Huh?

Honestly, I can't make hide nor hair of your last post. Beyond the fact that you didn't address my question to you — How can sports be both meaningless yet in need of hard-hitting investigative journalism — the degree to which you've misconstrued almost every statement I've made is fairly stunning. I've been fairly consistent in my criticism of your initial argument, and tried to elaborate where needed. Just because I said I could add some points, on a later day, to your general thesis doesn't mean I think you were right on all your points. You overstated and were uneccessarily strident, and I think you did both for effect. You also have contradictory premises, as I pointed out above. Whatever I would add would be free of such syllogistic errata. I'll leave the rest of the hand-wringing for those who feel the need to defend all aspects of the profession.

As for the list of "issues" pertaining to sports, a metric ton of copy has been written about most of them, including a small army of books, with the notable exception of the Kobe case (though what is there that needs to be said that hasn't already appeared in magazines? I doubt much). Fine, you could say all the books suck, but since you obviously haven't read any of them, I fail to see how you could substantiate such a claim. As for the Sports Illustrated offerings on all of the subjects, I recall most of them being sufficient to the task. I'm sure they were formulaic, but then again I don't expect Truman Capote's corpse to claw it's way out of the ground and give me 450 pages on the Pistons-Pacers brawl.

I wrote my last post over the course of the entire afternoon, because I kept getting interrupted. I guess Blogger stamps posts based on when they're started, as opposed to when they're finished.

I still fail to see how this blog is a bad idea. We've managed to get Finley so riled up that he might fly up to Chicago just to throw Nick through a glass coffee table.

Toodles.