I have a radical thought here: why doesn't LW do the same thing that millions of other people do every day, and just bite her tongue on occasion? Yes, yes - I know: history of abuse, and her MIL is horrible, and passive-agressive blah blah blah. But, seriously - isn't it possible just to shut up and accept that life isn't "perfect" all of time?

I mean, c'mon - her (admittedly uneducated) MIL confuses the "Nobel Peace Prize" with the "Nobel Prize for Science". Okay - so, she's a proud, beaming mother -- do you *HAVE* to open your mouth and correct her when she's talking to other people? Do you think the people the MIL is talking to really care (or even acknowledge) the difference between the two? Couldn't you just let the MIL enjoy her maternal pride?

Yes - her MIL is a difficult person. Guess what - so are almost all of my in-laws, who are, by large, uneducated blue-collar semi-racist rednecks. And yet I find myself harboring no fantasies of causing them serious harm, and somehow I am able to get through the holiday visits, simply because I know when to keep my mouth shut and avoid useless arguments. It seems to me that most salon.com visitors would benefit from this kind of stoicism.

Look - the reason a couple plans a wedding in Hawaii is because they have decided to spend the money on themselves and their honeymoon (since they're already there), rather than on paying for a huge wedding with a ton of guests. Couples that are getting married in Hawaii know that many of the people they invite simply can't afford to fly out there - that's the whole idea behind it, actually. For Pete's sake, don't feel guilty for doing what the couple *expects* of the majority of their guests. Just say, "Wow, that sounds great, but I'm not going to be able to make it." Simple, end of story.

NBC's solution of showing full games on cable during the day is a glorious one for hockey purists, shift workers and the unemployed [...]

Or for people with TiVo, or that own those new-fangled "VCR" thingies.

Really, Cary: you could have stopped after your first line.

In fact, I would have paid good money to see that.

King, I have to disagree with your (often stated in this article) opinion that the hockey owners were stupid for shutting down the league. I believe the true level of stupidity should be laid at the feet of the player's union for stubbornly allowing the shutdown of the league to happen.

The owners' message from the beginning was clear: "This current financial system is killing us. We'll lose less money from shutting down than from going this way." They never waivered from that, even while the player's union stuck their fingers in their ears and said, "Nyah nyah, can't hear you, no salary cap." And now? The owners got everything they asked for, the player's union is neutered, and the product is much better than it was before. Yes, the ratings are lower than before -- but it's not like they were setting records on ESPN2 back in 2004 either.

In a sense, the entire league decided to go through a "rebuilding" phase, rather than continuing on its current path into sure financial ruin. I (almost) admire the owners for putting a long-term picture ahead of "right here, right now" concerns. They knew they wouldn't lose the puckheads like me that keep ordering NHL Center Ice, they'd keep their core audience in Canada, Detroit, NY and Philly, and the casual fans will come back eventually, in cycles (just like they always have).

I first read TMQ when it showed up on ESPN.com, and enjoyed the first year or so of it: it was different, it was fairly intelligent (at least, compared to most football writing), and most of it was very amusing. Somewhere in the second year, it became obvious that 80% of his article was created from autotext, and I quickly became bored with it. "There is a formulaic aspect to it" is just a masterpiece of understatement.

But now, one of the highlights of my week during football season is reading the reactions to his article on the "Extra Points" section of footballoutsiders.com, especially when a (sadly no longer active) member named "carl" would type up 2-3,000 words himself refuting and debating almost every single point Easterbrook made. Much like Peter King's MMQB column, it's no longer necessary to read the column itself - the follow-up is a thousand times more entertaining.

What I'm finding interesting -- I like to wait till Paragraph 12 before I get to the interesting part

Luckily it doesn't take too long to get to paragraph 12 however, since that's only line 23. :-)

Enjoy your vacation, King. I guess I'll have to keep myself busy with the approximate 43,251 articles on the NFL draft that will be out next week. It always warms my heart to see grades on a draft the day after it happens, when no one has the slightest idea if anyone that was picked will actually be successful or not.

Okay, somebody remind me to never irritate Glenn.

I think my current list of "People I never want to have pissed off at me" stands at:

1. The South Park guys

2. Glenn

Well, I did find an apology from a black female (I'm not sure I can really call her "feminist") writer at, of all places, espn.com's Page 2 from Jemele Hill. And yes, it does include the phrase "I'm sorry", as well as the confession that she made a judgement on this case before knowing the facts, and that she was wrong.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hill/070412

Fairly progressive, for a sports site. Too bad Broadsheet couldn't have done the same.