Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Crazy Ted
Jul 29, 2003

Want to give your cheating ex-boyfriend poo poo with a clever sign at an NFL game?

Do you have a vagina?

WELL DON'T YOU loving WORRY BECAUSE DEADSPIN IS HERE TO OUT YOU TO THE INTERNET

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

xbilkis
Apr 11, 2005

god qb
me
jay hova
I love that they don't even add any commentary to that or anything even approaching justifying posting an article about her. "There was a girl on TV here's her facebook okay bye"

toadee
Aug 16, 2003

North American Turtle Boy Love Association

I really love that they withhold the name of the tipster 'to protect their identity', but happily post poo poo about some random girl because of this. What the loving hell.

MourningView
Sep 2, 2006


Is this Heaven?
Welp, so much for Deadspin getting less scummy without Daluerio.

Zorkon
Nov 21, 2008

WE CARE A LOT

toadee posted:

I really love that they withhold the name of the tipster 'to protect their identity', but happily post poo poo about some random girl because of this. What the loving hell.
I think what deadspin is trying to prove here is that women aren't people.

colonel_korn
May 16, 2003

Great comments on that article too.

"Well, she obviously wanted attention, so I guess now she's getting some!" :smuggo:

barkingclam
Jun 20, 2007
If you want something good to read, go read this piece on Bill Conlin over on Mobute's blog. It's really worth your time.

Holy Diverticulitis
Dec 8, 2009

damn good anus! and hot!
Deadspin should publish both names. There is a direct equivalency between someone from the internet sharing the name of someone they saw on television and someone who made a huge sign about the people in her personal life with the intention of sharing it with 70,000 people and catching the eyes of broadcast television cameras beamed nationally to over 10 million others. Deadspin's gender politics are nauseating. If this girl has told us anything, it's that her personal life is nobody's business.

MourningView
Sep 2, 2006


Is this Heaven?
Clearly by making a dumb jokey sign she was hoping that her name would be exposed to the entire world. People deserve to know the name of everyone who pops up on their television screen and I'm glad Deadspin has the courage to engage in this sort of hard hitting journalism.

Reformed Pissboy
Nov 6, 2003

Holocausplay posted:

Deadspin should publish both names. There is a direct equivalency between someone from the internet sharing the name of someone they saw on television and someone who made a huge sign about the people in her personal life with the intention of sharing it with 70,000 people and catching the eyes of broadcast television cameras beamed nationally to over 10 million others. Deadspin's gender politics are nauseating. If this girl has told us anything, it's that her personal life is nobody's business.

Making a humorous sign is not remotely an invitation to be harassed online/offline/anywhere, and if you can think of a single legitimate reason to provide her identity beyond that, I will paypal you 14 dollars and 88 cents.

edit: I spent 6 minutes writing and erasing further comments and got beaten to my main point, but my offer stands

Holy Diverticulitis
Dec 8, 2009

damn good anus! and hot!

Transfatuation posted:

Making a humorous sign is not remotely an invitation to be harassed online/offline/anywhere, and if you can think of a single legitimate reason to provide her identity beyond that, I will paypal you 14 dollars and 88 cents.
I agree that making a sign is not an invitation to be harassed, and assuming such is unreasonable, but, by the same token, publishing a person's name is not a call to harass them, and it's just as much of a leap to impute that motive to them. (If we wanted to stop dumbshit from being done with content from the internet, we'd have to shut down the internet. We can't even have a decently democratized encyclopedia without retards filling it with anime, Ron Paul facts or Ty Pepper shooting himself in the anus.) Anyway, there are anywhere from 69 to 420 reasons to post the girl's name, but it would take me over 9,000 seconds to explain them all, so just take one: lo, though they may not post alongside the denizens of SAS or share the rarified tastes of a Bob Costas, there are thousands of squalid, rutting proles in these United States who were curious about that memorable sign; they will click on even the most fleeting and insignificant information about it, and those clicks create money, which can be used to obtain goods and services. It's crass and materialistic and of almost zero informational substance, but if we wanted to put a stop to that, that would be another reason to shut down the entire internet, dynamite every local news station, set fire to every Features desk in America, remove the infographic as a phenomenon, end the national nightly news ten minutes earlier, get rid of cable news entirely, and on and on. I can sympathize with disdaining the profit motive, but aside from that, the act of printing that information is morally null, and any commentary about sexual politics or advocacy of terroristic threats online is little more than question begging.

