Tuesday, September 02, 2008

A Littile Bit of This, A Little Bit of That

And you have yourself a column. Well, you do if your Dan Shaughnessy. Find a topic, preferably negative. Then write about it for a bit, padding your column with obvious information. When that well runs dry, further pad with quotations, ignoring any attempt to make it all flow. You just gotta fill those column inches.


roger bournival said...

He's been better after 40 than Sophia Loren (22 wins since turning 40).

What's a Shank column without an oudated pop culture reference?

But golf fans root against him.

Golf has fans? Who knew?

His victories are embraced the way Patriots wins are celebrated by football fans who don't live in New England. He's earned his reputation as Mr. Uncongeniality of the PGA beauty pageant.

So Shank's found a kindred spirit...

He's the one who doesn't care much to interact with the gallery.

Much like Shank 'interacting' with professional athletes.

Too bad the crowds don't see more of that. TPC fans were smitten by Weir, Garcia, and hottie Camilo Villegas.

Do I sense a man-crush here?

Rooting for Singh is like carrying a torch for George Steinbrenner, Bobby Knight, or Wilt Chamberlain.

Yeah, I'm sure Shank's been in Vijay's corner since Day One...

Anonymous said...

.....typical pompous ass Shank....HE Tells US who WE like and dislike....who says "golf fans" root against Vijay Singh?...besides Shank?...what an idiot

roger bournival said...

Damn, I need an eye exam. How did I miss this gem?

Personally, I was hoping Heath Slocum would rule the day, but that was before Globe golf guru Jim McCabe informed me that he's not the same guy the Sox traded for Derek Lowe and Jason Varitek (Heathcliff Slocumb retired from baseball in 2000).

Give it a rest, Shank...

That left me rooting for Garcia and Els with everybody else.

Leaving aside the issue of the unbridled arrogance Shank displays with his selection of our favourite golfers (props to #2 poster!), 'Objective' Bruce frequently reminds us how terrible and irrational we are for our alleged 'luv, luv, luv' / root, root, root' for our home team (whenever he can be pinned down on whichever team that is).

How about a poll for our readers?

I wonder if the Objective One will:

A) Apply a similar standard to Shank; or...

B) If he'll bloviate a few dozen words to essentially say 'that's different' because He's Dan Fuckin' Shaughnessy / they're golfers / not on a team / 'hottie' furriners / whateeeeva; or...

C) Raise a tangential matter (memo to OB - that's what they call a strawman argument; I trust Harvard Law professors are familiar with the phrase); or...

D) Change the subject (given OB's quite frequent lack of clarity and precision, C) and D) are often interchangeable, the posters DB Vader and Dave M will have the final say here); or...

E) In a rare breath of fresh air, none of the above, and say nothing at all on this matter.

Ima goin' with the Palin Pick and saying E).

Sorry, does anyone believe that pick? You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!

BTW, OB, sorry about the haunch comment the other day. I often get carried away when responding to you because, let's face it, you're one annoying, irritating prick SOB.

Right. Jolly good, carry on...

objectivebruce said...

Not being a follower of golf, I was amused by finding Heath Slocum on some take-out box leader board in one of the papers. It was worthy of note, considering Varitek continues as the Red Sox catcher and Lowe is the workhouse of the LA pitching staff, while the closest we come to seeing the erstwhile reliever's name in lights is a similarly uncommon name.

I don't have a problem with a columnist who was there pointing out who the fan favourite is and who is not the favourite at a sporting event held on neutral ground. I can, however, understand how in the knee-jerk world of some, such a reference is an easy target, since intelligent discussion takes a back seat to petty complaints.

Jolly good right back at you, eh?