Letters to the Editor
Published Letters: 468 Editor's Choice: 25
-
Money does not solve every problem...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]..and I'm quite sure it wouldn't solve any of the issues with Little League brought up by King or various other LWs today. Besides, as someone pointed out earlier, kids under 15 don't get paid - their parents do.
That being said, put me into the "can't see the attraction" column with a few others. I watch sports to see people do things that are hard and that I would have no business attempting. Inconsistent fielding, hitting and pitching (or the worst LL game ever: the 1-0 game) are things I look for on "America's Funniest Home Videos", not on a ESPN broadcast.
Speaking of bad baseball (and since Wes has made it apparent that the best part of being a Premium subscriber is giving updates on how my weekend went) had a chance to catch my BoSox hang 22 of their eventual 46 runs on the woeful ChiSox this weekend. Which, in case anyone was caring, is pretty good.
Oh and Wes, as a Salon subscriber since it went subscriber (when was that 99? 2000?) consider me "old money" and you "new money": in which case I will be looking down upon you!
-
Oh, is it Triple-A football season already?
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is it me or is interest in college football directly proportional to one's attendance at a "Football" University?
For the exorbitant prices that places like Michigan and USC charge, you'd think you could get a better education than the MITs of the world. Sadly, its not true. But you do get the satisfaction of knowing your tuition went towards the new $30 million workout facility (that you'll never get to use) so there's that. People who are college football fans that never went to a "Football" University? I think those were the people Wes was referencing earlier.
Oh, and Wes, 12PM is noon - or were you making a 24-hour sports geek reference?
-
If "only wanting" to have sex is not a crime...
[Read the article: In defense of Larry Craig]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]...than why are all those losers on "To Catch a Predator" arrested while leaving the "sting" house? After all, nothing happened, (except for some really awkward conversation) intent or not.
-
I'm calling Sony!
[Read the article: Apple gives iPhone early adopters $100 in store credit]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]My first DVD player was, like, $400 and now you can buy those things for, like, $70! Friggin' gyp!!!!
-
Could we get a ratings system here..
[Read the article: "Shoot 'Em Up"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]..whereby Salon tells us whether or not Stephanie's in the mood for teh Cheese or fake Exploitation™?
I reference this portion of the review: "No matter how many horrors or perverse delights these movies parade before us, the filmmakers' unspoken and completely bogus subtext is always: 'We didn't mean to show you naked boobies or exploding sternums -- honest!' That obvious self-deception is part of the game, and part of the fun."
The whole "I can read the director's mind" type of review has to stop. How do you know what Tarantino's (director of the last half of "Grindhouse" and one scene in "Sin City") "subtext" was in his movies, especially if its "unspoken and completely bogus". I'm thinking that, if asked, Tarantino would say something to the effect of "Hell yes I meant to show you what I put in the film! Why else put it in the film?" Why have a completely superfluous character be a cheerleader in his portion of "Grindhouse"? Why all the intentionally missing portions of film, fake print scratches and bogus trailers for non-existent films?
Or was all that "Grindhouse" intentional unintentionality just unintentional enough? And how unintentional was the "Shoot 'em Up" directors intention? How can I trust Stephanie to know the difference? Where does the cheese-factor come in? I mean they called the movie "Shoot 'em up" for God's sake!
-
Lynx...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Either you're a Jets fan or willfully ignorant of the multitude of rules infractions that happen every game.
The Jets have a bigger problem than people stealing their signals. His name is Chad.
As a Pats fan, this is embarrassing. I'm so looking forward to hearing about it from my friends all season. But as someone who's defended BB here in the past (against "asshole" charges of all things - I mean, this is the guy who replaced the Big Tuna and HE"S the asshole?) I haven't seen any evidence that BB was aware or condoning the action. Give away the Pats 1st round pick? Sure. Who wants the 32nd pick, though? Seems to me these teams can't do well with the 1st 3 picks (Lions, anyone?) what good is 32 gonna do?
-
Lynx..
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You're tinfoil hat is showing. So, according to anonymous sources and you're "brother" (the true Jets fan) some hearsay and conjecture points to all wins by the Pats being stripped away since BB was hired.
Sounds completely reasonable. Just like a not-at-all-a-Jets-fan spending 6 paragraphs building his case that wouldn't stand up in any court outside of Syria or North Korea.
-
Since we're all quoting ESPN now (King must love it)...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Here's an item from their "Sportsnation" column:
"After the Dolphins defeated the Patriots 21-0 in Miami last season, Dolphins linebacker Zach Thomas claimed he knew the Patriots' audibles. He wasn't kidding. Teams sometimes will place microphones on their defensive players to tape the opposing team's audibles. The team then matches the audibles with the play the offense runs. In the shutout loss to Miami, the Patriots played their worst game of the season, as Tom Brady was sacked four times. Coincidence?
50.6% Gamesmanship
49.4% Cheating
Total Votes: 23,606
Wait a minute, SportsNation! Let's get this straight. Videotaping signals is bad, but audio is good? So if Peyton Manning walks up to the line and says "Blue 42, Red 38, Green 34", and you know exactly what that means from having taped it previously and frantically compared it to past plays, that's acceptable? How is that different from video?
So where's the outrage at the Dolphins? Or because they haven't won jack since a guy named Marino QB'ed for them, who cares? This is what happens when the common fan/NFL figurehead is bombarded with opposing stats - DOES NOT COMPUTE!