When its a story that someone doesn't do a story on Favre.... is that still a Favre story?

I hear that RG wants to reinstate Favre, and that the Pack are rumored to be in trade talks with the Vikings. McCarthy seems open to let BF compete at QB, but AR is still the starter as of now.

The balance of power in the NFCN is now in the hands of MM and TT.

Oh, Peter King, even when you say you aren't going to talk Brett Favre, you talk Brett Favre. Did we really need that visit to Packers camp?

I thought this was one of the most unintentionally funny things I've read recently. PK refuses to do an article on Favre so he writes one on Tony Romo instead.

Apparently Tony Romo gets it and then PK illustrates this by describing two practice plays that were both incomplete.

But still Romo gets it. He knows how to prepare himself for games; he buggers off for a dirty weekend in Mexico with his brain-dead bimbo girlfriend while his team is still in the playoffs.

Why was he taking such a cavalier attitude with his team's entire season on the line? Because Tony Romo gets it (and he must have the cleanest balls west of the Mississippi)

I think my favorite part of the article was Peter King calling out players that have been trying to talk their way off of their current teams...and neglecting to put Brett Favre in that category.

PK recognizes that he over-indulgences in Brett Favre coverage, so he decides to discuss players that don't get a lot of coverage...like Tony Romo.

I mean, I've barely even heard of the guy.

I have to echo the thoughts of #4 (the poster not the player) that it is bloody typical of PK to avoid mentioning about Favre by instead talking about Tony Romo talking about Tom Brady. AAARRAAAGHGHG!!!!

You know what concerns me more than the Favre drama and King's handling of the situation? The fact that Doug Farrar takes time on Monday to speculate about what PK will write about in his weekly MMQB column.

I'm glad to see King is moving on and has found a new target for his manlove in Tony "Golden Peaches" Romo. Brett will always hold a special place in his heart, of course, but out with old and in with the new, as they say. Romo spent the off-season trying to get better? How fascinating and how unlike the other 3,000 or so guys who either have NFL jobs or want them, all of whom have been nailed to the couch watching "Caroline in the City" reruns. Thanks to Peter King and his gimlet eye, I see that this little-known Romo chap is due for big things.

I don't get the hate for this article. Sure he talks about a "celebrity QB", but there was plenty of football talk in there as well. In particular, Romo's echoing of what most FO writers have said about "clutch QBs" when he talked about Peyton Manning.

And yea, I get it... people talk about Romo a lot. But they don't usually have actual football-related quotes from top players when they do it (its more about his relationships, with TO or Jessica Simpson).

Sigh. I never thought I'd actually pine for the days when I heard about a dog or high school girls' softball, but that was better than this.

Ya' know, if your profession is writing about the NFL, there are few different paths to take to be considered good at your job. One way is to show that you know a lot about football. Well, the frequency with which I've read King make a comment about a game I watched, and have said to myself, "Self, ol' Kingy knows as much about football as I do particle physics" has been so great that the first path has obviously been forgone by 'ol Kingy.

If one doesn't know a lot about football, one could still be a competent professional journalist covering the NFL by talking to people who are expert, and then being outstanding in the use of language. Unfortunately, it appears that 'ol Kingy in unaware that saying that a person one admires gave an "excellent" speech, in part due to it being "full of truisms", is quite a contradictory statement. Sheesh, where the hell did this dynamo of english attend college, anyways?

12. It's gotten to the point where I wonder if he has an editor to read his articles before they're printed, or if his clout at SI is so mighty that no lowly editor dares challenge him.

I liked the article. Yes, he talks about Romo and Brady instead of Favre, but at least he's talking about passing mechanics, and ways of moving in the pocket to avoid pressure--and doing it with a personalized, human touch. I thought it was good journalism for a change.

And the bit about the Hertz employees and Maryland is just really sad. (Not that I should talk--I've been known to put Jacksonville on the wrong coast of Florida by mistake!)

I liked the story about the Browns cornerback.

But Chris Simms with a 20 yard "laser"? Chris Simms? The guy who used to play for Texas? THAT Chris Simms?

MJK, a guy who gets paid to write, and yet does not know that asserting that a speech was "full of truisms" isn't a compliment, has no business pointing out the geographical ignorance possessed by the people who man the counters at car rental agencies. Oh well, maybe ol' Kingy will have this pointed out to him by an e-mailer, and he will begin to grasp the meaning of the term "irony".

