jeff pearlman MIGHT have spent 15 minutes on this column
maybe. i'm thinking the 10-12 minute range is a more realistic estimate. here's the link; if you don't want to take 90 seconds to read it, let me spoil the conclusion/main point for you: there is none. let me also spoil the joke(s) for you: rickey henderson has a huge ego and refers to himself in the third person a lot! lawl! lawl!
there is no way in hell anyone who read this understood why the hell it was written, much less found it amusing. you can do better, jeff.
8 comments:
With all due respect:
A. Just got through responding to my e-mail, RE: the Rickey column. 42 letters. 40 positives, 2 negatives. Like political approval numbers, that doesn't decively mean you're wrong—but only because, in opinion, nobody's factually wrong.
B. Being that you're a zit-faced 18-year-old wanna-be sportswriter who doesn't leave the house, is it possible you just don't get the joke, or don't have a working knowledge of Rickey/Rickey's voice?
C. Being that you're a zit-faced 18-year-old wanna-be sportswriter who doesn't leave the house, I understand your need to knock down those of us who are living our dream by writing for a living.
D. Being that I'm a zit-faced 35-year-old sportswriter who doesn't leave the house ... maybe I just suck.
Have a good wkend. Still enjoy the site (but yo are wrong on this one).
Jeff
earl the pearl--
as a 24 year old zit-faced don't-care-to-be-a-sportswriter, one who frequently heard rickey talk about rickey, I can confirm for you what Larry B (actually a 12-year old wanna-be-astronaut living not in his parents' basement, but on the third floor--it's scary up there) can not:
this article wasn't funny.
It's like a Mr. T article whose sole purpose is to point out that Mr. T used to say "I pity the fool."
Well, at least, unlike Greg Doyel, you didn't make a Monty Python ref.
Chris W...OUT!
ps: your letter-writing public are the same kind of people who WRITE LETTERS TO ESPN PAGE 2. You sure you want to cite them in your defense?
lollerskates
that doesn't decively mean you're wrong—but only because, in opinion, nobody's factually wrong.
and then
Still enjoy the site (but yo are wrong on this one).
What? Which is it?
Chris, but just because you don't find something funny does not mean it's not funny. I'm not making this up—I've now received about 50 letters, four of which bashed me. The others praised. I'm not saying they're right or wrong, but at least someone found it funny.
Also, you probably shouldn't go too hard on your meal ticket. Not only am I the only journalist who probably reas your site ... I'm the only person (save for y'all) who reads your site. Throw me some praise, dammit. Even if it's bullshit. :)
- Jeff
PS: Be well. I write this all in the fun of mock debate.
well...besides larry b and his slush fun comped hardcover bonds book, none of us have seen any of this so-called partnership.
nevertheless, the main point is: page 2 readers' love of this article only confirms what i already knew about page 2 readers
first of all, jeff- my dad reads this blog, as does my friend chris (no relation to chris w). so don't get on your high horse about what percentage of our readership you constitute.
second, chris w- sweet home alone "3rd floor" reference in your original response. took me 48 hours but i just now got it.
jeff, since you read this, i have a question:
why did you include specific reporters from specific news outlets rather than just saying "baseball writer 1/2/3?"
it adds nothing to the article, but just seems like a pointless "shout out". are you really so into the brotherhood of sportswriters that you include them in your articles when it's almost a distraction?
it's like you want to show off that you're in the club. maybe that's why you hate bloggers.
Post a Comment