Funny article, good job TJ!

So if a lot of people don't get Simers' humor, and by a lot of people I would guess everyone, isn't that his fault?

The problem with people who claim to tell it like it is, is that they are usually really stupid, and failing that, incredibly myopic.

I thought it was funny...

The problem with people who claim to tell it like it is, is that they are usually really stupid, and failing that, incredibly myopic.

I love it when you tell it like it is.

So if a lot of people don't get Simers' humor, and by a lot of people I would guess everyone, isn't that his fault?

Considering his position at the LA Times, I'd say that more than a few people seem to get his humor. The BTF crowd doesn't, but considering the general disdain for mainstream media that permeates this place, I'm not sure we're the best judges.

I generally don't like his methods, particularly when it involves guys who don't get him (such as Pierre). But I think when he's dealing with a guy like Kent, who enjoys the give-and-take with T.J., he's pretty entertaining. Moreover, I think the complete misreading of the Kent column the other day was not one of BTF's finest moments.

I love it when you tell it like it is.

I do my best.

I should note that I thought I clicked the LA Dodgers tag for this, not Angels. My bad.

"Considering his position at the LA Times, I'd say that more than a few people seem to get his humor."

This is, of course, the same LA Times that's hemorraging money and circulation, right?

This is, of course, the same LA Times that's hemorraging money and circulation, right?

Clearly, that's Simers fault. It just took a long time for it to manifest itself.

Obviously, there are plenty of people who like reading Simers, or he wouldn't have his position at that paper. That's really not that difficult to grasp.

You're not one of his readers. I'm not either, for the most part. But the idea that no one gets him is simply silly.

"Clearly, that's Simers fault. It just took a long time for it to manifest itself."

Oh, it's been happening for quite a while now.

Simers isn't the only problem with the Times, but that doesn't mean that he isn't a problem.

Simers isn't the only problem with the Times, but that doesn't mean that he isn't a problem.

And this has what to do with my point that there are plenty of people who enjoy reading Simers?

And that's without getting into the whole money = funny thing, anyway. If dollar votes and access are all that matters, then Shrek 2 is the world's finest achievement in the comedic arts.

This is, of course, the same LA Times that's hemorraging money and circulation, right?

Compared to all of those other major dailies that are just growing by leaps and bounds. Seriously, Vlad, I know you don't like the guy, but at least your other criticisms were intellectually honest.

"And this has what to do with my point that there are plenty of people who enjoy reading Simers?"

The fact that Simers works for a newspaper ensures that he's highly visible, not that he's funny.

"Compared to all of those other major dailies that are just growing by leaps and bounds...at least your other criticisms were intellectually honest."

LAT is dropping like a bomb, even when compared to the rest of the industry.

"Seriously, Vlad, I know you don't like the guy..."

I don't think too much of him one way or the other. He's a shitty writer, but that's really not any reflection on his personal character. I just wish that he were either a) a better writer OR b) working in an industry where he didn't need to write so much.

Vlad,

So do you agree with Joey that no one gets Simers?

I missed the other column, but it doesn't seem like having the same sense of humor as Jeff Kent is necessarily a point in Simers' favor.

"So do you agree with Joey that no one gets Simers?"

I think it's pretty obvious that Joey was using hyperbole.

On the other hand, I doubt you'd be able to find more than five or six people at BTF who will call themselves fans - I've only ever seen four.

On the other other hand, I'd be surprised if the preferences of the BTF crowd were mirrored by the LA population at large.

As to whether anyone "gets" him, I really have no idea, since I don't really understand his intent (and I don't know whether anyone else does, either). Most of the time when I read his pieces, not only do I not find them funny, I have trouble even spotting where the jokes are. The last time we had a Simers thread, I tried to solicit opinions on what bits from the piece of the day worked for people, and I got a few responses, but none seemed particularly amusing to me. For all I know, his output is just one big piece of Kaufmanesque anti-humor.

I don't really want to talk about Simers today (and I don't want to make one of Shredder's arteries explode from rage), so unless anyone has a specific point on which they need some elaboration, I'm going to leave it there.

and I don't want to make one of Shredder's arteries explode from rage

I don't think that's a problem. If that were going to happen, it would have happened after one of the 165 other times you've posted the same thing in a Simers thread (without provocation, I might add).

Apologist.

"I don't think that's a problem. If that were going to happen, it would have happened after one of the 165 other times you've posted the same thing in a Simers thread (without provocation, I might add)."

If I post the same criticisms, it's only because he never gets any better. If he got better, I'd stop. Whenever a piece is linked here, I always read it to see whether it's any good, and it never is.

If I post the same criticisms, it's only because he never gets any better. If he got better, I'd stop. Whenever a piece is linked here, I always read it to see whether it's any good, and it never is.

Isn't that the definition of insanity, doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

you've posted the same thing in a Simers thread (without provocation, I might add).

Linking a Simers article isn't provocation?!