I don't read PK. His writing is like nails on a chalkboard.
.
Re1:
Thanks for making the best point of the day.

If I'm running the Packers I'd release Favre at this point. I wouldn't have yesterday, but things have changed over the past 24 hours. Let him go to the Vikings if he wants, as long as it ends the sideshow.

12:

FWIW, I believe he attended Ohio University (the MAC school). I seem to remember him slipping a blurb into one of these columns a few years ago when Ohio actually had a decent football team.

He mentioned it last MMQB...

Quote:
As nightfall descended on Mississippi, a huge, black cumulus cloud (yes, I took meteorology for my science requirement at Ohio University)

So... in two weeks, he has screwed up "cumulonimbus" and "truthisms". Granted, they are minor things to remember when you went to school so long ago...

By the way, speaking of "nails on chalkboard", where has Tuesday Morning Quarterback been? I miss Easterbrook's crazy writings. Ok, no I don't, but I read it anyway.

Cyrus, it is "truisms", and when writing is your profession, not knowing what it means is almost like a carpenter not knowing how to use a hammer.

Yes. I'd rather have the TMQ than that load of crap PK produces.

Will you're overreacting. He's a sportswriter not an english teacher--who cares?

re 23: Jim, it's no overreaction--part of being a "sportswriter" is being a "writer." If a "sportswriter" wrote an article comparing "Bert Farve" with "Paxton Mandingo" and "Tom Bradley" as quarterbacks, you would doubt his credibility on the "sports" part of it; when he screws up "truisms," it's fair to doubt his credibility on the "writer" part of it.

No, Jim, he isn't a sportswriter. He's an illiterate who gets paid to bang on a keyboard nonsensically. If it's gotten to the point that only english teachers can be expected to know the meaning of a fairly common word, then ol' Kingy's remarks, regarding the educations of geographically challenged car rental agency employees, are even more ironic than I thought.

young curmudgeon, i think you've hit on something--I would be very interested to see an article as you describe, comparing Peyton Manning and Tom Brady. Where could i find such a piece? And will there be reader comments as well?

Jim, you've blown my cover! My cunning plan to publish my own article on this previously unexamined issue or, lacking that, to hijack this thread and turn it into a place where we could finally hold an overdue FO discussion on the relative merits of these gentlemen is revealed! Curses, foiled again!:-)

Yeah, I'd have to say you're overreacting with regards to "truism." Truism more and more is being used to mean "truthful insight" rather than "statement which, though truthful, lacks any useful information" which is what its dictionary definition is.

It used to be one of my pet peeves before someone explained to me that the words was almost destined to have its meaning changed. Unlike a word like "oxymoron" where it's obvious that it's intended to be derisive, "truism" doesn't sound derisive at all. What it sounds like is "truthful belief" (i.e. 'words of wisdom') - and so that's what it's slowly becoming.

Just search for "truism (any field here)" and you'll find pages upon pages of articles using it wrong.

Just as an example,
Truisms in aviation. None of the three statements there are remotely close to truisms.

It's not the only example, by far. In fact, it's probably fair to say that the common usage of truism outnumbers the dictionary definition of truism, which kindof implies it's the dictionary which is out of date.

So yeah, I'd say you're overreacting. Asking a writing professional to know the strict definition (rather than the common usage) of every word in the English language is a bit much.

That, and of course, PK's writing style is conversational. So seeing a casual usage rather than a strict usage seems fine to me.

Re 9 - Dude, I missed a "Caroline in the City" marathon? Drat!

Pat, for a professional writer to attempt to compliment someone with a description which has a dictionary definition which is precisely the opposite of a compliment is incompetent writing. When the opposite usage become so common that the dictionaries change, fine. Until then, is is bad, bad writing. Or, if the common usage is 90% complimentary, and I'd like to see the metrics, fine. Otherwise, such writing is at best opaque, which is indeed a very, very, bad quality in conversational writing. For a professional writer, I'd analogize it to someone in the travel business being unaware that Baltimore is in Maryland. Did King only learn to read in the last ten or twenty years?

