Only Shank could pen an article after a 16-2 win that capped off a sweep titled "Why I'm Starting To Hate This Year's Red Sox".
Did you read it? I was morbidly interested in reading it due the title and he doesn't hate them all; he's actually frustrated with this team which I don't think is that far from my attitude towards this team too.Only Shank could pen an article after a 16-2 win that capped off a sweep titled "Why I'm Starting To Hate This Year's Red Sox".
So what happened there? Did Shank see the first title and request an edit? In fairness, the second title better fits the text.Dead tree version headline is "Whiff of Worry is Overpowering". A bit better
Yeah I read it. Just didn't think it was the time for that kind of toned article. But that's par for the course for him.Did you read it? I was morbidly interested in reading it due the title and he doesn't hate them all; he's actually frustrated with this team which I don't think is that far from my attitude towards this team too.
I think that the headline writer (who isn't Shank) was going for click bait.
No, he doesn't, really.But to the extent that he is saying that their inability to win close games is a bad indicator for the playoffs (if they get there), he's got a point.
Editors are usually responsible for writing headlines; the online and print versions may have different editors, as such things like column inches and layout still matter to the print edition.So what happened there? Did Shank see the first title and request an edit? In fairness, the second title better fits the text.
Then what do you think he masturbates to? I always just assumed....I also doubt he looks at his own published columns, either online or in the print edition.
Probably to his bank balance. Or to this thread. As I post in this thread about every six months, his job is to rile up the natives. He does it better than just about every "peer" he has in the business. I'm pretty sure the hate and vitriol this thread heaps on him has Shank breaking out the lube and the scented candles.Then what do you think he masturbates to?
I thought Globe headlines were written by members of NoMaas?Editors are usually responsible for writing headlines; the online and print versions may have different editors, as such things like column inches and layout still matter to the print edition.
Writers rarely have much to do with headlines. And given Shaughnessey's well-known tech aversion, I doubt he is comparing the online and print headlines; I also doubt he looks at his own published columns, either online or in the print edition.
To piggyback off your numbers, 13 of 36 2015 postseason games were decided by 1 and 2 runs.The article cites the Red Sox poor record when trailing after 7- and 8-innings, not bothering to mention that they are better than league average in both cases. There is also a claim that "October baseball games are 3-2 and 2-1," which is questionable given that last year's postseason had four one-run games and 22 that were decided by three-or-more runs. The writer also states that "Most of the rest of Boston's (remaining) games are against teams that still think they have a chance to win." Maybe they do, but starting a week from today the Red Sox play 16 straight games against teams that are under .500, and 20 of their last 46 are against teams under .500. Basically, this article is filled with misleading "facts."
Of course he would.Would Shaughnessy prefer that Brady act like Curt Schilling?
I guess that's true.Apologies, I'm on mobile so couldn't mouse over and guess I don't know why it wouldn't give him a click just because it's on a different website.
Should I -- as a lawyer -- get my panties in a bunch when I see T-Shirts and Coffee mugs that say "First, Kill All the Lawyers!"?Anyway to answer Papelbon's Pountine's question the article explains that the Curly Haired Boyfriend now refuses to vote for Schilling for the Hall of Fame after Schilling showed support for the reprehensible teeshirt advocating the killing of journalists. Plus CHB does not get any "clicks" if it's not on the Globe website.
What's interesting here is that your (quite justifiable) hatred of CHB has blinded you to the obvious flaws of the analogy you are making.Should I -- as a lawyer -- get my panties in a bunch when I see T-Shirts and Coffee mugs that say "First, Kill All the Lawyers!"?
I get hating Schilling. It's not uncommon. But I would call that shirt simply "not funny" or "juvenile". Whatever anyone thinks of Schilling, that the CHB is not going to vote for Schilling over that issue is nothing but opportunism. Even Dan knows that it was nothing more than a boorish attempt at humor.
It's a bit more than that, and you know it. For the last year we've had a Presidential nominee (and now PE) who has constantly demonized the media in a number of different ways. This rhetoric has spread to his followers who have made it very difficult (to say the least) for reporters to do their jobs whilst covering said PE during his speeches. In an era where people are getting motivated to "do something" about what the PE is insinuating are enemies, it's not exactly in great taste to suggest the lynching of people*.Should I -- as a lawyer -- get my panties in a bunch when I see T-Shirts and Coffee mugs that say "First, Kill All the Lawyers!"?