I will never understand why snark angers so much when it is reproduced in ink on 27 lb newsprint, but is oh so funny in pixels.

"Isn't that the definition of insanity, doing the same thing and expecting a different result?"

I guess, but sometimes people surprise you, and it costs me virtually nothing to give Simers a shot. If nothing else, given a regular column slot and several years, you'd expect him to eventually blunder into something funny by accident.

On the other hand, I doubt you'd be able to find more than five or six people at BTF who will call themselves fans - I've only ever seen four.

You keep count? I think we've got a Ray Finkle/Dan Marino thing going on here.

"You keep count?"

We did a head count in the last Simers thread, plus two new people in this one. If you don't need more than one hand to count, it's not all that hard to remember.

We did a head count in the last Simers thread, plus two new people in this one. If you don't need more than one hand to count, it's not all that hard to remember.

Besides Poz, what other print-based writer has a two-fisted fan base at BTF?

frankly, i don't know what to think of simers anymore. maybe i was one of the primates who never 'got' him. but lately i actually read his column. and feel like i 'get' what he's doing. but maybe things are changing. at first i thought he and kent really didn't like each other, but now after reading simers a bunch of times, and seeing that he really is kinda harmless, its suddenly dawned on me -- duh -- that he and kent may actually just kind of like to josh each other. since simers gets to write about it, he tends to score. and since kent is a multimillionaire who gets to rake in the dough while playing a game, an avocation we would all gladly donate a body part to be able to do, it's become apparent he isn't too concerned with what simers writes. it does make for an odd sort of 'kaufmanesque' atmosphere of gotcha. note that manny, who has a reputation as an eccentric personality with below the radar smarts managed to deal with simers pretty easily by doing something simers couldn't quite handle ('come sit on my lap').
i think btf takes him too seriously. now i read his stuff, chuckle at the jokes -- i don't know, vlad, i really think he has a knack for a funny phrase or two, and i like his nicknames ('parking lot attendant'; you know mccourt must hate that) -- and disregard any of his attempts at substantive commentary. he has a shtick. no more, no less.

The problem with people who claim to tell it like it is, is that they are usually really stupid, and failing that, incredibly myopic.

Homer: Heh heh heh, from now on, I'm gonna be just like Krusty and tell it like it is. Marge, you're getting a little fat around the old thighs!
Bart: Dad!
Homer: You too, Bart!
Marge: Oh, knock it off, Homer, you're the fattest one in the car!
Homer: [shocked, hurt] You didn't have to tell it like it is, Marge!

Linking a Simers article isn't provocation?!

No more than posting a Marriotti column, or something similar. It's pretty amazing, but even though I don't like Marriotti, I don't think I've ever once commented on a Marriotti entry here. If I have, I doubt it's been anything more than tangential to the subject matter. It really is hard to believe, but some of us (not all, apparently) have the ability to see something posted here and move on without clicking on it. Some of us can even click on it and read the entry without commenting.

And yeah, I assume you were being tongue in cheek.

Apologist.

Who, me? Screw that, I'm a full on fan.

Besides Poz, what other print-based writer has a two-fisted fan base at BTF?

Marchman, I bet.

That's all I got.

Simers is no great shakes but he's a damn sight better than Plaschke (or someone like Mariotti) and his schtick can actually be reasonably entertaining, especially when he's working it with a player who's in on the joke like Kent and is happy to provide him with Kaufmanesque "performance art" quotes. It's just when he goes after someone like Juan Pierre - a good-natured guy who clearly isn't into the whole ride, yet is a major target for obvious reasons - that it all seems sour.

I don't think I've RAFA by Simers before, but I enjoyed this one. Very funny guy.

"That's all I got."

LeBatard usually seems to draw a fair bit of positive comment whenever he has a piece linked, and Pat Jordan definitely has some fans.

For me, Jordan is an example of the right way to do the confrontational style of profiling. Though as a magazine guy, he doesn't have to worry as much about maintaining a relationship, and the very nature of the format allows him more space to examine people/things in depth. Of course, Simers claims that he doesn't pull any punches, so I guess it wouldn't be right to let him off the hook for soft-pedaling...

As for guys on the local beat (maybe a better comparison for Simers), I bet there are at least five Pirate fans here who'd sign off on both Dejan and Perrotto. Fans of other teams will have to speak for themselves, there.

So if a lot of people don't get Simers' humor, and by a lot of people I would guess everyone, isn't that his fault?

Simer's schtick is to poke fun at those who are too self-righteously uptight to get much, if anything. The joke is on the uptight ######## who becomes enraged at whatever Simer's says, not the athlete in print. For writing rather poorly, Simers is initially pretty effective with the joke. The problem is the joke is a one trick pony; it doesn't stay funny long with a particular target. Some who get the joke would argue it is not funny at all.

incredibly myopic

Disabilitist.

