Why Do I Continue to Read Peter King?

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Late to the game on this one, but from his most recent column:

I second that. It is absurd the Raiders and Niners play once every four years. The way to accomplish this is simple. Each team is assigned a rival in the other conference that it would play every year. Half the teams in the league, or maybe 18, would have it easy. Giants-Jets, Ravens-Skins, Steelers-Eagles, Bucs-Dolphins, Chiefs-Rams, Texans-Cowboys, Raiders-49ers, Jags-Falcons, Bears-Colts. The other 14 teams would invent a rivalry, because some teams would not have a natural rival. Arizona-San Diego. Seattle-Denver. Detroit-Cleveland. And some teams wouldn't have a regional or sensible rival; and in those cases, the teams would have to just take one for the league. The benefit to most is worth some pain to others.
This is a horrible idea. Fun for some fans, sure, but wrong nonetheless.

and:

g. The Red Sox scored 46 runs in 51 hours in their four-game sweep in Chicago, thanks in large part to David Ortiz finally starting to hit. For a few months, he was producing an awful lot like Brian Daubach.
Brian Daubach? Really? Hey Peter, there is more to evaluating a player than just looking at how many HR he has on the season.

b. No more [Eric]Gagne references in the column this week. I promised my doctor, who is worried about my blood pressure.
I think your doctor was just being kind.
 

Nuf Ced

stupidity monitor
SoSH Member
Jul 27, 2001
9,716
Cape Ann
today's mmqb:

I think I understand the NFL having a zero-tolerance policy for performance-enhancing drugs, and it acted properly in whacking the Patriots' Rodney Harrison for four games after he admitted using a banned substance (reportedly human growth hormone). And good for him, by the way, in admitting it instead of hiding behind some legalese, or saying in a Sheffieldesque or Bondsian way he had no idea what he was taking. But to give Cowboys assistant Wade Wilson five games for taking a banned substance solely to help him fight diabetes? Over-the-top.

When a Lions assistant (Joe Cullen) gets one game for driving through a fast-food drive thru nude and a DUI (that's one game total) and Wilson gets five for using a banned substance to treat his diabetes ... that's just wrong. Now, Wilson should have told someone -- the league, Cowboys officials, someone -- he was taking something illicit. But the punishment here just does not fit the crime.
Oral steroids can worsen blood glucose control, so Wilson's explanation doesn't ring true. Does Peter King not get that Wade Wilson may have been a middle man, obtaining the drugs and passing them onto players? How can he be so naive?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
When it comes to dealing with football players Peter King makes Peter Gammons look like the fucking Punisher. Everyone is a "great guy" with a "terrific moral compass".
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
King's explanation of the incident with the miscontrued mention of Bellichek is twisted in so many directions at once, but finally comes out with his intended finale: Everyone's at fault except Peter.
 

SydneySox

A dash of cool to add the heat
SoSH Member
Sep 19, 2005
15,605
The Eastern Suburbs
King's explanation of the incident with the miscontrued mention of Bellichek is twisted in so many directions at once, but finally comes out with his intended finale: Everyone's at fault except Peter.
Yeah. I'm not entirely sure how we ended up agreeing that Mangini didn't pass his phone message along because coaches are evil.
 
I am very confused by this note in today's MMQB

I think Randy Moss is going to be one of the compelling stories of this season. He had a what-did-you-expect attitude after the game. The answer to that is, we had no idea what to expect. Said Moss: "Before today, because I was hurt, Tom didn't have all his toys to play with. Now that he does, the sky's the limit for him.'' If Moss has 14 relatively healthy games, there is going to be a great football team ... and I mean great, that gets eliminated before the AFC championship weekend.
Is he saying that because of some bizarre grudge he holds over Randy Moss that because of Moss, the pats will miss the AFCC or is he saying that unless Moss is healthy they'll miss the AFCC or is he saying that even if Moss is a little healthy they'll blow some indeterminate great team out of the water in the playoffs?

The above are my best guesses about what he means, but none of them seem like reasonable conclusions to draw right now.
 

ColoradoJack

New Member
Aug 18, 2005
431
5280 feet straight up
I am very confused by this note in today's MMQB
Is he saying that because of some bizarre grudge he holds over Randy Moss that because of Moss, the pats will miss the AFCC or is he saying that unless Moss is healthy they'll miss the AFCC or is he saying that even if Moss is a little healthy they'll blow some indeterminate great team out of the water in the playoffs?

The above are my best guesses about what he means, but none of them seem like reasonable conclusions to draw right now.
i think what he's saying is that there are three great teams in the AFC with room for only 2 in the championship game....best guess...
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
I'm beggin' you guys. Don't do it today. You'll just ruin your lunch.
 

