Sports Illustrated (Reggie Bush cover)

Jones, what the fuck did I do?

I have no problems here. Do you?

If so, assume an attack position. Not some candyass inquiry into "What's going on here, boys?" like my old doddering Father Foran.

 

Okay, I'll take this step by step.

I know jgmacg. He's a very good guy.

He asked for your opinion on SI. You gave it. He thanked you for your opinion, because he's courteous like that.

You take his thanks as some kind of shot, as though he's looking down on you, which he's almost certainly not. He's just saying thanks, and you took a blind hack at him for it.

Hence, I'm accusing you of looking for reasons to be pissed off, because jgmacg's post sure as shit isn't a valid one.

How's that?

 

No need for "step by step," big boy. I have more skins on my wall at home than you have testes, assuming you were even born with a full set. (And something tells me you weren't, given your performance on the LeBatard thread).

 

LJB -

All due respect, how is it possible to misinterpret a three word post? There was no condescension meant, and none apparent or implied, in my answer. In what conceivable way could anyone find "Fair enough.Thanks." patronizing?

 

Good for you, Buffalo Bill. Impressive trophies, these many Internet hides you've taken.

 

I don't subscribe to the notion of any "due respect," kind sir, so I will not accept that courtesy, thankyouverramuch.

I will owe you an apology.

 

Well, that tells me you're either unable or unwilling to understand what I've been saying, which at this point doesn't surprise me. I'm starting to see why you're so highly thought of on this board. You and LJB should go off somewhere and be miserable together.

 

Oh, shut the fuck up and stop looking for shit to bitch about...

SI is still a solid magazine. The TO article was, in my estimation, revealing and well-written. I could do without a lengthy Fantasy Football Preview, especially in July, though.

 

Too much empasis on being what it cannot, and should not, be -- ESPN-TV, and ESPN The Mag.

Not enough emphasis on being Sports Illustrated.

When I was in my teens and 20s, SI seemed to be written with the sensibility of a 45-year-old. A literate, slightly irreverent 45-year-old, but certainly someone with a sense of history and perspective.

Now that I'm 45 myself (or more ), more and more, SI seems to be written with the sensibility of a 25-year-old fratboy. Not quite as obnoxious as the 21-year-old fratboy sensibility that suffuses ESPN the Mag, or the 17-year-old fratboy sensibility that drives ESPN-TV. But too much in the same vein.

You are not them. You cannot be them. Don't try to be them.

 

Thanks, Starman.

 

I still maintain that WE have changed more than the magazine.

We're no longer naive 14-year-olds reading this stuff for the first time and having our eyes pop out of our heads at the sight of Cheryl Tiegs in a fishnet swimsuit.

Is SI more "juvenile" today than it was 30 years ago?

Yes . . . to a degree.

It has juvenile cotton candy . . . but it also has the same meat that it always has had. Where did you read about Caminiti's steroid accusations? SI. Where did you read Game of Shadows excerpts? SI. Where do you read Gary Smith? SI. Was the diving story juvenile? The story on the cross-country runner who committed suicide? The Kellerman piece? The Agassi piece?

Everyone here recognizes that we have a serious problem attracting readers whose attention spans are measured in seconds. So for those people who don't have the inclination to read the Agassi story, SI gives them some cotton candy, too. Does that make them sellouts? Does that mean they should be accused of trying to be ESPN Magazine? You saw the illustration (or lack thereof) for the Agassi story. Doesn't that answer your concerns?

 

No. How about you shove that fantasy magazine -- you know, a mature version of Advanced D&D -- up your arse.