Until he left the beat (probably got too depressing for him) I thought Barry Svrluga did a fine, fine job at the Washington Post with the Nationals. Not too enthusiastic about the new guy yet. Not terrible, but just sort of boring.

Simers is no great shakes but he's a damn sight better than Plaschke

i agree with this.

Obviously, there are plenty of people who like reading Simers, or he wouldn't have his position at that paper.

Two friends were walking down the street together when one of them pointed at something a few feet ahead of them on the sidewalk. "Hey look," he said. "Isn't that a twenty dollar bill?"

"Obviously not," said the other. "If that were really a twenty dollar bill, somebody would have picked it up by now."

I think 38 nails the biggest problem with Simers, he's been writing the same article for ten years. Whether the joke is funny or not, its definitely tired.

Of course the bigger problem is that the Times literally doesn't do anything well and Simers is, perhaps, the best illustration of this problem. Sure he only wastes the second page of the Sports section, but his "articles" have all the hallmarks of the LA Times' general approach to all topics; which seems to be hire a medicore writer with a particular gimmick, make sure said writer has virtually no understanding of the subject matter he is slated to cover, and then sit back and admire the "controversy" when people who have interest in the subject matter complain that there's a hack ruining their paper while contributing nothing. If you can manage, as the Times as done with the Sports section, to populate your roster of writers with only people who fit this profile you "win."

My only hope is that the Dodgers sign Mussina in the off-season and the first time Simers shows up to "interview" him, Mussina breaks out his list of LA Times employees recently canned (complete with a bleak picture of their financial situation) because nobody wants to buy a paper from people who think Simers belongs in the Sports section and asks Simers why he continues to think that knowing absolutely nothing about sports and still calling himself a sportswriter doesn't adversely affect anyone else.

Isn't that the definition of insanity, doing the same thing and expecting a different result?

I don't think it is, actually. People say that a lot, but it doesn't really describe any mental disorders I can think of offhand.

My only hope is that the Dodgers sign Mussina in the off-season and the first time Simers shows up to "interview" him, Mussina breaks out his list of LA Times employees recently canned (complete with a bleak picture of their financial situation) because nobody wants to buy a paper from people who think Simers belongs in the Sports section and asks Simers why he continues to think that knowing absolutely nothing about sports and still calling himself a sportswriter doesn't adversely affect anyone else.

(I had to read that sentence a few times to understand it, but I think I've got it.)

What do you think that will achieve? I imagine the article Simers writes about it will be hilarious, but I don't think that's your intention. He'll be shamed into feeling responsible for his employers' bad decision and start learning more about baseball? You can find mundane baseball writing anywhere, quoting numbers and describing action in cliched terms, but I get a much better insight into Jeff Kent, for whom I felt contempt until the last pair of articles but now I'm becoming a fan, and the Dodgers clubhouse from this guy. Loved the Lowe quotes in this or the other article.

Simers may know nothing about baseball and may have been writing the same article for 10 years, but he is no mediocre writer. This article is exquisitely crafted and contains so many little gems. It's so clever and apparently effortless. Eg, the quote above, it's so well put: ' “People think you and I hate each other,” he said, a shock, I must say, to learn we don’t.' I wouldn't have written that gag nearly as well.

No belly laughs, but a whole load of chuckles. The second page isn't wasted at all. We don't need so many one-line paragraphs, but that's the way newspapers are done these days. I guess it could have been edited down a bit, but if I were his copy editor - and actually read his stuff - I'd be just as happy to leave it as he wrote it. Personally, I'd buy the paper just for this article.

"I don't think it is, actually. People say that a lot, but it doesn't really describe any mental disorders I can think of offhand."

Anterograde amnesia? Though in that case, you don't have any recollection of having done the action before.

The description of Clive Wearing's journal in Oliver Sachs's book "Musicophilia" is one of the most horrible things I've ever read.

I found a similar description from an essay Sachs wrote for The New Yorker:

He was acutely, continually, agonizingly conscious that something bizarre, something awful, was the matter. His constantly repeated complaint, however, was not of a faulty memory but of being deprived, in some uncanny and terrible way, of all experience, deprived of consciousness and life itself. As Deborah wrote:

"It was as if every waking moment was the first waking moment. Clive was under the constant impression that he had just emerged from unconsciousness because he had no evidence in his own mind of ever being awake before. . . . 'I haven’t heard anything, seen anything, touched anything, smelled anything,' he would say. 'It’s like being dead.'"

Desperate to hold on to something, to gain some purchase, Clive started to keep a journal, first on scraps of paper, then in a notebook. But his journal entries consisted, essentially, of the statements “I am awake” or “I am conscious,” entered again and again every few minutes. He would write: “2:10 P.M: This time properly awake. . . . 2:14 P.M: this time finally awake. . . . 2:35 P.M: this time completely awake,” along with negations of these statements: “At 9:40 P.M. I awoke for the first time, despite my previous claims.” This in turn was crossed out, followed by “I was fully conscious at 10:35 P.M., and awake for the first time in many, many weeks.” This in turn was cancelled out by the next entry.

