Do you read Jerry Sullivan or Bucky Gleason?

[That Aud Smell]

I saw that.

 

This past weekend, I was slightly buzzed and on the toilet. I absentmindedly read an article about how Rex is all business this training camp. Half way through, I was like, "who WROTE this?!" Because it was pretty terrible.

 

Sure enough: Bucky.

 

So I was ready this morning. I scrolled down.

 

He really is a bad writer, PA.

[Stoner]

I saw that.

 

This past weekend, I was slightly buzzed and on the toilet. I absentmindedly read an article about how Rex is all business this training camp. Half way through, I was like, "who WROTE this?!" Because it was pretty terrible.

 

Sure enough: Bucky.

 

So I was ready this morning. I scrolled down.

 

He really is a bad writer, PA.

You knew it was Bucky and thought it was terrible?

[Eleven]

Interesting experiment. There's a story in the News today about Evander Kane. They forgot to byline it, but you'll find out at the end who wrote it when the author's email address appears. Don't cheat. As you read it, ask yourself who wrote it. Do you like the opinion? Is it good writing?

 

http://sabres.buffalonews.com/2016/08/03/why-tim-murrays-in-a-bind-when-it-comes-to-evander-kane/

 

I already knew it was who it was because of twitter. I didn't bother.

[That Aud Smell]

You knew it was Bucky and thought it was terrible?

 

Not sure I understand.

 

I was muzzy over the weekend and was somewhat mindlessly reading a piece that I'd clicked on from my phone. It was about Rex at camp. Half-way through, I scowled and thought: "This is fooking terrible." I checked the byline: Bucky.

 

So, when I saw that piece today about Kane, I scoured it first for authorship (and noticed none was attributed in the byline area). And when I saw Bucky's name, I did not read it.

And, as in the past, my objections to Bucky are two-fold (and in this order of importance): (1) He is objectively not a good writer. He does not write well. (2) His takes are uniformly unoriginal and disproportionately negative.

[LGR4GM]

Interesting experiment. There's a story in the News today about Evander Kane. They forgot to byline it, but you'll find out at the end who wrote it when the author's email address appears. Don't cheat. As you read it, ask yourself who wrote it. Do you like the opinion? Is it good writing?

 

http://sabres.buffalonews.com/2016/08/03/why-tim-murrays-in-a-bind-when-it-comes-to-evander-kane/

The writing is fine and the story is fine. It lays out some options and the author clearly is leaning towards unloading Kane. 

[Sabel79]

I couldn't, in all honesty, discern what the actual take here was.  "Evander Kane bad", I suppose, but why bother?  Everybody gets that there's an issue there by now. 

[dudacek]

Interesting experiment PA.

There are three takes on Kane on the Sabrespace news page this morning - the one in question and others from the NewYork Post and SI. They make interesting reading side by side.

 

I did not know the News one was by Gleason until I read this. I thought it was mediocre and not particularly thought-provoking.

But it was also neither unfair, nor ill-considered.

Edited August 4, 2016 by dudacek

[That Aud Smell]

Interesting experiment PA.

There are three takes on Kane on the Sabrespace news page this morning - the one in question and others from the NewYork Post and SI. They make interesting reading side by side.

 

I did not know the News one was by Gleason until I read this. I thought it was mediocre and not particularly thought-provoking.

But it was also neither unfair, nor ill-considered.

 

thanks for the heads up on the SI piece.

 

something that the SI piece called to my attention that i'd missed: the tidbit about cambria's firm countersuing the plaintiff for false claims (defamation?). sounds like jim scime will handle that action. jim's the real deal. i hope that young lady knew full well what was she getting into when she brought the action.

 

one other thing that muir throws out there (that i'd also thought recently): the thing i am looking (maybe hoping?) for is an announcement that kane's checking into some sort of rehab. not in a manziel sort of way, obviously. but in a sincere and honest way, as part of an effort to get his life back in order.

[Stoner]

Not sure I understand.

 

I was muzzy over the weekend and was somewhat mindlessly reading a piece that I'd clicked on from my phone. It was about Rex at camp. Half-way through, I scowled and thought: "This is fooking terrible." I checked the byline: Bucky.

 

So, when I saw that piece today about Kane, I scoured it first for authorship (and noticed none was attributed in the byline area). And when I saw Bucky's name, I did not read it.

And, as in the past, my objections to Bucky are two-fold (and in this order of importance): (1) He is objectively not a good writer. He does not write well. (2) His takes are uniformly unoriginal and disproportionately negative.

So you didn't take the challenge. This idea of finding out who wrote something before deciding to read it or not is very weird. I'd read Trump's take on the situation. It kind of goes to this notion that is permeating our politics. You seek out information that you know you'll agree with or like and go LALALALALA to the rest.

 

Is Bucky that bad? I am not going to hold a sports columnist in Buffalo to the great lions of literature. He's fine.

[That Aud Smell]

So you didn't take the challenge. This idea of finding out who wrote something before deciding to read it or not is very weird. I'd read Trump's take on the situation. It kind of goes to this notion that is permeating our politics. You seek out information that you know you'll agree with or like and go LALALALALA to the rest.

 

Is Bucky that bad? I am not going to hold a sports columnist in Buffalo to the great lions of literature. He's fine.

 

I could not take the challenge. I'd previously disqualified myself.

 

To your point about not reading someone you find to be a bad writer with uninteresting things to say: Kindly refrain from generalizing what I am doing into what a divided electorate does in terms of seeking out an echo chamber for their own thoughts. I'm mostly politically left -- but many of the people I choose to hang with are staunch conservatives. I don't avoid dissenting opinions. I avoid bad ones.