Will Alan, once again tackling the big issues. Its a truism that you are the king of the over-reaction buddy.

good chance brett fvre win comeback player of the year award.

other likely winners-
MVP- Peton Manning
offnsieve Rookieof year- Darren Mcfadden
defensvie rookie of year- Rodgers Cromartie

coach of year- Lane Kiffin
defensivie MVP- Jared Allen

Stevie, this is a site devoted to football. There are no "big issues" here.

I love you too, buddy!

re 28 & 31: Will is fighting the good fight here--the point is that "truism" is a useful word and there really isn't another word that works quite as well--a truism isn't exactly a cliche, it isn't exactly a platitude, it isn't exactly a bromide (and who even knows what a bromide is, sounds like something my grandmother would take for an upset stomach), it's a truism. There's a perfectly good word for what King was trying to say: "truths." The only reason he wanted to use "truism" instead was that it sounded more high-falutin'. It seems to me that King too often wants to impress his readers as much as he wants to inform them (frequent references to players texting him, etc.) and his word choice in this instance is, I suspect, another example.

I appreciate the support curmudgeon. I have to admit that one of the reasons I raised it was due to the fact that King, often in his travel notes, ridicules non-celebrities for their various shortcomings, while often being an unfiltered suck-up to celebrities with whom he wants to maintain access, since having access is about the only thing he trades in, given his ignorance of football and utterly mediocre writing skills. What are the odds of him ridiculing one of his pet celebrities, when they display abject ignorance, in the way he ridicules less powerful people he encounters in his life as SI's vaunted senior NFL writer?

Therefore, when King once again demonstrated his shortcomings as a writer, by the clumsy manner in which he chose to compliment a colleague, I decided to hammer him for a while.

There’s a perfectly good word for what King was trying to say: “truths.”

Actually, the word for what King was trying to say is "aphorism."

But the fact that "truism" encodes a unique idea is beside the point. It's a terrible word for what it's trying to describe - "truism", "tru-ism", "ism" implying a set of beliefs, "tru" implying something that is true. Honestly, when you explain to someone for the first time what it means, it's surprising.

Phonetically, it's also awful. Negative words tend to be nasal - harsh-sounding - in English, and "truism" isn't ("trite", "banal", etc.).

Then again, King's not necessarily wrong - the dictionary definition of "truism" from Merriam-Webster is "an undoubted or self-evident truth; especially one too obvious for mention." Note the especially, meaning that it is acceptable to use it in cases where it's not too obvious for mention.

Note King's condescending description of Packer fans: Ooh, they're so Green Bayish! Just like sheep!

For all his Friend of You the Reader schtick, it's pretty evident that he looks down on his audience.

If it's Gore Vidal or William F. Buckley, I'm willing to be looked down upon. If it's an overpaid, overexposed hack like King? Sorry, try again.

PK is a horrible writer, and I know 10 people who could do his job better than him, but hey that is access/tenure for you.

I dunno, Pat, but using a word to describe a guy's speech which means "undoubted or self-evident truths, especially one too obvious to mention" certainly doesn't preclude meaning that the speech was bad, as opposed to "excellent", which means that it is a very bad word to use, if one means to describe an excellent speech. A guy who gets paid a lot of money to write conversationally should manage to be more clear.

@15 - Yes, Chris Simms, whom the Buccaneers almost allowed to die on the field. And yes, he can throw lasers. Why, I remember his Texas career well. At least once a game it seems Chris Simms would step back in the pocket, scan the field and fire an absolute LASER of a pass - right at a safety.

But you know, Chris Simms just LOOKED like a QB, and his dad was a famous QB and is an infamous announcer, so that made it all cool. Winning was secondary.

@34 - Yes, you are right. I despise when useful words take on a banal meaning through misuse. Evidently we're all going to have to live with "disinterested" meaning "uninterested" rather than "impartial", too.

ALVOID MAYS SIGHTING!!!!

The reason I remember him is he was an ad for some Redskins highlight video where he leaps into the endzone on an int. return with some fan's toilet paper streamer flying through the air dramatically. The reason I'll never forget him was his name was Alvoid.

That example would carry more weight if the Founding Fathers didn't also use "disinterested" to mean "not interested".

Pat is definitely correct in this. I'm a 19-year-old writer with a normally extensive vocabulary and this nails it:

"It’s not the only example, by far. In fact, it’s probably fair to say that the common usage of truism outnumbers the dictionary definition of truism, which kind of implies it’s the dictionary which is out of date.