This dreadful journal, almost void of any other content but these passionate assertions and denials, intending to affirm existence and continuity but forever contradicting them, was filled anew each day, and soon mounted to hundreds of almost identical pages.

(I had to read that sentence a few times to understand it, but I think I've got it.)

That sentence was awful - I appreciate you working through it. Though it might color my ability to mock other's poor writing skills.

I don't expect it would achieve much of anything tangible, other than make it pretty hard for Simer's to mock people for playing on a bad team when his "team" makes the 2003 Tigers look like the 27 Yankees. As for Simer's writing a hilarious article in response, if Mussina can compel Simers to write a funny article I would be doubly excited. Particluarly if he can make unemployment funny. Really I just want someone to say, "I may strike out a lot/give up lots of runs but my incompetence isn't why 30-year employees of my organization are out soliciting Del Taco applications. Can you say that tj?"

My point, poorly stated no doubt, was that Simers mocks athletes because he can't do anything else. Perhaps the linked article is "exquisitely crafted." I disagree, but as you can see, I'm not in the best position to gauge writing style. The problem is the article has nothing to do with sports. Its an entertainment article that is basically a guy attempting to get a response from a "celebrity." There may be an audience for that, though the Times circulation figures don't support that conclusion, but it doesn't belong in the Sports section - its got nothing to do with Sports. People who read the sports section know it and are staying away. If they want what Simers is pimping, they can go to a million internet sites and get the exact same thing.

I can only comment on these two articles, but I don't see a guy mocking athletes. The athletes clearly trust him, well Lowe doesn't and Simers makes a joke out of it, but not in a way that reflects badly on Lowe. But Kent keeps coming back for more. Simers is involved in the banter, but he's also winking at the reader as he takes part. He's mocking the fact the paper's losing readers, he's mocking the Dodgers owner, he's mocking himself too. Everything is fair game. But he's not nasty about it.

I can't really see why anyone should take offense (haven't seen the Pierre article), although I have seen that people just don't understand his ironic and self-deprecating humor. Well, make that deprecating humor. Should he be more earnest about the fact nobody reads his paper any more? I don't think so, he makes it amusing. It doesn't mean that he doesn't take it seriously - it's his job on the line too. He's aware that people don't get him too and makes fun of that (not them). I'd say it's not very American humor, but actually it could only be American. It reminds me of Larry David for some reason.

It isn't Simers' fault they're losing readers and even if it were, it would be his employers' fault for keeping him on. I imagine he inspires loyalty in readers. There will be people like me who'll read the paper just because he's in it. Nothing like as many people as there are who read the paper despite him being in it, but I doubt there are many who don't read it just because he's in it.

Its an entertainment article that is basically a guy attempting to get a response from a "celebrity."

No, it's a light-hearted day-in-the-life article, almost a diary entry, by a sports writer. I read the clips here, and from the other day and thought the same thing as you. Someone's goading Kent. But no, it's not that at all. Kent's in on the joke, he's quoted taking the piss out of Simers, and Simers takes the piss back both in the quotes and in the article. The gags are set up early and he gets the payoff later in classic comedy style. While I imagine Simers can almost do this stuff in his sleep now, it is actually quite clever. And while Kent is occasionally the butt of a joke, he comes out of it very well, I think.

As for it being celebrity-based, I can see why you say that. But I really enjoyed the fresh insights he provided and if it weren't about baseball players I wouldn't be interested (actually I probably would be now as I have become a fan). I can't imagine him writing the same article all the time either, as if it weren't Kent, the article would be completely different.

A million websites doing what Simers does? I doubt if there is even one. Don't wish him away, he's unique.

I liked Simers better when only Shredder liked him.

As for Vlad, he doth protest too much. His posts on Simers must run into triple digits.

If they want what Simers is pimping, they can go to a million internet sites and get the exact same thing.

I think that this is what irks BBTF---ers the most.

By that standard, I must love the #### out of Dave Littlefield's work.

Philistine- the LA Times is my local paper. My disappointment with Simers existed long before I knew BBTF did. Niether this incident, nor anything Depodesta related, has anything to do with my disappointment with Simers, it was there long before. I can sort of see why people think this series is interesting. Now try having this same article in your paper, everyday for ten years.

Simers himself isn't a huge deal for me, I just ignore him. It's the paper generally, and Simers being representative of its myriad of problems, that I don't like.

I suspect my time would be better served elsewhere but since I can get anyone to drag the Rays off my Angels, I'm a little pissy right now.

i find myself falling somewhere between shredder and philistine. i guess i'm a shrilistine.

thanks, i'll be here all week.

anyway ... philistine, simers did kind of exploit pierre's good nature. pierre is by most accounts a good teammate and a nice guy but when pierre complained about lack of playing time simers kind of blindsided him with some pointed humor and pierre never quite got the joke, which of course only made him more of a target. that kind of mockery wears thin with me, but its sort of what you get with simers along with the smarter observations about jerks like andruw jones, who, in my estimation deserved all he got and more from simers.
but pierre kept taking him at face value, which is not a good idea. seems like kent and manny and most of the others know to just shrug him off or do a little hosing back.
simers does a good job of poking dodger management in the eye. for that he's almost worth price of admission. he went off on them earlier this year about their dumb policy of chasing people away from the luxury boxes before the games.

