RIP Toucher and Rich Show ... It was fun while it lasted

[Hendu for Kutch]

Not for nothing and I get the sentiment and Rich has said the same, but not everyone "lucks out" the way Rich has.  His wife has so far beaten the odds and nobody in his family was injured yesterday, not sure how much better it can get for him considering the circumstances, especially when kids have lost limbs, a life and parents yesterday.
 
Edit: And please don't misunderstand me on the "lucks out" part I just couldn't fine any other words at this point.  Rich is by all accounts a great guy that has gone though some serious shit the last few weeks but to say he deserves better when he can still hug his wife and kids at night kind of misses the mark for me.

 
You don't have to lose a leg or a loved one for this to have been traumatic.  I know he keeps it together pretty well on the radio, but this is twice now in the past few months where he has come very close to losing part or all of his family.  I mean, he was with one kid at the blast site minutes before and was planning on going out with the other one minutes later.  He's got to feel completely vulnerable and exposed right now.
 
Not to mention that he has to worry about his kids dealing with a trip through a bloody warzone yesterday and how that's going to affect them, in addition to his wife's frailty.
 
He may not be the only one who deserves better, but he certainly does deserve better.

 

[drtooth]

Rich's comments
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/16/rich-shertenlieb-shares-his-story-from-marathon-monday/

 

[TFP]

Rich's comments
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/04/16/rich-shertenlieb-shares-his-story-from-marathon-monday/

Man, that was very tough to listen to. Extremely touching, thoughtful, and poignant comments from him.

 

[soxfan121]

I cross-posted that to the other thread - thanks drtooth. It was a very tough listen, as T4P says.

 

[lostjumper]

Listened to this yesterday. Really touching and thought provoking. I have 2 small children like him, and what do you say to them when you walk into a lobby filled with blown up people and blood splattered everywhere? 

 

[drtooth]

Another "Naughty Mazz" today.  As much of a tool as Mazz comes off as on F&M, it says something that he doesn't take himself too seriously to read some of this stuff.  Included the Statue of Liberty and Spike Lee today.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

Fred needs to tone down the "Jagrisms".  A line now and again is OK (todays Panty Wolverine was funny), but he does 3 or 4 lines EVERY time Jagr's name is brought up.

 

[Gambler7]

I can't get enough of them. It's been the best part of that trade.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

one liners are ok, but he rambles on and on for 1+ minutes at a time, it gets tiresome.

 

[HomeBrew1901]

one liners are ok, but he rambles on and on for 1+ minutes at a time, it gets tiresome.

 
I'm with Gambler, love them and they never get old.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I love them as well. I want them to resign Jagr for that alone.
 
 
BUDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDY!

 

[CouchsideSteve]

I have a long commute that I've typically filled with Sirius and an assortment of podcasts. I must say, however, I've really enjoyed T&R during this Bruins playoff run (count me among those who can't get enough of the Jagrisms). I actually look forward to listening, particularly after big wins. 
 
Their baseball talk is painfully weak, so I can't imagine I'll keep listening over the summer... but it has been fun, for however long this lasts. Funny how hockey has yet again become the talk of the town, leaving WEEI completely flat footed. I tend to avoid D&C for obvious reasons, but the few times I've checked in, it's actually comical to hear them trying to talk hockey.

 

[Dalton Jones]

Boston is truly a hockey town.  Always has been.  It's no surprise 98.5's rise has coincided with their focus on the B's the last three seasons.  I don't know why it is.  I never played hockey growing up.  But if the Lord came to me and said you can have one sport and only one sport of the four you have now in Boston, I'd pick hockey and the B's.  

 

[kenneycb]

Cold weather, frozen ponds and Bobby Orr. Pretty easy, actually.

 

[Dalton Jones]

Agree completely on Orr. But it was a hockey town long before Orr, so it must be the weather and ponds!

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Boston has really been a baseball town first and a hockey town second for decades.  Though Celts overtook Bruins in 80s, and Pats in 2000s.

Bruins still are far behind the Sox---in April they were drawing less than half the ratings Sox were, even though Bruins games were much more important at that point in the year.  Bruins playoff games beat the Sox May games, but not by a ton (something like a 12 to a 10 rating last I saw)---and neither is remotely close to what the Pats draw (granted, for many fewer games).
 