 

To answer your question: Yes.

[Neo]

Interesting experiment. There's a story in the News today about Evander Kane. They forgot to byline it, but you'll find out at the end who wrote it when the author's email address appears. Don't cheat. As you read it, ask yourself who wrote it. Do you like the opinion? Is it good writing?

 

http://sabres.buffalonews.com/2016/08/03/why-tim-murrays-in-a-bind-when-it-comes-to-evander-kane/

I took the challenge. I answered correctly.

 

I found the article to be a collection of spliced paragraphs, each fine. I'm not an editor. Writer's have tough jobs.

 

I read Sully as darker, to coin a phrase I've read here or at TBD, but there's a flow to his articles. He builds. I find every day with Bucky to be a new day. Is he less thematic?

 

Sully is a craftsman, whether you like the finished product or not. He'll occasionally reach conclusions that go one or two steps further than mine. Bucky hits deadlines. No criticism either way.

 

My experience, solely. I read them both regularly.

 

Their critique of my writing would be uncomfortable! I have themes, I splice, I flail about from different angles.

Edited August 4, 2016 by N'eo

[Stoner]

Editor's do, too.

 

Are you grateful for this reply?

[Neo]

You know I am!

[Stoner]

I could not take the challenge. I'd previously disqualified myself.

 

To your point about not reading someone you find to be a bad writer with uninteresting things to say: Kindly refrain from generalizing what I am doing into what a divided electorate does in terms of seeking out an echo chamber for their own thoughts. I'm mostly politically left -- but many of the people I choose to hang with are staunch conservatives. I don't avoid dissenting opinions. I avoid bad ones.

 

To answer your question: Yes.

I'm assuming that the quality of Bucky's writing is not the disqualifying issue here. He's not that bad, for crying out loud. Is Vogl better? I'm assuming that point 2 is the sticking point, his negativity. You just don't want to read anything negative about the Sabres or Pegula. That's the echo chamber. In summary, I bet you thought his puff piece on Dan Bylsma was terrifically (terrificly?) written.

[That Aud Smell]

Vogl is quite a bit better.

 

And it's not just the awful writing or constant negativity. It's the persistent worthlessness of the thoughts themselves.

 

It's a big ol' sh1t sammich is what it is. *Pass*

 

I sort of enjoy the fact that you're such a Bucky apologist. It's endearing, in a weird way.

[Stoner]

Vogl is quite a bit better.

 

And it's not just the awful writing or constant negativity. It's the persistent worthlessness of the thoughts themselves.

 

It's a big ol' sh1t sammich is what it is. *Pass*

 

I sort of enjoy the fact that you're such a Bucky apologist. It's endearing, in a weird way.

Do you think you could tell a Vogl paragraph from a Gleason paragraph?

 

(The observers murmur and the Judge threatens to clear this courtroom.)

[That Aud Smell]

Do you think you could tell a Vogl paragraph from a Gleason paragraph?

 

(The observers murmur and the Judge threatens to clear this courtroom.)

Ha!

 

You're incorrigible.

 

Blind squirrels find chestnuts.

 

I don't imagine I'll subject myself to a choice between excerpts that Bucky's resident booster chooses.

 

My take is my take. Formed over years, and based on plenty of reading. Bucky isn't a good writer. And he's an Eeyore. And he's banal.

[Stoner]

Ha!

 

You're incorrigible.

 

Blind squirrels find chestnuts.

 

I don't imagine I'll subject myself to a choice between excerpts that Bucky's resident booster chooses.

 

My take is my take. Formed over years, and based on plenty of reading. Bucky isn't a good writer. And he's an Eeyore. And he's banal.

A banal Eeyore hack? (Remember Lindy's quip? Eeyore Hockey?)

 

That's fine. But you are forcing me to post this clip.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH8qWzUG1h4

[That Aud Smell]

A banal Eeyore hack? (Remember Lindy's quip? Eeyore Hockey?)

 

That's fine. But you are forcing me to post this clip.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH8qWzUG1h4

Banal Eeyore hack. Perfect.

 

What's the point of the chicken video? Other than haunting my dreams tonight. Is it that I should be so unsurprised by the presence of a banal Eeyore hack on staff at TBN that I should resume reading his stuff?

 

Also: I don't recall Lindy referencing Eeyore. When was that?

[Stoner]

No, you were afraid to accept my challenge. Blockblock cluckcluck.

[That Aud Smell]

Ahhh. I see.

 

Yeah. Homey don't play that.

 

I'll rise to your bait to a point. But then I hafta be the Master of the Bait.

 

Dig?

[LGR4GM]

No, you were afraid to accept my challenge. Blockblock cluckcluck.

 

[ddaryl]

buffalo news sports page is a joke.. don't care for either of these writers so I don't bother. Sick and tired of the Buffalo News Sports section Vs Buffalo City sports teams mentality...  It always seems those 2 have an ax to grind

[Hank]

I read Gleasons column from yesterday on GMTM/Kane, I do not think it sucked.

[Stoner]

buffalo news sports page is a joke.. don't care for either of these writers so I don't bother. Sick and tired of the Buffalo News Sports section Vs Buffalo City sports teams mentality...  It always seems those 2 have an ax to grind

Should they cheerlead in order to boost the teams' performance? Both franchises have been terrible, one for almost a decade, one for almost two decades. One might be coming out of it. How positive should the coverage be?