December 22, 2003Sean has an explanationSMcCarthy.com: Joe Namath's drunk interview on ESPN Posted by jghiii at December 22, 2003 02:12 PMComments
Posted by: sherman on December 22, 2003 05:45 PM
Lousy site to link to, Jack. The guy expects you to download.
Posted by: Sean on December 22, 2003 06:04 PM
Thanks buddy for saying my site stinks, it's common courtesy so you don’t hog all of the monthly bandwidth.
Posted by: jgh on December 22, 2003 06:06 PM
Actually I linked it that way exactly so that the reader would have a choice of downloading or not. You get the point by reading his text. If you want to see the thing then you can download.
Posted by: Steve Garfield on December 22, 2003 07:10 PM
#1: Jack, Why do you say SMcCarthy has an explanation? I see no explanation there. I don't think Joe Namath behaved that way to take the fan's minds off the Jets. So it's not an explanation. I'd say it's pretty obvious why Joe acted that way. And I haven't even downloaded the clip. #2: Sean, Sherman doesn't even have his own web site. So his comments about your site being 'lousy' are worthless. Worthless I say. Until the time that Sherman gets his own website his comments on sites being lousy or not are irrelevant to me! #3: Sherman, start a web site.
Posted by: jgh on December 22, 2003 08:08 PM
The 'explanation' I was referring to, was a possible reason ("drunk") as to why Namath appeared impaired -- he did to me anyway -- when interviewed on the sidelines last night. That's all. Second, I wouldn't characterize Sherm's response as "worthless". I would agree that it might not carry the same weight as from someone who had experience running a site, but an experienced observer has a valuable perspective too. But I agree that he should start his own weblog. Finally, I didn't take his original comment as a slam at Sean. Sherm and I go way back, and I think he was dissing ME. It's what we do. I'm sorry if Sean took offence. I only found Sean's site today. I liked what I saw, and I've added to my personal list to keep an eye on. That's enough for now, I think.
Posted by: Sean on December 22, 2003 09:50 PM
OK, hopefully it wasn't a shot at my site. The way it was worded 'sounded' that way; sarcasm isn't portrayed easily in writing. I see you are Sox fan Jack, what are your thoughts on the A-Rod situation? It seems like both owners want it (Hicks more so), and with the collateral damage that may occur with current players, Henry & Co. may have to force it through.
Posted by: Steve Garfield on December 22, 2003 10:16 PM
Namath Drunk! Whew! I'm glad that's all cleared up. I guess my flames have now been doused. Ha Ha. I don't think I ever wrote a flame before. Maybe I just did. I'll try to write some less firey comments again on another post and see if they are recieved better.
Posted by: shermy on December 22, 2003 10:29 PM
Sorry. Didn't mean to insult. Was a quik comment made in haste. Sorry. I'm spoiled -- on all the other blogs/message boards i go to, i never ran into this. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Damn, this is gonna get me on Santa's bad list, isn't it?
Posted by: Sherman on December 22, 2003 10:31 PM
By the way, I might point out this is rare -- no one ever responds to my responses. So if we want to talk postivie reinforcement, today's lesson is be an "MOM ALERT!!!!" asshole, and people pay attention to you.
Posted by: Steve Garfield on December 23, 2003 08:10 AM
Sherm,
Posted by: beth on December 23, 2003 09:24 AM
Hey you guys leave Shermy alone.
Posted by: jgh on December 23, 2003 12:17 PM
By the way, I answered Sean's Q about the Red Sox in private email. Post a comment
|
|