Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 468 Editor's Choice: 25
-
I will get the last comment, Max!!!!!!
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"So why act like you do?"
I don't know, Max. Maybe I was a liitle annoyed to wake up to my favorite sports writer telling me how delicious my pain was to him. Sorry for being defensive, but I didn't start this. Then to top it off, I gotta read a dozen of other people go "Yeah, I love your pain, too". Today I've been told by my fellow man that I'm "pathologically insufferable", sanctimonious, and a "whiner" (and that was the 1st page). You yourself said in your first post that I "take a back seat to no one (im my) obnoxiousness". And I haven't even met you...
So yeah, maybe I was defensive. After everybody and their mother asking me, "What's up with your Red Sox?" for the past 2 weeks (like I run the team), I'd finally had enough. I lashed out. Sorry.
"Why pretend that you do know what other injured players mean to their teams? When I said that the injuries suffered by the Red Sox aren't entirely outside of the norm for the teams they're competing with you could have just said "Hmmm, maybe." but instead you wanted to go on and on about how important Tim Wakefield was."
You make it sound like I wrote a 5 page essay about my Tim Wakefield love. It was a sentence - one of 3 examples I chose to concentrate on in my response to you. We can go round and round about whether an all-star catcher is more important to the overall success of a team than an outfielder (they are), but I type slow and I don't have the same energy for the topic as I did this morning. You might have noticed that you weren't very "lets have a calm, rational discussion on the merits of the knuckleballer" yourself? So, please, don't pretend you were taking any high road, either.
"Then you get all testy about how you can't be expected to actually know about the things you talk about and bust out the really high class insults. I mean, if you're going to get all mean and nasty when someone knows more than you about something you and your small kid are going to have a rough relationship once they start 4th grade.
Yes, I wasn't aware of the Blue Jays rotational problems. My ESPN's been on the fritz. Yes, I got defensive. You "sounded" alot like a kid to me. I was dismissive. I resorted to name-calling. Once again, I see your not exactly elevating the discourse yourself with the "stupider than a 4th grader" insult.
People do base their opinions of Red Sox fan on real people. People like you, for instance. Hence the column.
Hope my apology will serve as an example to you that while Red Sox fans may be passionate about our team, we're also real people who realize when they've overstepped their bounds, "cowboy up"and apologize.
-
2 reasons why Dane Cook isn't THAT bad...
[Read the article: Overcooked]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. Carrot Top - a college tour staple. Surprise! College kids stop having good taste in the 80s...
2. Larry the Cable Guy - as far as crazy rednecks go, George Bush does the funny and scary better...
-
"...frustrated by Simon Says."
[Read the article: Overcooked]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]And there you go...
-
Ah, Jeff Corwin...
[Read the article: Crocodile tears]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]... the Carson Daily of TV Naturalists. Or is that the Dane Cook of TV Naturalists?
I prefer my Naturist shows simple, puppetized, and psychedelic-clamationized. Which is why I watch Zaboomafoo on PBS Sprout with my toddler. Weird stuff, man... Easier on the brain than all that intense risking of life and limb!
-
For the record...
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Silly putty isn't that great, creative-name-every-post-troll-guy.
P.S. Doesn't that require a great deal of work, re-registering every time you post? Imagine if you used your powers for good!
-
Ooooh! Ooooh! Me first!!!
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Tom Tomorrow is just going around in circles! It's the same panel construction and narration device he's used 3 or 4 times before! He should give up right now and become a monk or something. Anyone who disagrees with me has just proved my point!!!
-
Thanks david smith
[Read the article: This Modern World]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're right. I was being sarcastic. I just didn't want to make it TOO obvious.
"Anyone who disagrees with me has just proved my point!!!"
Heh, I crack myself up...
-
At least libs can admit when they're wrong, "a guy"...
[Read the article: Is the homeland where America's heart is?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why didn't you just name yourself "a troll" and be even more obvious about it?
"Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000, which directly influenced the outcome of the 2000 Presidential election. In three separate opinions, a 7-2 majority of justices found that a ballot recount then being conducted in certain counties in the State of Florida was to be stopped due to the lack of a consistent standard. A 5-4 majority further declared in a per curiam opinion that there was insufficient time to establish standards for a new recount that would meet Florida's deadline for certifying electors.
The decision stopped the statewide recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State (and Bush's Florida campaign co-chair) Katherine Harris to certify George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush a majority of the electoral college with 271 votes and enabled him to win the Presidency."
In case your not familiar with legal parlance, the first name is always the petitioner, or as you so elequently stated: "instigated by". True, this was a response to Gore's suing for a recount in certain counties (a mistake on his part: it should have been ALL counties and the overvotes as well as undervotes), which the Florida Supreme court allowed. But it still stands that the Supreme Court petition, which miraculously bypassed all lower courts and was ruled a one-time only "Equal Protection" ruling, never again to be evoked, was what handed Bush the presidency.
So who's being a condescending again? Or do you have some other small, nit-picky point to berate us with while ignoring the larger issues we're discussing here?