tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post114243154808036887..comments2024-03-27T21:22:03.495-04:00Comments on Dan Shaughnessy Watch: Return of the MonkeysUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-1142806466320228362006-03-19T17:14:00.000-05:002006-03-19T17:14:00.000-05:00The rest of us are amused by how much the Globe sp...The rest of us are amused by how much the Globe sports section sucks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-1142798545454052252006-03-19T15:02:00.000-05:002006-03-19T15:02:00.000-05:00Dan is amused by this cute little blog.Dan is amused by this cute little blog.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-1142793450995330972006-03-19T13:37:00.000-05:002006-03-19T13:37:00.000-05:00I'm still not Dan, despite your delusions. But fa...I'm still not Dan, despite your delusions. But facts and fairness are such a rare commodity around this space, you fit right in. I know you like your sports columnists to be either jock-sniffers or part of the crude radio crowd. But that doesn't make me Dan; no matter how hard you wish it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-1142646944546847312006-03-17T20:55:00.000-05:002006-03-17T20:55:00.000-05:00You forgot to mention this cheap shot:"Francona mo...You forgot to mention this cheap shot:<BR/><BR/>"Francona moved his wife and four children (two already in college) from Pennsylvania to Massachusetts last August, a commitment Rivers has been unable to make."<BR/><BR/>What does Doc Rivers' family have to do with Terry Francona's contract extension? Four paragraphs later, he writes this:<BR/><BR/>"He said he doesn't know who Glenn Ordway is (this is where the columnist resists the temptation to interject an easy cheap shot)."<BR/><BR/>Wow! How big of you, CHB! Whats your favorite cookie so we can reward you with a batch of them?<BR/><BR/>Chief, I'm new to your site and I bookmarked it right away. Dan Shaughnessy is Boston's worst by a long way. He fires off personal shots, he doesn't do his homework, and he is redundant! He knows he's unfireable and it shows in his work. He just cares about producing his 1200 words 2-3 times a week without a whole lot of concern for what sense the 1200 words will make. I'm glad someone is out there who thinks the way I do and studies his archives and holds him accountable online. Someone has to because his employer won't and he knows it. I will tell all my friends about your great site. Keep up the good work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-1142625766611063862006-03-17T15:02:00.000-05:002006-03-17T15:02:00.000-05:00"Of all the blogs in all the Internet cafes in all..."Of all the blogs in all the Internet cafes in all the world, Bruce walks into mine." How sweet.mike_b1https://www.blogger.com/profile/03887169120483500989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-1142620430976586812006-03-17T13:33:00.000-05:002006-03-17T13:33:00.000-05:00Most people who use "impeccable" English remember ...Most people who use "impeccable" English remember to use a verb in their sentences.<BR/><BR/>It is absolutely amazing that you have this hang-up that I am Shaughnessy.<BR/><BR/>AS for the Republican playbook, I'd say the blogger and his fans seem to have done a fairly good job taking a lesson there. The old "repeat it often enough and they'll believe it's true" approach seems to be a favorite.<BR/><BR/>Correcting one's error is a simple matter of good grace. One either has it or one does not. Two of the most egregious errors seen recently -- that the Yankees managed to "touch out the Red Sox for the division title" when baseball clearly provides for co-champions in the case of a equal-record tie, and the claim that Shaughnessy stated that the MIAA awards a Superbowl MVP -- are not matters of interpretation.<BR/><BR/>The fact is, this blog is dedicated to ripping one columnist -- not to critiquing his work. If the name Shaughnessy appears at the top of a column, it is considered to be fodder for diatribes or archive-checking to discover some perceived inconsistency with words written long ago and in another context. I merely have decided not to let this one run amok like so many others who want a public forum, but take offense at idea that their rantings should be held to any sort of standard of fairness and decency.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-1142619030890871962006-03-17T13:10:00.000-05:002006-03-17T13:10:00.000-05:00Wow, well put. I don't claim to be an expert on a...Wow, well put. I don't claim to be an expert on any of this stuff, but it seems to me that Troy made and excellent point, whereas "Bruce" is just looking for a fight. Honestly, I come here every time Danny Boy writes just to laugh at the criticisms. Personally, I used to like him for one book: "Seeing Red." This one book was given to me as a gift when I was a kid, and it really got me interested in sports and the past. Now, I'm a college student with a passion for sports. Did that book play a role in defining my sports past; sure it did. But just because I initially liked some of the things that Shaughnessy wrote doesn't mean that I haven't been concerned with his more recent work. It seems to me like he has become bitter and focused on the negative, a master of spin. So I know this has been rambling, but I just wish more writers today would try to return to uniting readers, and not always focusing of the negative and dividing their readers. So to sum it all up, Dan used to be a good writer, and I wonder where that went. And I agree with Troy. Happy Saint Patrick's Day everyone!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-1142595937888817542006-03-17T06:45:00.000-05:002006-03-17T06:45:00.000-05:00People who begin to read an article or column with...People who begin to read an article or column with an agenda of hate and the preconceived notion that they will find something they don't like are apt to come to the wrong conclusions about what they read. Sometimes it's deliberate, as in the "what can I find to quibble about today, oh no there's nothing better toss some phrases through the archives" mentality we see in this blog<BR/><BR/>Now if I understand the broken English of the previous comment, bloggers aren't supposed to correct their errors when their venom-filled agendas taint their reading skills to the point that they spew falsehoods in a petty effort to make something of their lives by launching ill-conceived and irrational public attacks on others.<BR/><BR/>It should be clear I'm not him, but in the grand tradition of the knee-jerk reactions that drive this blog and it's mindless fans, you consider facts a troublesome technicality that get in the way of your jealousy-driven petty feuds.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17263668.post-1142509882154601832006-03-16T06:51:00.000-05:002006-03-16T06:51:00.000-05:00A twi-nighter today! Not much intelligent discussi...A twi-nighter today! Not much intelligent discussion in either the original post or in the first posted response.<BR/><BR/>I'm not Dan. Never met him. But if your delusions of grandeur want you to think that, there is nothing I can do about it.<BR/><BR/>So you really think the Sox conceded game three and decided, in the fifth inning, to go ahead and lose to take their chances down 0-3 in games?<BR/><BR/>And this on a day when the blogger put his Globe archive account into overdrive, although it seems like wasted energy since the posting makes absolutely no sense.<BR/><BR/>Is there a point in there?<BR/><BR/>One need not correct differences of opinion, but clearly the factual mistakes of the original blogger still need correcting. But that won't happen; apparently pride goeth before hypocrisy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com