We all know people who talk a lot and say nothing. For the most part we try to avoid them.

We fell short in other ways," Kasten says.

When asked to explain what that means, he says, "It means what it means."

And what does that mean?

"Just leave it at that," says Kasten.

He is highlighting the emptiness of Kasten's and, later, Magic Johnson's, comments.

You want this sort of thing to go unchallenged:

#7 I didnt take it to be a criticism. I was merely engaging in the interesting debate that you opened on the meaning of blowhard. Apologies if my reply appeared in any way defensive. It was not intended as such. I took the meaning as used by TJ to mean a blustering pompous person.

Unless you are either his sockpuppet, or are intelligent enough to read and understand what he is actually saying. I would say the exact opposite and declare that it is impossible to think he would do anything other than challenge that sort of comment. And even if his previous work were as empty and spiteful as many here would claim, to forbid him from being able to change and and write any future work of merit or purpose is something I would not have expected from a poster like you Lassus.

Since this is a Dodgers thread: Dodgers sign Ethier to a 5 year/85M extension with a vesting 6th year.

And even if his previous work were as empty and spiteful as many here would claim, to forbid him from being able to change and and write any future work of merit or purpose is something I would not have expected from a poster like you Lassus.

You want this sort of thing to go unchallenged

Why not just say: 'Yes, I want this sort of thing to go unchallenged!"

Or as Simers says: "Now when you can't explain the small stuff, what happens when it comes time to comment on monumental decisions?"

I don't know much about Simers, but I do know that Nationals' fans were often entertained by Chris Needham's Kasten-speak translator on the Capitol Punishment blog.

Bring Me was praising him for his concise economy of style earlier.

"There are exactly two sentences about Magic Johnson in the piece, one of which was composed by Johnson himself. That's some great 'highlighting', TJ."

RTFA, I see Kasten up to his old tricks again. The Dodgers apparently couldn't offer something Soler wanted, but it definitely wasn't money, and Stan's not telling TJ.

And I predict he won't tell anyone.

What is the point of such empty tributes?

But why is it nothing of value? Johnson's phrase meant nothing and was insincere. What is the point of such empty tributes? To demonstrate insincerity is not pointless. Whereas pretending it isn't there is harmful.

But why is it nothing of value? Johnson's phrase meant nothing and was insincere.

What is the point of such empty tributes?

In the end it simply looks like Simers is angry that they appear to have a PR setup that isn't incompetent.

It is worthy of mention if it is funny. TJ tries to get laughs.

Athletes are a legitimate target for humor if they demonstrate pomposity, insincerity or any other vice.

But it is newsworthy if the new owner isn't prepared to answer questions.

Why do you people get so upset with the messenger when he points out your ownership stinks?

People got more upset with Simers than they did about the parking lot attendant.

If I'm in the unreasonable minority, so be it.

And where does Simers provide any evidence that Johnson wasn't being sincere, again? Or are we just supposed to take that bit on faith?

You rely on kneejerk reactions and received ideas and make assertions based on prejudice and impressions rather than quoting real examples.

It is the law of satire. Simers is not a bully...

tweaking the idea that Magic Johnson is a savior

He's taking on management on important issues, and tweaking the idea that Magic Johnson is a savior.

Simers can be a dick. That's his schtick, and a successful one. That he's got plenty of haters is not disconnected to why he's still around. But in this instance, I don't get the complaints. He's taking on management on important issues, and tweaking the idea that Magic Johnson is a savior.

Every thread here seems to become a referendum on the entire career of the person in question, or a verdict on his character. That people can't evaluate events and arguments on their own merits is troubling.

How is Jarrin's day connected in any way to the idea that "Magic Johnson is a savior"? Because I'm not getting the connection at all.

53. philistine Posted: June 12, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4155141)
I But in this instance, I don't get the complaints. He's taking on management on important issues, and tweaking the idea that Magic Johnson is a savior.

But he nearly always takes on management. And when he doesn't, he takes on self-important or rude jerks like Marcus Tims

OK, so players grow up with an ill mother or as an orphan, but at what point do they have to start talking to people in a normal way and not use the third person to talk about themselves?

Srul, in the world of Primer, it is some achievement to be the biggest jerk on here. I salute you. I suspect that even in a room full of lawyers you'd stand out as an arse.

"There is a fine old story about a student who came to a rabbi and said, ‘In the olden days there were men who saw the face of God.  Why don’t they any more?’  The rabbi replied, ‘Because nowadays no one can stoop low enough.’”  (C. G. Jung, Memories, Dreams, Reflections, p. 355)

I dont remember exactly his Thames encounter. I certainly dont recall the When did you stop beating your wife question. My memory is that Thames refused to speak to him, which I consider to be rude.

Well Lassus is aligning himself with the majority who see the word Simers and say what a jerk. You embody this prejudice Bring, and I merely react to your posts to point out their erroneousness.

In Simers I see something that I don't see in any other sportswriter in the world. He says what he thinks and he really doesn't care who he upsets.

And people call him cowardly? That's wrong.

I don't understand why the people get angry with him or refuse to notice it when he points out the management sucks.

TJ's attitude of not caring whom he upsets could be a problem if he insults people for being ugly, as BBC suggests. But I don't believe he ever does that.

Apart from the fact that I find Simers hilarious when he's at his best, what I liked about the Jeff Kent articles, and the way he brought in other guys like Russ Martin etc, was the insight you got into their characters and what went on in the clubhouse. (From my point of view, that kind of insight was the biggest success about Moneyball.) I also like the way he tells the stories in a non-straightforward way, but this seems to offend some people who like more rigid and easy-to-follow sentence structures, which to me is like complaining about Picasso's inability to paint recognizable faces.

Simers, it seems to me, is relentless in his criticism of McCourt over a bazillion things. Quite a few are mentioned in this article.

As a satirist, his responsibility is to point out hypocrisy, humbug and injustice as it affects his readers, who are the sports fans of LA, and make them laugh as he does it. In my opinion he does exactly this. The article is a great example of that.

Simers would like his readers to have a good baseball team. He points out the reasons why the owners aren't trying to provide that and the examples of their hypocrisy and ill-use of the money that they have taken from the paying public of LA. Why such hostility? He's on the people's side against the owners who aren't trying, who are keeping money for themselves that should be spent on a baseball team. Every team needs a vociferous watchdog like Simers.

It's not Simers' job, as an employee of the LA Times, to be an investigative journalist for MLB nor is he going to crunch numbers to please the geeks on here. He's a smartass columnist. You may not like that or want that and there is no argument on this issue. Just don't say he writes what everyone else does, because that patently isn't so and don't accuse his writing of being fluff or bland. I think he fights the good fight so more power to his pen.

You sure? Look, I think there is scope to criticize Simers. But implying he takes shots only at easy targets is wrong. He aims at Moreno, who's a powerful man with powerful friends. It's not the superficial writing of a 12 year old girl either. Loads of other insults on here about him completely miss the target too. So yes, I think there is a glaring deficit in some people's comprehension skills.

Simers is more of a diarist than a journalist. He's telling me about his day that he's been lucky enough to spend in the clubhouse. It's his column not an objective piece of reporting.

I enjoy the pictures he paints and have grown to enjoy the comments and insults from you guys afterwards. I'm still waiting for an "I had an email from Vlad" in one of his pieces. Please let it happen one day!

"Are you that horrible on defense that teams don't think it's worth playing such a home run threat?'' I asked by way of introduction.

"As you know, Fox will be broadcasting the World Series and it likes to put the camera on the face of every single fan sitting in the stands, these [Philadelphia] fans as ugly as any in the country." -T.J. Simers, October 20, 2009

I still do keep an eye out for rlm!

a satirist

I still do keep an eye out for rlm! If he pops up, he gets permabanned instantly.

I love how philistine at various times describes Simers as a beat writer,

Empathy is not the most pleasant experience in the world.

I could tell you the most pleasant experience in the world, but you'd probably wince.