Thursday, July 17, 2008

Why go to all the trouble?

Those who aren't regular readers or don't read the comments may well question why I went to the trouble to rebut a four year old article. One reader put it like this in his email entitled "Are you an idiot?":

The article is 4 years old. You go up to 2007 idiot. Yes, I can refute everything George Bush did 4 years ago. I have some other things you can investigate that have the same currency:Are the "Swift Boaters" right? Is the invasion of Iraq justified?Since it take 5 years for the oil from new drilling to get to market, shouldn't Bush want to open up closed areas for drilling now? Will the Red Sox ever break the curse of the Bambino? What about the White Sox? (Who cares about the Cubs?) If the Academy didn't create the "Animated Feature Film" category could "Million Dollar Baby" hold off "Shrek 2" as easily as "Finding Neverland?" Will Jamie Foxx win for his performance in "Ray" despite or because of past snubs of black actors? Gee, will viewers miss cartoon network's Toonami?

Thanks for your email, William. My best response is: just because a lie is old and out of date, doesn't mean that people don't still believe it. And yes...I'm an idiot for spending about ten hours on something just because JC baited me. I'm sort of like Marty McFly in that respect. One of these days someone will goad me into some reckless blog race, and I'll crash into a truck, injure my hand and never be able to type again. Will I ever learn?

Links:
Dungy comments on the Favre situation. Mike Floria thinks that's weird. I'm sort of torn about this. Honestly, it is a little weird. On the other hand, the media keeps calling to ask him about things, and I've long thought the whole 'no comment' thing was weird. In general, I think people should go ahead and express what they think. It's more weird that someone would call Dungy to ask him about the situation than it is for him to comment on it. Ultimately, if someone asks you a direct question, you should answer it. It's the responsibility of the questioner to question the relevance of the question.

10 comments:

Joel said...

The implication from William's rant, though, is that using the knowledge available through 2007, the premise of the CHFF article is, in fact, refuted. So I guess he was sort of paying you a compliment whilst calling you an idiot.

But moreover, I think he missed the point: you didn't just use current information, you corrected incorrect past information that the CHFF article was spouting. So no, you're not an idiot. William is, because he either didn't actually read your article, or has such poor reading comprehension skills as to be unable to understand the difference between events prior to 2003 and events afterwards.

So nyah.

Deshawn Zombie said...

Yeah, but it was a such a great email that I forgive him for missing my point a little. Any one who references oil driling and Toonami at the same time gets props from me.

jc said...

For the record.....I've never been more inclined to kill myself (other than that blip in February) than after Million Dollar Baby.

Nobody has gone from that high to that low in a movie since Sheldon The Machine Levine.

Rob-Westside said...

Does anyone else find it creepy that a Pats fan like JC could be such a dedicated reader and commenter of a Colt's blog? I read Pat's blog's here and there but ONLY when there is something relevant to the Colts vs. Pats. I think JC is actually a closet Colt's fan masquerading as a Pat's fan to garner attention. Though you do make this excellent blog that much more interesting so I hope you don't go away JC.

BTW: If you haven't read Shake's posting about Football Outsider's book on StampedeBlue check it out. Some really intersting nuggest in there. I think it got lost in all the Manning knee surgery news...

jc said...

I'm atagonistic by nature, and I enjoy picking fights.

Can't do that on Pat Planet or things alike.

Plus we have more than, like, one columnist in this region so I can get my info from the Herald, Globe, Metro, Projo, EEI et al.

That frees me up to poke fun at the amoeba that make up this blog's constituency.

A loyal base that, not coincidentally, draws my ire by defaming, degrading, and flat out hating on my team, QB, and fellow fans.

That's why I read. Because DZ can't resist throwing in anti-patriot snippits on the reg.

Someone hasta engage the enemy front....

Rob-Westside said...

jc,
You definitely are representative of everything I see epidemic in most Pats friends. Blindly faithful, illogical, and quick to take offense at everything. But hey I guess this rivalry wouldn't be half as interesting if you were any different.
Rob

Buzz said...

Here is a pretty good statistical break down from pro football reference which tries to value all QB's career performance. Manning ranks #2 of all time with Brady at #19. They later add playoff games in a later article and prove again that Brady's stats in the postseason aren't excellent and that the wins have more to do with the defense than his performances. Here is the link

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=547

Good job on the article as well.

Deshawn Zombie said...

do you have the link to the playoff article?

Shake'n'bake said...

regular season
playoffs
superbowl winners
total

jc said...

Rob: You forgot juiced up and highly irritable, devastatingly handsome and a major opiate fiend.

I watched the playoff games, I was at most of them.

I know what he did.

A stat-geek article can't fade the thug. At least CHFF is funny.

And THE JOKER is the best villain since Belichick.

4:00 AM and I'm about to take some ambien....