IPB Questionnaire Answers: Margee Edition
December 7, 2007 by Pookie
Yet another set of answers to the IPB Blogging Questionnaire has come in, this time from one of IPB’s biggest inspirations — the queen bee of squee, Margee of the greatest sports site to ever grace the interwebs, SportSquee. You can read her answers here, but be sure to check out her must-read blog.
1. What was your motivation for starting blogging? Has that changed at all in the time you’ve been blogging?
At first, I found that a lot of sports blogs written by women were almost afraid to allow themselves to comment on the attractiveness of the players, for fear of the puckbunny label. And I even found some blogs to be afraid to be funny for fear of subverting their sports knowledge. When I started reading double (d)ion it was the first blog that incorporated humor and crushing into sports. It inspired me to start SportSquee, so I could marry the three most manly things about my personality: my love of sports, my sense of humor, and my love for talking about members of the opposite sex. In short, I wanted to make a macho blog for girls, the blog that I wanted to read. And to continue my crusade against Italians. I think I’ve maintained that as SportSquee has grown. In fact, I make a concerted effort to be cruder with each post.
2. What do you think your blog contributes to the hockey conversation?
I work in the sports industry, so I especially feel the burn of people taking sports too seriously. It’s a game. When the Islanders lose, yes, I can be a bit of a pill. But in the scheme of things, hockey is a game. I hope that SportSquee allows people to laugh at sports and think about the game in a different way, even if that means thinking about which Staal brother you’d rather make out with or imagining Bobby Holik rocking out to “Eternal Flame.”
3. What do you want to get out of the blogs you read?
I want the same. I want to laugh and think about the game from a different angle.
4. What determines which blogs you read and which you don’t?
The writing. Humor, insight, differing opinions. It all factors in. IPB has made me a bigger fan through their game recaps and establishment of PandoNation. I love disagreeing with almost everyone of my opinonated HLOG sisters. I can’t think of the Playoffs before Playoff Beard.com existed. I wait all summer for the LCS Hockey fall preview. All of these folks have something to say that goes beyond the stats. There is nothing like talking (or reading) with other people who love sports as much as you do.
And an hour can’t go by unless I check in with Dlisted.com.
5. How important is the issue of gaining press access to you as a blogger?
I’m divided on this issue. I hate breaking the fourth wall, but when CapsChick talks to Ted Leonsis, it’s a great peek behind the curtain. When Finny from Girl With a Puck can ask NHL GMs their opinions, it’s interesting. But based on some of the team-sanctioned blogging I’ve seen, I wonder if being chosen by the team files down a blogger’s fangs.
6. To what extent do you feel accountable for the content of your blog?
SportSquee is intended for comedy purposes. I feel accountable for making people laugh. I’ve found a message board with people discussing Trevor Daley planning Mike Modano’s wedding and arguing over whether or not a chocolate toilet could handle Martin Brodeur’s girth based on a “SportSquee Investigates” bit. And I had someone angrily comment about how Michael Peca shouldn’t be commended for not owning a pizza parlor because most Italian-Americans don’t. Needless to say, this is quite disturbing and says quite a bit about our educational system. Trevor Daley had nothing to do with Mike Modano’s wedding (as far as I know of), a chocolate toilet would be both structurally unsound and impractical during the warm summer months, and I do not dislike Italians. I think I make it pretty clear in the masthead that SportSquee is sarcastic, but some people still don’t get it. Just as with any form of expression, you can’t account for what the reader is going to take from what you write.
7. How concerned are you about the authority and accountability of the blogs you read? Do you find it difficult to judge the authority and accountability of the blogs you read?
A blog is a personal site. Unless it is the blog of a paid professional journalist, I don’t look for facts in the blogosphere. I think to do so is unwise.
8. What value, if any, do you think blogging brings to the NHL?
We are the voice of the common people. I’ll go ahead and say it: I think the majority of professional hockey writers are crap. Whenever I read an article by the mainstream media, I think it’s without insight, without style, and mostly a regurgitation of old ideas. This may not be the writers’ fault. The NHL has become so neutered and sanitized that it’s probably bled down into the media. And because it is such a small, devoted community of fans, players, and writers, I’m sure many writers are afraid to write anything incendiary for fear alienating readers and team co-operation. Bloggers don’t have to worry about these things. I’m not going to a blogger for stats, recaps, and records. The media can do that just fine. If I want ideas and opinions, I go to the blogs. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read Battle of California or Scarlett Ice or IPB or NPI and tought, “Shit. I’ve never thought about it like that.” And can’t tell you of any time I’ve read a hockey article and said the same.