Those things said, I agree with you that Bruins doing well is very good for Toucher & Rich.  It's the only sport they really are 'expert' in, and they are way beyond EEI in terms of knowledge and interest in the Bruins.  As much as I dislike D&C, a reasonable person could prefer them (as agenda-ridden and stale as they are) on baseball to T&R.  I don't, but I'm not listening to T&R for sports analysis anyway..they are just fun.  There is no way anyone would say that about hockey coverage, so it definitely helps them.

 

[Dalton Jones]

Remove the pink hats and it's still a hockey town.  
 
Well, not really.  But let me try to explain what I mean.  I don't have statistics on my side.  It's obvious that the NFL and the Patriots have replaced baseball and the Red Sox as the national and local pastimes.  I'm not going to contest that.  The numbers prove it.  And yes the Red Sox are a local treasure, etc., and their reach encompasses a large swath of New England, something the Bruins could never claim.
 
But I'm going to still say that in Boston proper, in the towns inside 128, let's say wherever there's an MDC rink, hockey is in the guts of the local populace.  And whether I'm right or wrong, when you go down to the Garden on a night the B's are playing, and you go to the bars around there and then into the arena, you see a more passionate groups of fans than you will with any of the other teams.  To point to the obvious, look at what 98.5 does with regard to fan interaction for the Red Sox and Bruins games.  For the Sox, it's "Ask a Pink Hat". For the B's, its "Drunken Bruins Fans Re-cap."  
 
'Nough said.....

 

[soxfan121]

Bruins still are far behind the Sox---in April they were drawing less than half the ratings Sox were, even though Bruins games were much more important at that point in the year.  Bruins playoff games beat the Sox May games, but not by a ton (something like a 12 to a 10 rating last I saw)---and neither is remotely close to what the Pats draw (granted, for many fewer games).

 
It's not that close, PKB. When the B's, Celts and Red Sox all played on the same night in May, the Bruins mopped the floor with both and the Celtics were ahead of the Sox. 
 
It used to be much closer but the last 18 months in Red Sox history have really shown a downturn in the ratings. 

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Remove the pink hats and it's still a hockey town.  
 
Well, not really.  But let me try to explain what I mean.  I don't have statistics on my side.  It's obvious that the NFL and the Patriots have replaced baseball and the Red Sox as the national and local pastimes.  I'm not going to contest that.  The numbers prove it.  And yes the Red Sox are a local treasure, etc., and their reach encompasses a large swath of New England, something the Bruins could never claim.
 
But I'm going to still say that in Boston proper, in the towns inside 128, let's say wherever there's an MDC rink, hockey is in the guts of the local populace.  And whether I'm right or wrong, when you go down to the Garden on a night the B's are playing, and you go to the bars around there and then into the arena, you see a more passionate groups of fans than you will with any of the other teams.  To point to the obvious, look at what 98.5 does with regard to fan interaction for the Red Sox and Bruins games.  For the Sox, it's "Ask a Pink Hat". For the B's, its "Drunken Bruins Fans Re-cap."  
 
'Nough said.....

 
I think the numbers tell the story here in terms of the pro teams, but I agree with another part of what you're saying---there's a tremendous amount of passion around Boston area for hockey, at all levels, that is different than for other sports.  Hockey is a northeast and Minnesota thing from childhood on up in a way it really isn't anywhere else, and a good case can be made it's bigger here than other sports among youth.  
 
soxfan, the numbers I have seen (here's a couple links:http://www.sportsmediawatch.com/2013/04/more-ratings-sox-bs-big-draws-on-nesn-last-weekend-also-spring-football-mlbespn/ , http://nesn.com/2013/04/nesns-simultaneous-coverage-of-red-sox-bruins-a-big-hit-with-new-england-sports-fans/  ) simply do not support what you're saying.  If you take a Bruins playoff game vs a Sox May game the Bruins win, but only by a couple ratings points (it was 12 to 10 or something like that).  
 
When you go head to head in April (meaning, much more favorable to Bruins in terms of importance of the game) Sox still win by a couple points. 
 
Bruins record ratings this year are a 6.3.  Sox last year were, at least mid-year, around a 7.5.  I just don't see it, though I agree Bruins are well ahead of the Celtics for sure.

