Poz bitch-slaps Chass

Ten posts into the thread, this is the line you draw in the sand? Anyone who steps forward to defend Joe's column (or agree with it) means that person thinks he can do no wrong?

Can't we discuss things without baiting, without setting up these wild extremes that don't account for gray areas and middle ground? This is a pretty complex topic, if we allow it to be. For one thing, Chass is not just "a blogger," as others have pointed out. Let's not set up polar-opposite camps that don't need to exist. I think there's a lot of "Yes, but" and "No, but" here.

 

So, in your mind, blogs should have lower standards than newspapers?

 

Murray is Willie Mays playing for the Mets or, perhaps more to the point, Dick Young in the Post.

His game is gone, and he's embarrassing himself.

 

um, lighten up, francis. : : :

 

No, JD's right. You use that schtick all the time, and it's old.

And you're dead wrong about this, and dishonest to boot. If someone started a thread here calling you a racist, you wouldn't respond? Cause it's just a web site? Bull. Bull, and you know it's bull.

 

On the Schtick Meter, shockey registers about a 1 out of 10.

"Mark McGwire" on the other hand...

 

puh-leeze, mm, if you're gonna come after me at least get my stance straight. i never said i'd never defend MYSELF if a blogger misrepresented me; i took issue with joe p. opting to get involved by attacking a bitter, old, irrelevant blogger about something he wasn't involved with and i would have preferred he took a pass on.

heck, he admitted he was torn about whether to hit the 'send' button. imo, it wasn't a shining moment for him to get involved. maybe i'm overestimating how irrelent murray has become, but i'm guessing more folks saw joe p.'s defense of 'stan the man' than there were folks who ever even saw murray's blog or even knew one existed.

you don't like when i try diffusing the mood with throwaway lines like, 'lighten up, francis,' or say some folks see no wrong in anything joe p. does? tough spit. that's how i choose to roll sometimes. such is life... but thanks, man. i always wanted to have a 'schtick.'

 

Hard to say. In a "viral" universe, who knows how many people have linked to this or emailed it to someone.

And, like mizzou said, he didn't reply to a blog in a magazine or newspaper, he did it with a blog. That also makes it easy for people who are discussing the original blog post -- like us -- to link to a credible rebuttal.

 

fair enough.

 

First, it isn't a throwaway and it doesn't defuse anything. If it did, JD wouldn't have posted that. It's assigning motive to those who disagree with you preemptively. It's passive aggressive and logically spurious.

Second, your whole premise makes no sense. The right thing to do is the right thing to do, regardless of who does it. To let Chass' commentary -- full of attribution that should make any working journalist puke on her shoes -- stand does a disservice to all of us.

You make the assumption that Posnanski paused because it wasn't his place, and you make it without any evidence. Stan Musial certainly isn't likely to be able to defend himself in that forum. It was pretty clear he paused because he respected Chass' body of work, and didn't want to be the one who had to destroy him like that. He hit publish because despite his personal distaste at having to do it, it had to be done.

 

I'm guessing he hesitated because nobody wants to be the one to have to take Ol' Yeller out behind the barn. But when it's time, it's time.

 

Yup.