I think the bigger problem is the above reads like you actually value the comments on ESPN's articles.
terrisus said:I know I'm late commenting on this, but,
If I wanted to Facebook comment, I would go to Facebook. This isn't Facebook, it's ESPN. Just have us make ESPN accounts to comment or something (oh, wait, there are ESPN accounts... I suppose it's just too logical to use those)
As someone who never had, and never will have, a Facebook account, it gives me one less reason to go to ESPN.
And, guess I'll just need to drop comments about the things they mess up in here instead.
Orel Miraculous said:
Linking commenting accounts to Facebook accounts has been one of the best recent developments in the blogosphere. It forces people to use their real names and creates a generally more civil commenting atmosphere.
But why does ESPN care about that?Orel Miraculous said:
Linking commenting accounts to Facebook accounts has been one of the best recent developments in the blogosphere. It forces people to use their real names and creates a generally more civil commenting atmosphere.
Average Reds said:
Companies like ESPN link their comments to the Facebook exchange because that's how you amplify what is referred to in the industry as your "social footprint." It's the social equivalent to what SEO and SEM were two or three years ago.
The fact that it might promote more civil behavior is nice, but it is an unintended consequence of an explicit ESPN marketing strategy.
kenneycb said:I think the bigger problem is the above reads like you actually value the comments on ESPN's articles.
I think you mentioned you were in your 20's.. I thought all you young uns were into Facebook. Why don't you like it?terrisus said:But why does ESPN care about that?
And there we are...
Nah, I think I only posted like 4 comments there, all about errors they made in their articles.
I just don't like Facebook.
richgedman'sghost said:I think you mentioned you were in your 20's.. I thought all you young uns were into Facebook. Why don't you like it?
Kenny F'ing Powers said:I'm 29 and have joined the "too cool for facebook" crowd.
When Facebook came out and you needed a college/university email address to access it, it was great. Between Facebook and AOL instant messenger (is that even still around?), I got every piece of info I needed and wasn't over saturated with shit I didn't care about.
Once Facebook allowed anyone to join, the floodgates opened and that was pretty much it for me.
Was it difficult to type that in your skinny jeans between sips of PBR tallboys?Kenny F'ing Powers said:I'm 29 and have joined the "too cool for facebook" crowd.
When Facebook came out and you needed a college/university email address to access it, it was great. Between Facebook and AOL instant messenger (is that even still around?), I got every piece of info I needed and wasn't over saturated with shit I didn't care about.
Once Facebook allowed anyone to join, the floodgates opened and that was pretty much it for me.
terrisus said:
Yup, AOL Instant Messenger is still around (and, I'm still using the same AOL email address for my email that I've had since the mid-90s, despite having my own domain and being able to create 1000 email addresses through that if I wanted). Things like that are the most convenient thing for me - I use Yahoo Messenger to talk to my wife when we're on computers in different rooms. And, if I want news or information or something, I go to the website that I want it from.
I've just never had any need at all for something like Facebook, and seeing it creeping into other websites as well is just annoying.
You act like it's intrusive and in your face in every article but I honestly had no idea ESPN used it until someone posted about it upthread. You have to go to the end of the article, past the ESPN headlines, past the sponsored headlines and then you reach an area that looks exactly like the old comments but with an actual name and face attached instead of an avatar and user name like "JetsSanchizeLover6969".terrisus said:
Yup, AOL Instant Messenger is still around (and, I'm still using the same AOL email address for my email that I've had since the mid-90s, despite having my own domain and being able to create 1000 email addresses through that if I wanted). Things like that are the most convenient thing for me - I use Yahoo Messenger to talk to my wife when we're on computers in different rooms. And, if I want news or information or something, I go to the website that I want it from.
I've just never had any need at all for something like Facebook, and seeing it creeping into other websites as well is just annoying.
kenneycb said:You act like it's intrusive and in your face in every article but I honestly had no idea ESPN used it until someone posted about it upthread. You have to go to the end of the article, past the ESPN headlines, past the sponsored headlines and then you reach an area that looks exactly like the old comments but with an actual name and face attached instead of an avatar and user name like "JetsSanchizeLover6969".
Ravech actually did a pretty decent job.kenneycb said:They're experts, not psychics.
kenneycb said:They're experts, not psychics.
Yea, I don't read it like that at all.garlan5 said:Chris Carter on mike n mike this am. Talking about his high school team he coaches. Mike asked if the kids were old enough to remember him. CC said some were trash talking him saying they never heard of him. He said he told then to google him or go ask your momma about me. Your momma will tell you. Ha, he didn't realize he insinuated fucking mothers.
Well, Mookie's directly led to a WS win, Fisk's....didn't, right?ifmanis5 said:SportsCenter did their Top 10 World Series Walk Off Hits list this morning. Fisk was #8. 8 out of 10 for Fisk. Mookie Wilson was #7.
Really? I know most never saw the point of game seven, but they did play it.PC Drunken Friar said:Well, Mookie's directly led to a WS win, Fisk's....didn't, right?