 

[soxfan121]

Per this source in March, it's closer than I thought but the Bruins still come out on top:
 

Boston Bruins games have averaged a 7.0 rating on NESN so far this season, on pace to shatter last year’s full-season record of 4.7. By comparison, the Celtics averaged a 3.1 on Comcast SportsNet New England during the first half of the NBA season, and the Red Sox averaged a 6.4* on NESN during the 2012 MLB campaign.

 
ETA: I will say that it's very hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison on the Bruins v. the Red Sox because of the NESN+ issue and because of the playoffs v. late-April, early-May Red Sox. 
 
But the full regular season numbers (B's 2013 v. Sox 2012) show the Bruins have made HUGE improvements while the Sox are off 4-5 points or more from their mid-2000s peak.
 
And just to be clear, I was overstating things earlier based on the head-to-head results of May 16th when the Bruins Game 7 trounced the Celtics and Red Sox. 

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Per this source in March, it's closer than I thought but the Bruins still come out on top:
 
 
ETA: I will say that it's very hard to do an apples-to-apples comparison on the Bruins v. the Red Sox because of the NESN+ issue and because of the playoffs v. late-April, early-May Red Sox. 
 
But the full regular season numbers (B's 2013 v. Sox 2012) show the Bruins have made HUGE improvements while the Sox are off 4-5 points or more from their mid-2000s peak.

 
NESN itself said Bruins were at a 6.3 this year, http://nesn.com/2013/04/nesn-sets-bruins-ratings-record-for-third-consecutive-season/, which is still slightly below the Sox worst-case scenario of 2012...so I just don't see a way to reach your conclusion here. Sox also won head-to-head (and their placement there reflects how NESN thinks they'll do). 
 
A more realistic comparison is really the Sox mid-year ratings of 7.7, since no one with any sense was watching them the last couple months of 2012. That's also consistent with what we've seen early this year.   Seems to me the most likely description based on the data is that the Sox are still 15% or so ahead of Bruins.
 
No question it's tremendously closer than it was, say, two years ago when the Sox were more than twice the Bruins in the yearlong ratings, though.

 

[soxfan121]

NESN itself said Bruins were at a 6.3 this year, http://nesn.com/2013/04/nesn-sets-bruins-ratings-record-for-third-consecutive-season/, which is still slightly below the Sox worst-case scenario of 2012.   So not sure how you conclude Bruins were higher.  A more realistic comparison is the Sox mid-year ratings of 7.7, since no one with any sense was watching them the last couple months of 2013!  That's also consistent with what we've seen early this year.   Seems like Sox are still 15% or so ahead of Bruins to me.
 
No question it's tremendously closer than it was, say, two years ago when the Sox were more than twice the Bruins in the yearlong ratings, though.

 
1. I was going off the link and pull quote which had the Bruins at 7.0...6.3 v. 6.4 is too close to call, really. And I've already conceded that I was wrong in the OP. Thanks for finding all that good info though. 
 
2. No, we're not going to pretend the back half of 2012 didn't happen. It counts. The Bruins in 2013 and the Red Sox in 2012 were virtually tied in NESN viewers/ratings which is amazing given where the two franchises were in 2007. 

 

[PedroKsBambino]

1. I was going off the link and pull quote which had the Bruins at 7.0...6.3 v. 6.4 is too close to call, really. And I've already conceded that I was wrong in the OP. Thanks for finding all that good info though. 
 
2. No, we're not going to pretend the back half of 2012 didn't happen. It counts. The Bruins in 2013 and the Red Sox in 2012 were virtually tied in NESN viewers/ratings which is amazing given where the two franchises were in 2007. 

 
Yeah, anyway, I think we've been through the data we have and know what's there.  If someone has more/better data great to see that too.
 
We will see which of our approach to the Sox TV appeal ends up being the better description of 2013...

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I don't think you can fairly decide if Boston is a hockey town or baseball town based on these numbers. Pink hats, Sox winning 2 world series, Jacobs destroying his relationship with his fan base (until VERY recently)...
 