So yeah, I’d say you’re overreacting. Asking a writing professional to know the strict definition (rather than the common usage) of every word in the English language is a bit much."

It's true: the common usage of it outnumbers the dictinary definition of it greatly, at least in my experience growing up in Southern California. And if I could make that same mistake simply because I was never exposed to that in a pretty diverse environment, then it's kind of hard to fault Peter King here and you come off like a nitpicker.

KamMoye, I'm very curious; why is your experience more valid than mine, especially given that Peter King isn't a nineteen year old from California? Might it not be possible that your knowledge of vocabulary is not as extensive as you tend to believe? Why is it nitpicking to expect a writer for one of the nation's most prominent publications to know the dictionary definition of a fairly common word? I'll ask again; at what age did Peter King learn to read? The man is in fifties, I believe.

Wow...we miss football, dont we?

Well, Omar, I'm just messin' around mostly, because King is so obnoxiously condescending, without having any real accomplishments or talents of note. I was legitimately surprised, however, to learn that many think it is common to use the word "truism" in a complimentary manner. I've almost always have noticed it being used in a disparaging way, which is why it appeared so incongruent to me when King complimented a colleague with the word. As noted above, it's no big deal.

Today's word of the day "pedant".

I was legitimately surprised, however, to learn that many think it is common to use the word “truism” in a complimentary manner.

Like I said - this was a pet peeve of mine for a while, until someone (a language professor, in fact) pointed out that there are several words that, if it wasn't for dictionaries, would've been repurposed a long time ago. Truism, inflammable, disinterested. Given modern trends of "longer words = more impressive", penultimate and ultimate could have switched places as well.

It happens. Most of learning a language is recognizing certain patterns, rather than memorizing huge amounts of words. Recognizing prefixes/suffixes, recognizing sound patterns, etc. Something starts out as a connotation, and slowly evolves into a meaning.

If you've ever played the game "Balderdash", you know what I mean. If you didn't know what "aphorism" or "truism" meant, and you were given the definitions of both, it's safe to say that most people would mix the two up.

Honestly, though, the entire argument is really silly. Did you know what PK meant? I did. It was obvious from context. Therefore, the writing wasn't bad. The word choice was, but those are two different things.

Decent writing (i.e. you understood his meaning) with poor word choice is far, far better than the other way around - which is Len Pasquerelli.

Though I am sympathetic to your irritation, Will, I tend to agree that it's a little much. We all know PK's style is narrative and simple. Plainly, he is not the most perspicacious of writers. That is, perhaps, a truism in every sense of the word.

But I wouldn't go so far as to mark him a talentless hack. Apart from his "Farve-oritism," and his mild condescension, he tells a good story in the vernacular.

So did Hemingway.

Now, I'm not saying that PK and Hemingway are comparable any more than to the extent that they both put pen to paper. All I'm saying is that there is far more to being a good writer than technical mastery of the English language.

Since we're griping about word usage now- is anyone else really annoyed when people use "disconnect" when they mean "disconnection"? Like "There seems to be a disconnect between Brett Favre and Packer management" instead of "There seems to be a disconnection between Brett Favre..." It looks like that's one of those words whose usage has changed for no apparant reason and is now accepted as generally good use.

50. Yea, which is why I don't take issue with King as much as Will does. I think it's an editor's job to fix issues such as word usage-- although that could easily also be King's fault (for not using one, listening to one, etc.)

I want to read about Paxton Mandingo. :(

I'm more concerned when PK screws up facts more than any incorrect words/grammar. Yes, he's a writer. But he's an sports entertainment writer. I expect his writing to be readable, not something that would be approved by my high school developmental writing teacher. OTOH, I wasn't too happy when he called GB fans sheep just because we don't act like the Queen of Hearts in Wonderland during Favrewatch Day 238.

52: I can't see what an editor could do with "truism" other than kick it back to PK to try again.

He could have meant "self-evident truth", "wisdom", "aphorisms", "insights", or a host of other words, many of which are near-opposites in meaning. (An insight is far from being self-evident, for instance.)

That's the problem: not only was the word choice wrong, but the meaning (other than "I liked it") is muddled. So the editor took PK at his word and stuck with "truism". Who knows? Maybe PK likes vacuous statements. Would that surprise anyone here?

Were you able to figure out what King meant by "truisms"? Or was it truly "awful" (from awe full or full of awe, which at one point might be considered a compliment in its strictest sense)? Sometimes conversational English is a little contradictory. My favorite phrase that is, by definition, over-used (or wrongly used):

"Needless to say" - if it was needless to say then there is no reason to say it, let alone this phrase.

I wonder how much MMQB was dedicated to Favre, including discussion about not talking about Favre. I would guess more than 10%, which tends to be King's quota. The bizarre thing is that this is one of those weeks where there may actually be news or insights related to Favre that King could offer.

While I doubt the Packers would do it, I think they could keep Favre around as a backup QB. Your 3rd string QB may be a QB of the future, but who knows. Your 2nd string, or backup, QB should possess the following traits:
1) Be experienced - An experienced QB may have an easier time with a given system and receiving corps
2) Be capable of not losing games (something Favre improved in his last year, like M. Jordin did in his last years, becoming a better team player rather than just outstanding individual player)
3) Needs few repititions with the starting team (usually 10%, if that), which can help the starting QB
4) Be willing and able to study Film (another place of improvement for Favre, recently)

Some of these benefit the backup QB by not putting as much as much wear on an aging player's body. Fewer hits and repititions may allow for an extra year or two (or less pain in retirement).

I'm not sure Favre would be ideal for a few reasons: salary cap, potential distraction, may not be ideal coach for Rodgers. However, I think it could work and Green Bay might be stronger for it. Of course, even New England or Indianapolis (and certainly other contenders, such as Dallas, Jacksonville, Minnesota, New York Giants or San Diego) might be better with such a capable QB able to play a couple games should the starter go down.

Various thoughts:

A) Send it to the 'Word Fugitives' section of The Atlantic and let Barbara Wallraff weigh in on this.

B) I'm behind Will Allen all the way, though I think he's turned up to 11 on an issue that is more deserving of an 8.

C) I don't care for Peter Kings column, in content or style. I started reading it two years ago since this site always links to it, then I stopped about a year ago when I just couldn't take it anymore. I do, however, read the comments on his article to find out who is going to pound on him about what every week. It is a nice way to get some hate on with no one really getting hurt.

Ya' might have a point there, nat.

Pat, my standards for what constitutes decent writing is different for someone who is writing for a major media outlet than it is for someone who is, say, an accountant who is posting a comment at Football Outsiders. It isn't unreasonable to expect people who get paid a lot of money to write to employ good word usage.

Like I said earlier, if King ever demonstrated superior knowledge of the game he covers, or offered unusual insights into the game, his mediocre language skills might be less grating. He does this so rarely, however, that I can't recall it ever happening.

Your point about changing word usage is well taken, however, even if I have not noticed such a major change in "truism". I'm really going to be irritated, however, if present trends continue, and "ironic" becomes a fully acceptable synonym for "coincidental". Or "gentleman" become fully acceptable in the context of "The gentleman then walked into his former workplace, and shot seven of his former co-workers.".

Timmy, I certainly don't think of this as being the major evidence that King is a talentless hack. I don't recall what finally convionced me to stop reading him last year (hey, what can I say? I suffered a setback.), but I do recall writing at the time that I suspected that King didn't actually watch the games he commented on, which I suppose might mean he is a lazy hack instead of a talentless one.

In any case, he sucks, and he sucks while being a shameless suck-up to the prominent people he depends on, and a condescending jerk to many non-prominent people he ridiculously looks down upon. Quite a combination.

55. That's exactly what an editor's job is: to edit your text so you're really saying what you mean.

59: True.

But an editor can't detect meaning where none exists. In that case, the editor's job is to send the piece back, not to decide what the author should have meant.

The reason PK has such access is that he "knob slobbers" over any player/coach/front-office person he writes about and the general public eats it up.

Everyone in the NFL wants PK to write about him, because they know that PK will paint them in the most favorable light, no matter what the true performance measures will say...so they come out of the woodwork in droves to get noticed and written about.

Of course that means with all that access...PK's columns turn into nothing more than a "Dick Vitale ball washing" with no objectivity and analysis beyond..."hey (insert player's name) he really gets it and wow, does he really want to get better".

PK isn't a sports journalist, he's a SI-paid PR machine for the NFL, Starbucks and the Red Sox.

Definitions and language evolve over time. Will, you may dislike PK but through his use of "truism" he is on the forefront of a shift in the English language. Peter may be ridiculed in 2008 for his "misuse" of this word, but one day linguists and etymologists will look at him with reverence

Pretty funny, jim.

I don't mind PK as much as some, but the one really annoying thing he does is making it appear as if all these players are dying to have his approval...Texting him at all hours, Gary Baxter excitedly asking, "Did you see me play today" I can't believe the conversations really go down like this.

"Truism" = "West Coast Offense" of the English language?

Since we're on the subject, the one that bugs me is decimated.

It's a great sounding word but there's a real disconnect (right, Temo?) between it's actual meaning and the way it's used to describe a teams injury situation.

#66 - Well, if 1/10th of your team is down with injuries, then I guess you could use the word with precision.

Or, if after an egregiously ugly loss, Herm randomly selects 5 players from his roster of 53, and has them stoned to death by their teammates, I suppose you could also say that the Chiefs have been decimated.

The one that really gets me, and this goes for all sports, is the term "Salary Cat" which is used to describe the maximum amount a team can pay its players. The use of "cat" here really makes no sense and the literal meaning does not convey what it actually means. I guess we have all gotten used to it though since we all get the idea.

I can only assume this phrase came about because every team had one guy who dealt with these salary issues, and he was referred to as a "cat" (like in a hip sort of slang) and so the name "Salary cat" stuck. Otherwise it makes no sense.

Decimate is definitly one of my favorite words, from the origin of the word to its current meaning. Originally, (at least according to my high school Latin teacher) it comes from the Romans, who killed every 10th legionnaire of rebellious legions (or decimated the Legion) as punishment. Overtime it lost the fractional part of the meaning to mean just any action that killed off or destroyed a large portion of a population-- whether it be people or anything else (i.e. AIDS decimated sub-Saharan Africa in the 20th century).

I agree though, using the word to mean "reduce the function or wholeness of" (where it pertains to a team suffering from injuries, in this case) is just plain wrong.

67. Actually, unless a portion of the team actually died from injury, you can't use it like that. Your Herm proposition, on the other hand, is accurate.

Jim, that's so crazy it might be brilliant.

Would it be ironic if a gentleman named Herm Edwards coached a team which lost a game, after he surreptitiously attempted to guarantee a win by bribing a referee named Edwards, because Herm Edwards' team was decimated by injuries?

I take it by your post, Will, that you believe "surreptitiously" is used wrong in that sentence (I think that's what you intended, anyway). How is it used wrongly there, though? Enlighten me!

Ha! Faked you out! Nope, that's a word in that post which was meant to be interpreted in it's correct definition.

By the way, I just looked up "disconnect" in merriam webster and apparantly they've had it as a usable noun since 1976.(Whereas it's been a verb since 1770)

So who knows... in 2050 they'll change "truism" to mean "containing truth" as a second definition and we'll have an old, doddering Will Allen railing against the irreversible evils of Peter King.

Hell, I'll be happy to be railing against anything in 2050!

It's probably worth noting in this thread that Merriam Webster is generally regarded as permissive when it comes to acknowledging language changes. The more prescriptivist (people who ignore Fowler's 3rd and English rose from its Latin roots to a state of perfection c. 1940) tend to decry M-W.

I personally lead strongly toward permissivism; disconnect is a word, as is gruntled, but I do draw the line with things like irregardless. I don't really like PK's use of "truism", as it creates an ambiguity, but it is part of a broader trend I've noticed w/r/t the use of the word.

One thing Aaron noted at the Chicago book signing last year is he thought PK took a lot more grief than he deserved. I thought about it, and agreed with him. Will (to pick on you), you know by now what sort of reporter PK is and what you can expect from his column. He's not going to be what you want him to be. Better to find other reporters who will give you what you're looking for, and judge PK on his own merits.

Truism Yards!

The OED dates this use of "disconnect" at 1958 and the reviled use of "decimate" to 1661. I guess I can understand complaints about the former, but whining about "decimate" is pure pedantry.

Tom, better to go back to not reading him, therefore avoiding the need to judge anyone on their merits of being a celebrity sucking-up, access worshipping, condescending to non-celebrities, poor word-using, writer without insights regarding the game of football.

I resolve to do so!

77. I had noticed that actually, about M-W. They even acknowledge the use of decimate to mean "to cause great harm".

There's two different parts of this arguement, Jerry. One part concerns the use of "decimate" to mean only the reduction by 1/10th of something. I know people like William Safire have insisted that it only be used in this sense, chiefly because of the word logic (Dec=10, etc.). However, I would concede that most people do not go to such lengths; in practice, decimate in it current form does indeed mean to "destroy a large portion of".

The other part, where I draw the proverbial line, is when it is used to mean something other than "destroy" or "eliminate". Injuries not destroy a large portion of a team, they weaken it or reduce its function. Now, you're right in that some (many? I don't know) do accept the "harm" interpretation, but its a bit of a stretch for me.

Re #79 -

I didn't think I was whining...

And just because I got a thing about that word doesn't mean that I like young boys.

Apparently Favre has now walked out of camp. The media continue to play up the angle that this is a game of chicken, and they wonder who is going to "blink" first.

Why are the media so dense? The Packers have absolutely nothing to gain from the unconditional release of Brett Favre. If he insists on cancelling his retirement, the Packers are well-advised to have him fight for his place on the depth chart, just like every other player who has signed a contract with the Packers for this Fall. Isn't that the point of a contract?

I wonder at what point the media will stop making excuses for him and point out the fact that he is behaving just as childishly as Manny Ramirez was before the trade to the Dodgers.

Oh, right. Manny was a "clubhouse cancer" but Favre is a "living legend". Skin color has nothing to do with it.

re: 83
Pedantry = pedarasty?

re 85

'twas a joke, man.

84. And lets not forget how selfish Chad Johnson is for his touchdown celebrations and wanting a trade. But Favre flinging snowballs... how playfully exuberant! Favre demanding to be cut/traded... let him go! He just wants to play!

Also, I'm pretty sure Omar was kidding.

Uh, no, RickD. Let me know when Favre is getting a weekly check while refusing to play, due to phantom injuries. Let me know when Favre announces that he wants to take off weeks six through eight. The situations aren't even close to being analogous. The Packers have made it clear that they would prefer that Favre stay retired, and thus not draw a salary. The Red Sox never did that with Ramirez.

The Packers better be careful for what they wish for, if they are now publicly stating that they want Favre to come in and compete for the job, and they don't really mean it, because Favre has the power to put them in a vice that they will not find very pleasant. I suspect that Favre doesn't think it makes sense yet for him force the issue by turning this into a complete three ring circus, by showing up for practice, and holding a presser every day about his competition with Rodgers. That may change tomorrow, though, and the Packers may not find it too pleasant.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that every other player on the Packers has to fight for his position, at least in the sense that some are insisting Favre has to fight for his.

Most starters show up in camp with their jobs mostly assured.

Does anyone really believe that there is an open competition for Brady's job? Or Peyton's?

Re 53: Thanks, LnGrrrR, I was so pleased with myself for inventing Paxton Mandingo, then I thought nobody noticed in the sudden outbreak of linguistics (to which I myself contributed, thus undermining my own "humor.") BTW, for all of you who actually are enjoying all this word discussion ( what the heck, football hasn't really started yet), a great blog is called "Language Log." It's worth a look.

#89: You're making an implicit assumption: you're assuming that Brady continues to play like Brady.

The act of him doing so could be considered "fighting for his job."

If Brady came in, said "screw practice, I'll be fine," sat around in a lawn chair drinking beer all day, for all training camp... fair to say he might not win the job.

Unless his competition was Rex Grossman or something. Then he still might.

But to be fair to your point, Rodgers has been fighting for his job. It's just he, so far, has proven himself perfectly capable (presumedly). It's crazy to say that every player on the Packers has to fight for his job against some random Hall-of-Fame level phantom player who might show up at some point.

But isn't "decimate" really just being used as a metaphor there? Maybe people who say this have forgotten that it was once being used as a metaphor and actually have no real idea what it means, but does that make it no longer a metaphor? Isn't "decimate" like any cliche--something that was once clever and then slowly grew so commonplace that it lost any tie to its once striking origins? Do you get upset when somebody refers to throwing a "bomb"? Or when a comedian says he "killed" out there? Or when someone says a critic "savaged" a play?

In the great (unwanted?) tradition of FO, I am calling for an Irrational Favre Argument Thread.