LMontro

New Member
Aug 4, 2007
667
Live Free or Die
Ugh. I should have taken the advice to not read it. I am not sure if this was worse than having to listen to Chris Berman use his "serious voice" on Countdown yesterday and say how "disappointing" this whole thing is.
 

Dim13

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
1,893
The mucky muck
Jesus, just when you thought this thing couldn't be blown out of proportion any more than it already has.

Maybe if they have the Pats forfeit their Super Bowls and then immediately fold the franchise it will make all of this OK.
 

Doug Beerabelli

Killer Threads
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
How old is Mr. King? Must be no older than 11, which would explain why guys like Mays, Mantle, Williams etc etc etc would be behind CI as the best player of PK's lifetime. There's a better player who stands 40 feet away from CI every night.

At this point, I think I'd rather have OJ as a Sox fan.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Honestly, I didn't think it was that bad. Sure, it was anti-BB to an extent, but who cares?

EDIT 1: Ok, the comment having to do with a NY Times sports editorial (THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD! according to King) calling the Patriots "Model Cheaters" is pretty stupid. It was a fucking editorial by a New York sports writer, Peter. Consider the source for a minute.

EDIT 2: Oh, fucking Puke. Best player in your lifetime? Seriously?
 

John Marzano Olympic Hero

has fancy plans, and pants to match
Dope
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2001
24,533
c. Never a good idea to pitch to Derek Jeter if you could pitch to Bobby Abreu instead. I don't care what the stats say. Ask Curt Schilling if, with first base open, he'll ever want to pitch to the best player of my lifetime again.
Going with what Beerabelli said, "The best player of my lifetime"? Really? Are you serious? There are two better "best players" of his lifetime in Jeter's locker room in Clemens and Rodriguez. Three if you want to include Rivera. Listen, I'm not a Jeter basher. I'd take him any day on the Red Sox, he's the last man standing in the greatest boom of AL shortstops that the game has ever seen (ARod, Nomar, Tejada, Jeter and Vizquel) and he's won a lot, had some big hits for the Yanks, but the best player? You've got to be on fucking crack.

And did I miss something over the week, with the way King wrote about Belichick, I figure that BB had to have nailed a number of little kids. That happened right? Because King's hysteria over the situation is a little over-the-top. And a few times last week he brought up the whole HGH suspensions vs. the cheating suspension a number of times and no one ever said to him, "Peter; HGH, steroids, etc are illegal in this country. Cheating is not." until Goodell said something? Man.

Oh yeah, way to be completely sanctimonious about your opinion over someone else's. Howie Long how could you even think about going against the moral compass that is Peter King. And a big fuck you to that fat fuck who was pissed that a woman was putting on her makeup and taking up room while he sat there on his gigantic lap top and pecked away while his flabby arms were smacking every one in sight. You're the only one that's right, Peter.

I hate this guy.
 

Maalox

full of shit, and proud of it
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I don't know if this is the exact same entry, but I think it's the same idea, and its fucking hilarious anyway.
It is?

I think for something to be hilarious, it has to make sense. That was...well, that was a huge letdown. Like having someone tell you a joke only he could possibly find funny, because he's the only one who even understands it.
 

LMontro

New Member
Aug 4, 2007
667
Live Free or Die
Honestly, I didn't think it was that bad. Sure, it was anti-BB to an extent, but who cares?

EDIT 1: Ok, the comment having to do with a NY Times sports editorial (THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWSPAPER IN THE WORLD! according to King) calling the Patriots "Model Cheaters" is pretty stupid. It was a fucking editorial by a New York sports writer, Peter. Consider the source for a minute.

EDIT 2: Oh, fucking Puke. Best player in your lifetime? Seriously?
Who cares though, right? :lol:
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
It is?

I think for something to be hilarious, it has to make sense. That was...well, that was a huge letdown. Like having someone tell you a joke only he could possibly find funny, because he's the only one who even understands it.
Maalox, one of the handfuls of people that got the rather obvious humor in that link- myself included- would be glad to walk you through it. All you need to do is ask, brother.
 

easmith11

New Member
Jul 25, 2005
144
Greater Boston or Maine
The thing that gets me about today's "football" article is that he does not have one good thing to say about the Pats onfield performance, nothing he liked, no player of the game. What was supposed to be the premier game of the weekend, turned into a laugher by the talent of the Pats, but he can't bring himself to say anything nice about them, wow.

