kkktookmybabyaway

I remember Phil Donahue trying to get an execution on PPV -- would you have bought that, too?...

I'm sure there's a punchline somewhere between this thread and the other one you just posted regarding the "suicide" concert, but I'm too lazy to connect the dots...

I heard about this last night. If Tourtelot wants his fan to die so bad why doesn't the band just shoot him in the head at an undisclosed location? Better yet, why doesn't this fan just off himself? Oh yeah, because Billy's an ACTIVIST. Of course, If I were Billy I'd make sure this fan buys the latest album before putting a slug in his head. Maybe a few T-shirts as well. I remember the days when rockers were accused of killing their fans through subliminal messages in their music. Such a kinder, gentler time that was...

This was bandwidth well used...

Salut. I don't know you formally enough to say bonjour. Which areas are you more likely going to post in?...

Loved the KFC bit. I'm sure a bunch of the references went over my head. If someone could name a few others I'd appreciate it -- "spoiler" text is fine...

Wow, all I do is just get asked if I would have a problem working in an all-female department. (Wonder if the United Way would ask a similar question to a person with a religion/skin color/etc. different from the rest of his/her co-workers?) And Rant, what kind of animal would YOU be?...

I'd stick to hippie bashing, Rant...

Nothing in the off-season? Just curious...

That Slate article was great -- I posted it below. And Tom, I see your missing one important component to your article -- your weekly picks. Oh, if anyone watches Inside the NFL on HBO did they talk about this issue? I'd be interested in knowing what Bob Costas thinks about this... In his notorious ESPN comments last Sunday night, Rush Limbaugh said he never thought the Philadelphia Eagles' Donovan McNabb was "that good of a quarterback." If Limbaugh were a more astute analyst, he would have been even harsher and said, "Donovan McNabb is barely a mediocre quarterback." But other than that, Limbaugh pretty much spoke the truth. Limbaugh lost his job for saying in public what many football fans and analysts have been saying privately for the past couple of seasons. Let's review: McNabb, he said, is "overrated ... what we have here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback can do well—black coaches and black quarterbacks doing well." "There's a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of his team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team." Let's take the football stuff first. For the past four seasons, the Philadelphia Eagles have had one of the best defenses in the National Football League and have failed to make it to the Super Bowl primarily because of an ineffective offense—an offense run by Donovan McNabb. McNabb was a great college quarterback, in my estimation one of the best of the '90s while at Syracuse. (For the record, I helped persuade ESPN Magazine, then called ESPN Total Sports, to put him on the cover of the 1998 college-football preview issue.) He is one of the most talented athletes in the NFL, but that talent has not translated into greatness as a pro quarterback. McNabb has started for the Eagles since the 2000 season. In that time, the Eagles offense has never ranked higher than 10th in the league in yards gained. In fact, their 10th-place rank in 2002 was easily their best; in their two previous seasons, they were 17th in a 32-team league. They rank 31st so far in 2003. In contrast, the Eagles defense in those four seasons has never ranked lower than 10th in yards allowed. In 2001, they were seventh; in 2002 they were fourth; this year they're fifth. It shouldn't take a football Einstein to see that the Eagles' strength over the past few seasons has been on defense, and Limbaugh is no football Einstein, which is probably why he spotted it. The news that the Eagles defense has "carried" them over this period should be neither surprising nor controversial to anyone with access to simple NFL statistics—or for that matter, with access to a television. Yet, McNabb has received an overwhelming share of media attention and thus the credit. Now why is this? Let's look at a quarterback with similar numbers who also plays for a team with a great defense. I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson one of the best quarterbacks in pro football—which is how McNabb is often referred to. In fact, I don't know anyone who would call Brad Johnson, on the evidence of his 10-year NFL career, much more than mediocre. Yet, Johnson's NFL career passer rating, as of last Sunday, is 7.3 points higher than McNabb's (84.8 to 77.5), he has completed his passes at a higher rate (61.8 percent to 56.4 percent), and has averaged significantly more yards per pass (6.84 to 5.91). McNabb excels in just one area, running, where he has gained 2,040 yards and scored 14 touchdowns to Johnson's 467 and seven. But McNabb has also been sacked more frequently than Johnson—more than once, on average, per game, which negates much of the rushing advantage. In other words, in just about every way, Brad Johnson has been a more effective quarterback than McNabb and over a longer period. And even if you say the stats don't matter and that a quarterback's job is to win games, Johnson comes out ahead. Johnson has something McNabb doesn't, a Super Bowl ring, which he went on to win after his Bucs trounced McNabb's Eagles in last year's NFC championship game by a score of 27-10. The Bucs and Eagles were regarded by everyone as having the two best defenses in the NFL last year. When they played in the championship game, the difference was that the Bucs defense completely bottled up McNabb while the Eagles defense couldn't stop Johnson. In terms of performance, many NFL quarterbacks should be ranked ahead of McNabb. But McNabb has represented something special to all of us since he started his first game in the NFL, and we all know what that is. Limbaugh is being excoriated for making race an issue in the NFL. This is hypocrisy. I don't know of a football writer who didn't regard the dearth of black NFL quarterbacks as one of the most important issues in the late '80s and early '90s. (The topic really caught fire after 1988, when Doug Williams of the Washington Redskins became the first black quarterback to win a Super Bowl.) So far, no black quarterback has been able to dominate a league in which the majority of the players are black. To pretend that many of us didn't want McNabb to be the best quarterback in the NFL because he's black is absurd. To say that we shouldn't root for a quarterback to win because he's black is every bit as nonsensical as to say that we shouldn't have rooted for Jackie Robinson to succeed because he was black. (Please, I don't need to be reminded that McNabb's situation is not so difficult or important as Robinson's—I'm talking about a principle.) Consequently, it is equally absurd to say that the sports media haven't overrated Donovan McNabb because he's black. I'm sorry to have to say it; he is the quarterback for a team I root for. Instead of calling him overrated, I wish I could be admiring his Super Bowl rings. But the truth is that I and a great many other sportswriters have chosen for the past few years to see McNabb as a better player than he has been because we want him to be. Rush Limbaugh didn't say Donovan McNabb was a bad quarterback because he is black. He said that the media have overrated McNabb because he is black, and Limbaugh is right. He didn't say anything that he shouldn't have said, and in fact he said things that other commentators should have been saying for some time now. I should have said them myself. I mean, if they didn't hire Rush Limbaugh to say things like this, what they did they hire him for? To talk about the prevent defense?