I like Simers a little less than I used to, and only read him occasionally anymore, but I do have an appreciation for his ethos. I've said this before, but he used to be a pretty good and knowledgable NFL reporter. He really doesn't seem to know baseball, and afaIct may not even like it, but he rightly sees the post-O'Malley Dodgers as a mockable organization. So that's what he does.

I've also said this before, but I'll say it again. His schtick is a two-pronged attack: He likes to 1) Try to make the athletes he covers accountable as human beings, as opposed to phony icons (see Kevin Brown); and 2) Expose hypocrisy and greed in big-time sports. He wrote a long series of articles in the early 00s exposing how the Spanoses first bilked San Diego for stadium money and then tried to pack up and do the same to LA. Thanks in part to his efforts, that didn't happen.

Simers had (Has? I think it's gone now.) a morning drive-time radio show for a while which was not great but still infinitely better than your average Chris Russo or Colin Cowherd. Fwiw, on the show Simers did not come off as a beliggerent jerk, but as a pretty warm-hearted and sardonic guy. His whole thing is, sports are raking in billions of dollars, but what are they giving us? So he does what he can to try and hold both owners and athletes accountable to the communities that support them. Maybe you don't think that's the job of a sportswriter, but whatever. He doesn't just do this through his columns, but is personally very involved in several charities in Southern California. Maybe he's a bad writer with a tired act, but he does seem to be a genuinely good guy.

Ah, it was that Pierre article. I remember the thread, but I didn't RTFA. Never noticed Simers' name before. I'll do some catching up tomorrow.

I just actually clicked through to one of his articles for the first time, and all I have to say is that it's not for me. Maybe others like it, but I found it lacking in wit (subjective), special insight into anything I care about as a baseball fan or a person or any kind of organization or point.

Phredbird - I think a key issue with Simers is right in your post. If you think the person that Simers is annoying desrves it, like Jones, you'll enjoy Simers. If you don't think the person deserves it, like Pierre, you'll dislike him. I don't dislike many athletes, not even Red Sox, and I certainly don't think any of them desrve to put up with a moron who hides behind his press pass, so Simers is always a waste of time. But of course, YMMV.

The Pierre thing turned me off, but #54 is clear-headed analysis of Simers.

well, i only mildly disagree, dagoberto. i don't get the 'hides behind his pass' idea. he's in the locker room, isn't afraid to ask tough questions. its what we want from journalists, isnt it? he should be punched out for asking athletes to speak on the record and respond to criticisms? i don't think so. the people who buy tickets to the ball games read the paper. i personally want to know why andruw jones thinks he can eat himself out of a starting position while costing the team $18 mil. ... simers' articles did a lot to demonstrate jones doesn't give a d@mn about anything.
i'm not saying simers is a paragon of journalism. his snark is boring. but he serves a useful purpose at times.

dagoberto, you sound like a reasonable fellow. i've often tried to get a primate meetup at a dodger game. do you get to the games often?

further, i really don't think simers is the problem with the LA times. its more like dumb### writers like plaschke. he embodies every bad old journalism model i can think of. hackneyed, cliche-ridden, math-averse, lacking in any kind of critical thinking. you name it.

I've been spending most of my stadium time in Anaheim these days, but I never turn down an opportunity to head up to the top of the Ravine- I may even get a chance tomorrow. If you're looking to get a group together I would certainly be interested.

you sound like a reasonable fellow

I appreciate that. With all my whining and moaning about this nonsense, I figured you would have had me pegged for one of those "it puts the lotion on its skin" types.

Anyway, to my mind he hides behind his press pass because his questions aren't typically directed towards getting information or putting people on the record. They are generally efforts at pissing people off for quotations sake, though I'm sure on this our opinions probaly differ. I suspect, however, that were Mr. Jones and Mr. Simers ever in a bar with no one else around, Simers would never speak the way he does to Jones when he's in the locker room protected by his credential. Some may not have a problem with that. I'm not a big fan of that approach.

Edit- Plaschke blows too, no argument there.

Nobody else is freaked out by #47? Christ, you people have hearts of stone.

I think most of the analyses here are essentially correct. I've said it before, but the most effective way to handle Simers is to play along. He's going to needle you, and you respond in kind, he'll respect you. It's mostly all in fun, until you take offense or take it too seriously, and once you do, that's when he'll get on you. I think his basic philosophy is that when all is said and done, we're not curing cancer here. It's entertainment. If you act like an entertainer, he won't bother you. If you act like an oncologist, he'll make fun of you.