[Originally sent in an email, 12/07/07 by Margee.]
Unless it is the blog of a paid professional journalist, I don’t look for facts in the blogosphere. I think to do so is unwise.
Thank you for saying this, margee. One of the things I have had a hard time articulating in this whole debate is my belief that as a whole, blogs aren’t trustworthy sources for information. I mean, sure some are, but the vast majority of them are just people like me blabbing on and on about their feelings and shit. I hate that this entire debate is about whether or not bloggers can be trusted. Of COURSE NOT! Blogging is a dirty, sloppy business. If you really want to get accredited, you can’t be using blogging as your ticket in the door. You can write a really awesome blog, and create a body of work that warrants accreditation and team access, but you’ll NEVER be able to say “but, I write a blog!” and expect to get anywhere. Not that some blogs aren’t totally legit, and not that a lot of bloggers wouldn’t make great beat reporters, it’s just that it’s a medium that ANY nutjob can participate in. Even nutjobs like me. That’s the best thing about blogs!
When I started reading double (d)ion it was the first blog that incorporated humor and crushing into sports. It inspired me to start SportSquee
REALLY!? Oh Margee… *sniffles*
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve read Battle of California or Scarlett Ice or IPB or NPI and tought, “Shit. I’ve never thought about it like that.” And can’t tell you of any time I’ve read a hockey article and said the same.
Amen!
I kind of railed on the MSM, too, and then felt bad because I need my AP game recaps and stats and such, like you find on Yahoo. But then I thought, that’s basically all I need. I skip all the “analysis” and head straight for the blogs.
We’re lucky in Dallas because the two papers (I read online) have pretty decent beat writers and they each have a blog where they’ll tell you what they found out in practice about the upcoming game and things like that. So they should keep doing that. But ESPN and the like can bite me.
Katebits- I agree. This is what has frustrated me the most about this debate. No one has ever said that blogs are filled with information you should take as gospel. Blogs are the only place to find out what people are talking about. That’s what blogs are: people talking. Live blogs are listening to people talking during the game. From a work standpoint, I have to tell you that we use blogs a lot to gauge what is important to the people who wil be watching what we’re producing. But no one is going to broadcast a story about Peyton Manning being gay for Kenny chesney based on what a blog jokes about.
HG- Sniff.
Patty (in Dallas)- The MSM needs to be railed against because a lot of their arguments sound like sour grapes, to me. Bloggers are not going to put you out of a job, guys.
But no one is going to broadcast a story about Peyton Manning being gay for Kenny chesney based on what a blog jokes about.
Well, fuck. What’s the point of blogging then? Screw this. I quit.
On this MSM vs. bloggers issue, Pensblog called out Stephen A. Smith today for getting his panties in a twist (did you know that people who aren’t trained in something should not be allowed to have ANY forum to say their piece about it? Guess I should stop voting…).
Anyway, I really loved what they had to say:
After being hijacked by newspapers with agendas since the invention of the printing press,
the public can finally…
a) bring the news to the masses on their own.
b) filter out the bullshit for themselves, rather than newspapers doing it for them.
Are journalists shitting themselves? Perhaps.
With blogging, the onus of responsibility falls on the reader, not the writer.
Despite what everyone wants us to believe, we’re all smart enough to figure out what’s truth and what’s crap.
From a work standpoint, I have to tell you that we use blogs a lot to gauge what is important to the people who will be watching what we’re producing.
That is so interesting to hear. Our voices are being heard! Or at least football fans’ voices.
I do have to disagree with you, Margee and Katebits. As an information professional, I feel very, very strongly that blanket statements like “blogs can’t be trusted” aren’t true. Sure, opinion blogs and blogs like ours can’t necessarily be trusted when we’re saying things like Peyton Manning is gay for Kenny Chesney, but Mirtle’s a blogger. I think he can be trusted when he reports on, say, Sid’s media impact on Western Canada. Spector’s a blogger, and I think he’s proven he’s trustworthy when it comes to breaking trade reports. What I think is missing from the debate is that blogs have evolved with a system of checks and balances — authority trickling down through blogrolls (if Mirtle has a site on his main blogroll, he’s put a stamp of approval on it), the transparency of the process (where everyone has access to the same information), and the fact that system for crediting sources is tied in with the system that rewards bloggers (linking is both blogging currency and a way to cite sources).