The Jeter thing was laughable, pathetic.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
Please do, because I got zilch from that.
If you've ever read The Onion, there's a column "written" by a guy that focuses on Hollywood, celebrities, gossip, that sort of thing. He's kind of a cross between a Jiminy Glick type character and a guy writing about pop culture for a small town newspaper. Malapropisms, misinformed "outrage," doofy pollyanna observations, misspellings, really lame play-on-words stuff. "This Jerry Steinfeld phenomenon makes no sense to me- too mean! A show about nothing indeed!"- that sort of thing.

The article was pointing out how similar this joke column is to the actual pop culture musings of Peter King. For someone at all familiar with this thing from the Onion, the similarities are both funny and seemingly endless. This made me laugh; I've read both and never made the connection.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
If you've ever read The Onion, there's a column "written" by a guy that focuses on Hollywood, celebrities, gossip, that sort of thing. He's kind of a cross between a Jiminy Glick type character and a guy writing about pop culture for a small town newspaper. Malapropisms, misinformed "outrage," doofy pollyanna observations, misspellings, really lame play-on-words stuff. "This Jerry Steinfeld phenomenon makes no sense to me- too mean! A show about nothing indeed!"- that sort of thing.

The article was pointing out how similar this joke column is to the actual pop culture musings of Peter King. For someone at all familiar with this thing from the Onion, the similarities are both funny and seemingly endless. This made me laugh; I've read both and never made the connection.

Explaining a joke always makes it so much funnier.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
GOOD LESSON. From Paul Goodwin, of Seattle: "I just finished reading a book on Bobby Jones -- The Grand Slam by Mark Frost. In one tournament, Jones called a penalty on himself because his ball may have moved less than an inch after moving some loose debris. No one was watching, and even Walter Hagen, playing with him, told him not to take the penalty. He took the 1-stroke penalty and lost the tournament by one stroke. After the media heralded him for his honesty, Jones got upset, saying that congratulating a sportsman for following the rules was like cheering a garbage man for picking up the garbage. It was his job to play fair. I think a lot of professional coaches and players in all sports would benefit from reading about how Jones reached the highest level of success with complete humility and integrity.''

Your e-mail gives me chills. Thanks for writing, Paul.
I love this guy.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I think Peter King has some deep, dark, secret that he has spent his adult life trying to live down. Like, he was busted for transporting a minor across state lines back in the 70's or something and then got hit with a perjury charge.
 

Maalox

full of shit, and proud of it
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
If you've ever read The Onion, there's a column "written" by a guy that focuses on Hollywood, celebrities, gossip, that sort of thing. He's kind of a cross between a Jiminy Glick type character and a guy writing about pop culture for a small town newspaper. Malapropisms, misinformed "outrage," doofy pollyanna observations, misspellings, really lame play-on-words stuff. "This Jerry Steinfeld phenomenon makes no sense to me- too mean! A show about nothing indeed!"- that sort of thing.

The article was pointing out how similar this joke column is to the actual pop culture musings of Peter King. For someone at all familiar with this thing from the Onion, the similarities are both funny and seemingly endless. This made me laugh; I've read both and never made the connection.
1) I read the Onion all the time.

2) The whole Jackie Harvey gag is based on the fact that that is a common type in the media. Jackie Harvey is hundreds if not thousands of people. Peter King's wide-eyed, pop culture cluelessness isn't even rare in high-profile media; Andy Rooney, Larry King, Art Buchwald, the list goes on. To suggest that "Peter King is Jackie Harvey" is not to make a joke, but to fail to completely get the joke that is Jackie Harvey.

3) The blow-by-blow juxtaposition of passages which often aren't related topically was confusing and not inventive, so it could not rescue this klunker from its heavily flawed premise.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
2) The whole Jackie Harvey gag is based on the fact that that is a common type in the media. Jackie Harvey is hundreds if not thousands of people. Peter King's wide-eyed, pop culture cluelessness isn't even rare in high-profile media; Andy Rooney, Larry King, Art Buchwald, the list goes on. To suggest that "Peter King is Jackie Harvey" is not to make a joke, but to fail to completely get the joke that is Jackie Harvey.
True, but I think they both hold a sort of Polly-anna naivete that made the comparison more funny than, say, a Larry King or Andy Rooney one. I think including either of those two in the comparison suggests you still don't really get the joke.

3) The blow-by-blow juxtaposition of passages which often aren't related thematically, let alone topically, was confusing and not inventive, so it cannot rescue this klunker from its heavily flawed premise.
They weren't related in theme or topic- as was the point of the piece, they're related in tone and retardation.

Might I suggest you're overthinking this? They share similarities; this much is hard to argue. One is a fictional character created to be laughed at. The other's a grown man being 100% serious.
 

