Scoop Jackson vs. Whitlock (round 6)

I decline, respectfully, to pick a side, and, no, I don't agree that all unconventional writing is prima facie "bojangling" a) when the person who invented the word declines to say what he really means, and b) because the English language never would have grown that way.

 

Percentages, FH.

Percentages.

You give me the percentage of our market that understands the argument or that it has relevance to. And I doubt that the number you come up with is going to make it worthy of the amount of space or lip service it is given.

 

I'll agree to disagree. Obviously, you want to address it, so there is SOME market for it.

 

bottom line, though, is, you're right. it's stupid shit run amok by a coupla self absorbed fucktards.

 

and i respect your point FH. for me, it's valid as hell.

have a good new year, even if you are in the laundry room.

 

Jason, I think you do a good job, but if that's your definition of bojangling, then I think the "pimp hand" stuff falls under it, too.

Just saying, if you're the one drawing the line, you'd better make sure you make it a hard one -- otherwise it looks a little hypocritical.

Of course, I could just be missing the irony.

 

jones, you're intelligent. this response is really disappointing.

is there a check to be collected from me clowning around on SportsJournalists.com? or is this just a message board where i can have fun?

like most people, i do different things based on where i'm at. you know, kind of like how i never cuss in a church, but i cuss like a sailor at the bar across the street from my house....

this is a message board. and i choose to act like it's a message board. i write a different way for my kc star column. i have a different shtick for my internet-only (aol) column. i was different on my radio show than i was on the sports reporters. i was different hosting jim rome than i was on the sports reporters. i was different on pti than i was on rome. there are diffferent disciplines and different standards.

let me repeat: this is a message board. do you guys read some of the threads on here? i had no problem with scoop's bojangling shtick in slam magazine. slam is a magazine for bojangling. i used to have a subscription to the source. i used to write for vibe magazine. and i wrote in a language and style that was appropriate for vibe.

this concept is not hard to understand.

flying headbutt, i'm glad you're here. it lets me know everyone here isn't freaking crazy.

is there some sort of reward being offered if someone can catch me contradicting myself? trust me, i make mistakes and say dumb stuff all the time. i'm willing to admit it. richard dietsch busted me pretty good on katie hnida. put a total clown suit on me. i had no problem admitting it. it's not a big deal to catch me making a mistake. if everyone would quit trying so hard, trust me i'll slip up and someone like dietsch will tear me a new one and i'll happily acknowledge it.

 

Wait a minute.
Now we are saying that what Scoop does was appropriate for SLAM or The Source -- and I'd love to read some of Whitlock's stuff from the bojangling Vibe days -- but it is inappropriate for the august readership of ESPN.com's Page Fucking Two? And, gee, what would that difference be, do you think?
The problem I have with Scoop is that, however he writes, and in what argot, he just doesn't do it very well. Jason's criticism is a trifle more profound, if woefully impoverished as intellectual argument, as we have just seen, tangled up as it is in the thick underbrush of a prodigious ego.
The Jim Rome Show and The Sports Reporters?
"Different disciplines"?
I'm not going to stop laughing at the self-regard on that that one until well 2007.