In the great (unwanted?) tradition of FO, I am calling for an Irrational Favre Argument Thread.

And I'm calling for an Irrational Truism Argument Thread.

Another major argument thread would decimate this forum.

That's a truism...

re:88 Not really a linguist but the phrase "holding a presser everyday" is really bad use of the english language, much worse than truisms, also sports illustrated is written at approximately a 5th grade level for the average American to enjoy.

"good word usage" I love that line!

Some people have a way with words, and others, well... um ... er .... I guess they "not have way" ..

92: Great point. It hardly matters whether we consider "decimate" a metaphor or a word with several meanings. The meaning is clear, and it's correct either way.

Not so with "truism", which when misused is neither clear nor has any metaphoric power.

Or, cutting to the money shot, PK wrote like a hack with muddled thoughts and poor command of the language.

94: "Irrational Truism Argument Thread" is redundant, dontcha think?

#96, you must be not much of a reader, either, since I didn't write "everyday".

#97, I'm still waiting for my check from Time/Warner, as compensation for my language skills, and in my defense, at least none of the words I employed have a defintion which communicates an idea which is the opposite of the idea I intended to convey.

I think it is very difficult these days to find articles that are both informative and well-edited. It would certainly make an editor's job easier if the writer in question had a solid command of the language in which he was writing, but considering some of the mistakes I've read or seen recently, I wonder if perhaps it's the editors we should be criticizing. (Example: Comcast SportsNet last night with a graphic about this Goddell fellow and his expectations for NFL fans this season.)

I understand that blogs are generally written with less attention to grammar (although I do try to write well when I post), but I think regular articles could be held to standards similar to those we apply to print media, especially when the article in question is written on a site like SI.com.

It shouldn't be that hard for a group of people to produce a well-edited article, not when it's what they're paid to do, but it seems to be a consistent problem in the industry. I don't even bother to report factual errors on ESPN's site any more ...

Apparently Favre willing to consider the Bucs now.

The only two remaining stumbling blocks are the Packers wanting language in the deal to ensure that Favre does not play against them when they meet this regular season, and their requirement that the Bucs not trade Jeff Garcia to the Vikings or Bears.

re: 86
Guess I didn't think it was funny.

I'm no expert on the CBA, but it sure does seem if the Packers are really trying to control not only what happens to Favre, but also Garcia, that they are starting to tread into a confrontation with the Players Union, something I would think that the league just doesn't need to add to their plate right now.

I just don't understand why they don't either let him play for them or, if he isn't any good anymore, let him damage some other team.

Well, I wrote a comment defending Manny in response to Manny against Will Allen's smear. (#88) It has disappeared. I guess smearing a baseball player is on-topic for a football site, but defending him isn't?

I'm fine with the whole exchange being deleted, but fair is fair. Delete Will's smear while you're at it.

RickD: /eyeroll

Chiming in to say: god I can't wait for real football to be back.

I find it very high-larious if Favre came back, was picked up by the Bucs, or whoever, and was just horrible. 30 INTs and 6 TDs or something like that. It would be an excellent end to his legacy if he then retired, and attempted to come back next year and remained an unsigned free agent.

PK reports that the Jets have offered a definite third/conditional first, and that the Bucs aren't close to that, but that Favre doesn't fancy New York.

I'm going to go ahead and side with Will Allen on the "truism" issue. I always tell my students (mostly college freshmen) that the most important part of good writing is clarity. The reader should not have to wonder what you mean. That means always making sure you KNOW the definition of EVERY word you write. Yes, even the best are guilty of using words improperly from time to time, but PK does it regularly. If I didn't know PK was a bit dim, I might take his remark as a subtle insult. As a professional writer who has access to editors, he should be able to avoid at least 90% of the mistakes he makes. Maybe we should pitch in and buy him a copy of Fowler's Modern English Usage.

Much of PK's writing flows well. But you also get weird lapses, where he completely whiffs on an easy word or phrase.

"Truism" was a grating example.

There's also "the Packers snubbing their noses at" Favre, which involves ignoring their own noses? Dismissing their noses? Extinguishing their noses by grinding them (into Favre! yuck!)? Looping their noses around a cleat to secure their boat to the dock?

If PK were accurate, this could truly have been a case of "cutting off your nose to spite your Favre".