ThatsMyBoye
Nov 21, 2006

I wish that I believed in fate
I wish I didn't sleep so late
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders
But why link to her Facebook? What's the point/endgame?

MourningView
Sep 2, 2006


Is this Heaven?
People harassing her was of course a totally unforeseeable outcome.

The Goog
Aug 6, 2007

It's a Goog Day, yes it is!

MorningView posted:

People harassing her was of course a totally unforeseeable outcome.

"We just want our largely male audience to congratulate you for humiliating that anonymous jerk of a guy!"

Reformed Pissboy
Nov 6, 2003

Holocausplay posted:

lo, though they may not post alongside the denizens of SAS or share the rarified tastes of a Bob Costas, there are thousands of squalid, rutting proles in these United States who were curious about that memorable sign; they will click on even the most fleeting and insignificant information about it, and those clicks create money, which can be used to obtain goods and services. It's crass and materialistic and of almost zero informational substance, but if we wanted to put a stop to that, that would be another reason to shut down the entire internet, dynamite every local news station, set fire to every Features desk in America, remove the infographic as a phenomenon, end the national nightly news ten minutes earlier, get rid of cable news entirely, and on and on.

This is a very, very spurious definition of "legitimate" and your own wording appropriately reflects that. I think we all knew the `reason` they did it was for pageviews and ad money and what have you, but if you're going to invoke a righteous "they did nothing morally wrong" sort of response, there should really be some address whatever of morality besides a slippery slope argument of "this is all the internet is anyway."

(That said I will freely admit to wishing to violently destroy cable news and I still like Mr. Destructo enough to donate approx. 15 dolers to it if need be)

balancedbias
May 2, 2009
$$$$$$$$$

Holocausplay posted:

I agree that making a sign is not an invitation to be harassed, and assuming such is unreasonable, but, by the same token, publishing a person's name is not a call to harass them, and it's just as much of a leap to impute that motive to them. (If we wanted to stop dumbshit from being done with content from the internet, we'd have to shut down the internet. We can't even have a decently democratized encyclopedia without retards filling it with anime, Ron Paul facts or Ty Pepper shooting himself in the anus.) Anyway, there are anywhere from 69 to 420 reasons to post the girl's name, but it would take me over 9,000 seconds to explain them all, so just take one: lo, though they may not post alongside the denizens of SAS or share the rarified tastes of a Bob Costas, there are thousands of squalid, rutting proles in these United States who were curious about that memorable sign; they will click on even the most fleeting and insignificant information about it, and those clicks create money, which can be used to obtain goods and services. It's crass and materialistic and of almost zero informational substance, but if we wanted to put a stop to that, that would be another reason to shut down the entire internet, dynamite every local news station, set fire to every Features desk in America, remove the infographic as a phenomenon, end the national nightly news ten minutes earlier, get rid of cable news entirely, and on and on. I can sympathize with disdaining the profit motive, but aside from that, the act of printing that information is morally null, and any commentary about sexual politics or advocacy of terroristic threats online is little more than question begging.

Ah yes, somebody did something, so do nothing because doing something would mean you must do everything.

MODS CURE JOKES
Nov 11, 2009

OFFICIAL SAS 90s REMEMBERER

Holocausplay posted:

I agree that making a sign is not an invitation to be harassed, and assuming such is unreasonable, but, by the same token, publishing a person's name is not a call to harass them, and it's just as much of a leap to impute that motive to them. (If we wanted to stop dumbshit from being done with content from the internet, we'd have to shut down the internet. We can't even have a decently democratized encyclopedia without retards filling it with anime, Ron Paul facts or Ty Pepper shooting himself in the anus.) Anyway, there are anywhere from 69 to 420 reasons to post the girl's name, but it would take me over 9,000 seconds to explain them all, so just take one: lo, though they may not post alongside the denizens of SAS or share the rarified tastes of a Bob Costas, there are thousands of squalid, rutting proles in these United States who were curious about that memorable sign; they will click on even the most fleeting and insignificant information about it, and those clicks create money, which can be used to obtain goods and services. It's crass and materialistic and of almost zero informational substance, but if we wanted to put a stop to that, that would be another reason to shut down the entire internet, dynamite every local news station, set fire to every Features desk in America, remove the infographic as a phenomenon, end the national nightly news ten minutes earlier, get rid of cable news entirely, and on and on. I can sympathize with disdaining the profit motive, but aside from that, the act of printing that information is morally null, and any commentary about sexual politics or advocacy of terroristic threats online is little more than begging.

Yeah, but usually one consents to something like this. This was unsolicited, totally loving unwarranted, and when you have a ethics history of "questionable" ethics like Deadspin does, you're left thinking that they probably did it because they're huge loving dicks. If anything, the people responsible for publishing this should suffer the same fate. Real journalists (read: people with even a shred of moral fiber) don't pointlessly make spectacles of ENTIRELY private figures with no other reason or substance besides "hey guys dumb bitch make sign and dumb bitch has facebook!!!!!". What Deadspin did served nobody but their hit counter and the misogynist egos of their userbase and the people in charge.

leokitty
Apr 5, 2005

I live. I die. I live again.
Legitimate reasons don't mean that they are nice reasons.

Feels Villeneuve
Oct 7, 2007

Setter is Better.

leokitty posted:

Legitimate reasons don't mean that they are nice reasons.

"Responsible" is probably a better term than "nice" or "moral". And this was completely irresponsible if you don't assign any bad ethics to it, and along the lines of Nuremberg Files (though obviously not as serious) if you do.

stimpy
Jul 27, 2004

Cap'n Scrap'n of the Hit Brigade
I don't see any pressing reason for them to have released her name or anything, but why is everyone assuming that it was done for misogynistic reasons rather than just hoping that someone out there had some insight into what was probably a pretty interesting backstory?

Dick Williams
Aug 25, 2005

stimpy posted:

I don't see any pressing reason for them to have released her name or anything, but why is everyone assuming that it was done for misogynistic reasons rather than just hoping that someone out there had some insight into what was probably a pretty interesting backstory?

Deadspin has always been misogynistic, most notably the Jen Sterger and Inez Sainz stories. Daulerio turned them into a retarded sports tabloid and they've embraced it

Reformed Pissboy
Nov 6, 2003

I was thinking more along the lines of "reflecting journalistic integrity" than "pragmatic/advantageous" in my use of "legitimate" but admittedly that can be a loaded term. I'm sure it helps their bottom line to do this sort of thing and I don't begrudge them for that any more than I do their audience, but that doesn't stop me from wishing the audience and their source would both dry up and die, or move on to work that isn't sensationalist and actually has work put into it and means something.

stimpy posted:

I don't see any pressing reason for them to have released her name or anything, but why is everyone assuming that it was done for misogynistic reasons rather than just hoping that someone out there had some insight into what was probably a pretty interesting backstory?

I disagree that there's much of a story to be mined from this; if anyone did have any insight into the inner workings of the relationship, they surely wouldn't need a name and link to someone they presumably already knew. The specific misogyny aspect is more from reputation / the internet in general, but I get the feeling that if the person holding the sign was not a young female it would have attracted substantially less attention than it has v:goleft:v

stimpy
Jul 27, 2004

Cap'n Scrap'n of the Hit Brigade

I CHALLENGE THEE posted:

Deadspin has always been misogynistic, most notably the Jen Sterger and Inez Sainz stories.

They may well have been, I haven't read it in...years now I guess, but I don't see anything with this that beats me over the head with misogyny. It may be a safe guess to think that, but I don't think its fair to label this as such.

Transfatuation posted:

I disagree that there's much of a story to be mined from this; if anyone did have any insight into the inner workings of the relationship, they surely wouldn't need a name and link to someone they presumably already knew. The specific misogyny aspect is more from reputation / the internet in general, but I get the feeling that if the person holding the sign was not a young female it would have attracted substantially less attention than it has v:goleft:v

I'd be curious to know the backstory just for my own amusement. I don't think throwing a link to her facebook is something that should be done, but you never know who may be tangentially connected to her. I've found people on facebook that I have a think tangential connection to that I never would have guessed, so maybe the thought was a situation like that might come up and then someone worked through their chain of friends and found something out. I doubt that was why, the real reason was probably "just because", but like I mentioned earlier, even if they do have a history of misogyny, there isn't anything here that jumps out at me as obvious misogyny. I'd be fairly surprised if they had a guy with a similar sign about an ex-girlfriend and they didn't do the same thing.

Holy Diverticulitis
Dec 8, 2009

damn good anus! and hot!

ThatsMyBoye posted:

But why link to her Facebook? What's the point/endgame?
It's sourcing. Without it, the hue and cry would be that they were just inviting harassment of a stranger they couldn't even prove was the girl in question.


