Jones/ESPNMAG

Fenian - the "piece" (of crap) starts with something that happened in 1999.

1999.

For a supposed 2008 "Year in Review".

Let me ask you - what did Lance Armstrong do in 2008? Did he win the Tour de France? No. Why bring him up at all? Why bring Clinton up? Seriously. You are an intelligent person. WTF? Why the grouping of Armstrong, Clinton and Tyree? It's a Mad-Lib. Someone bet Jones that he could sneak in a reference to Armstrong, Clinton and Tyree and not get it into a piece. There's no other rational explanation other than the fact that it's a piece of crap.

 

Legacy?

Really?

Then why not call the piece "Legacy"? And why the name calling? Did I directly question your IQ for thinking this was a great piece? Legacy? Come on.

Armstrong's legacy had nothing to do with 2008. Nothing. It was an an egocentric indulgence for Jones to even try to link Armstrong and Tyree in a 2008 YEAR IN REVIEW piece - nothing else. It had nothing to do with "legacy".

I'm glad that now you feel better. I just hope that next time you are able to post smarter.

 

Will someone put this frothing animal out his misery?

 

The only throne I sit on is porcelain and it resides in my Irish library.

The next time I visit that library - if I have Jones' piece in front of me - it will soon end up behind me.

 

Any time jackass.

Really - any time

 

[last word]

 

Holy shit was that funny. Wow, I can't stop laughing

 

and you're an internet tough guy. Wow you have lot's going for you

 

Fight at Penn Station!

 

Hey but I'm not anonymous.

And I guess if you can't address the criticism - just attack the messenger.

Well - tomorrow I'll be at Mahoney's, The Banner, or Breens in Worcester.

Send me a PM and stop by and we can discuss our differences.

Playthough - I agree that this should be about the piece but any time someone talks about putting me out of my misery - I'll respond.

 

Okay, now that this thread has gone beyond the Thunderdome, I'd like to point out why I started it: I read something I thought was well done and I wanted to share my excitement over it. I would hope that's why we all come here. Doesn't mean everyone is into the story I liked (E. Bastard: a simple "not into the piece" would've sufficed). I just means that, in a year in which every newspaper writer you respect is looking for a new job at the age when he should be eyeing retirement, and even big successful magazines are struggling with page counts, a writer and a publication managed to put out what i thought was an excellent long-form feature, one that must taken tremendous effort to write and balls to publish, since I imagine it wasn't the kind of story advertisers were dying to be next to. I was posting to celebrate Jones' piece. So here's to you Jones. Thank God you're not still listening.