As for Pierre, I don't know much about him. I suspect Simers caught him in a vulnerable moment when Pierre just didn't want to hear it, and that's understandable. Everyone has moments like that. Maybe it was unfair. But the classic target for Simers was F.P. Santangelo, a marginal major leaguer at best who gave off the sense of entitlement of a future hall of famer. Simers rode his ass until the day he was gone and beyond. On the other hand, there's a guy like Garret Anderson, with a reputation for being humorless and lacking personality. He and Simers have a terrific relationship. You can take your job seriously and still understand that it's really not a serious job in the grand scheme of things.

Personally, the time I spent with Simers was a blast (see here, here, and especially here if you haven't heard the story). The three of us knew he was going to give us a hard time, and we had fun with it, and teased him right back. It's not like he was teasing anyone for being fat or having a lisp or anything, if Andruw Jones had been there, we probably would have heard some fat jokes.

Nobody else is freaked out by #47? Christ, you people have hearts of stone.

Whenever I see the name Oliver Sacks, I know I'm about to learn about something incomprehensibly tragic, and it's always something completely new and bizarre.

I think there is a difference between "not getting it" and thinking it's not funny.
Also, I get that Shredder thinks Simers is a good guy and apparently likes his columns. I can't speak to the first and disagree with the second, which would seem to be to be no big deal.

So, I guess what I don't get is why two pretty level-headed guys like Vlad and Shredder go at it over a wiseass newspaper columnist.

Unless it is all a Simersian tongue-in-cheek put-on.

So, I guess what I don't get is why two pretty level-headed guys like Vlad and Shredder go at it over a wiseass newspaper columnist.

Think of it like a kevin vs. Nieporent in steroids threads type of thing. I get sick of seeing the same damn thing in every single Simers thread. I generally ignore it, but I allowed myself to get sucked in a month or so ago.

Re #47, there are all kinds of disease processes that could strike you down in hideous fashion, but your mind turning against itself is pretty horrible. I'll admit I don't like thinking about it too much, esp. at times when my psyche is fragile.

Does this thread mark a turning point in BTF opinion of Simers?

I don't think it is, actually. People say that a lot, but it doesn't really describe any mental disorders I can think of offhand.

Change it from "the" to "a" and it works just fine as a description of a particular mental disorder. Plus it's just an offhand quote, not a clinical diagnosis (as if those things meant anything anyway, but I'll go along with that gag if you go along with mine).

LeBatard usually seems to draw a fair bit of positive comment whenever he has a piece linked, and Pat Jordan definitely has some fans.

LeBatard is a good one, but we don't link to him often, I think. Jordan is obviously a ringer in this discussion, and the other guys you and other folks mentioned don't get linked to.

My paper has a bunch of O.K.-to-good ones except for Mariotti, of course, but they are rarely linked to also (although we did get Carol Slezak's teammates-for-Quentin-for-MVP column t'other day).

"I get sick of seeing the same damn thing in every single Simers thread."

Whereas I get sick of seeing ####### Simers threads, when every one of his columns is the same lame, limp, lazy crap.

"Jordan is obviously a ringer in this discussion..."

Why so? He's spent the last 20 years writing sports pieces for various magazines. His online SI archive is gold.

"...the other guys you and other folks mentioned don't get linked to."

Am I drunk, or did we not link to a Perrotto article two days ago? Though I agree that we don't link to any of those guys enough, especially when the alternative is yet another damn Simers column.

Whereas I get sick of seeing ####### Simers threads, when every one of his columns is the same lame, limp, lazy crap.

You can always just, ya know, not read them. Or better yet, if you read them and don't like them, don't post in the threads. It's real easy! There are all kinds of threads that I don't post on. Some that I don't even bother to read. It's really quite amazing how that can work. I try to skip your comments, but my ignore list is already full, and it's not easy to do when they take up 10% of every Simers thread (or 25%, like in this thread).

Historically I've always like you, Vlad, but something about Simers turns you into a raving @sshole. You're like the monkey who keeps touching the dial that delivers the shock, only after you get shocked, you apparently need to post and tell everyone about it.

Why so? He's spent the last 20 years writing sports pieces for various magazines. His online SI archive is gold.

Jordan is a ringer because, as you said, he's not a beat writer. It's not a fair comp. Jordan's comps are guys like Deford.

Am I drunk, or did we not link to a Perrotto article two days ago?

You are probably drunk. Which does not negate the validity of either of our points, BTW.

A link today reminded me of another guy we pretty much like: Steven Goldman.

Edit: and what Shredder said. I don't hound "Jack Keefe" or Josh Wilker, I just made my point and moved on.

Historically, I've always liked you, too. It's not personal. I just hate-hate-hate Simers's work. I write for a living, and I spend a lot of the rest of my time writing for fun, or reading, or thinking about reading and writing, and then every time I see one of his crappy columns it's just so bad and wrong and stupid in every way that it offends me on a very basic and personal level. Like if I had a nice park just down the street from my house, and I went out for a walk there every day, and it's all lovely and well-tended and green and there's a pond with baby ducks and stuff. But every two or three days, I run into a filthy, crazy guy dressed in rags, who's always down on all fours frantically cramming dog turds into his mouth. It kind of spoils the mood, y'know?

Sure, you can say "Just ignore it", and that's exactly what I'd do if nobody ever posted his articles here, but once I scroll down the main page and see it, I can't just un-see it. And once I get zapped by the buzzer, I ##### and piss and whine and moan, because that ####### hurt, dammit, and it's not like the buzzer magicked itself onto the site. Someone put it here.

"Jordan is a ringer because, as you said, he's not a beat writer. It's not a fair comp. Jordan's comps are guys like Deford."

Fair enough, I guess. I figured magazine guys were OK because the original question just asked about "print-based writers", presumably to exclude internet guys like Neyer and Law and such.

But every two or three days, I run into a filthy, crazy guy dressed in rags, who's always down on all fours frantically cramming dog turds into his mouth. It kind of spoils the mood, y'know?

No, I don't know. For this analogy to be apt, you'd have to be physically forced to sit down and talk to the guy, instead of just ignoring him like everyone else. And if someone was having a nice conversation with the scuzzy guy, you'd have to be forced to break into the conversation and explain to the other person just why the guy is scuzzy and why you don't like scuzzy people, and how he's ruining your mood instead of just, ya know, walking on by.

I walk past scuzzy people every day. I don't have to like it, but I also don't have to stop and talk to every single one I see.

"I walk past scuzzy people every day."

See, you're turning it down a bit. We aren't just talking about a dirty person, or a smelly person. We're talking about someone who is actually eating large quantities of ####, right in front of you. Constantly. If you're able to just walk on past that, without reacting with disgust, then that's great. Me, I can't do it. My poker face isn't that good.

If you're able to just walk on past that, without reacting with disgust, then that's great. Me, I can't do it. My poker face isn't that good.

You can react with disgust without the need to tell everyone else you're reacting with disgust. Or rather, most people on the planet can do so. You apparently cannot. I've seen plenty of disgusting things that I haven't posted about on BTF. I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to restrain yourself.

"I'm not sure why it's so hard for you to restrain yourself."

See, the part I don't get is why it's all on me, here. I don't have any problem with you posting about liking Simers (I don't understand it, but it doesn't bother me that you do it). If restraint comes so naturally to you, why can't you just take your own advice, and ignore my posts about his work if you don't like them?

In fact, I generally have ignored them lately. I posted in this thread to call you out on being intellectually dishonest, and I was done with it until you decided to take another shot at me. There have been quite a few Simers threads lately that I've read, but not posted in. And you've taken a big crap in pretty much every single one of them.

The irony is that as long as he does so and the ensuing debates occur, we can count on Repoz to post a steady stream of Simers.

"I posted in this thread to call you out on being intellectually dishonest..."

Which I totally wasn't, as I pointed out. The LAT really is at the forefront of the nation's news industry collapse. Of all the newspapers that are failing right now, they're just about the failing-est.

"...and I was done with it until you decided to take another shot at me."

Where did I take a shot at you? Not in this thread, that's for sure. In Simers threads, I always work to confine my criticism to Simers, since he's the one who deserves it. Now, if you're interpreting criticism of Simers as criticism of you... I can't really do anything about that. My words only mean what they say, and I'd prefer to have people take them that way.

"There have been quite a few Simers threads lately that I've read, but not posted in. And you've taken a big crap in pretty much every single one of them."

Other than the thread we are occupying right now:

August 6, some Vlad comments.
August 17, no Vlad comments.
August 21, no Vlad comments.

And that's it for BTF Simers threads this month. Check the archive yourself, if you don't believe me. Oh, and for the record: You've posted in both of the Simers threads where I posted, and in neither of the ones where I didn't.

I like that Repoz posts Simers, because living on the opposite coast, I often forget to read him.

But I'm also a big Kovacevic fan, and I'll read Pirates stories for no good reason when I'm reminded to. So maybe I can help bridge the gap here.

Group hug, guys.

August 21, no Vlad comments.

the day is young.

i kid!

actually, i know how you feel, vlad. but its not about simers. every time i open the LA times comics pages on sunday, and see the incredible waste of space devoted to the steaming pile of cr@p that is outland, or whatever berke brethed is spewing up these days, i just want to scream. there are about five or six better strips out there that should run in its place.

"every time i open the LA times comics pages on sunday, and see the incredible waste of space devoted to the steaming pile of cr@p that is outland, or whatever berke brethed is spewing up these days, i just want to scream. there are about five or six better strips out there that should run in its place."