MorningView posted:

People harassing her was of course a totally unforeseeable outcome.
It's also a foreseeable outcome of printing virtually anyone's name connected to a contentious issue or connected to something like sports, where people are rabidly partisan dickheads. If Deadspin or any sports site links to a fan Youtube, that person gets harassing comments and reply vids. If it had been a male Packers fan talking about dumping his ex, we'd be talking about idiot Bears and Vikings fans threatening to kick his rear end or crowing about loving his ex (and we'd be talking about whether Deadspin was endorsing misogynistic bro poo poo). Hell, I posted Ron Paul's own printed words last week and have been averaging about a death threat per day since then.


Transfatuation posted:

This is a very, very spurious definition of "legitimate" and your own wording appropriately reflects that. I think we all knew the `reason` they did it was for pageviews and ad money and what have you, but if you're going to invoke a righteous "they did nothing morally wrong" sort of response, there should really be some address whatever of morality besides a slippery slope argument of "this is all the internet is anyway."
Honestly, I'm not trying to be righteous about it. I actually dislike the "article" and wish they didn't do poo poo like this, but I also find the "THAT IS A DISGUSTING ACT" tone that attends almost any discussion of Deadspin exhausting. Their salaciousness and occasional ghoulishness is off-putting, but it's also very useful for the sports media, and the speed with which "legitimate" or "mainstream" outlets blurb and link to Deadspin to chase after pageviews while theatrically holding their noses is just as mercenary as Deadspin's, but with an added dose of the hypocritical. Deadspin does stupid, gross crap, and it does very good analysis too, but the respectable media milks the former for revenue while using the critical/cultural baggage of Deadspin as a very good scapegoat.

quote:

(That said I will freely admit to wishing to violently destroy cable news and I still like Mr. Destructo enough to donate approx. 15 dolers to it if need be)
I will send you my newsletter and look forward to receiving your ingot.

MourningView
Sep 2, 2006


Is this Heaven?

Holocausplay posted:

It's also a foreseeable outcome of printing virtually anyone's name connected to a contentious issue or connected to something like sports, where people are rabidly partisan dickheads. If Deadspin or any sports site links to a fan Youtube, that person gets harassing comments and reply vids. If it had been a male Packers fan talking about dumping his ex, we'd be talking about idiot Bears and Vikings fans threatening to kick his rear end or crowing about loving his ex (and we'd be talking about whether Deadspin was endorsing misogynistic bro poo poo). Hell, I posted Ron Paul's own printed words last week and have been averaging about a death threat per day since then.

You getting harassing e-mails for something you published is not even remotely the same thing as some random girl getting harassed because Deadspin decided to link to her facebook for no reason other than "she was on TV for 2 seconds". There is no good reason to post her name. "Girl at a game with a sign" is not a story that needs to be further investigated. The only thing gained is some poor girl getting harassed by strangers.

I know they link to you sometimes but you really don't need to white knight every single dumb thing Deadspin does. If you want to take issue with people who say that they're always terrible or don't do anything good, then fine. But this particular thing is not really worth defending.

MourningView fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Dec 28, 2011

Holy Diverticulitis
Dec 8, 2009

damn good anus! and hot!

MorningView posted:

You getting harassing e-mails for something you published is not even remotely the same thing as some random girl getting harassed because Deadspin decided to link to her facebook for no reason other than "she was on TV for 2 seconds". There is no good reason to post her name. "Girl at a game with a sign" is not a story that needs to be further investigated. The only thing gained is some poor girl getting harassed by strangers.
I'm not trying to draw an equivalency between the two; I'm just saying that people on the internet behave irrationally and sometimes violently, and that's a consequence of posting a name or no name at all. We can change almost every detail of this circumstance—make it a genderless person with a no-name blog or a guy holding another sign entirely—and still stand a good chance of creating the same bad outcomes.

quote:

I know they link to you sometimes but you really don't need to white knight every single dumb thing Deadspin does.
It's fair to suggest that I might have issues with bias, but come on, man. (gently caress, now I gotta go put some change in the "ESPN jar.") Also, I do apologize if I'm being tedious about this. That's really not my intention.

quote:

If you want to take issue with people who say that they're always terrible or don't do anything good, then fine. But this particular thing is not really worth defending.
It's also not really worth getting so exercised about. It's shabby or inane or pointless or lazy, but there's no need to freight it with more significance than that. But that tends to happen whenever Deadspin comes up in threads (and that's pretty often). If we're going off "knight" metaphors, not every trivially dumb thing Deadspin does needs to result in a race to see who among us can climb atop the highest horse.