Shaugnessy didn't get a. chance to vote for Conlin for the Spink Award and b. received said award after the child molestation charges were brought on him. I'm not sure what this has to do with Schilling.Minihane and Callahan have been killing him over this article. They wonder why Shank has not publicly condemned Bill Conlin, a fellow sportswriter and Spink Award winner who resigned from a Philly paper in 2011 following charges of child molestation.
My guess is that Schilling and the Schillingwaffte think Shakespeare was some kind of pussy, so they'd never quote him. But context matters.Should I -- as a lawyer -- get my panties in a bunch when I see T-Shirts and Coffee mugs that say "First, Kill All the Lawyers!"?
I get hating Schilling. It's not uncommon. But I would call that shirt simply "not funny" or "juvenile". Whatever anyone thinks of Schilling, that the CHB is not going to vote for Schilling over that issue is nothing but opportunism. Even Dan knows that it was nothing more than a boorish attempt at humor.
He sort of implies that he's, at the very least, uncertain of this.Should I -- as a lawyer -- get my panties in a bunch when I see T-Shirts and Coffee mugs that say "First, Kill All the Lawyers!"?
I get hating Schilling. It's not uncommon. But I would call that shirt simply "not funny" or "juvenile". Whatever anyone thinks of Schilling, that the CHB is not going to vote for Schilling over that issue is nothing but opportunism. Even Dan knows that it was nothing more than a boorish attempt at humor.
"His tweet supporting the lynching of journalists was the last straw for this voter. Curt later claimed he was joking. Swell."
Four people quoted my post on this and many of the points that were made were thoughtful and reasonable, even while I'm not entirely convinced by all of them.My guess is that Schilling and the Schillingwaffte think Shakespeare was some kind of pussy, so they'd never quote him. But context matters.
If the quote is being spewed by a foul-mouthed ignoramus who leads a pack of hyenas that has, in fact, threatened lawyers with physical harm day in and day out over several months and has in fact made such threats a centerpiece of their political campaign, then yeah, you should get your panties in a bunch. Not to mention the racist overtones of lynching as a means of killing.
I don't think you "get" hating Schilling at all.
It ignores Xander, Mookie, JBJ and other prospects he held onto until they were stars or potential starts, but I still enjoyed the wickedness of it.The trade is proof that Dombrowski is exactly what we thought he would be. The book on Dombro is that he’s about winning now. He’s not in that Ben Cherington school of holding on to prospects until they become suspects. He’s not afraid of what Moncada and Kopech are going to be. He wants what Sale can do for the Red Sox now. This may be why so many veterans of Boston’s baseball ops department have departed, but count me in on this logic.
The relevant quote here, which is actually "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" is from Henry the VI part 2, is said by a guy named "Dick the Butcher", and is meant to make fun of the bragging of another character (Jack Kade), who is detailing what he will do once he is King, and is meant o make fun of that guy's absurd proposals. It is yet another case of people not understanding that some of the most famous Shakespeare quotes were originally intended as satire. In particular, Polonius in Hamlet is meant to be a self-important idiot who gives stupid platitudes as unsolicited advice. He is a buffoon. To thine own self be true. Neither a borrower nor a lender be. Brevity is the soul of wit. Clothes make the man. Though this be madness, yet there is method in't. These are meant to be ridiculous and meaningless statements. But they are repeated as deep thoughts from Shakespeare. So, in summary, don't repeat something Shakespeare wrote as deep unless you've actually read the play and know what it is supposed to mean.It's a bit more than that, and you know it. For the last year we've had a Presidential nominee (and now PE) who has constantly demonized the media in a number of different ways. This rhetoric has spread to his followers who have made it very difficult (to say the least) for reporters to do their jobs whilst covering said PE during his speeches. In an era where people are getting motivated to "do something" about what the PE is insinuating are enemies, it's not exactly in great taste to suggest the lynching of people*.
* And I know that humor is completely subjective, but the idea of killing journalists (or anyone, really) is funny how? When ISIS or al Qaeda behead journalists or kills them, it's a horror show (and it is) and these guys want to roll into any country it happens and flatten the Earth. But when Billy Bob Pepe suggests it, it's all in good fun? Fuck that.