From 1968-1974 the sox went 7 straight seasons without making the playoffs (finishing in third place in 5 of those years), while the Bruins were a powerhouse and a Ken Drysdale lockdown away from probably winning three straight Stanley Cups (if not more...that guy was fucking nails).
 
Judging by some attendance figures from those years (here and here) and the seating capacity for those years (here and here), it's pretty easy to see that the Sox were only filling their stadium about 2/3 of the way, while the Bruins were sold out every single year. Saying "the Sox were equalling Bruins numbers this year, despite it being early baseball for the Sox and late season games for the B's" is pretty unfair. The Sox were a hot story, they started off the season hot, they were young and fun to watch again, and they had a whole lot of change over from previous years. The Bruins, despite being late in the season, had pretty much locked themselves into a top 4 seed and were already a lock for the playoffs. The games just didn't matter.
 
I think it's pretty obvious (and common sense) that fans will follow the successful team, but when you look at those links above, the Sox didn't even come close to selling out their games until the 90's (despite some very good teams and seasons), while the Bruins consistently sold out their games in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and into the new millenium. 
 
These may not be a completely fair way to judge which team "Boston follows", but the Bruins have always proven the ability to draw a crowd while the Sox haven't proven the ability to do so until much more recently.

 

[JimBoSox9]

TC crapping all over Florida baseball, lovely

 

[JimBoSox9]

dammit

 

[Gary Geiger Counter]

Remove the pink hats and it's still a hockey town.  
 
Well, not really.  But let me try to explain what I mean.  I don't have statistics on my side.  It's obvious that the NFL and the Patriots have replaced baseball and the Red Sox as the national and local pastimes.  I'm not going to contest that.  The numbers prove it.  And yes the Red Sox are a local treasure, etc., and their reach encompasses a large swath of New England, something the Bruins could never claim.
 
But I'm going to still say that in Boston proper, in the towns inside 128, let's say wherever there's an MDC rink, hockey is in the guts of the local populace.  And whether I'm right or wrong, when you go down to the Garden on a night the B's are playing, and you go to the bars around there and then into the arena, you see a more passionate groups of fans than you will with any of the other teams.  To point to the obvious, look at what 98.5 does with regard to fan interaction for the Red Sox and Bruins games.  For the Sox, it's "Ask a Pink Hat". For the B's, its "Drunken Bruins Fans Re-cap."  
 
'Nough said.....

 
Is it true that the Bruins were more popular than the Celtics during the Bill Russell era?  I've heard that, but I wasn't around back then.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

The C's didn't sell out regularly until the Bird era.  So, yeah, it's true.

 

[TheRooster]

The C's didn't sell out regularly until the Bird era.  So, yeah, it's true.

CLW (conventional local wisdom) has always been that the Bruins had the most loyal core fan base as evindenced by great attendance despite sky-high prices, few true stars and some marginal teams.  Theyv'e rarely been a TV ratings monster though.  The Sox have the broadest fan base as evidenced by tons of moms, aunts and grandmothers who watch or listen to games despite rarely attending in person.  The C's have a more white collar fan base that is quite dependent on success.  It is hard to read the true commitement while this historic run is ongoing, but we'll know a lot more the next time they put two straight 8-8 (or worse) seasons together.

 

[yep]

Is it true that the Bruins were more popular than the Celtics during the Bill Russell era?  I've heard that, but I wasn't around back then.

Everything depends on how you count "popular"...
 
When Clemens threw 20 strikeouts in '86, Fenway was half-empty and I heard it on the radio, because it was bumped from the TV for some show or another, I think (maybe the Celtics?). Or maybe it was just my parents, I was only 11... I remember asking my Mom if we could go, partway into the game, and she said no, because it was a school-night. At the time, it was not an insane proposition for a working-class family to head to Fenway partway into the game, just because it was shaping up to be a good one. 
 
The Patriots were an absolute joke back then. Sullivan Stadium was a ghost-town/toilet both before and after the colossal embarrassment of of the '86 Superbowl. I remember my dad telling us to move seats after one guy started pissing on another in a dispute, and then leaving after the being unable to find seats outside the influence of creatively vulgar drunks and fist-fights. I remember it as a grim, cold, concrete wasteland of violent degenerates, ignoring a mediocre team. As a child, I thought the Patriots had to be strong and brave to even go there. 
 