And if we're going with horse metaphors, I'll stop beating this one. Honest. I'm doing that Cub Scout salute thing and everything. (I'm also naked.)

Holy Diverticulitis fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Dec 28, 2011

MourningView
Sep 2, 2006


Is this Heaven?

Holocausplay posted:

I'm not trying to draw an equivalency between the two; I'm just saying that people on the internet behave irrationally and sometimes violently, and that's a consequence of posting a name or no name at all. We can change almost every detail of this circumstance—make it a genderless person with a no-name blog or a guy holding another sign entirely—and still stand a good chance of creating the same bad outcomes.

And it still would have been a really dumb thing to do, although I think the fact that Deadspin is read by a whole ton of people makes it worse, since it increases the chances of the girl catching a bunch of unnecessary poo poo for it, and they should know that. Their history of doing stuff like this also does not help, since it makes it look like part of a larger pattern.

I think you're overselling the outrage too. A few people agreed that it was a scummy thing to do (and again, pointed out that Deadspin does this sort of thing a lot, which I think is fair and part of the reason people are bothered by it and reluctant to give their motives the benefit of the doubt), but it probably would have died out pretty quickly if you didn't decide to defend it for some reason.

ThatsMyBoye
Nov 21, 2006

I wish that I believed in fate
I wish I didn't sleep so late
I used to be carried in the arms of cheerleaders

Holocausplay posted:

It's sourcing. Without it, the hue and cry would be that they were just inviting harassment of a stranger they couldn't even prove was the girl in question.

I guess my issue is elemental, then. I just don't see the need for any of it.

Badfinger
Dec 16, 2004

Timeouts?!

We'll take care of that.
They could have bothered to try the journalistic approach and actually written a story.

Crion
Sep 30, 2004
baseball.
It turns out I'm joining Baseball Prospectus's writing staff next year, so I may start showing up here more (or less?)

leokitty
Apr 5, 2005

I live. I die. I live again.

Crion posted:

It turns out I'm joining Baseball Prospectus's writing staff next year, so I may start showing up here more (or less?)

I will personally fart on every article you write*

* not really, but only because i don't have a bpro subscription

SporkOfTruth
Sep 1, 2006

this kid walked up to me and was like man schmitty your stache is ghetto and I was like whatever man your 3b look like a dishrag.

he was like damn.

Crion posted:

It turns out I'm joining Baseball Prospectus's writing staff next year, so I may start showing up here more (or less?)

Definitely more, boo this man boooo

(congratulations)

Badfinger posted:

They could have bothered to try the journalistic approach and actually written a story.

MorningView posted:

And it still would have been a really dumb thing to do, although I think the fact that Deadspin is read by a whole ton of people makes it worse, since it increases the chances of the girl catching a bunch of unnecessary poo poo for it, and they should know that. Their history of doing stuff like this also does not help, since it makes it look like part of a larger pattern.

But Deadspin, from an editorial standpoint (as much as you can ascribe one to them), doesn't care. They're information brokers, plying in the trade of "find the juiciest piece of flesh for the rabid dogs to gnaw on." I wouldn't expect the first (or even second, or third...) mention of an incident on their site to be a professional, well-written, long-form article. Throwing the information out there first and then following up with the snarky critique/half-apology is their thing, and I'm absolutely certain that if they did not exist, someone else would fill the void (showing even LESS compunction or restraint). They provide the crass & vulgar that sportswriting fanatically avoided for over a century and a half in this country. I'm not saying what they do makes me feel comfortable or that I particularly enjoy the implications of their work, but it's out there and it serves its purpose quite well.

Badfinger
Dec 16, 2004

Timeouts?!

We'll take care of that.
^^^ I didn't say that doing that would be in character for them or make sense in their approach. I just said they should have done it.

Crion posted:

It turns out I'm joining Baseball Prospectus's writing staff next year, so I may start showing up here more (or less?)

You need at least one "we have this..." joke per month in an article or your SAS shitposting license will be thoroughly revoked.

Congratulations.

MourningView
Sep 2, 2006


Is this Heaven?

SporkOfTruth posted:

But Deadspin, from an editorial standpoint (as much as you can ascribe one to them)doesn't care.