I did and so did mike and mike.PC Drunken Friar said:Yea, I don't read it like that at all.
i think he's saying the mookie's led to the mets winning the series and fisk's didn't lead to them winning the series.Mike Greenwall said:Really? I know most never saw the point of game seven, but they did play it.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN198610270.shtml
PC Drunken Friar said:Did the Sox win game 7 in '75? So even with Fisk's HR, they lost. That is enough to knock it down a couple spots.
Yea, I guess it is hard to tell without hearing the audio. I can understand how hearing it might change my mind.garlan5 said:i think he's saying the mookie's led to the mets winning the series and fisk's didn't lead to them winning the series.
garlan5 said:I did and so did mike and mike.
Mazeroski was #1 (rightly so). I forget most of the list since I was so traumatized by Fisk being #8. Luis Gonzalez, Joe Carter, Renteria, Kirby Puckett and David Freese were all above Fisk and Mookie.Red(s)HawksFan said:
What were the plays in the 1-6 spots? Without those, it's hard to determine their criteria. If more emphasis is given to teams that went on to win the Series, It makes sense. If not, no way is Mookie hitting a weak roller to a hobbled first baseman a bigger walk-off than Fisk.
If I were doing the list, I'd have Joe Carter ('93), Bill Mazeroski ('60), Luis Gonzalez ('01), Gene Larkin ('91) and Edgar Renteria ('97) ahead of Fisk for sure...being that those walk-offs ended the Series not just a game. Put Kirk Gibson at 6 and suddenly Fisk at #7 or #8 kinda makes sense, personal rooting interests aside.
cromulence said:
I totally don't. I take ask your Momma to mean your Momma remembers how good I was at football. That's a weird interpretation unless you left something out.
Fair enough.garlan5 said:i think he's saying the mookie's led to the mets winning the series and fisk's didn't lead to them winning the series.
ifmanis5 said:Mazeroski was #1 (rightly so). I forget most of the list since I was so traumatized by Fisk being #8. Luis Gonzalez, Joe Carter, Renteria, Kirby Puckett and David Freese were all above Fisk and Mookie.
Al Zarilla said:On NFL Countdown today the panel of six were talking about the Philly QB situation and whether Nick Foles should be definitively be declared the starting QB over Vick. So, Keyshawn Johnson chimes in and says he had a conversation with Bill Belichick when the Patriots had an up and coming young QB who was having a hot hand and an established QB, and he (Keyshawn) said he recommended to Bill that he go with the young guy. So, Keyshawn was playing for Tampa Bay at the time (2001) and he's giving advice to Bill Belichick? OK, they were both with the Jets 1997 to 1999 and maybe KJ runs into BB on the sideline in 2001 and Bill says he's got these two QBs and KJ gave the recommendation he says he did. Except, the Pats and the Bucs didn't play each other in 2001. Whatever, Keyshawn is often full of it. The guy on that panel I like the most by far is Cris Carter, the least by far is the new guy, Ray Lewis. Well, Tom Jackson. Overall, to me, that's one of the better ESPN shows though.
Thanks. Preseason 2001 though, I think Brady's chances of starting over Bledsoe were slim and none. Still, we have heard the stories about Tom's almost maniacal hard work and enthusiasm during the preseason while Bledsoe was showing up barely on time for practices looking half asleep.Dollar said:
While I don't believe Keyshawn's story in the least, there is at least a chance that it happened.
Phil is upset that people want Qatar to lose the World Cup over what the Guardian said amounted to "modern day slavery" (that and the fact that male homosexuality is illegal there), then whitewashed the issue because Qatari officials told him on his propaganda expedition that everything will be alright. And because hey they're super rich.The investigative team that exposed the systematic abuse of workers' rights deserves praise, but it's the subsequent fevered reaction from other less objective keyboards that has turned the issue so sour, obscuring the potential advantages and positives that this event might spawn — still a substantial eight years in the distance.
...
Workers' rights? The Guardian investigative team did get that one right, for which it deserves various medals. At the news conferences I attended, especially the one following the Amnesty report that came out Sunday, the Qatari front men took it on the chin.
“We are a young nation. We’re learning too.” There were no lame excuses proffered. They said they would put it right. The new workers’ charter, rather hastily assembled, is a step in that direction, but the systematic abuse of workers’ rights has not been an active Qatari policy. They’ve just looked the other way, which is just as bad, but they have the power and money to fix it almost overnight. There is no congress, no bureaucracy. At the swish of the emir’s gold pen, new laws come into effect.
They were there anyway, but the foreign middle men just ignored them, largely because they were able to. The Qataris are not malicious people, but the civic maturity of the nation is at best adolescent. One thing is a new futuristic concept, another is to see through the entire process ethically. It’s not as easy as it looks, and Qatar is hardly the only country with these problems. It’s just more under the spotlight.
The Patriot Way or the highway: Welker is among several productive players who were either traded or not re-signed in New England. (Drew Bledsoe, Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law, Damien Woody, Adam Vinatieri, Willie McGinest and Richard Seymour are other examples.) Has this strategy helped the Patriots stay near the top, or did it cost them even more titles?
riboflav said:Now, I'm hearing that the premise is that the Patriots Way is about replacing Patriot players with "lesser known" ones, not necessarily cheaper ones.
EDIT: Funny, over the summer, the Patriots Way was about eschewing bad guys for high character guys.