Great answers, Margee. I still haven’t filled out my questionairre because I think all I would say is “what IPBer 1 said” and “What IPBer 2 said” Y’all are so smart. And happy Sid in Vancouver day :D
I do have to disagree with you, Margee and Katebits. As an information professional, I feel very, very strongly that blanket statements like “blogs can’t be trusted” aren’t true.
I wasn’t under the impression they were really referring to ALL blogs with that statement, but yeah there’s nothing you can really just blanket. “All generalizations are bad.” ;)
(Is that the greatest hypocritical phrase, or what?)
I think Pensblog has it right: the onus is on blogs’ readers to separate the wheaty blogs from the chaffy ones. You have to know what you’re getting into, and do the reader equivalent of skating with your head up.
Of course, I think the same is true of journalists, although it may not be fair to feel that way given that no member of the press has EVER been found to be obfuscating, biased, or just outright liars. :P
Excellent point, Pookie (I don’t know how to do all them thar fancy italicized quotes). That ties into my answer that unless the blog is written by a paid journalist, even columnist, I’m not going to take what a bloggers says as fact. Kind of like, you can’t trust something that’s in Us or Star until it shows up in People Magazine.
And happy Sid in Vancouver day :D
Do you have your celebratory Pens-gear-decorated A hockey tree? :P
I totally see what you are saying, Pookie, infact I said basically the same thing in my own questionnaire about the system involving checks and balances because of links. And of course I think the blogs you just sited absolutely can be trusted. I didn’t mean to suggest that there aren’t blogs that can’t be trusted as a source of facts.
My comment was a reaction to repeated suggestion that blogging has a “higher purpose” or that my blog somehow drags down the blogs like McErlain’s. Although it is of course true that there are many, many blogs that can be trusted as a source of information, I still think the blanket statement that “blogs can’t be trusted” is also true. It all comes down to the fact that the term “blogging” cannot be narrowly defined. “Blogging” itself will never have any degree of professional legitimacy when compared to the MSM. I don’t see this as a point of argument, I see it as a fact.
That’s all I’m trying to say. A lot of the case for allowing bloggers into the press boxes seems to revolve around a group of very professional minded people pointing to their collection of blogs and saying, “See? Blogging is legit journalism!” I’m saying, “Hell yeah those blogs are legit journalism, but blogging in general is the wild, wild, west.”
In some ways this whole thing feels like a fight for ownership of the term “blog”. It’s a fight that will never be won by anyone in my opinion.
While you guys are talking all serious and shit about truth and blogging, I have to add this:
In short, I wanted to make a macho blog for girls, the blog that I wanted to read.
I’ve never thought of SportSquee that way, but you’re so right! Thanks so much, Margee, for making me more of a man, one dream date at a time!
In fact, I make a concerted effort to be cruder with each post.
And this is why SportSquee remains the single most important blog on the interwebs.
And to continue my crusade against Italians.
Word.
I didn’t mean to sound as defensive as that comment came across!
I think Pensblog has it right: the onus is on blogs’ readers to separate the wheaty blogs from the chaffy ones.
This is true. And it’s fun that journalists are reading blogs, but they have to be even more careful. Several news sources reported yesterday that Donald Trump left some waiter a $10,000 tip. Turned out somebody picked it up from a blog.
That’d be like the Dallas Morning News reporting that Trevor Daley planned Modano’s wedding after reading it on SportsSquee. Even if they thought it was true when they read it, they should call either Modano or Daley before they published it.
And to continue my crusade against Italians.
Word.
Alright, I was gonna let that go, but now I’m being ganged-up-on! Do not make me call la famiglia. *puffs up*
That’d be like the Dallas Morning News reporting that Trevor Daley planned Modano’s wedding after reading it on SportsSquee. Even if they thought it was true when they read it, they should call either Modano or Daley before they published it.
Oh, I’m just waiting for the outlet that reports on Sid and Ovie’s European Vacation. :P
Kind of like, you can’t trust something that’s in Us or Star until it shows up in People Magazine.
I’m being such a Margee suck-up today, but seriously. That’s as well-put as I’ve ever heard this argument. :D
In some ways this whole thing feels like a fight for ownership of the term “blog”. It’s a fight that will never be won by anyone in my opinion.