It's Good Will Hunting all over again...

They have money over there?...

It was me that started that thread. Is this going to be non-stop, or will that HBO channel be showing it every other night or something?...

Wonder if Mr. Strawberry is one of Doc Jr.'s clients?...

I think if your going to do that you need a little change in the words. Fox news = Faux news. Hmmmm, it's 5 a.m. and my creative juices aren't what they normally are, which isn't saying much. How about -- OMG LA SLIMES LOL 2003! -- It's not much but it will have to do for now. One thing I forgot to mention admist all the recent current events talk -- take note because I'm going to go against my Lord Bill O' Reilly. The other night when the Arnold and Rush stories were unloaded onto the public (the Sexist Arnold story, not the Hitler-Lovin' Arnold story mind you) O'Reilly devoted the first half of his show to these two events. Then he says at the bottom of the hours when pimping his next segment: Stay tuned for our most important story of the evening. It dealt with WMD's. The most important story of the evening -- something that actually could affect Americans -- gets pushed back for Rush and Arnold. Tsk, tsk, tsk...

*Rant steps up to the plate.* Strike one! Strike two! Strike three! Oh well, at least you swung for the fences, and I can appreciate that. I think what would have made this bit better is if you would have changed "Fox" to "FAUX" -- that would have at least gotten a laugh out of me...

I think they were probably cheering more for the fact Willis came out there rather than for the quality of music he was playing...

Well, if you're stealing from a corporation and giving the wares to yourself (who doesn't have a lot of money) then you are. I have to admit the stealing cable thread made me shake my head in a few places (I am a bit more understanding when it comes to downloading music *i.e. sampling songs, etc.*, but then I should disclose that I have also done this practice in the past so go OMG HYPOCRITE! if you want). Personally, I have always been content with my cable providers. But if you don't like something then don't use the material -- just taking it without paying under the name of protest is a copout, in my opinion...

Grow up, Mike. You and your right-wing paranoia can get downright laughable at times. It just so happens the Times simply wanted to get the facts straight. And it just so happens that the facts got straightened out right before the weekend leading up to an election where is just so happens to look like the Times' preferred choice of governor, Davis, is in danger of losing his position. And the story just so happened to break late in the week (but not at 5 p.m. on Friday, which is when most places that want to slide bad new under the radar make their announcements), which just so happens to give the Times ample "time" to write a bunch of follow-up stories about all of this in its more widely read Sunday edition. And you think all this is not a coincidence. Yeah, and I bet you hide under your bed at night just waiting for the U.N. to invade your living quarters...

It's no big deal -- I'm a secret agent for the Chinese Army. Oh, wait a minute...

I think "asscheek" is two words, but who knows how it's spelled in England...

La Parka Ripper (although I shouldn't since you're not voting for you)...

I'd say '95 -- I would have put my mack down on a few chicks that I didn't know were attracted to me. We all have to be superficial once in a while...

A guy's guy? WTF? I was out of the room when he was on O'Reilly the other day FAUX NEWS LOL 2003! but I think he clarified his remarks by saying that he'd give that money to charity. With that being said, it would be funny to see a courtroom battle between two soldiers fighting over who gets the money. "I shot him!" "No, I shot him -- your bullet just took him down." Hey, people have gone to court over record-setting baseballs, why not bullets?...

Speaking of Will, a few years back he made a scathing Juanita Broaddrick reference when talking about Bill Clinton and the LA Times edited that passage from his column. (For the record, I thought that whole situation was B.S., but you don't edit out a syndicated columnist's work unless you are in a serious crunch for space. You let them say what they have to say and let the readers decide.) Funny how the LA Times thinks 4 anonymous accusers, with some accusations dating back to when I was in diapers and when some of you were just itches in your daddy’s pants, deserves front-page coverage several days before an election...