Delete This Account

the sale of the home is news, i guess. the fact that his house was for sale was not. he told the AP in a story published in March that his home was up for sale because he was permanently relocating his family to Texas. should he elect to play this season, he would rent. jw

oh, sorry, must have misread it. why, is there some unwritten rule preventing that from happening? jw

sad, but true. jw

recovering from night of very heavy drinking with a certain TBDer. wow. jw

i question the logic behind unwritten rule 6, though i find much of these rules illegible at best. jw

that's why they're unwritten! jw

it doesn't bother me at all how ESPN or any other website presents the story, just so long as the AP is properly credited. what is a pet peeve of mine is when posters note a "Rotoworld tidbit" that's actually citing a Buffalo News article, or in this instance an AP story referred to as an "ESPN report." i realize in the big picture most readers don't refer to the bylines or credit lines, and simply say: "I read it on ESPN," or "I read in the local paper." to me, and every other self-respecting journalist out there, it does matter because we do like getting recognized for our work. that's all. and thanks to the OP for changing the thread title. jw

i'm told he's fluent in Mandarin. (shoulda put it in the story, but the piece was getting a little long already.) he's traveled with his parents to China several times. jw

what knocks me out is the amount of replies -- and how brutally ignorant some of them are -- that this story's generated. wow. jw

every once in a while in this business, the words come easy in writing a story that seems to flow across the screen without much heavy lifting. it doesn't happen that often, but it's always nice when it does. and let me tell you, the subject of this piece (not the writer) had everything to do with that. what a fine young man. UB Wrestler Dan Bishop jw

small point. it's an AP article posted on the ESPN website. jw

can't. i'm working late into the evening. i did do the dishes the past few nights, if that helps! jw

i respectfully disagree with some of your points. to go into detail would be too tiring. let's leave it at that. jw

she was already off to work. jw

waitasec, this things moderated? jw

see, and that's the thing about being a free-thinking individual living in a free society, whether it be here in the U.S. or in my native Canada. i'm allowed to do anything that is legal. to your point on the health system, well, given that the baby-boomers are growing old, they might be a much larger drain than anything else in years to come, and i don't think anyone's proposing a mass cull at this point yet. and i will not be moralized to or tut-tutted. that might be the worst thing you can do to someone with the non-conformist gene. it was the comedian dennis miller, i think, who said a long time ago that government can outlaw everything that is fun and enjoyable and somewhat unsafe, and yet people will still find a way to get their kicks, even it means spinning themselves around endless in the front yard until they become dizzy. that is the way humans are wired. this might rub you the wrong way, but my outlook towards living is that life will one day get you killed, and i plan to suck and drink and consume as much out of it as i can before i go, whenever that might be. and i don't plan to take the safe way out because (and this is the second time i've used this quote this week), as The Who once put it, "i hope i die before i get old." and, though Pete might not have realized this when he first penned that line, old can be a state of mind. with respect, jw EXPLANATORY NOTE: by consume, i meant eating. having the occassional meal that's lathered in butter or topped with a mound of bacon, or a bag of fries from the chip wagon across the river in fort erie.

look at it this way. i have to put up with a lot of baloney, too, that bugs me, raising my stress level to near nuclear proportions that will likely lead to my demise. and of course i'm talking about such things that others find popular, such as American Idol, the great entitlement people seem to get living in the cul de sac suburbs and, of course, the band nickleback. and yet, all of these things aren't unlawful and part of the popular landscape of dumbed down common denominatorism. the fact that i'm vehemently against all of these things -- plus a few more -- and they might cause my ultimate demise, i merely put up with them because i really have no other option. it's a free country. and yet, the fact that they are all out there haunting me, they will, in some heinous combination, conspire to one day make my head explode. i will take that risk for the common good and will do my best to avoid watching American Idol, not living in the cul de sac suburbs and walking out of any public facility or private business that happens to be playing the banal and evil creed. as a law-abiding smoker, i put up with all the rules and the evil looks and silly comments like, "heh, might be time to quit," or "hey, that's bad for you." yeah, "watch it crossing the street, too, buster." i will not be treated as some leper for doing something legal. and i am tired of being relegated as a second-class citizen. and i vow to quit once they remove all creed songs from the radio, muzak systems, the internet and everywhere else where that crap has insidiously infiltrated itself. and that is a promise (and one hell of a good rant). jw ADD: just got back from a smoke break and realized that i started with nickleback and then ended with creed. they're two god-awful bands that are easy to mix up. and my hope is that we be rid of both of them.

as it's been pointed out here, wait 'til they take away something you like. as to your other question, it's generally rendered moot given the few places people can now smoke. and given the few places people are now allowed to smoke, i generally don't honor such requests if i'm in a place i'm allowed to smoke. so if you want to stay away from smokers, stay away from smoking areas. anticipating a response of something like: "Why must smokers congregate outside of doorways?" well, the law's left us with no choice. and we're certainly eager to remind you that we're still here. curiously, i've had a theory on how airlines can deboard and board planes faster. put the smoker's up front. no, it's not a matter of allowing smokers to smoke. the fact is, the smokers are the ones who want to get off the plane the fastest so they can get outside the airport and congregate in front of entrances to lawfully do what they do. point is, there is no lollygagging for smokers when it comes to getting off planes. and by clearing out the first couple of rows quickly, the faster everyone gets off. jw

went to bed last night watching the rain fall, figuring there's no way i'm going golfing. woke up this morning to sun and drying sidewalks. gotta work at 1 p.m. what should i do? jw

i understand your point of view, murra. and i don't consider myself special. in fact, i don't want to be treated with kid gloves. that takes away from the free flow of information. my problem, however, is when i write something that's based in fact or based on my observations, such as what i wrote about Mr. Wilson, and am then challenged about them to the point where i'm called a clown or an idiot, well that's a little too much, don't you think? and shouldn't that apply to all posters, too? it's not criticism, per se, it's some (a very few) posters' desire to have at it without regard to decorum or respect, or to push buttons by ripping friends and colleagues. if i allow that to happen to my friends and colleagues without any type of response, then it could be regarded as me agreeing with what those posters have written. respectfully, jw

from all i've read about Tim Russert, and never having had a chance to meet him, you do him and his memory a huge dis-service with that post. jw

freudian slip. maybe you are feeling a little guilty. jw

hey, not a bad deal if you can get it. cabbage filled or potato. my mom's cabbage filled ones are tops. jw

and, you would be quickly forgotten. in the sports business, the quick move is to apologize even if you might not mean it, because the backlash becomes relentless as people seek their so-called pound of flesh. it's what doomed Tiger, i think, and has led to others reputations to be tarnished. Tiger, however, failed to use the Galileo defense. somehow, i doubt that would've worked there either. jw

and yet, many of those people you mention had something more to offer for being inclusive. and i can't see Thomas More going to the gallows because he failed to apologize for attacking someone in a Buffalo Bills internet post. Galileo, really? jw