By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Stephen Young
By Jim Schutze
By Rachel Watts
By Lauren Drewes Daniels
No score, what a bore: Man, I must say you take the prize as idiot writer of the year. First of all, it's very apparent you have no understanding of soccer ("Nil Appeal," by Richie Whitt, July 6) or must not like any sports at all, for that matter. All you care about is points? Again, you must not have played sports as a kid. Let me guess, you played the flute in the band. That's OK, I love music.
Let's begin with baseball. It's by far the most boring sport on this planet. I have to take a Valium to watch a ball game. Since the only thing you care about is points, like I told the idiot Hardline guys at The Ticket a few years back: "What if you have two pitchers pitching a no-hitter going into the 9th inning. That's a 0-0 baseball game. Of course you wouldn't find that exciting."
OK, now let's go to NBA basketball. Man, why not start the game in the last two minutes when the score is 110-110? Then it takes 15 minutes to play the last 30 seconds--Wow! Pretty damn exciting. But I guess you like to see each team score 50-plus times a game.
How about the NFL? It takes three-plus hours to play 60 minutes. Now, that's a free-flowing game to me. Huddle...run up the middle for two yards...huddle...30 seconds later another run up the middle for one yard...huddle...now the QB drops back and gets sacked...45 seconds later a punt...Now that's what I call excitement.
So, what's left, hockey? It's similar to soccer but is higher-scoring; maybe indoor soccer is a closer comparison. But you can't like hockey, Richie.
It's obvious you only watched one or two of the 60 games in this World Cup so far. You missed the first game: Germany vs. Costa Rica (three goals in the first 20 minutes--which in football is equal to 21 points). How about Germany vs. Argentina--did you see that? Again, maybe you should watch more games before you make your stupid opinions known.
Hey, I think there's a baseball game on tonight. I need some good shuteye, so I'll be watching.
Head butt: Dear Mr. Whitt, I would like to suggest that you should write about things you do know something about. Certainly you underestimate America's general disposition, as the sport has gained much in popularity here. Should you have any doubts, I recommend you drive down Northwest Highway on any given weekend and have a good look at the crowds around the four or five soccer fields near Garland Road during the season. Maybe then you would not write such personal and highly inaccurate drivel. I understand that you do not like the game. To waste that much time on something that can be said in one sentence speaks volumes about your personal disposition. As for the Dallas Observer to give such a story a full page? Something like this should not pass, even as satire.
The Beautiful Room: As a friend of the "baby-faced" guy and the "busty blond lawyer" mentioned in your article ("Eye of the Beholder," by Andrea Grimes, June 29), I just gotta say that I got a really great evil chuckle over your article about their little club...it was a great article!
I love 'em both, but you really nailed it!
Ugly inside: As a nomad, I have to say this article pretty much sums up why people hate Dallas. As a matter of fact, it is why I hate Dallas. I grew up in Boston, went to college in Ohio, lived in California, Rhode Island, Connecticut and now...Dallas. The people here really are beautiful on the outside but hideous on the inside. It is a sad place to live if you are single and under the age of 35.
Boobless bore: I am beginning to worry that, similar to the Dallas City Council, the Observer is throwing away money on programs (in this case, stories from a particular author) that just aren't worth it and continue to do so after it is evident that the program isn't working (in this case, the author has little talent). I am thankful that the Observer is free (and I appreciate that fact), because I would stop any payment or subscription based on the knowledge that some of that money was going to pay Ms. Andrea Grimes for her drivel. I will give the Observer kudos for limiting her latest submission, Girl on Top, to only a few pages, rather than half the issue ("Rich Kids Behaving Badly," November 3, 2005). I guess I just don't get it. Is there that much blind animosity toward the rich in Dallas that it requires a quarterly discharge from Ms. Grimes? I understand that Ms. Grimes doesn't have the money or the boobs that the Highland Park gals have. It's obvious that she's not pleased about it. But is it necessary for her insecurity and self-loathing to be expressed in essentially pointless, boring stories every few months? I'm not trying to defend those she writes about. I'm not rich, and I don't live in those areas where Ms. Grimes apparently aspires to reside. I only invest my time to write this comment because I'm utterly amazed that the Observer, a periodical I've come to enjoy reading during my years in Dallas, would allow such work to be printed.