Wilbon vs. Feinstein vs. Couch Slouch

Perhaps I'm in the minority on this, but I've never found Norman Chad to be even remotely funny or interesting. Lazy and obvious, yes. Funny? No. For him to suggest Feinstein is a bad writer is comical. Feinstein's blog posts are better than Chad's published work. And to take shots at Kornheiser's work on MNF when Chad's crowning achievement in TV is being the inoffensive color guy on poker broadcasts is a little pathetic.

 

This.

Been skipping over his stuff for years. Not funny at all.

 

Feinstein is jealous because he didn't get to appear with Chad in "Tilt," the TV mini-series about the colorful world of high-stakes poker.

 

Don't know if you're in the minority or not, but put me in this club. I kind of remember him being funny/relevant with The National, but he's like Friends to me - don't get why people like him as everytime I read him (or watch in the case of Friends) I don't even chuckle.

 

Perhaps nobody really cares about this childish pissing contest.

 

If we're talking Chad vs. Feinstein now, to borrow a Chad-like expression......
that's J.D. Salinger vs. a stenographer.

Humor is subjective; Chad cracks me up again and again. Deride him all you want, his poker work is TV sublime.
Feinstein is a 5,000-word-an-hour cliche machine.

 

When I saw Feinstein doing color commentary for meaningless Patriot League games - would I have had a justifiable homicide reason for shooting him?

 

Norman Chad cracks me up. John Feinstein is a gifted writer. Mike Wilbon is a talented dude and a nice guy face-to-face. There. I said it. What a jerk I am.

 

I remember Feinstein's work as a Washington Post staff writer. It was not that special. And if it was about a subject you knew, you could spot many errors very easily.

Chad, in his quirky way, has very high standards.

 

Keep it up, pal, and you're gonna get banned from this site.

 

Hell, Season on the Brink is full of errors.