They should.

quote:

They're information brokers, plying in the trade of "find the juiciest piece of flesh for the rabid dogs to gnaw on." I wouldn't expect the first (or even second, or third...) mention of an incident on their site to be a professional, well-written, long-form article. Throwing the information out there first and then following up with the snarky critique/half-apology is their thing, and I'm absolutely certain that if they did not exist, someone else would fill the void (showing even LESS compunction or restraint). They provide the crass & vulgar that sportswriting fanatically avoided for over a century and a half in this country. I'm not saying what they do makes me feel comfortable or that I particularly enjoy the implications of their work, but it's out there and it serves its purpose quite well.

Its purpose is stupid and it would be stupid and worthy of ridicule if other people did it too. This is not a good argument in their favor. Doing lovely stuff frequently does not make it any less lovely.

MourningView fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Dec 28, 2011

Dick Williams
Aug 25, 2005
They should care but they don't and they'll continue doing dumb and scummy things and roll with the punches of their criticism like they always have and always will because there's no such thing as bad publicity and morons eat this poo poo up

The broken bones
Jan 3, 2008

Out beyond winning and losing, there is a field.

I will meet you there.

Crion posted:

It turns out I'm joining Baseball Prospectus's writing staff next year, so I may start showing up here more (or less?)

grats, bud

Crazy Ted
Jul 29, 2003

Remember kids: always, ALWAYS make sure that the microphone is off...

quote:

After yesterday's Fiesta Bowl press conference for Oklahoma State defensive coordinator Bill Young, Tulsa World columnist Dave Sittler did what a lot of reporters often do once the cameras and microphones are turned off and the interview subject hasn't yet bolted for the lunch spread. Sittler engaged Young in an off-the-record conversation, which he initiated by stating his intention to "turn this off now" when reaching for his tape recorder on the press conference table.

Sittler did this as Young continued to sit on the dais, however. And what Sittler didn't realize was that a camera and a microphone were still turned on, and that they were capturing everything that was said, all of which you can see and hear above. Right from the start, Sittler seems to be trying to gauge Young's frustration at not having gotten a chance to be a head coach. He initially asks Young about Young's time as defensive coordinator at Oklahoma under John Blake in 1996-97. Young handles the question as gracefully as he can, noting that Blake was inexperienced, but that "it wasn't his fault" because he "would have done a much better job" had that opportunity come later.

Which is where Sittler, at the 29-second mark, digs in:

Sittler: "That's what I'm—that must frustrate you that you have all this experience, you know what you're doing, and then they give it to some slapdick who hasn't earned his, you know. And then Donnie Duncan flat-out told me he gave it to him because he was black because they were worried about what [name indecipherable] was going to do with recruiting. I mean, those things must piss you off."

Young: There's a lot of things out there that's frustrating, but boy, I've been so fortunate to just get what I've got.


Duncan was the athletic director at Oklahoma at the time Blake, who went 12-22 in three seasons, was hired in 1996. Sittler and Young go on to discuss head coach Mike Gundy's contract status with Oklahoma State, plus the health issues Duncan and his wife are facing. Um, oops? Donnie Duncan must be absolutely thrilled with Dave Sittler right about now.

haljordan
Oct 22, 2004

the corpse of god is love.






Crazy Ted posted:

Remember kids: always, ALWAYS make sure that the microphone is off...

Well at least Young was smart enough to keep his mouth shut even though he was "off the record." Good for him.

The broken bones
Jan 3, 2008

Out beyond winning and losing, there is a field.

I will meet you there.
Yahoo's Tim Brown, who's probably one of the best reporters in baseball right now, lost his brother this past week and he wrote this piece about it.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ti-brown_hardball_andy_brown_brother_lost_010212


Send condolences to him @TBrownYahoo

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Dingleberry Jones
Jun 2, 2008
If I'm posting a new thread, it means there is a thread already posted and I failed at using the forum search correctly
I just got Scott Raab's "The Whore of Akron" from the library.

Alongside Bill Plaschke's book about Tommy Lasorda, it is easily the worst book I've ever read.

Not even halfway through, and amongst other things, has talked about his wife giving him handjobs, the smell of his wife's vagina, how he is going to commit violent acts against LeBron James (kicking him in the nuts, hitting him with a chair), and a paragraph describing LeBron's penis size.

He also likes to use the word "gently caress" in every conceivable way possible. It's like he thinks he's David Milch.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply