's 'bitter.' Isn't that the reason behind all of his columns? (That was a rhetorical question, lest our friend OB feel compelled to 'say something about it.')
ReplyDeleteI GUARANTEE that Shaughnessy will interject something negative about the Olympics in an upcoming column, and it will be because he's 'bitter.'
ReplyDeleteShank saying something negative = dog bites man!
Chris,
ReplyDeleteYou are on the mark. To your point about the Olympics (i.e. anything foreign) -
Posted Jun 18th 2008 7:00PM by Tom Ziller on FanHouse
http://www.fanhouse.com/2008/06/18/lakers-had-too-many-europeans-says-brilliant-boston-columnist/
Lakers 'Had Too Many Europeans' Says Brilliant Boston Columnist Shaughnessy
Dan Shaughnessy of the Boston Globe, please share with us why you think the Celtics won the championship.
"Kobe Bryant scored 22 for the losers, but ultimately LA just had too many Europeans."
Calling a team soft is one thing. Asserting certain players aren't big or tough enough to bang with heavyweights, that's a common practice and perfect sensible as a critique if the facts back it up. Indicting the ethnic lineage of a group of players in generalist sense?
That's racial profiling, buddy.
.
.
.
And I mean, seriously Shaughnessy: the San Antonio Spurs have won three titles this decade featuring a roster full of Euro-born (Tony Parker, Rasho Nesterovic) and Euro-bred athletes (Manu Ginobili, Fabricio Oberto).
The argument that the Lakers lost because the racial makeup of their roster isn't just stupidly offensive; it's offensively stupid. (Of course, this is expected with this particular writer.)
Sounds familiar doesn’t it.
The CHB has proven that anything that is foreign or he can’t understand he will portray as so Un-American and therefore inferior. Gee, I wonder who he is communicating to Mr. Globe.
The Shill’ock represents Boston so well and he does us proud! Wake up you Moronic Typists at Globe.
g
So why didn’t the Sox “eliminate the yearly renegotiation” for 4 years and capitalize on the Manny Bonanza as he marched towards 600 hrs and plenty more RBI’s.
ReplyDelete1. Pap and youk are young players on the with a great deal of potential over the next few years, and it is probably cheaper to sign them now rather then risk arbitration and/or free agency.
2. Manny - a great player on the down swing, currently 36 y/o./ Granted he is still a great hitter but numbers in the decline. Additionally he has been a problem child since day 1 with the team, every year requesting trades, wishing he was playing for the Yankees, mysterious injuries that take him out at all star breaks & near the end of season, questionable effort at times, almost always late for spring training ....
Did anybody see Danny Boy on Jim Rome's show earlier this week, when the Shankster criticized the Sox for trading Manny? Geeze, I could have sworn it was the CHB who virtually demanded the team jettison Ramirez.
ReplyDeleteSo what, he was in Los Angeles. Does that mean he was working? When did blogs start handing out reporting assignments? You can watch a ballgame and take in the city's attitude and reaction to what's going on with a sports team
ReplyDeleteSorry g. Harmful or offensive touching is harmful or offensive touching, and if you want to get hung up on a dropped 'y' be my guest. The proposed new defence to bank robbing had nothing to do with Manny, it was a logical extension of the new theory of criminal law where you actually seem to suggest that if the victim is a "rough and tumble kind of guy" it has some sort of relevance to whether a battery was committed.
Roger, I let nobody off the hook, and its now clear why the story was played as it was -- there was an inquiry that fell short of a formal probe; most of the hoopla over "manny deal investigated" was generated by people who picked up a line in a column and made that the story of the day without doing any of their own reporting. Sometimes reporting yields perspective that is used in making decisions on how to play a story.
Organized baseball admits making "some follow-up calls" for "clarification on several issues involving the trade"
The LA Times, also reported on an investigation, saying "a baseball source said Friday, speaking on condition of anonymity because the matter had not been resolved." Shaughnessy attributed his story to "a source with direct knowledge of the inquiry." Hardly gossip and speculation, but then reading comprehension is a continuing and deeply-rooted problem.
Paul? Don't make presumptions, eh?
As for Papelbon, the issue there was not renegotiation, it was his demand that he be paid something closer to market rate despite not being eligible for free agency and despite the club having a right under the basic agreement to impose a contract. If the Sawx had to go to the market to replace his 57 saves and it would have cost more than $775,000, which gives him considerable leverage, but he elected not to hold out in the face of the team gearing up the disinformation machine.
Finally, Shaughnessy didn't "demand" that the Sawx deal Manny, he accurately foretold (and before most of the rest of the class) that his days in Boston were numbered. But that's what good columnists do, despite the affection hereabouts for having them utter not a discouraging word.
