PDA

View Full Version : Another Phil Rogers Dandy This Morning


Brian26
01-13-2008, 04:33 PM
I read this in the paper this morning and almost spit out my coffee. Phil Rogers openly admits that he "forgot" to vote for Harold Baines on the HOF ballot. For a professional writer to even let this happen is beyond comprehension.

Phil Rogers Trib article (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080112philrogersharoldbaines,1,1534109.column?coll =cs-whitesox-headlines)

In early January, shortly after the deadline for voting, I realized that I had meant to vote for seven players but had voted for six. I omitted Baines through an oversight, not any change in believing him worthy of the honor.

Rogers says that Baines received the exact number of votes to stay on the ballot this year. One less vote for him, and he would have been taken off. Unbelievable.

the1tab
01-13-2008, 05:07 PM
Is there a thread for "Reasons to hate Phil Rogers"?

This would be exhibit 1,473-B

Frater Perdurabo
01-13-2008, 05:16 PM
I read the same thing and my impression was, "Wow, Phil Rogers is a stand up guy. Kudos to him for admitting his mistake."

oeo
01-13-2008, 06:12 PM
I read the same thing and my impression was, "Wow, Phil Rogers is a stand up guy. Kudos to him for admitting his mistake."

I think the problem is that he overlooked Baines in the first place. Shouldn't he be checking that ballot over at least a few different times to make sure everything is A-okay? Sounds like Phil gets lazy in everything he does.

Frater Perdurabo
01-13-2008, 07:01 PM
Sounds like Phil gets lazy in everything he does.

To err is human; to forgive divine; to hyperventilate is WSI. :rolleyes:

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 07:09 PM
Well, to be fair, Phil Rogers is a muckracking sports "journalist"

Or at least, he has become one

oeo
01-13-2008, 07:12 PM
To err is human; to forgive divine; to hyperventilate is WSI. :rolleyes:

The point is, he shouldn't be making an error on it. At least he admitted it, but he should feel like a dumbass for overlooking someone...geesh, how difficult can it be? Next time around, he should make sure he's got everything right.

Frater Perdurabo
01-13-2008, 07:20 PM
The point is, he shouldn't be making an error on it. At least he admitted it, but he should feel like a dumbass for overlooking someone...geesh, how difficult can it be? Next time around, he should make sure he's got everything right.

I'm so glad you've never made a mistake. :?:

Lip Man 1
01-13-2008, 07:31 PM
He made a mistake, he owned up to it. What is the issue?

I understand that it could have had serious consequences but it's not like he deliberately screwed up right? He made a mistake. Period. End of story.

Lip

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 07:33 PM
I'm so glad you've never made a mistake. :?:

When nearly every column by Phil Rogers in recent memory contains errors either in judgment or in practice, then yes, I think it's fair to take that person to task for continuing to make errors.

Maybe it's time for Phil Rogers to try "Thinking things through"...

Ridiculous errors made my Rogers recently:

1.) Writing time and again how Kenny was too cheap to resign Burly
2.) Talking about what a proven pitcher McCarthy was
3.) Creating a point system in which every veteran lost is a negative point and every veteran gained is a positive point and using that to grade offseason acquisitions
4.)Saying "the news is getting better for Sox fans, they're just not clever enough to realize it"
5.) Suggested the Sox trade Danks to reacquire Chris Young
6.) Suggests the Sox trade MacDougal to Phillies for Rowand as if the Phillies would take MacDougal for Rowand
7.) The day after Burly's no-hitter, mentions in his column how this is a bittersweet moment because there's no way the Sox will resign Burly.

And a bunch of other crap...I'm sure other members here could fill in the blanks if you need it.

Phil Rogers has become the worst writer in Chicago. At least Mariotti doesn't pretend to have any knowledge of what he writes about. He just brays loudly. Rogers distorts facts and statistics to try to "prove" his point.

Brian26
01-13-2008, 07:55 PM
To err is human; to forgive divine; to hyperventilate is WSI. :rolleyes:

Save the eyerolls; There's no hyperventilating going on. Rather, we're discussing the comical absurdity associated with a professional journalist forgetting to count the number of boxes he checked on a Hall of Fame ballot.

Grzegorz
01-13-2008, 07:56 PM
He made a mistake, he owned up to it. What is the issue?
Lip

I am with you; there is no issue. I am not sure that Harold Baines belongs in the HoF.

That sentiment is from someone who loved Harold Baines as a player.

bigfoot
01-13-2008, 07:56 PM
I read this in the paper this morning and almost spit out my coffee. Phil Rogers openly admits that he "forgot" to vote for Harold Baines on the HOF ballot. For a professional writer to even let this happen is beyond comprehension.

Phil Rogers Trib article (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-080112philrogersharoldbaines,1,1534109.column?coll =cs-whitesox-headlines)



Rogers says that Baines received the exact number of votes to stay on the ballot this year. One less vote for him, and he would have been taken off. Unbelievable.

Perhaps PR could have been as cavalier as Rick Telander regarding his voting for the HOF. Telander was quite unapologetic in his explanation for not voting at all in this years ballotting. That makes two votes that Harold didn't get from the ChiSportsWriters, so far. Anyone else want to come clean?
http://www.suntimes.com/sports/telander/732287,CST-SPT-rick09.article

DrCrawdad
01-13-2008, 08:01 PM
I'm so glad you've never made a mistake. :?:

I thought I made a mistake once, but I was wrong.

Brian26
01-13-2008, 08:03 PM
I am with you; there is no issue. I am not sure that Harold Baines belongs in the HoF.

That sentiment is from someone who loved Harold Baines as a player.

That's not really the issue though. Whether or not he truly belongs in the Hall, Rogers admitted that he meant to vote for him (supposedly) but forgot to check the ballot.

Grzegorz
01-13-2008, 08:19 PM
That's not really the issue though. Whether or not he truly belongs in the Hall, Rogers admitted that he meant to vote for him (supposedly) but forgot to check the ballot.

Yep, you're right. I am on a roll this weekend that's for sure!

While I am in this hole with a spade why not keep digging? :D:

Why would PR push this type of story if it was not true? What is his gain?

Frater Perdurabo
01-13-2008, 08:23 PM
If Rogers hadn't written about it, none of you incessant bloviators would have known anything about his mistake. Some of you just like to ***** for the sake of *****ing.

spiffie
01-13-2008, 08:31 PM
If Rogers hadn't written about it, none of you incessant bloviators would have known anything about his mistake. Some of you just like to ***** for the sake of *****ing.
If he'd just quit writing altogether I promise we'd all stop complaining about him.

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 08:39 PM
If Rogers hadn't written about it, none of you incessant bloviators would have known anything about his mistake. Some of you just like to ***** for the sake of *****ing.

So if a horrible journalist who constantly makes mistakes admits making yet another embarrassing, very serious mistake, it shouldn't be mentioned because "if he hadn't written about it, we never would have known! what a lionhearted man! what king of kings! what valour phil rogers!"

So in other words: keep on writing ridiculously ill-founded columns, Phil Rogers. Continue making stupid mistakes that could have cost a man (deserving or not) a spot on the ballot for an honor you feel he deserved. Frater Perdurabo doesn't care as long as you apologize for it!!!!!

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 08:42 PM
In other news, Tony Romo took a knee on third and long today while his Cowboys trailed the Giants 17-21 with 3 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

Romo had this to say in his post-game press conference:

"Oops! My bad! I thought it was 21-17 OUR lead! What? Haven't any of you guys made a mistake before? GEEZ. These things happen. And anyway: I admitted it. You probably wouldn't even have known about it if I hadn't admitted it."

WhiteSox5187
01-13-2008, 08:48 PM
This is ridiculous, I read the article today and thought it was a damn good article stating the case for Baines in the Hall. It's reached the point where now anyone who dares to criticize the White Sox is a kin to Mariotti. Last year he was saying the Sox should re-sign Buerhle and when they did, he gave them kudos for doing so. He criticized the Freddy trade only because he thought they could have gotten more, he blasted the McCarthy trade (calling him a proven work horse was stupid) but later came around and said it was a good trade. I don't have a problem with what Phil writes. Before people point out the Swisher trade, his point was "It makes the Sox better for 2008, but it's not as if they are one player away from winning the division" and I have to agree with him here. Now if the Sox win the division and Swisher is a big leader, he will come out and say he is wrong.

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 08:51 PM
This is ridiculous, I read the article today and thought it was a damn good article stating the case for Baines in the Hall. It's reached the point where now anyone who dares to criticize the White Sox is a kin to Mariotti. Last year he was saying the Sox should re-sign Buerhle and when they did, he gave them kudos for doing so. He criticized the Freddy trade only because he thought they could have gotten more, he blasted the McCarthy trade (calling him a proven work horse was stupid) but later came around and said it was a good trade. I don't have a problem with what Phil writes. Before people point out the Swisher trade, his point was "It makes the Sox better for 2008, but it's not as if they are one player away from winning the division" and I have to agree with him here. Now if the Sox win the division and Swisher is a big leader, he will come out and say he is wrong.

You make it sound like all he did was propose that "The White Sox should sign Burly!", "Maybe the Freddy Trade was Bad????" and "McCarthy would have been nice to have"

No.

He blasted Kenny and JR, saying that

a.) The Sox were too cheap to sign Burly and the whole pitching staff was going to get blown up in a quote/unquote despicable move by JR and Kenny.

b.) The Freddy trade showed that Kenny was going to blow up the pitching staff because Kenny was too gunshy to resign a pitcher.

c.) The McCarthy trade was not just "trading a proven workhorse" but somehow part of Kenny's insidious plot to cut payroll and blow up the rotation (even though Danks and McCarthy make similar salaries...I guess he thought Kenny though McCarthy was due for a big payday:rolleyes:)

Phil Rogers is a muckraker. Plain and simple.

And to make it out like he's just trying to search for the truth and look out for the best interest of Sox fans is ridiculous.

Phil Rogers=Hangar 18. Plain and simple.

Brian26
01-13-2008, 08:59 PM
This is ridiculous, I read the article today and thought it was a damn good article stating the case for Baines in the Hall. It's reached the point where now anyone who dares to criticize the White Sox is a kin to Mariotti. Last year he was saying the Sox should re-sign Buerhle and when they did, he gave them kudos for doing so. He criticized the Freddy trade only because he thought they could have gotten more, he blasted the McCarthy trade (calling him a proven work horse was stupid) but later came around and said it was a good trade. I don't have a problem with what Phil writes. Before people point out the Swisher trade, his point was "It makes the Sox better for 2008, but it's not as if they are one player away from winning the division" and I have to agree with him here. Now if the Sox win the division and Swisher is a big leader, he will come out and say he is wrong.

Again, we're not necessarily arguing whether or not Baines deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. We're just discussing the comedy hi-jinx of Phil Rogers not proof-reading the Hall of Fame ballot before he turned it in. That's like submitting your tax forms in April without signing them.

Brian26
01-13-2008, 09:03 PM
Phil Rogers=Hangar 18. Plain and simple.

WSI gets a cumulative offseason score of -1 on that one since Henry doesn't post here anymore.

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 09:11 PM
WSI gets a cumulative offseason score of -1 on that one since Henry doesn't post here anymore.

:o:

Brian26
01-13-2008, 09:44 PM
:o:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96436

dickallen15
01-13-2008, 09:45 PM
While Harold was a nice player, he's not going to make the HOF and Rogers forgetting to vote for him won't affect that one way or the other. Perhaps it might have knocked him off the ballot, but really what does that matter? He admitted a mistake no one here would have known about and used it to write a pro-Baines in the Hall article, yet people around here have to complain about it. Really.

jabrch
01-13-2008, 09:45 PM
He made a mistake, he owned up to it. What is the issue?

The issue is that he is entrusted with a vote for the HOF and he was so careless in his use of that vote that he "forgot" to vote for someone. That's unforgiveable. This is not like leaving your homework at home.

I don't believe that he belongs in the HOF to begin with - but to be so careless to "forget" is ridiculous.

dickallen15
01-13-2008, 09:46 PM
The issue is that he is entrusted with a vote for the HOF and he was so careless in his use of that vote that he "forgot" to vote for someone. That's unforgiveable. This is not like leaving your homework at home.
Judging by the vote totals, Harold is apparently easy to forget.

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 09:48 PM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96436


Yea. I saw it on FireJayMorgan. Another winner for Phil

jabrch
01-13-2008, 09:49 PM
Judging by the vote totals, Harold is apparently easy to forget.

Or undeserving - but that is a different story.

Frater Perdurabo
01-13-2008, 10:10 PM
Phil Rogers gets paid to do his job, so by definition he is a professional.

I take it that each of you has a job. So you are being paid to do something and therefore each of you is a "professional." Have none of you ever made a mistake on the job?

Every day professionals make honest mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes lead to unnecessary suffering and even death. Sometimes doctors make honest mistakes in diagnosing a patient's condition. Sometimes soldiers accidentally fire on their own forces.

The amount of filibustering about this remarkably insignificant issue is embarrassing, especially considering we're all living in glass houses...

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 10:13 PM
Phil Rogers gets paid to do his job, so by definition he is a professional.

I take it that each of you has a job. So you are being paid to do something and therefore each of you is a "professional." Have none of you ever made a mistake on the job?

Every day professionals make honest mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes lead to unnecessary suffering and even death. Sometimes doctors make honest mistakes in diagnosing a patient's condition. Sometimes soldiers accidentally fire on their own forces.

The amount of filibustering about this remarkably insignificant issue is embarrassing, especially considering we're all living in glass houses...

You have got to be kidding me.

What part of "Phil Rogers constantly makes stupid, inexcusable mistakes" dont' you understand?

Yes, I have a job. Yes I would hope ONE mistake would be excused. I would hope even two or three mistakes would be excused.

However, if I was more often than not making mistakes, then very publicly calling attention to a rather large mistake I made would be a stupid idea.

It would also be a stupid idea to MAKE that rather large mistake in the first place...although I guess it would be right in line with the myriad other mistakes

Frater Perdurabo
01-13-2008, 10:18 PM
What part of "Phil Rogers constantly makes stupid, inexcusable mistakes" dont' you understand?

I understand perfectly. I just disagree with your characterization that he "constantly makes stupid, inexcusable mistakes."

He has made a few mistakes. And he usually owns up to them. And I give him kudos for being man enough to do so.

fquaye149
01-13-2008, 10:23 PM
I understand perfectly. I just disagree with your characterization that he "constantly makes stupid, inexcusable mistakes."

He has made a few mistakes. And he usually owns up to them. And I give him kudos for being man enough to do so.

It would be better if he saved the misguided, illogical vitriol altogether. Then he wouldn't have to make up for it.

You make a mistake once, you apologize for it, kudos to you.
You make the same mistake again, you apologize for it, and it's nice you apologized, but don't make the mistake again.
You make the mistake again and again, spare me the apology and just shut your yap altogether.

You cease being a stand-up guy after about the 50th time. At that point you're just incompetent

soxinem1
01-13-2008, 11:06 PM
While I usually feel critical of most Phil Rogers articles, this one I do not take issue with.

First, he is one of few sportswriters who is taking up the cause of getting Harold elected to the HOF.

He also admits his mistake of forgetting to vote for him. He actually shows some integrity by making this statement. Geez, he made a mistake, and acknowledged doing it. He didn't have to say anything, kept it to himself, and this wouldn't be an issue.

So he hypes Baines for the HOF, forgets to vote for him, and gets blasted? Why? He wasn't getting in anyway, and now he is trying to advocate his future election.

I am no Phil Rogers fan, but I'll give credit where credit is due.

If anything, I applaude his efforts to bring some attention to one of the most over-looked and most productive players in MLB from 1980-1998.

WhiteSox5187
01-14-2008, 04:49 AM
You make it sound like all he did was propose that "The White Sox should sign Burly!", "Maybe the Freddy Trade was Bad????" and "McCarthy would have been nice to have"

No.

He blasted Kenny and JR, saying that

a.) The Sox were too cheap to sign Burly and the whole pitching staff was going to get blown up in a quote/unquote despicable move by JR and Kenny.

b.) The Freddy trade showed that Kenny was going to blow up the pitching staff because Kenny was too gunshy to resign a pitcher.

c.) The McCarthy trade was not just "trading a proven workhorse" but somehow part of Kenny's insidious plot to cut payroll and blow up the rotation (even though Danks and McCarthy make similar salaries...I guess he thought Kenny though McCarthy was due for a big payday:rolleyes:)

Phil Rogers is a muckraker. Plain and simple.

And to make it out like he's just trying to search for the truth and look out for the best interest of Sox fans is ridiculous.

Phil Rogers=Hangar 18. Plain and simple.
I think you totally misread his articles, he was criticizing the Sox for not offering Buerhle a fourth year (which they eventually did, obviously) stating that there are times when a pitcher is the exception to the rule. He wrote an article right before the signing saying that the while the Sox policy of offering three years to a pitcher generally makes sense, they should make an exception for Buerhle and if another pitcher came around and said "I want four year cuz you gave Buerhle four years" the Sox should say "When you pitch on average two hundred innings a year with fourteen wins an ERA in the low fours, have shown nothing but loyalty to us for your entire career here and have won over one hundred games for us, THEN you can get a fourth year." I dont' think Phil Rogers was being unreasonable when saying that Kenny should sign Buerhle, it's not as if he was asking for a Soriano like contract, the contract Buerhle was after was a bargain and he was upset that the Sox didn't take it sooner. I was upset too, but ultimately the right move was made and Buerhle re-signed with us. WHen that happened Phil wrote an article praising the Sox for re-signing him but critical as to why it took so long.

As for the Freddy trade, he was suggesting that it looked as if the Sox were stock piling pitching for the future and were preparing to lose Garland and Buerhle either via trade or Free Agency. I have to say, that policy makes sense, the market around that time was insane and we didn't know exactly what Buerhle would ask for and the same with Garland. When you look at the fact that we came very close to trading Buerhle and traded Garland I'd have to say that Phil was write, Kenny was making trades with more of a long term outlook instead of getting pieces that could help us win in 2007. Seeing as how Gavin Floyd didn't help us win anything in '07 but could potentially help us win the division in '08 I'd again say Phil was right.

As for the McCarthy trade, Phil was wrong on that and later came about and admitted it saying "In retro-respect, it was a good trade." And at the time I (along with all but like, two other people) hated the trade as well. I thought we were trading a major league ready pitcher (not a proven work horse, but I was feeling comfortable with McCarthy tagged for the fifth spot) for a couple of kids who I believe never pitched above AA ball. I was thinking "Oh no! We're going back to '04 where we have that massive hole in the fifth spot again!" I think Phil was thinking that and certainly there were a lot of people here who were thinking that (though they won't admit it). Later it turned out that Danks could hold his own and the fact that McCarthy got lit up and later hurt, it didn't look like such a bad trade and I'll admit that I was wrong and so did Phil.

To call Phil Rogers a muckracker is ridiculous.

DumpJerry
01-14-2008, 08:14 AM
Cut Phil some slack. He was dsitracted figuring out the +/- impact on the Cubs the alleged Roberts acquisition would bring.

He was also very busy catching up on his hate mail from some guy who calls himself Fquaye.

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 08:17 AM
I think you totally misread his articles, he was criticizing the Sox for not offering Buerhle a fourth year (which they eventually did, obviously) stating that there are times when a pitcher is the exception to the rule. He wrote an article right before the signing saying that the while the Sox policy of offering three years to a pitcher generally makes sense, they should make an exception for Buerhle and if another pitcher came around and said "I want four year cuz you gave Buerhle four years" the Sox should say "When you pitch on average two hundred innings a year with fourteen wins an ERA in the low fours, have shown nothing but loyalty to us for your entire career here and have won over one hundred games for us, THEN you can get a fourth year." I dont' think Phil Rogers was being unreasonable when saying that Kenny should sign Buerhle, it's not as if he was asking for a Soriano like contract, the contract Buerhle was after was a bargain and he was upset that the Sox didn't take it sooner. I was upset too, but ultimately the right move was made and Buerhle re-signed with us. WHen that happened Phil wrote an article praising the Sox for re-signing him but critical as to why it took so long.

As for the Freddy trade, he was suggesting that it looked as if the Sox were stock piling pitching for the future and were preparing to lose Garland and Buerhle either via trade or Free Agency. I have to say, that policy makes sense, the market around that time was insane and we didn't know exactly what Buerhle would ask for and the same with Garland. When you look at the fact that we came very close to trading Buerhle and traded Garland I'd have to say that Phil was write, Kenny was making trades with more of a long term outlook instead of getting pieces that could help us win in 2007. Seeing as how Gavin Floyd didn't help us win anything in '07 but could potentially help us win the division in '08 I'd again say Phil was right.

As for the McCarthy trade, Phil was wrong on that and later came about and admitted it saying "In retro-respect, it was a good trade." And at the time I (along with all but like, two other people) hated the trade as well. I thought we were trading a major league ready pitcher (not a proven work horse, but I was feeling comfortable with McCarthy tagged for the fifth spot) for a couple of kids who I believe never pitched above AA ball. I was thinking "Oh no! We're going back to '04 where we have that massive hole in the fifth spot again!" I think Phil was thinking that and certainly there were a lot of people here who were thinking that (though they won't admit it). Later it turned out that Danks could hold his own and the fact that McCarthy got lit up and later hurt, it didn't look like such a bad trade and I'll admit that I was wrong and so did Phil.

To call Phil Rogers a muckracker is ridiculous.

I know how to read. You can revise history all you want, especially since the Tribune has taken down those old articles, but Phil used the words "cheap" and "despicable" to describe Kenny's plan. You make it sound like he was respectfully disagreeing with the moves made.

Hardly.

If I had 3 hours to spare, I'd go through some of the recent "Phil Rogers" threads on this forum. For every positive one there are 5-6 negative ones.

Your apology for Rogers is bordering on ridiculous at this point

Cut Phil some slack. He was dsitracted figuring out the +/- impact on the Cubs the alleged Roberts acquisition would bring.

He was also very busy catching up on his hate mail from some guy who calls himself Fquaye.

I wouldn't waste my time. I just stopped reading :shrug:

DumpJerry
01-14-2008, 08:20 AM
I wouldn't waste my time. I just stopped reading :shrug:
Come on. Put your money where your mouth is. Tell him, instead of us, what you think of him. I dare ya.

Be sure to include your address and phone number so you can discuss his writing style and skills with him.

Oblong
01-14-2008, 08:33 AM
I wish the HOF voters cared as much about it as it appears baseball fans do.

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 08:39 AM
Come on. Put your money where your mouth is. Tell him, instead of us, what you think of him. I dare ya.

Be sure to include your address and phone number so you can discuss his writing style and skills with him.

:rolleyes: Muckrakers like what Phil has become thrive on attention.

Plus I don't feel like it, no matter how much you "dare me" to "put my money where my mouth is," what ever that means. What, do you think he's going to, like, tear me apart and leave me in a corner huddling? Not hardly.

If I have 3 minutes on this board and feel like venting, I'll do that, but I'm certainly not going to attempt to have a conversation with a lousy sports journalist

TomBradley72
01-14-2008, 08:51 AM
I'll give props to Phil for owning up to his mistake and for dedicating most of a Sunday column to Harold Baines. I believe that brings the total number of columnists in the United States who will dedicate a column to Harold to exactly: 1.

I don't agree with most of his columns about the White Sox (or the Cubs for that matter), but in my opinion...terms like "muckraker",etc...are over the top.

eastchicagosoxfan
01-14-2008, 09:02 AM
Rogers wrote it, and made it public, but I think the matter is really between Baines and Rogers. If Baines cuts Rogers slack, shouldn't everyone else give it a break?

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 11:50 AM
I'll give props to Phil for owning up to his mistake and for dedicating most of a Sunday column to Harold Baines. I believe that brings the total number of columnists in the United States who will dedicate a column to Harold to exactly: 1.

I don't agree with most of his columns about the White Sox (or the Cubs for that matter), but in my opinion...terms like "muckraker",etc...are over the top.

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=96436&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=95856&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=95350&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=94883&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=93464&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=91922&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=89510&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=89311&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=88296&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=86569&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=85521&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=85098&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84988&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84848&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84758&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84335&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84240&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=84081&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=83380&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=83192&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=83468&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=83010&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82631&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82485&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82673&highlight=phil+rogers
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=82019&highlight=phil+rogers


And that's just from the first page of the WSI "Phil Rogers" title search.

Ok..would "hack writer" be better than "muckraker"?

Gammons Peter
01-14-2008, 11:58 AM
Remember this gem from Phil in early December:

"For White Sox fans, the news just keeps getting better and better. They're probably just not clever enough to realize it."

This guy is a stroke of epic proportions, he is no better than Jay Mariotti.

DumpJerry
01-14-2008, 12:03 PM
:rolleyes: Muckrakers like what Phil has become thrive on attention.

Plus I don't feel like it, no matter how much you "dare me" to "put my money where my mouth is," what ever that means. What, do you think he's going to, like, tear me apart and leave me in a corner huddling? Not hardly.

If I have 3 minutes on this board and feel like venting, I'll do that, but I'm certainly not going to attempt to have a conversation with a lousy sports journalist
It seems like you have strong opinions about Mr. Rogers. I was merely suggesting a way to let him know exactly how you feel. I seriously doubt he'll rip you a new one.

One tip before you write to him: be sure to use the word "Muckraker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker)" correctly. In fact, before you use it here again, make sure you're using it correctly. (one clue: muckrakers were highly regarded writers whose contributions to society were extremely valuable. But since you're Mr. English Professor Extrodinaire, you already know about The Jungle).

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 12:17 PM
It seems like you have strong opinions about Mr. Rogers. I was merely suggesting a way to let him know exactly how you feel. I seriously doubt he'll rip you a new one.

One tip before you write to him: be sure to use the word "Muckraker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muckraker)" correctly. In fact, before you use it here again, make sure you're using it correctly. (one clue: muckrakers were highly regarded writers whose contributions to society were extremely valuable. But since you're Mr. English Professor Extrodinaire, you already know about The Jungle).

Yes, that's what muckraker originally meant. And what is muck? (i'll give you a hint--it's a synonym for your user handle) Clearly based on the responses to my epithet in this thread, most people associate it with the negative connotations its original coiners meant it to carry.

At any rate, thanks for the brilliant suggestion. I'm just curious what that has to do with "putting my money where my mouth is".

If you're really still salty about me pointing out the hypocrisy of a sloppy poster like you snarkily correcting bad grammar, I'd suggest moving on.

I never suggested my posts were perfect. In fact: that's the point--that since my posts aren't perfect, I don't bother correcting minute grammatical errors. And that if my posts were consistently as error-ridden as yours, that I would try to hide as meekly as possible when the subject of grammar came up, not boldly jump to the forefront of the grammar discussion as if I were some sort of authority.


Get your shinebox, dump. Seriously. :rolleyes:

itsnotrequired
01-14-2008, 12:24 PM
the dumpjerry-fquaye149 war rages on...

DumpJerry
01-14-2008, 12:32 PM
Yes, that's what muckraker originally meant. And what is muck? (i'll give you a hint--it's a synonym for your user handle) Clearly based on the responses to my epithet in this thread, most people associate it with the negative connotations its original coiners meant it to carry.

At any rate, thanks for the brilliant suggestion. I'm just curious what that has to do with "putting my money where my mouth is".

If you're really still salty about me pointing out the hypocrisy of a sloppy poster like you snarkily correcting bad grammar, I'd suggest moving on.

I never suggested my posts were perfect. In fact: that's the point--that since my posts aren't perfect, I don't bother correcting minute grammatical errors. And that if my posts were consistently as error-ridden as yours, that I would try to hide as meekly as possible when the subject of grammar came up, not boldly jump to the forefront of the grammar discussion as if I were some sort of authority.


Get your shinebox, dump. Seriously. :rolleyes:
Now now, young man, did I say anything in my post about your writing skills? I believe I ignored your errors.

fquaye149
01-14-2008, 12:35 PM
Now now, young man, did I say anything in my post about your writing skills? I believe I ignored your errors.

believe it all you want

:bandance::bandance::bandance: