Marino isn't supposed to cover wide receivers. He IS supposed to hand off well. He's also supposed to tackle after an int or fumble and block if it is called for and he didn't do those well either. Marino's hand-offs looked like a bullfighter swinging his cape. He told the defense who had the ball and where he going. Look at the real greats and you can't tell where the ball is. Marino wanted passing stats and made sure he got them.

Marino was one dimensional. He could pass well. Calling him an "all time great" is as rediculous as people calling Vick a "great quarterback" 'cause he runs well.

I'll give you Unitas though, he was an all time great that never won the Superbowl.

And if any of these posts are the most rediculous things you've ever read, you don't read much.

Yes, passing ability is important in a quarterback, but that's not all that is important. And no, Kordell Stewart is not on my list of greats. He's a jack of all trades. Greats are people like Montana, Young, Favre, Starr, Unitas, Tittle, Namath and though I hate to say it, Bradshaw. Of course, the only reason I don't like Brashaw is his insufferable on-air persona.

Marino was great at 2 things. Passing and self-promotion. Of course, the converse is true too. There are people who won superbowls as quarterbacks that are good, but not great. And that's the same category I put Marino in. For an example of that category, look at Troy Aikman. He was a good QB with a great Offensive Line and a great running back. He also had a flair for self-promotion. Look at him at the Pro Bowl this past weekend. When he was interviewed with Harry Carson on the sidelines, Aikman said "Being elected to the hall of fame is a great individual achievement". Carson said right after that "I couldn't have done it without lots of help. There are so many people I have to thank" and then he went on and did that. Which one was really about his team?

*above quotes are paraphrases as I don't have a transcript of the Pro Bowl Sideline Interviews.

Isn't news? It is news even when it isn't famous people. If there's a hunting accident, it gets reported on the news. When the VP shoots someone in a hunting accident, it is bigger news and not just because he's famous. He's an advocate of gun rights and has mocked others publicly for allegedly not knowing what they were doing. Cheney just showed he doesn't know what he's doing and didn't even have the permits to hunt! (Hunt being a relative term as he was on a "hunting farm".)

Of course, there's other news in this case: Cheney didn't report it right away and stonewalled the police until the following morning. Interfering with a police investigation? That's news. Even if it was just to give him time to sober up.

P.S., your P.S.? Now That's comedy.

It gets reported nationally, ad nauseam because he's a national figure whom we're exposed to ad nauseam.

You think a local hunter getting into the same accident gets to make an appointment with the police for an interview the next morning? Or that they wouldn't be suspicious if the call was delayed by an hour?

I notice you have nothing to say about the other points. Cheney's negligence, his failure to have proper permits, his having made a point of gun responsibility and shooting someone in the face. Has he visited his victim? Acknowledged that he did something wrong?

I'm a little hurt at your throwing around "crueliscious" like that.

All your PS says is that you aren't a litany of vague things but are another vague thing. And not only that, but a specific vague thing of which only you know the definition.

Interesting that someone on the Supreme Court can misunderstand the constitution so badly. The founders were quite clear that just because something isn't specified in the constiturion, it doesn't mean it isn't a right.

NOW I get it. A "real" conservative is one that has no idea what the merits of an argument are, he just insults the people making it. Republican and Democrat are established parties, yes, but are you insinuating that William Weld or George Pataki is the same as Sam Brownback or John Ashcroft?

I love that you have no idea what a liberal is, you just know it isn't you. That's a shame. For all you know it could mean, in part that you're an intelligent, compassionate, rational human being who realizes that we're all part of a society and need to behave as such. But you're right, that couldn't be you, could it?

P.S. I'm a real liberal, not the caricature or straw man that "conservatives" like to make up so they have someone to make their insane arguments look better

It is the same thing Conservatives have been doing about liberals for well over a decade. These idiots have been doing the same for feminists or any progressive. It is spreading 'cause it is easier than real reporting and helps make a piece more forceful. The Straw Man (or Straw Woman) is especially put upon these days.

And Fugue, Paglia is an idiot and a conservative posing as a liberal to discredit liberals; an anti-feminist posing as a felminist to discredit feminists. She's unreadable. I'm sure you can find her bland blathering about herself elsewere.

And yet, you're here...

He didn't have much of a choice. If he was drunk when he shot Whittington, can you imagine how mcuh worse it would be? And really what other reason could there have been to wait until morning to talk to the police? Or even to wait an hour before calling them?