Ahhh...they haughty LA Times. That would be the same newspaper that decided to play God by forbidding any mention of the John Edwards story. "Hey! If we don't report on it, and we forbid bloggers to comment on it, it never really happened! And our blow-dried hero John Edwards will save his reputation thanks to US!"
ReplyDeleteSo, how did that all work out?
OB
ReplyDeleteYou gotta run ……… and hide again?
To date there has been no police report submitted of the “crime”. The prosecution has only inferred about an incident involving a dispute over securing “The 16 Tickets”. Conveniently, the Prosecution leaked to the jurors that The Accused agreed to attend anger management class in addition to paying a fine. Gotta be guilty cause of that, didn’t he admit to it with those gestures! No?
Another Prosecution salvo was to have the Town Drunk trumpet it was a “six-figure” fine and link it to “leaving the bat on the shoulder”. The case seems circumstantial so far.
My point was, if the Herald reports that McCormick was an ex-cop, why was that description leaked out? The Globe repeatedly describes him as a “64 year old travelling SECRETARY”. The imagination runs wild with those types of generalizations.
My question is – Why not run a story on McCormick and The Incident? Would it not shed light on the friction? We sure got plenty of characterizations of Manny.
The Sox closed the case coldly with their “handled internally” stance on “The 16 Tickets” incident.
Interestingly, the original Company line on the Youk + Manny slapstick comedy night was described as “two brothers” arguing and the “case is closed” “handled internally”; but now that “Slapstick” incident is being projected to substantiate Manny’s lack of character. If I recall, soon after the dugout scuffle occurred, the “media activists” jokingly described how many of the Sox players felt that Youk had it coming.
So, back to the “64 year old travelling secretary” a.k.a “The Ex-Cop”, and just for a moment let our imagination run wild ……. Did he have it coming to him? We won’t know until we see him, hear him, and define him.
All indication points to Manny having remorse, as the players report; but the players are in the midst of the scene, they feel it and put it into proper scale; we fans are not, so to be fed generalizations to substantiate what seems circumstantial is legally misleading.
“The 16 Tickets” scene presents us with the “smoking gun”, as proposed and inferred in many of the media’s “spirited” attacks; so it seems like a “climax” to be experienced.
Why aren’t the Sox opening up the files on this “closed internal matter”?
If you want the jurors to decide The Case then present the cold hard facts. Otherwise, serve your fools nectar to the Minions in the Nation.
Has anyone “reported” the whole truth in this matter of slapstick Etiquette?
Many of us respect the truth and are mordant when wrong. We understand “it is what it is” so “lay it out” don’t “slap it on”.
g
Roger, I let nobody off the hook,
ReplyDeletePardon? Your sole raison d'être (better check my French, eh, hoser?) on this board is to provide excuse after excuse after excuse for Shank's shortcomings. It's quite clear you were deflecting blame for the 'investigation' onto the Globe editors. I see no reason otherwise.
Shall I dissect your other "Globe editors shoulda / woulda / coulda" evasions?
Just ask...
“Theo and the Trio will be accused of letting their emotions get the better of their good sense”
ReplyDeleteI assume that our dear Shank wouldn't be one of those accusers; after all, that would be hypocritical, after all of those columns about Sox management "enabling" Manny's behavior. The Pasty Scribe would never allow himself to be that inconsistent, just to have the pleasure of ripping another human being publicly. He's way too fine a person for that sort of behavior.
1. Pap and youk are young players with a great deal of potential over the next few years, and it is probably cheaper to sign them now rather then risk arbitration and/or free agency.
ReplyDeleteKey words = cheaper + risk. They made a decision RE: Pap + Youk and they acted. What was the decision RE: Manny? We can only speculate. I just get the sense they had no plans for Manny + Sox future, but they also wanted to use him as a PAWN vs. Yankees. So the Sox used Cheap + Risk perspective to move forth with Manny, arrogantly forgetting about the PR nightmare.
2. Manny - a great player on the down swing, currently 36 y/o./ Granted he is still a great hitter but numbers in the decline. Additionally he has been a problem child .......
Key words = down swing. This will be the company line. My view is tied in to a previous response I made to Monkeesfan… assertion that Manny is just a hitter. Manny is a complex ballplayer + entertainer. Yes I agree he was entering a different phase of his career.
The issues The Negotiators had to resolve centered around Cheap + Risk + Down Swing = Manny’s Value. Did they factor in the potential marketing dollars from The Manny Factor? If yes, and you have no plan for Manny in the future, then “communicate” your decision. That is what Manny was asking for. Don’t wait till the end of the season.
It’s bad business for employers to “retard” the earning potential of any employee. Isn’t that why The Players went on Strike in 1994 = the issue of a Salary Cap form of retardation.
Bottom Line = Did Sox assume that Manny was just a “hitter” and definitely a dummy and wouldn’t put up a fight? Or, were there other forces at work? These are the stories a reporter needs to present to the fans. They are difficult to assemble and require courage to move towards the truth.
Did the Globe deliver?
g
Monumental stupidity department:
ReplyDelete"The Globe repeatedly describes him as a “64 year old travelling SECRETARY”. The imagination runs wild with those types of generalizations."
Traveling secretaries have been part of baseball forever. It's a specific job with specific responsibilities (hint: it doesn't involved dictation).
Nobody has a criminal act "coming to him." Yes, whether or not it was a criminal act is ultimately a question for the legal finder of fact, be it judge or jury. But I have heard no denial of the basic truth: Ramirez knocks guy down. We have laws that say you can't do that and a common law tradition that says if you do that, you can be liable for suit in addition to being subject to criminal prosecution.
Be my guest Roger, just make a reasonable attempt to be coherent.
On initial examination, I suggested the editors shoulda pulled out the investigation story for a takeout. AS it turns out, their reasons may have been based in the relatively cursory nature of the inquiry, there was nothing anywhere approaching the order of the Mitchell or Dowd investigations. I still think it deserved a separate. But there was an inquiry, organized baseball admitted it. I think that makes it what's known as a scoop.
As for Shaughnessy burning bridges, you would have thought he did that with Jim Ed Rice, yet he turned in a pretty good column a year or two ago on Rice's reflections on waiting for the Hall of Fame call that never came (which naturally was derided hereabouts for having too many quotations, the bloggers not being able to find anything else to complain about to express their hatred for someone who doesn't luv, luv,luv their heroes
Happy Founders Day.
Happy Discovery Day I mean.
ReplyDelete“Monumental stupidity” –
ReplyDeleteOB said – “Whether or not it was a criminal act is ultimately a question for the legal finder of fact, be it judge or jury.”
Isn’t that the Monumental Point?
It’s not up to “The Press” to sway the court of public opinion with their selective use of words and stories, especially when they have a vested interest in one of the parties.
No where in any of the posts has it been stated that “random acts” of bullying are acceptable.
Defense advocates generally speak hypothetically when asking the jury to consider alternate scenarios to contradict the Prosecutions targeted scope.
Facts –
McCormick has stated: "It was an unfortunate misunderstanding and it's over with as far as I'm concerned."
"I just want it to die,'' McCormick said this morning. "It's over. He apologized. That's it. I want us to get back to our winning ways.''
Questions –
If the parties want the case closed, why then does the media continue to use The Shove in their character attacks?
Why? Do they have further insights in this matter of "differences" that the parties in the friction have not already addressed?
McCormick said it was a misunderstanding. Manny apologized. Case closed.
For years Manny was portrayed as the Lovable Buffoon, now he must also be The Burly Monster.
You can’t have it both ways. If you utilize character attacks, then back it up without leaving any reasonable doubts.
g
But I'm sure that the Globe makes its coverage decision based on a blog and that editors wree worried that he needed someone "to attack in Boston"
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying that the editors dictate who / what Shank writes about?
Then again, it's bad enough that they sign off on every single column...
I see Manny is already undermining Joe Torre by not cutting the deadlocks.
ReplyDeleteManny The Entertainer
ReplyDeleteFrom Hollywood Script in LA LA Land:
Finally Samson said,
"Enough already!
I will tell you everything, just leave me alone!
My hair has never been cut.
I had to take certain vows when I was born and have been given this gift by God.
If my head was shaved I would become as weak as any other man."
g
As a courtesy, I will provide Roger with one more lesson in Remedial Principles of Elementary Journalism.
ReplyDeleteWhen a major story is developing or unfolding, a newspaper will often assign a columnist to write about it. Being a columnist is not an unlimited licence. The columnist's thoughts and point of view are his or her own, but papers can and do assign columnists to events and as part of a planned package of coverage.
OB
ReplyDeleteHow do the Shill and the Globe stack up to these principles?
Principles of Journalism
Journalists Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel describe what they believe are the nine major elements of journalism that make it unique:
1. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to citizens.
3. Its essence is a discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
Journalist Michael Lund also stresses the importance of facts over truth in journalism. U.K. newspaper editor C. P. Scott said: "Comments are free but facts are sacred."
News values
In determining coverage or amount of newsworthiness, journalists rely on news values:
1. conflict,
2. impact,
3. oddity,
4. prominence,
5. proximity and
6. timeliness.
Objectivity
According to A Statement of Shared Purpose, by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists:
"When the concept of objectivity originally evolved, it did not imply that journalists are free of bias."
"Objectivity" refers not to the person, but to the method, the testing of information, to help prevent biases from undermining the work.
For example, this is pursued by seeking multiple and opposing sources.
g
I'd give the Globe a high B+. Partially because it employs the likes of Shaughnessy, and others, who don't go into the tank for jocks or practice the pink-hat, luv-luv-luv our local teams 'journalism" favoured by contributors to this site.
ReplyDeleteHey Bruce
ReplyDeleteWhen will you get it through you thick thick skull that the distaste that the bloggers here have for Shaughnessy has absolutely nothing to do with whether he "roots roots roots" for the home team.
I can't stand him because he is a lazy hack. He is not brave and he is not a contrarian as you fashion him to be. He is lazy; he is shallow; and he is sensationalistic.
Stop mischaracterizing this - you do it repeatedly and you are totally missing the mark
I'd give the Globe a high B+.
ReplyDeleteIs that like a low A-, or 'Remedial Principles of Elementary Journalism'?
Just asking...
Question for 'objective' bruce:
ReplyDeleteDo you give the Globe the 'high B+' (is that the same as a low A-?) partially because it used to employ the likes of Mike Barnicle, Patricia Smith and, of course, the immortal Ron Borges, heretofore the most hated Boston Globe sportswriter, whose massive forehead I could land a B-52 on, the idiot who once posited the completely preposterous idea that Lance Armstrong is not an athlete?
Are these the types of Globe employees you choose to defend, OB? Or do you just choose to defend the ones that didn't get bagged and tagged?
Just curious...
Further commentary:
ReplyDelete...that the distaste that the bloggers here have for Shaughnessy has absolutely nothing to do with whether he "roots roots roots" for the home team.
Come on - that's 'pink hats luv luv luv the home team' (jeez, you didn't get the memo?).
I can't stand him because he is a lazy hack.
Hell, even other columnist hacks manage to bang out three columns a week. Maybe Shank's on vacation this week, or a lot of weeks?
He is not brave and he is not a contrarian as you fashion him to be.
Being a complete unrepentant asshole may be seen as brave and contrarian in some people's eyes. Not mine, in Shank's case, but perhaps others.
He is lazy;
I'm quite surprised this is even a debatable point by now. He makes my cat look like Lance Armstrong climbing Sestriere.
he is shallow;
Like the proverbial backyard kiddie pool?
...and he is sensationalistic.
Perhaps in the manner of hooking up live jumper cables soaked with salt water to one's private parts...
Stop mischaracterizing this - you do it repeatedly and you are totally missing the mark.
Akin to one of my problems with his debating style, as it were: that of the employ of the strawman argument. At one point I had a awesome list of all the bullshit countermeasures that are used by people who aren't really interested in refuting arguments, but choose to avoid them by misdirection (you're damn close w/ mischaracterization, but I'm splitting hairs now, same difference really...) and other techniques.
OK, now for something completely different - why is this song amusing and / or shlock bullshit?
Barnicle and Smith were fired, and justifiably so. I think the reaction to Borges was overblown and based more on his not showing enough luv, luv, luv for the home team.
ReplyDeleteI have absolutely no doubt that the roots of the bizarre hatred for Shaughnessy is based on his writing things that upset the ban boys.
Absolutely no doubt.
We will now pause for the usual 'mancrush' nonsense and other irrelevant attacks that are the coin of the real on this site.
That would be "coin of the realm," OB.
ReplyDeleteAnd people don't The CHB because he dresses funny and doesn't shower often. His lousy writing and lack of a spine are just icing.
OB,
ReplyDelete"irrelevant attacks "
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
TypoMan is given "journalistic" freedom to atttack. He has no principles!
Are we not allowed to "defend" against random acts of "purges and cleansing"?
g
Smith -> made up stories -> fired, and justifiably so.
ReplyDeleteBarnicle -> plagarist -> fired, and justifiably so.
Borges -> plagarist -> I think the reaction to Borges was overblown and based more on his not showing enough luv, luv, luv for the home team.
There are two problems with that logic:
1) You're talking about two different things (fired / 'reaction to').
2) There are four major pro sports teams in Boston; perhaps you had one particular team in mind? No need to answer that, as it's apparent that the sarcasm drenched throwaway line 'luv, luv, luv for the home team' is merely misdirection. I suggest you retire the hackneyed catchphrase, as henceforth you will be called on it every single time you deploy it.
Far more interesting to deal with the facts, though - what did Borges' boss have to say about his luv, luv, luv for the home team (from the above link)? Nothing!
"Ron Borges has been suspended for two months without pay because he plagiarized from a reporter at another news organization in a notes column published in Sunday's Sports section," said Globe Editor Martin Baron in a statement.
From this site:
Borges copied numerous passages from a Feb. 25, 2007 article written by Mike Sando of The News Tribune in Tacoma, Wash. Sando had submitted his piece to an online notes-sharing network used by Borges and other sports reporters across the country. Borges did not credit Sando, but a disclaimer at the bottom of his column did acknowledge that “Material from personal interviews, wire services, other beat writers, and league and team sources was used in this report.” On May 18, 2007, Borges announced his departure from The Boston Globe to pursue new projects in sports journalism.
...and the stock excuse 'spending more time with his family' is conspicuously missing.
Did Borges (or anyone else, for that matter) opine that his 'departure' (read - before the Globe got the chance to shitcan his ass) had anything to do with his not showing enough luv, luv, luv for the home team?
Did Borges get a bum rap, nothing his disclosure at the bottom of the article? You could have made that argument, and you would have been on solid ground doing so, and I would have agreed with you had you done that. Instead, you ran with a bogus and logic free excuse for Borges' departure, blaming it on a contrived issue completely divorced from the available evidence.
Nice try, OB...
Roger
ReplyDeleteNice points - thanks
(
As for the Human League I love those guys
Bruce - you seem to have an answer for everything - why do you claim the hatred for Shaughnessy is bizarre? Why do so many people not like the guy? Because he is horrible. It is not irrational. It is not bizarre
By the way, I dont hate Shaughnessy; I have a strong distaste for his writing. Outside of his writing, he is a human being As humans, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. From what I can gather (I surmise this largely from his book, Senior Year), I think he has a lot of positive attributes. His writing for the Globe is just not one of them
Dave M
One of the truths about the internet, and they are rare, is that when one seizes on a spelling error or dropped letter, one loses by default.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your concession, Mike, another one bites the dust.
Now we'll just let Roger burn himself out with this 'strawman' nonsense.
There are lousy writers on every paper in America. This one is devoted to Shaughnessy not because he is lousy, but because he's not in the tank for Our Heroes. Fanboys just can't handle their heroes being criticized; example number two is the visceral reaction to Massarotti, not for jumping in the economic sack with a player he was covering (he was exonerated, because we luv, luv, luv the player in question), but because he violated the Holy space occupied by the Patsies, their fans, and their would-be Hartford-bound owner.
Sure Dave. Whatever you say. Shaughnessy's point of view has nothing to do with it; you just don't think he works hard enough.
Right.
As for Borges, it was common knowledge, noted on the column itself, that the work of others was part of the column. I think the Borges haters (who exist mainly because he doesn't luv, luv, luv the Patsies quite enough) and the Globe sports editor grossly overreacted.
Typical OB: Mocking what he doesn't understand.
ReplyDeleteOB:
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't funny the first 50 or 60 times you did the whole "luv, luv, luv" thing. But, you know what?
Now it is! It's really, really funny! Good job, you ol' intellectually suspect, condescending, douchebag, you!
Your pal,
Timmy
This one is devoted to Shaughnessy not because he is lousy, but because he's not in the tank for Our Heroes.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence to the contrary is overwhelming, and staggering. For every example you can provide indicating a poster's problem with Shank Not In The Tank, I will provide at least five which point out his lousy writing.
As for Borges, it was common knowledge, noted on the column itself, that the work of others was part of the column.
Let me complete that part of the post for you:
“Material from personal interviews, wire services, other beat writers, league and team sources, and the very same point made by Roger Bournival a day ago was used in this post.”
Funny how you failed to make that point yesterday. Care to explain why this changed? It's tacit acknowledgement that the 'luv, luv luv' line is wrong and shopworn.
I think the Borges haters (who exist mainly because he doesn't luv, luv, luv the Patsies quite enough) and the Globe sports editor grossly overreacted.
Yesterday it was the 'home team', today it's 'the Patsies'. Another, um, consistent theme...
Sure Dave. Whatever you say. Shaughnessy's point of view has nothing to do with it; you just don't think he works hard enough.
ReplyDeleteIt should be painfully obvious even to you by now that laziness is not Dave's, or my, only problem with Shank's ability as a journalist. And why do you think that particular criticism should be taken off the table? Isn't it part and parcel of the overall criticism of Shank as a journalist?
This most recent comments thread is the largest I can remember, and I attribute 100% of it due to Shank's recent inaction. Agreed?
Perhaps Shank is currently on vacation. If he is not, nine days without a column nukes your defence of Shank in that regard.
OB:
ReplyDeleteIs it me, or is it obvious to everyone that you're Roger Bournival's prison wife? Or is the term, "bitch?"
Your pal,
Timmy
Barnicle and Smith were fired, and justifiably so. I think the reaction to Borges was overblown and based more on his not showing enough luv, luv, luv for the home team.
ReplyDeleteBorges should have been shitcanned for attacking Michael Katz. Funny how none of the Globies/Obtuse Bruce remembered that incident when trying to execute Manny for pushing Jack McCormick.
I GUARANTEE that Shaughnessy will interject something negative about the Olympics in an upcoming column, and it will be because he's 'bitter.
ReplyDeleteWe ought to start an over / under pool on a few fronts - a) Shank's next column (I say Wednesday) and b) his next negative column (I say the same column, assuming the US basketball team loses to some non pasty-white Euro team).
In other words; Chris - I think you're right about the first point, though with his recent inactivity, I'll mark it low; the second remains to be seen.
But wait! Am I being too pink-hat, luv, luv, luv deferential to the home Patsies (or whatever the team du jour's supposed to be)? I'd certainly not want to be viewed as too jingoistic in a certain commenter's eyes...
Thanks, Bill.
ReplyDeleteThe things you learn every day...
Altercation with Michael Katz
In June 2004, Borges was involved in a physical altercation with New York Times and MaxBoxing.com reporter Michael Katz at a press conference in Las Vegas. Reports state that Katz was in the process of interviewing boxing promoter Bob Arum when Borges interrupted to ask Arum a question. Katz objected to the interruption and allegedly accused Borges of "being a shill for" boxing promoter Don King. In a column earlier in the year Katz had called Borges "a vomit-smelling sleaze" and criticized Borges for "writing about a fight without revealing he was being paid by King to provide television commentary". Borges responded by striking Katz, who responded by striking at Borges with his cane. Katz was described as "a short, fat man in his 60s who walks with a cane and wears a neck brace because of chronic back problems". The fight between the two was broken up by Arum and his aide.[4][5]
To be fair to OB, this incident well predated the Shank Blog. Since OB appears to be defending Mr. Katzenhead-Banger and other non-athletes, I welcome his unconvincing input.
What did Shank and his peers think of Captain Forehead at this time?
Other Globe columnists on Borges
“Borges doesn’t care, I think he fires away and doesn’t think about the fans or anyone else. I think he fires away with honesty and candor with no other objective but to tell people what he really thinks. And if people don’t like it, fuck 'em.” -Bob Ryan
“He’s always expressed his opinions, Bluntly.” -former Globe sports editor Don Skwar.
“We should have one of those Globe polls—‘Who do you hate more?’ I’ve challenged Borges to see who could get out the vote. It would be close. And it would be a lot more interesting than who’s going to win the MVP.” -Dan Shaughnessy
So, acknowledged hatred of certain Boston Globe sportswriters by their own staff drips into Shank's eulogy of Borges, and somehow that doesn't seem to matter?
OB - "I'd give the Globe a high B+. Partially because it employs the likes of Shaughnessy, and others, who don't go into the tank for jocks or practice the pink-hat, luv-luv-luv our local teams 'journalism" favoured by contributors to this site."
ReplyDelete+
"Fanboys just can't handle their heroes being criticized; example number two is the visceral reaction to Massarotti, not for jumping in the economic sack with a player he was covering (he was exonerated, because we luv, luv, luv the player in question), but because he violated the Holy space occupied by the Patsies, their fans, and their would-be Hartford-bound owner."
I'm sure your happy to hear that Massarotti is leaving the Herald to join the Boston Globe?
OB:
ReplyDelete"favoured?"
Affected, much?
Your bloke,
Timmy
favoured - OB must be British.
ReplyDeleteI hereby retract this part of my last post:
ReplyDeleteSince OB appears to be defending Mr. Katzenhead-Banger and other non-athletes,...
I wrongly implied that OB was defending the Bashing Borges; he said nothing of the sort.
I still welcome his input on this matter, or others as previously discussed, unconvincing or otherwise.
favoured - OB must be British.
ReplyDeleteI like to call it FSB (Faux Snot Brit); think Oasis / Liam Gallagher with a degree from Oxford, or just tune in to WFNX from time to time.
On the other hand...
Having observed this phenomena for many a fortnight, I can play it better than anyone; just sit back and (laugh) watch...
Where is Dan?
ReplyDeleteI would have taken the under on a Wednesday return thinking he would return to the office on Monday and write something for today but no dice
Wonder if he is upset that they are bringing in Herald people? Or maybe my original theory was correct...with Manny and Curt out of the picture, he has no one to attack until the Pats start their season in earnest.
OB - as Roger mentioned, my issues with Shaughnessy go way beyond his laziness. Not sure why you can't comprehend that.
Dave M
Me British?
ReplyDeleteWhere in the name of Evangeline did you get that? It is an incorrect pretense (and the spelling is used advisedly)
Condescension is so amusing, and so very far from hitting its mark, when it is based on a faulty premise
favoured is the way the British would spell favored ... like they spell color colour and harbor harbour.
ReplyDeleteOB lecturing someone on condescension is like Paris Hilton lecturing us about promiscuity.
ReplyDeleteSomeone's irony meter must be in the shop!
OB:
ReplyDeleteSo that would make you a "douche" rather than a "doosh." Cause it's more foreign, and shit.
Your pal,
Timmy
Wow! 68 Comments. That's got to be close to some sort of record.
ReplyDelete(well 69 now)
Maybe the Globe traded Shank straight up for Mazz, and Shank's brooding about it?
ReplyDelete/OB, that's sarcasm for you! Sorry if you can't grasp the concept, as it should have been apparent in this and other threads. I'll supply these tags from now on for the uninitiated...
Just building up the thread count...
ReplyDeleteI still welcome his input on this matter, or others as previously discussed, unconvincing or otherwise.
Shall I interpret your lack of response on the above as yet another affirmation of the correctness and vastly superior nature of my arguments, or am I a bit too declasse in mentioning the matter? I understand Arthur Fonzarelli had an entire episode of (yes!) Hapy Days devoted to the fact that he had a massive problem admitting he was wr... wr... wr...
Hey, even I admitted I was wr... wr... wr.. WRONG! when I attributed to you a defence of Captain Forehead attacking an apparently infirm, neck-braced elder, among other admissions. Surely you could establish some credibility here and do the same?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRecord for comments is 78 from last summer from the Randy Moss hysteria.
ReplyDeletehttp://danshaughnessy.blogspot.com/
2007/05/randy-moss-hysteria-day-2.html
Keep the comments coming. Always nice to know that people are tuning in.
I am honestly a little worried about Shank. You wish and wish that he would just leave town but when he doesnt publish for 10 days, it is almost depressing.
Boston.com did just post Shaughnessy's article from last fall about Yaz. I have not re-read it but I found it troubling that they posted it again. Little too morbid if you ask me. Just hope Yaz has a speedy recovery. Back in the day, I just luved luved luved Yaz. Too bad they didnt have the pink hats back then...
Two points -
ReplyDelete1) comment at 10:27 deleted by the author - I know it's youre site, Dave, but mine is more of a prurirent interest. I wish you had a sink trap so we could have seen what was written to get that one trashed.
2) Has OB ever admitted to error and / or bogus criticism? I anticipate the obvious negative response.
More thread count material, until OB posts something remotely interesting / responsive to my previous inquiries...
ReplyDeleteFrom vin (post # 9):
OB question for you. You always defend how shaughnessy takes unpopular view points. I believe you have used the words "brave" and "intrepid" to describe him at times.
I shant waste time verifying it because it sounds quite like OB's MO in defence of his beloved columnist. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, OB; as I'm apparently the only party amongst us ready to admit when I'm incorrect on such matters. Care to rectify that imbalance, Fonzie?
I was wr... wr... wr...
I fail to see where Shank's alleged bravery or intrepitude (grant me some literary licence here), as it were, adds to the situation here. He is unable or unwilling to interview Manny directly, hence OB's view on the matter:
Shaughnessy's column does provide his take on why Manny acted as Manny did and he has a response from the player's agent.
Over to you, OB...
Finally, you really have no idea why Shaughnessy is in California, whether he has vacation or another assignment and stretched the purpose of his visit to do a couple of columns. Please don't even try to serve up a load of nonsense about how its okay to debate whether a columnist is working enough days during the week because he debates whether an athlete is doing his job. In sports, you're supposed to play every game; there is no expectation that columnists will appear in every issue.
ReplyDeleteLast two colums - 8/7 and 8/8; no apparent disclosure of vacation time as I asked you about many posts ago. You tell me...
Good Morning
ReplyDeleteThe post that was deleted was actually mine. I tried to post that link to the thread from last year and it got chopped out. I havent figured a way to edit comments so I deleted and reposted with the link. And no, it wasnt a hollow attempt to trump up the comment count!
Somewhere in the back of my mind, it seems to me that Objective Bruce ate crow somewhere along the line but I just can't remember for sure. You would think it would stand out like a beacon if he did and so maybe I am only dreaming it. There is actually one post from two years ago where he was gracious enough to thank Chief and Jenny for the debate and so maybe there is some sense of humanity and humility buried deep in the recesses of the entity that is known as Objective Bruce.
Speaking of Chief, we really consider him the owner of this site as he is the founding father. Glad that DBVader and I have been able to do this for the past couple of years. And speaking of DB, where are you? Have not heard from you in awhile
Sorry for rambling
Have a good day
So does the deleted comment count towards the record attempt or not ...
ReplyDeleteIts included not that anyone is counting :)
ReplyDeleteSo 78 is now the old record
ReplyDeleteIs Shank using up his unused vacation time before accepting the buyout?
ReplyDeletePerhaps the board's resident Shankophile (rhymes with Francophile; I'm so clever! :-) ) can answer that question.
Of course, that answer could be a while in coming; he'll do so just as soon as he's removed all the burrs I've planted in his ass...
August 21st, 2008 - no Shank-ronicity.
ReplyDeleteAm I having way too much fun with this theme?
Stop me, OB!
Roger is now boring.
ReplyDeleteVery, very boring.
Dear OB:
ReplyDeleteHow's that burr removal project going?
Your pal,
Roger
Roger is now boring.
ReplyDeleteVery, very boring.
Methinks those permalodged posterior burrs are having numerous neurological effects on our (only) favourite Shank support artiste, to wit:
1) A complete inability to answer direct questions posed by me or most other commenters;
2) Blaming the Globe's editorial staff for a portion of Shank's mistakes & shortcomings;
3) A haughty, pretentious dismissal, worthy of faux nobilty such as John Forbes Kerry, of nearly all arguments presented to you, regardless of the original argument's basis in logic and fact;
4) Blatant and rank hypocrisy. For instance, your Manny / traveling secretary postings are surely intended to secure the much vaunted moral high ground. However, when presented with the Borges / Katzengate issue, an attack as revolting as you ought to portray Manny's as being, your preening is strangely absent. Are there different standards you wish to apply to these situations?
5) What is a 'high B+'?
6) Deployment of substance-free rebuttals, correctly described as strawman arguments and flaccid attempts at misdirection and mischaracterization, including Timmy's new favorite:
...who don't go into the tank for jocks or practice the pink-hat, luv-luv-luv our local teams 'journalism" favoured by contributors to this site.
Timmy!
7) A complete and utter lack of humour (see above). Why on earth do you think web sites exist?
8) It's still not clear who Ralph Nadar is. Is he running for President again? Is Lyndon Larouush his VP pick, perhaps? Your defence of dead tree alleged editorial checks and balances over that of blog boys evidently did not result in the prevention of this publication error, which was pointed out by a lowly blogger boy. That would be me, and you can feel free to forward my name to Shank so that he can bitch to my employer, similar to what was done to Dave / DB Vader last year (good fucking luck with that!) Should the Globe hire me and half the commenters on this site to prevent such future transgressions?
9) Is it a helicopter or a B-52 that can be landed on Ron Borges' forehead?
You call me boring; I call you useless as tits on a bull.
When you can present a real argument against any of these positions, that's fine. Otherwise you're going to keep getting nailed in the kiester by every single commenter on this board, like Marcellus Wallace in Pulp Fiction, wearing that stupid ball gag in your mouth...
Thank you Roger.
ReplyDeleteI am awaiting the arrival of the Esperanto interpreter before reponding, if necessary, to your commentary, since at present I have no idea what on earth you are talking about.
Good morning, folks! It's the bottom of the 86th post here on Dan Shaughnessy Watch and the score is:
ReplyDeleteRoger — 23
OB — 0
Have a great day!
Your pal,
Timmy
...since at present I have no idea what on earth you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteAdd another one to the OB arsenal of lame debating techniques, the convenient lack of comprehension!
For someone who holds himself out as a possessor of redoubtable intellect (i.e., Harvard Law, etc.), I find it hard to believe you could write something akin to the above snippet with a straight face.
It takes real chutzpah to write crap like that. You want boring? Look in the mirror.
OB:
ReplyDeleteWay to go with the vaguely intellectual, mildly esoteric, oh-so-snide "Esperanto" reference!
What part of Pangea are you from, bunky?
Your pal,
Timmy
I think it's a riot how every time Roger is called on his failed attempts at offering a counterpoint he claims it's some sort of argumentative technique.
ReplyDeleteIf someone figures out what he's babbling about, kindly let me know.
OB, OB, OB, OB,.....
ReplyDeleteGeez, you need reinforcements.
Not many come to the aide and defense of CHB.
Shouldn't that tell you something?
See if you can get someone to help defend you so that we can have lively and constructive progress in this mess that the Globe has created.
We want to have some fun!
Muster up some help if you dare!
g