The Celtics were obviously huge in the 85-86 season. In retrospect, it is insane how close I sat as a kid... I think our "awesome tickets" cost about $12, or 3-4 times the price of a movie-ticket. I was in awe of the fact that I could have seen Temple of Doom multiple times for the cost of this ticket (this was back when movies were a big deal). The garden was packed and LOUD. But then, that was maybe the best basketball team in history. That was a special year.
 
But the loudest sporting event I remember from that year was watching Ray Bourque versus the Whalers. I can't remember what game, but it was awesome to feel the intensity and energy of the crowd, along with the speed and violence of the game.
 
All I remember of the Patriots that season was a guy pissing on someone and drunks swearing and fighting in a vast concrete arena of empty seats, and then watching a humiliating Superbowl and knowing, even as a child, that the Patriots didn't belong there... The Celtics killed it that year, and were a very popular team... I remember more than once going to Fenway purely because it was a nice day for a ballgame, and getting tickets at the box-office, like going to the movies. And they made it to the world series! Then, of course, Bill Buckner and Mookie Wilson happened...
 
That was a big year for Boston sports. But even though it was a mediocre year for Boston hockey, I still remember those as the loudest and most exciting events. Watching hockey on channel 38 was not so great, but going to the garden was intense. 
 
I can't say what viewership numbers or attendance numbers were, but hockey fans seem to be the most intensely loyal in my own limited anecdotal experience. I find it hard to believe that the Celtics were "less popular" at their peak, but it was definitely easy to get Pats or Sox tickets back then, on game-day, for (I think) about the price of going to a movie. 

 

[drtooth]

Goucher watching television, especially taking a dump on F&M . What a riot!

 

[HomeBrew1901]

Goucher watching television, especially taking a dump on F&M . What a riot!

I was just coming in here to post this.  I expected it to suck when they announced that they were going to have him play by play TV but that was awesome.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

The F&M thing was very funny. I was bummed because I was interested to hear the Hulk Hogan interview, but was getting out of my car right as he came on. He's become a caricature on television, but he's still pretty well spoken and a good interview.

 

[Spaulding Smails]

Goucher watching television, especially taking a dump on F&M . What a riot!

 
You're right Mike!

 

[Haunted]

You're right Mike!

 
You're right Mike!

 

[Laser Show]

You're right Mike!

 
And they're still arguing the same point 20 minutes later.

 

[TheRealness]

Goucher is always great. The Dancing with the Stars one was good as well, "Bergeron! Bergeron! And here's your host".
 
Also, the audio road show on Dane Cook T&R did this morning was the best audio road show I've ever heard. Hilarious stuff from the listeners. 
 
"Noises! Sounds! Grunts!... I'm just irrelevant. Totally irrelevant."

 

[Rusty13]

So did Hulk Hogan ever actually call in today?  I tuned in around 8:20, and they kept saying that he was "running late" from a doctor's appointment and would be on soon.  Then I checked in a little bit after 9, and his name wasn't even mentioned.  Did he end up bagging?  If so: poor Jimmy Stewart and the inevitable hilarity that would have ensued from more smarky wrestling questions from him.

 

[MasterShake15]

So did Hulk Hogan ever actually call in today?  I tuned in around 8:20, and they kept saying that he was "running late" from a doctor's appointment and would be on soon.  Then I checked in a little bit after 9, and his name wasn't even mentioned.  Did he end up bagging?  If so: poor Jimmy Stewart and the inevitable hilarity that would have ensued from more smarky wrestling questions from him.

 
He called in. Here's the link

 

[Rusty13]

He called in. Here's the link

 
Thanks!

 

[NortheasternPJ]

I'm still laughing over the felger and mazz. Hysterical.

And they're yelling at each other for 20
Minutes arguing the same side of the argument! You're right mike!

 

[Dan Murfman]

Everything depends on how you count "popular"...
 
When Clemens threw 20 strikeouts in '86, Fenway was half-empty and I heard it on the radio, because it was bumped from the TV for some show or another, I think (maybe the Celtics?). Or maybe it was just my parents, I was only 11... I remember asking my Mom if we could go, partway into the game, and she said no, because it was a school-night. At the time, it was not an insane proposition for a working-class family to head to Fenway partway into the game, just because it was shaping up to be a good one. 