Let's extend this even further, if the PE says that "lawyers are a deceitful people. Worst of the worst. It's true. Sad group of people really, always lying. Taking your money. I've known a lot of lawyers and don't like any of them." and his followers pick up on that and start showing up to court making your life tougher, maybe harassing you, saying you deserve to die simply for doing your job, then maybe you'll see what a "joke" this is.
Meh on your Shakespeare thoughts. Some quotes and lines, wherever from, get enough over time outside of their original context that they carry a separate meaning, at least for some. Not that the lawyer line, when used in the way that I suggested, offends me in any way. Quite the opposite; I think it's funny. Many lawyers have mugs that say just that on their desks at work. But regardless of the source or how funny one finds it, I think many people in our era employ that line or buy things with it on it as a nod to the general sense that we have too many lawyers and they cause enough mischief to make the sentiment resonate, albeit in jest.So, in summary, don't repeat something Shakespeare wrote as deep unless you've actually read the play and know what it is supposed to mean.
Also, Shaugnessy is a self-important dick on the level of Polonius, and we should just ignore his moral grandstanding about a guy who was a great pitcher of his era but didn't get along with the CHB. He's just looking for an excuse to not vote for somebody, and to prove how superior he is.
Two things:Also, Shaugnessy is a self-important dick on the level of Polonius, and we should just ignore his moral grandstanding about a guy who was a great pitcher of his era but didn't get along with the CHB. He's just looking for an excuse to not vote for somebody, and to prove how superior he is.
Until someone capitalizes on taking it literally. Suggesting, even allegedly in jest, that journalists be hanged, in the midst of a campaign where one candidate gave tacit approval to threats of physical harm to journalists (not to mention demonizing minorities for whom lynching is a touchy subject), is fucked-up-dom of the highest proportions. Schilling is simply too stupid to realize that the people who think his retweeted memes are the Rosetta stone are also too stupid to understand satire. Instead, it is the very audience that takes it literally. And when a reporter does get beaten, I'm sure Curt will offer his prayers (while high-fiving himself in the mirror), and feign ignorance at how something like this could happen.I think many people in our era employ that line or buy things with it on it as a nod to the general sense that we have too many lawyers and they cause enough mischief to make the sentiment resonate, albeit in jest.
While I do get the Schilling Hate, I also think the notion that Schilling would be high fiving anyone over the death of a journalist is over the top. Schilling Hate gone mad.Until someone capitalizes on taking it literally. Suggesting, even allegedly in jest, that journalists be hanged, in the midst of a campaign where one candidate gave tacit approval to threats of physical harm to journalists (not to mention demonizing minorities for whom lynching is a touchy subject), is fucked-up-dom of the highest proportions. Schilling is simply too stupid to realize that the people who think his retweeted memes are the Rosetta stone are also too stupid to understand satire. Instead, it is the very audience that takes it literally. And when a reporter does get beaten, I'm sure Curt will offer his prayers (while high-fiving himself in the mirror), and feign ignorance at how something like this could happen.
Do you think it wasn't in jest?Until someone capitalizes on taking it literally. Suggesting, even allegedly in jest, that journalists be hanged, in the midst of a campaign where one candidate gave tacit approval to threats of physical harm to journalists (not to mention demonizing minorities for whom lynching is a touchy subject), is fucked-up-dom of the highest proportions. Schilling is simply too stupid to realize that the people who think his retweeted memes are the Rosetta stone are also too stupid to understand satire. Instead, it is the very audience that takes it literally. And when a reporter does get beaten, I'm sure Curt will offer his prayers (while high-fiving himself in the mirror), and feign ignorance at how something like this could happen.
I dont know. He has spoken of journalists as traitors. He pulled down the post.Do you think it wasn't in jest?
I'd say it matters a great deal. If it was in jest, that's bad. If it's serious, that's bad to the 100th power.Ultimately, in jest or not doesn't matter.
This is typical of current Right Wing Radio Guy (and also PEOTUS) shtick. He'll stay stuff to be "outrageous" and get attention but if you call him on it he'll just say 'I was just kidding! Can't you take a joke? The problem is you!"I'd say it matters a great deal. If it was in jest, that's bad. If it's serious, that's bad to the 100th power.