I thought about putting this in "Other Sports" but nobody reads that part of the board. Maybe "About the Board" would be more appropriate.

"No surprise." Another Outsports cheap shot.

So now Outsports has a new talent: the ability to read the minds of 60,000 people sitting in a stadium, to know that they were booing McNabb and McNabb only. It couldn't possibly have been directed at anyone else, even if what should have been a rout was only a 20-7 game thanks to penalties and dropped passes, followed by a "defense" that allowed a 72-yard drive that took just 4 plays and 40 seconds, followed by an inexplicably stupid play call and an inexplicably inept pass that became an interception that was returned for a TD that took the lead away -- it couldn't possibly have been directed at anyone else but the quarterback. Of course, even if it were, seeing as how he's thrown interceptions at crucial point of the game for the THIRD consecutive week, one can make a case that some response is certainly appropriate even if he is hurting (of course, only a fool would suggest that if he's hurting that much he SHOULDN'T BE PLAYING).

So it's occurred to me that Outsports is like the rest of the sports media: ill-informed and all too quick to take the easy cheap shot. If you really want to be the gay ESPN, though, you'll need to hire a few loudmouth clowns. Are there any gay equivalents of Michael Irvin available?

The focal point in the Eagles success or failure would seem to be Andy Reid - not OS or ESPN.

As much as I like the guy, he is the one who has to make the decision to let McNabb play injured or put in a sub while the guy heals, has surgery or whatever it takes to get well. (I admit I'm biased since I've always thought McMahon was, and is, one of the sexiest QB's in the league.)

And who made the decision to throw that bad pass?

"Loudmouth clown", "gay equivalents of Michael Irvin"...luckily Outsports won't have to look far - PhillyFan is already a member and fills these qualifications perfectly.

[ November 16, 2005, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Jim at Outsports ]

Well the bulk of the booing I heard came after McNabb's INT and incompletions, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to assume most of that was directed at him. Nobody would have been booing the play calling if those throws were completed. And other than the one dropped by the rookie (forget his name), they were bad passes.

Dang JIP, welcome to the Dark Side. We have had a seat waiting for you!

Can’t you just chalk this up to “Typical.” At least somewhat of an opinion was put out there. Had the usual “Boo Santa” been thrown in, I would have said, nice copy and paste from an associated press article. If you wish to say how mean Eagle fans are, Perhaps one can mention the egging of the pokes bus. That would have been backing up your opinion. Then again, you probably would have had to watch TO countdo… oops Monday Night Countdown.

If you have not learned by now, those are used for “Comedy Purposes” only. I just wish Guns had been the ref for the game. Then the call would have been for more false start penalties or pretty “fun loving” taunting of the other team (only if you smile).

My question is, at what time does an athlete lose the “You can’t boo him” label? He had just thrown an INT for a TD, then went 3 and out and his passes didn’t come within 10 yards of the intended target, plus you are about to lose a game that got you right back into the division, and be playing for first place next week. Nope, no reason to boo or nuttun there kids. They should have cheered him! WAY TO GO, KEEP FIGHTING GUYS! YEAH TEAM! WE LOVE YOU!

This just in, that will not happen. Assuming it was Dmac (and not the team, which is what they typically boo, but you would have to watch more than just highlights to figure this out) that the fans felt needed a rowdy boo fest… HE’S BEEN BOO’D FOR LESS! Just ask Iverson, Barkley, Schmidt, Jaws, Cunningham, Buddy Ryan, and Vermeil. Then go ahead and ask them which fans they want to play for, love, and completely respect. That is something some hack writer will never take away or understand.

Good post, JIP.

The fact that you were the one to write it lends even further credibility to the topic at hand.

Keep up the good work.

So JIP, is "Outsports" a person, place or thing? wink

You know, I was thinking of a reply on this...

...yes, something on the order of \"While some gay people are wonderful, gracious people, a select few are disease-spreading child molesters...you can imagine how nice it is to see them beaten up, despite how much I may like most of the other gay people.\" But then I became confused by this...

...but it all made sense when I just now pulled the string on the back of my Malibu Cyd doll (available at fine toy retailers in the town of Springfield, USA) and it said "Math is hard!"

WOW eek!

My first drink tonight is honor of JiP

One game, two games, 3 games, 4 games...

eh, it's just math.

Not that there is anything wrong with that..

I know an OS'er who was a math major, maybe we can have him break down the standings for us.

[ November 18, 2005, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

I'm willing to try to break down the standings for other Outsporters, but first I must make sure that we are dealing with a set of axiomatic principles. Afterall, if we are not dealing with an axiomatic set, then we can just make anything up and prove it so.

I believe the problem and confusion may arise from the fact that the typical transitive property does not hold true. However, we can still have a set of axiomatice principles without the transitive property. We made need to make the assumption that a win is a win and counts as a win, and a loss is a loss and counts as a loss. I believe based on this I may have enough to prove that the standings follow a set of axiomatic principles.

Just go to Reno already.

axiomatic. No one is buying your Montana education.

Ben Frankin once said...

"Treason is a charge invented by winners as an excuse for hanging the losers."