It was your parents.The game was absolutely on NESN that night. The Celtics wouldn't have bumped them as they were on Sportschannel.

 

[timlinin8th]

I'm still laughing over the felger and mazz. Hysterical.

And they're yelling at each other for 20
Minutes arguing the same side of the argument! You're right mike!

That bit is up too, for anyone who missed it like I did. Had me in stitches.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/05/31/toucher-richs-goucher-goes-to-the-movies-television-edition/

 

[PedroKsBambino]

I don't think you can fairly decide if Boston is a hockey town or baseball town based on these numbers. Pink hats, Sox winning 2 world series, Jacobs destroying his relationship with his fan base (until VERY recently)...
 
From 1968-1974 the sox went 7 straight seasons without making the playoffs (finishing in third place in 5 of those years), while the Bruins were a powerhouse and a Ken Drysdale lockdown away from probably winning three straight Stanley Cups (if not more...that guy was fucking nails).
 
Judging by some attendance figures from those years (here and here) and the seating capacity for those years (here and here), it's pretty easy to see that the Sox were only filling their stadium about 2/3 of the way, while the Bruins were sold out every single year. Saying "the Sox were equalling Bruins numbers this year, despite it being early baseball for the Sox and late season games for the B's" is pretty unfair. The Sox were a hot story, they started off the season hot, they were young and fun to watch again, and they had a whole lot of change over from previous years. The Bruins, despite being late in the season, had pretty much locked themselves into a top 4 seed and were already a lock for the playoffs. The games just didn't matter.
 
I think it's pretty obvious (and common sense) that fans will follow the successful team, but when you look at those links above, the Sox didn't even come close to selling out their games until the 90's (despite some very good teams and seasons), while the Bruins consistently sold out their games in the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's, and into the new millenium. 
 
These may not be a completely fair way to judge which team "Boston follows", but the Bruins have always proven the ability to draw a crowd while the Sox haven't proven the ability to do so until much more recently.

 
In terms of 'fair' I think it's pretty clear that using % of capacity is less reasonable than using actual TV numbers from this year, however.  The half-full Fenway attendance stats you cite still show that there were more fans watching the Red Sox per game, even with twice as many games played (and a ton of games in April/May/september with shaky weather sometimes) as the Bruins had at essentially all points in time.   Often, that difference was 50% or more and the Bruins were not fully selling out, so while capacity impacts it (for big games they consistently sold out, and the remaining seats for other games were likely crappy) there's just no basis for suggesting there was even more per-game interest, putting aside that there's only half the games.
 
I think the Bruins have always had a hard-core, passionate fan base...and that fan base is and has always been smaller than the Red Sox.  That is what all the data anyone has posted shows, and living in Boston my whole life it is also what I've observed.  The gap between the sizes got a lot larger in the 90s and 2000s, but it's always been there and is still pretty significant today.

 

[drtooth]

For longtime T&R listeners, they apparently found the Gunner.  Talking about it to start the show.

 

[steveluck7]

For longtime T&R listeners, they apparently found the Gunner.  Talking about it to start the show.

he called in yesterday. Rich & Adolfo apparently went and recorded some stuff with him after yesterday's show

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

I only started listening to them late in their BCN days...what's Gunner's story?

 

[Judge Mental13]

At the end of the last break, just after the Gammons interview and right before the cross-talk with Gresh and Zo Fred mentioned that a rival radio host called them drug addicts, they made some vague assertions of libel and potentially bringing a lawsuit over it, anyone know what was said and by whom?

 

[Corsi]

At the end of the last break, just after the Gammons interview and right before the cross-talk with Gresh and Zo Fred mentioned that a rival radio host called them drug addicts, they made some vague assertions of libel and potentially bringing a lawsuit over it, anyone know what was said and by whom?

 
They said "desperate times call for desperate measures," so I can only assume it was D&C?

 

[Koufax]

Yes, Callahan this morning referred to his drug-addict competitors up the street.  Then he changed his story to "admitted drug users."
 
Callahan was generally at his worst this morning.  I felt dirty listening to him, then switched over to PGA on Sirius.  Less exciting, but much less demeaning.