I actually have pretty similar feelings about Outland. Cartoonists have to fight so hard for real estate on the page, and for freedom from editorial constraints. Berkeley Breathed has managed to get all that... and now he's not trying to do anything interesting with it. I mean, when a guy starts talking about Winsor McKay and George Herriman as the type of guys he'd like to emulate in the future, and then turns in something like "Opus", it's just very disappointing.

You've posted in both (sic) of the Simers threads where I posted, and in neither of the ones where I didn't.

Yes, one whole post consisting of six words directly responding to someone who called me out. Very convincing.

"Yes, one whole post consisting of six words directly responding to someone who called me out. Very convincing."

You said you didn't post, and you did. Which is either an error (my assumption in posting it here) or a lie, since a "screw you guys, I'm taking my ball and going home" post is still a post.

Your characterization of recent events was fundamentally inaccurate, in such a way as to paint me in an unfavorable light. I corrected the record. So it goes.

I do not "get" Simers. Or rather, I don't think the shtick is funny. And sometimes, I don't even see the shtick, I just see bizarrely put together strings of thought. I don't find him interesting, but because I'm that way I usually click in and read the article.

I almost never, ever post without RTFA. In fact, I'd say I read 90% of the articles here, because I assume they're here because they contain information or insight I am without. And Simers never ever tells me anything I want to know. That's my main axe to grind. Maybe if he was harassing my favourite team I'd enjoy it more.

So really, I guess my beef is with Repoz.

Your characterization of recent events was fundamentally inaccurate, in such a way as to paint me in an unfavorable light. I corrected the record. So it goes.

Sorry. I'll make sure to be as hyper-literal as possible in all future dealings with you.

'Sorry. I'll make sure to be as hyper-literal as possible in all future dealings with you."

Sure. If by "be as hyper-literal as possible" you mean "describe things the way they actually happened", that'd be great.

every time i open the LA times comics pages on sunday, and see the incredible waste of space devoted to the steaming pile of cr@p that is outland, or whatever berke brethed is spewing up these days, i just want to scream. there are about five or six better strips out there that should run in its place.

Out of (counts) 29 strips the Sun-Times runs, I read three. And they're all inferior to the ones I can get only on-line (e.g., Achewood, White Ninja). One more data point for daily print news going the way of the dodo.

Out of (counts) 29 strips the Sun-Times runs, I read three. And they're all inferior to the ones I can get only on-line (e.g., Achewood, White Ninja). One more data point for daily print news going the way of the dodo.

Working for a paper, you should hear the hell we get for removing strips like Hagar and Beetle Bailey.

"Working for a paper, you should hear the hell we get for removing strips like Hagar and Beetle Bailey."

How about story strips, like Mary Worth or Rex Morgan, M.D.? I've never been able to find anybody who reads those...

OK, so I found the Pierre article. I didn't think it was as good as the first Kent one, but what's there to complain about? I read the thread again - I initially believed from the reactions that I've seen that Simers was another Mariotti so I hadn't paid too much attention - and thought "Whaa?" Posters I know and like expressing disgust that someone could make fun of a guy who says: "All I've ever done was be Juan Pierre" Amazing. Just goes to show what we've come to accept as normal from our sportspeople.

philistine, i seem to remember it was mostly about defending pierre as a nice guy, which is the rep he has around the league, from what little i know. nobody liked simers doing his usual simers dance on poor juan pierre, even though he is kind of crummy anymore. that was the beef i had with that little arc, and is the main criticism i have of simers, which is that he sometimes turns his beam on indiscriminately.
but i find myself reading him more, so maybe its working. i dunno.

How about story strips, like Mary Worth or Rex Morgan, M.D.? I've never been able to find anybody who reads those...

I began reading them after I started reading the Comics Curmudgeon. They're actually entertaining as hell if you read 'em right.

There's a pH imbalance here. PH, phredbird, AND philistine.

"There's a pH imbalance here."

Quick, somebody buy some Secret!

Why does Josh Fruhlinger complain or poke fun of comic strip panels that feature a disembodied head?

THis Shredder-Vlad back and forth brings up something interesting to me. What makes people post as often/seldom as they do. I have been a member of this site for 8 years and am closing in on 100 posts...not much. My threshold for posting is usually whether I have something to say that has not been said and is not likely to be said in the near future. Living on the west coast, that does not come up very often, but there is more to it than that.
We are like dogs pissing on posts, mostly the point is to announce "I AM HERE"...and of course, we have widely differing needs about these things, or some of us have other outlets for this.

I also belong to a swimming chatroom. The Dara Torres/steroid debate was fascinating...the Kevins and Nieporents were there as well...though I do have some sniffy ideas about the superiority of endurance sports people to team sports people...present company excepted as always.

Since I don't post enough to have a brand name, I am used to being ignored, but I'm OK, as I get my popcorn and settle down to another Bonds discussion...beats the hell out of reality TV

I keep returning becasue besides the chaff, this is the easiest way to gather a bunch of really good perpspectives on on a broad range of stuff, thanks guys...