I agree with that wholeheartedly. I think the real crux of this whole issue is that “blog” is just such a general term. I mean, the comment that got our ire up so much in the first place, about blogging having a “higher purpose” is just so ridiculous because that’s like saying writing with pen and paper has a higher purpose. Blogging is a universal tool that all kinds of people use for all kinds of different things. But yeah, all of us who do blog want to claim ownership of the term; I think most of this “debate” (or whatever it is) really boils down to being a matter of semantics.
I think most of this “debate” (or whatever it is) really boils down to being a matter of semantics.
It really is. Quite frankly, a blog is just a web page that’s primarily devoted to the owner’s writings.
Stephen A. Smith basically said that you shouldn’t be allowed to have a format to disseminate anything if you’re not an expert. Which means, I guess, that he thinks the interwebs shouldn’t exist (or should at least be limited to government and academia as was originally intended).
Seriously, his argument defames the “higher purpose” of the internet, which is when you think about it the “land” with the most freedom in the history of the world. Setting aside the access/socioeconomic argument for a second, the internet is the purest form of democracy that has ever existed. Does that make it potentially dangerous? Yes. But ultimately it’s worth the risk, because the good that the web has brought about has far outweighed the harm, at least in my opinion.
And really, we’re talking about SPORTS here! Who cares if I go to a blog and am dumb enough to believe a false trade rumor? At the end of the day, has that really hurt my life - or anyone’s - in any way that actually matters?
I think most of this “debate” (or whatever it is) really boils down to being a matter of semantics.
Most debates end up being about semantics.
Margee, the fancy italic things are just HTML. I’m pretty sure, from reading Sportsquee, that you know how to do that :P
I still haven’t filled out my questionairre because I think all I would say is “what IPBer 1 said” and “What IPBer 2 said” Y’all are so smart.
I did that with mine, so I gave up. I should probably just do it anyway.
Blogging is a universal tool that all kinds of people use for all kinds of different things.
AMEN! To me, what we need to do is stop referring to “blogging” as an action to describe “writing”. I mean, if I write a letter I’m not “pen-and-papering”, I’m writing. So when I’m writing a blog post, why am I “blogging”? I’m not blogging, I’m writing and then using a tool called a blog to publish it.
With this is mind, this statement:
Although it is of course true that there are many, many blogs that can be trusted as a source of information, I still think the blanket statement that “blogs can’t be trusted” is also true.
turns into “writing can’t be trusted”. And I think what we’re all agreeing with is that when the MSM says “bloggers can’t be trusted” and when McErlain says “non-credientialed bloggers can’t be trusted”, they’re looking at the tool that is blogging and not at what is being written.
I don’t know if you guys are familiar with Stephen A. Smith or not but coming from him this criticism is particularly hilarious. I’m pretty sure he’s probably considered a joke among journalists. I think part of the reason he lost his columnist job is because the Philadelphia Inquirer felt he wasn’t taking his position seriously enough and getting too focused on TV and radio. (But maybe I read that on a blog.)
I did that with mine, so I gave up. I should probably just do it anyway.
I think you should! There’s so much more to a message than the actual content…your voice is unique even if you’re just making the same point someone else did. You might frame something in a way that someone here hadn’t thought of, or was trying to say but couldn’t quite get there.
You can add value to the discussion, but you certainly can’t take any away.
Schnookie, upon further examination, my Us to People Magazine theory is doubly true because what shows up in People was usually in Us two weeks prior.
When Weddings by Trevor Daley Ltd. gets featured in E.J. Hradek’s column, you are going to know who broke it first.
I’m pretty sure he’s probably considered a joke among journalists.
I know he’s considered a joke among us “non-experts,” too, which is probably why he dislikes us so much. We didn’t buy what he was selling, but we buy what some others among us are selling. How DARE we?!
(But maybe I read that on a blog.)
:^::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Stop trying to confuse me with your web of lies, Heather!
Pookie, that is a very very good way of articulating what this is all about. I think it’s awesome how we go around and around in a circle, essentially agreeing with each other about this issue here at IPB. I find this topic endlessly interesting. For some reason, the issue that consistently gets my hackles up is the ownership of the word “blog”. I will fight to the blog-death with anyone who subscribes to the belief that blogs should have a higher purpose!
I will fight to the blog-death with anyone who subscribes to the belief that blogs should have a higher purpose!
Exactly. To me that’s like saying conversations should have a higher purpose.
Some - such as global peace talks - damn well should. But small talk at a local bar? Not so much.
