For New Yorkers still upset you were played by Herm Edwards

ohhhh he brought up my post count! good to see you lack originality here as well as in your columns.

22,000 posts and yet not nearly as attention starved as yourself.

King Clown.

 

Good to have ya back. Junkie

 

See? Now THAT is a fat joke.

 

I did read the column first. It was a fair criticism of Edwards. It just, to me, reads as a direct contradiction to your own words just a week before. You obviously don't agree.

I've been consistent in suggesting that you overplay your arguments; that, regardless the issue, you're taking as strong of a stance as is allowable. I think that puts you in some compromising positions to have backtrack or point to nuances that the everyday reader doesn't pick up.

You seem to think - and correct me if I am wrong - that your occasional hyperbole is part of your persona, your schtick, and that people want it and expect it and get a kick out of it and don't take it seriously. Maybe that's true. But my opinion of your work, after sincerely reading it, is that the multiple hats and situational arguments make for a pretty muddy paradigm of column writing. It, in short, makes me a little uncomfortable. And not because it challenges me.

And that's all I got. I think it's smart for me not to respond to your work, because I simply have an aversion to your approach to the craft. But it has worked quite well for you.

 

Reminds me of a line from one of my favorite movies:

"Has anyone ever told you that you overplay your various roles rather severely, Mr. Kaplan?"

 

jw, like many sportswriters -- and even news writers and editors -- knows no one in his building will question what he writes. I'd say 75 to 80 percent of the nation was saying the same thing he did: LJ would run for 300 yards, and no one would stop him.

He was wrong. Even the radio guys were laughing about how terrible the predictions before the game were.

Alma's comment about the hyperbole is dead-on. The stuff about the LoJomotive, lining up 7 OL, etc., was meant to be humorous, but it still looks stupid after the game.

 

Why is Whitlock flamed on this board? Maybe it's because Whitlock doesn't discuss sports and sports journalism so much as how those things pertain to him.

 

I just don't want to read all the PC/anti-PC bullshit.

 

Please, 21, show us all of the Jason Whitlock-started threads/posts that are about something other than Jason Whitlock.
It will be a very small listing.

 

I think also that he thinks people should bow before him because he uses his real name, like that makes him special, whatever. I know writers far up the line from him who post here; they're still better writers even though they don't use their names. And there are so many other columnists/writers whose work should be praised/panned/analyzed here; the same few people being the ones getting that treatment can get old for a lot of people, I'd imagine.

 

Do I need to get this board high again? Everyone STFU and stop pissing and moaning.

I agree with Whitlock at times, other times I disagree. Either way, it ain't changing whether there's milk in my fridge in the morning.

Am I a fan of Whitlock's self-aggrandizing persona? Not necessarily, though it can be equal parts entertaining and infuriating. Do I bedgrudge him that style? Nope, to each his own. Are there literally hundreds of posters here that bring far less? Hell yes. Do I give a shit that he's a "name"? Not one bit, there's plenty of "names" around here.

Do I froth at the mouth at everything he posts? Hell no. There's so many people, including vets who preceded me by years on this board and who should know better, that don't understand the concept of NOT POSTING ON THREADS YOU DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT!

Until a few days ago, I doubt I had more than a post or two on Whitlock's weekly poll reveal, and they were probably both dumb ass non-sequitors. What do I care how Whitlock votes? Doesn't interest me, so I ignore and don't post.

As for what the board has become, the percentage of bullshit on SJ is about what it's always been. How can anyone hate what it's become when it's always been like this? It's just that some of the board vets -- myself very included -- are uncomfortable about the new names that do the old shit that has always been done.

I mean, damn, some of you vets act like SJ was once a halcyon place of Victorian manners where we all debated in parliamentary procedure and expressed our lives and loves in sonnets of virtue from their original French.

Wrong! This place has always been like Shakespeare filtered through a beer bong.

Equal parts greatness, silliness, piss-your-pants humor, opinion, advice, heart-felt honesty, offensiveness, politics, bat-shit insanity, rancor, repetitiveness (my pet peeve), horniness, ego-stroking narcissism, not a little bit of vomit, and not a whole lot of bullshit. The great ones here have both wallowed and shined in all of the above.

There was just as much inane, repeated-to-the-point-of-nausea crap on here when I joined in and there was probably less than half the current members. There was just as much cliquish inside baseball, just as many chat-room like threads, just as many per-capita denizens of SJ masturbation nation, etc.

I love you all, but everyone needs to get over themselves!