I know he’s considered a joke among us “non-experts,” too, which is probably why he dislikes us so much.
Yeah, I agree, PG. Stephen A. Smith is the perfect example of what’s wrong with ESPN these days. Man, I can’t stand him. I’m sure he’s very proud of himself for using the word “disseminate” in his attack on bloggers and I’m sure he’s says it extra loud and emphasized. What a maroon.
But wait, guys, Stephen A. Smith shouts a lot. Doesn’t that make him edgy? And isn’t edgy what I’m supposed to be looking for as a 21st C. sports fan?
(But maybe I read that on a blog.)
*grin*
You can add value to the discussion, but you certainly can’t take any away.
Oh I’d find a way.
Heather, I nearly died laughing seeing those comment from Stephen A. Smith, just because… well, Stephen A. Smith. The guy is a complete hack, and it’s so funny to see him, as a self-appointed “expert”, complaining that people with no certifiable expertise are spouting off about shit they presumably know nothing about. Pot? Kettle.
I would like to add now that my dander is up that I am an expert about what I write about. The thing I do best in my life is watch hockey on TV, and that’s what I’m blogging about. So there. Suck my balls hard, indeed. (I just got off on a big rant to Pookie now about this, and I’m, like foaming at the mouth. When you think about professional, “impartial and unbiased” members of the media talking about the entertainment value of the game, and what changes should be made to improve the quality of it, frankly, the fans are better experts on this than they are. I mean, we might not be experts on what GM does what and which trades should be made, but we’re the ones who know the most about how entertaining hockey is or isn’t.)
When Weddings by Trevor Daley Ltd. gets featured in E.J. Hradek’s column, you are going to know who broke it first.
Katebits, that is the higher purpose of blogging — getting EJ Hradek to believe things that appeared first on SportSquee. :P
I’m sure he’s very proud of himself for using the word “disseminate” in his attack on bloggers and I’m sure he’s says it extra loud and emphasized.
Someone just looked up the dictionary.com’s word of the day list.
But wait, guys, Stephen A. Smith shouts a lot. Doesn’t that make him edgy?
True story: my first day in law school, a professor talking about crafting persuasive arguments warned us about people who just get louder so that nobody else can drown them out. He was all, “winning the volume war doesn’t make you right!”
Whenever I think of modern “debate” shows on any subject, I think of that prof and that speech and I just shake my head.
When you think about professional, “impartial and unbiased” members of the media talking about the entertainment value of the game, and what changes should be made to improve the quality of it, frankly, the fans are better experts on this than they are. I mean, we might not be experts on what GM does what and which trades should be made, but we’re the ones who know the most about how entertaining hockey is or isn’t.
Word.
You can add value to the discussion, but you certainly can’t take any away.
Oh I’d find a way.
As long as you’re not sounding like Stephen A. Smith at the one end of the spectrum, or McErlain on the other, you really shouldn’t be worried here! :D
When you think about professional, “impartial and unbiased” members of the media talking about the entertainment value of the game, and what changes should be made to improve the quality of it, frankly, the fans are better experts on this than they are.
Word. This goes double for the ESPN talking heads. I love Pardon the Interruption but I hate for them to even touch hockey because Wilbon and Kornheiser admit they barely watch it. You know what? I’m not interested in your opinion then.
I would like to add now that my dander is up that I am an expert about what I write about. The thing I do best in my life is watch hockey on TV, and that’s what I’m blogging about.
But you’re DISSEMINATING! To the MASSES! And ESPN isn’t paying you to do it!
What a maroon.
What a nin-cow-poop.
(I tried to stop myself, I really did.)
I love Pardon the Interruption but I hate for them to even touch hockey because Wilbon and Kornheiser admit they barely watch it. You know what? I’m not interested in your opinion then.
My turn: Word.
PTI somehow pulls off - for me - being an enjoyable debate show, but their ESPN paycheck so does not make them hockey experts when compared to anyone here. I submit that my roomie’s cat is a better expert on hockey, because he sees more of it than they do.
I love Pardon the Interruption but I hate for them to even touch hockey because Wilbon and Kornheiser admit they barely watch it. You know what? I’m not interested in your opinion then.
This is me vs. The Ticket in Dallas. I used to whine because they never talked hockey. Then when they did, I was like, Okay, you’re right. Stop it. I’ll go somewhere else for that.
What a maroon.
What a nin-cow-poop.
(I tried to stop myself, I really did.)
Hee! I almost wrote that myself, Patty, but I got distracted.
Katebits, that is the higher purpose of blogging — getting EJ Hradek to believe things that appeared first on SportSquee. :P
Oh! Well then I’m all for the “higher purpose” arguement! Carry on, interwebs.
Off-topic…
According to my NHLN menu (which is wrong about the current program that’s airing), at 3:30 they will be showing a Classic NHL ep on the Jersey-Dallas SCF in 2000:
“New Jersey bedeviled the defending NHL champs, eliminating the Stars in six games.”
(Sorry Patty)
Bedeviled!! Get it? Oh, menu-synopsis writers, how clever you are!! If only Miro….(for the sake of the Ookies, I won’t finish that).
The question about the validity of blogging has spawned some of the best writing, most interesting arguments, and hysterical comments from bloggers. This may be the best thing that’s happened to blogs. In this comments section alone, everyone has pretty much proved that you don’t need credentials and published articles to write something that’s well worth reading. More points have been made here, and they’re well-made points, than in any article I’ve read that is calling out bloggers.
Methinks Steven A. Smith can suck it. Credential this!
More points have been made here, and they’re well-made points, than in any article I’ve read that is calling out bloggers.
I think it’s because we know what we’re talking about. After watching the HNIC piece about blogging, I was amazed at how Ron McLean thought it was such groundbreaking news to demonstrate how a blogroll works. It was at that point that I realized these guys have never read blogs. Like, that the people in the MSM who are spouting off about how lawless and unpoliced and irresponsible the blogosphere is are people who don’t ever bother looking to see how the blogosphere works. So the arguments calling bloggers out are, for the most part, entrenched journalists who are freaking out about the possibility of losing their jobs on account of new technologies, rather than people who actually understand what they’re worrying about. They’re lashing out at bloggers-as-bogeymen rather than looking at the legitimate reasons to either be concerned about or praise bloggers.
Like, that the people in the MSM who are spouting off about how lawless and unpoliced and irresponsible the blogosphere is are people who don’t ever bother looking to see how the blogosphere works.
This is how they report on teams that aren’t in their own town, too. The Stars are still getting the “struggling to score” crap and we’re 6th in the league and 2nd in the West.
So it’s still the same journalistic style as always, they’ve just trained their beam on blogs now.
for the most part, entrenched journalists who are freaking out about the possibility of losing their jobs on account of new technologies
Someone I know who works at a newspaper told me that a major columnist there (I don’t know who) does not even know how to turn the computer on. I have no idea how that kind of person can even exist in today’s MSM, but I have to think that there are others. Maybe they’re not all that bad, but so many of them do seem to be reacting in a way that suggests ignorance-borne-fear.
Not that journalists are letting mere emotions get in the way of THE STORY.
Methinks Steven A. Smith can suck it. Credential this
:^:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
In ranting about all this stuff to Schnookie I was reminded about something that I think speaks directly to the issue of trusting blogs. About a year or so ago, I taught a class on reading and writing blogs to my colleagues at the library. One of the examples of blogs I showed was Uni Watch Blog. My boss, who’s an old-school reference librarian of 40+ years who’s still really stuck in the world of print sources, said to me, “I see why blogs are interesting, but you would never, ever use them to answer a reference question!” I pointed to Uni Watch and said, “But what if someone has a question about sports uniforms? There isn’t a better source to use than Uni Watch.” At this point there are just so many niche interests that traditional edited print sources can’t keep up.
Pookie, that’s a great example.
Did you lot burn out?
whether or not a chocolate toilet could handle Martin Brodeur’s girth based on a “SportSquee Investigates
I will be forever scarred by the image, so why is it so damn funny? I agree, a chocolate toilet is not a practical choice, especially since Mr. Brodeur is starting to look an awful lot like Gump Worsley.
A beat writer for the Strib has a blog, and I have to say, if I wanted to be that informed by blogs, I’d just read the paper. I read blogs to be entertained. Keep it up, Margee! The cruder the better!
Even after seeing that, I still love Ron MacLean any way. I doubt he was involved in the critcism since he probably doesn’t have time…probably spends too much of his time recovering from each episode of Coach’s Corner.
[...] d(ion) 10. DMG of Caps Blue Line 11. Cat of Untypical Girls 12. Tracy of True Coyote Love 13. Margee of SportSquee 14. Mags of Mags’s Live Journal 15. Finny of Girl With a [...]