Maalox

full of shit, and proud of it
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Might I suggest you're overthinking this?
I'm not thinking any more about this than you are. I'm only responding in detail because you "walked me through it." My initial reaction was visceral.
They share similarities; this much is hard to argue. One is a fictional character created to be laughed at. The other's a grown man being 100% serious.
I know. That's the point. That's why it's not funny: because one person is a fictional, intentionally comic character who represents people who are serious.

The impression I got was that the writer of the column had all this time failed to understand what Jackie Harvey is making fun of - until a Peter King comparison made it clear to him. That's not a guy a making new joke; that's a guy finally figuring out a joke I understood long ago, and me having to watch while he does.

"Hah hah, Peter King is a serious version of a joke character intended to make fun of guys like Peter King." What's so funny about that?
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,399
Yoknapatawpha County
The impression I got was that the writer of the column had all this time failed to understand what Jackie Harvey is making fun of - until a Peter King comparison made it clear to him.
OK. Now I see what you're getting at.

Fuck, now I don't even think it's funny.
 

dirtynine

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 17, 2002
8,394
Philly
Come on, everybody thinks King's pop-culture references are hackneyed (much like Gammons, Simmons, Easterbrook, etc), but the fact remains these types of sportswriters are given a certain amount of "extra credit" for sharing their non-sports opinions. I think the reasoning is that it's the non-sports stuff that makes the "personality" so interesting and column-worthy; without it (and this isn't my view, but I think how these guys view themselves) it would just be an AP article with a little editorializing. Which, maybe is what it should be, because almost without fail, sports columnists have crappy and/or annoying pop-culture opinions. It's funny to see their failure to pull it off rendered so plainly.

Basically, imagine Peter King reading the article. Watching him "get it for the first time" is funny.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
Not an especially mockable column. He does make manly love to Favre.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writ...eek3/index.html

Only two true lowlights in my books. First, he writes

"I think when I hear Tedy Bruschi, the ultimate honorable competitor, rail about the Patriots' honor and how he'll stand up to anyone who questions the team's integrity, I'm really hearing him say: I'm ticked off that our great record has been sullied by Rodney Harrison's HGH suspension and Belichick getting caught videotaping other teams' signals."

Isn't King just saying that Bruschi means the opposite of what Bruschi is saying? Bruschi is pissed that people like King are doubting the Patriots' record when Bruschi doesn't think the Pats did anything wrong; he hasn't said anything suggesting he is made at Harrison or Belicick for sullying the Pats' record.

And of course King's continued travel stories suck. He rips on a guy for speaking loudly on the cellphone, again. Then he brags about how someone told him last week's make-up story was good. Chances that the guy who said the make-up story was good actually thought the make-up story was good?
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
Not an especially mockable column.

Oh, I don't know:

I really like Michael Holley's stuff. He's a talk-show host for WEEI now, but his book, Patriot Reign, on a year in the life of the Belichick Patriots, was an all-time keeper. I say this not to demean the late David Halberstam, but Holley's book was significantly richer in meaningful factoids and real knowledge about Belichick than Halberstam's -- a credit to Holley, not a criticism of Halberstam.
I haven't read either book, but King's non-insult insult is classic. Holley's book was significantly richer in meaningful factoids and real knowledge about Belichick than Halberstam's isn't demeaning? To a writer? Then King follows by saying (again) that it's not a criticism. If Halberstam were still alive, he might feel a slight sting of insult ... if he gave a shit about Peter King's opinion.
 

Carmine Hose

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 2, 2001
5,046
Dorchester, MA
I don't get all the love for Patriot Reign. It has some then-untold stories, such as the coaches hating Patrick Pass (especially Weis), but Brady loving him, so he stuck around. Other than that, it was really a long magazine feature stretched out into book form.
 

easmith11

New Member
Jul 25, 2005
144
Greater Boston or Maine
From today's column:

Last Wednesday, 7:41 a.m. New Jersey Transit train, Upper Montclair to Penn Station in Manhattan, seated in a two-seat bench seat, on the way into the city for our second HBO Inside the NFL taping of the year.

Where have you heard that one before?

What can I say? I don't travel much anymore during the season. On this morning, the well-suited salt-and-pepper-haired man is on his cell phone, loud enough for the folks in a two-seat radius to hear.

"Phoebe's good ... Yeah, yeah, right ... No, she was away for four weeks ... Saxophone camp. Can you believe that? She had a wonderful time. Lots of new techniques ... Four weeks, yeah ... On a lake up there, lots to do, a beautiful setting. We went up one weekend and loved it ... No ... No ... I don't know if that's what she'll end up playing, but she loves it now ... When she got home? She volunteered ... No, locally. She worked at an orphanage. That's not what it's called, but that's what it was. You know, working with kids, reading with them, playing, doing crafts ... ''

Got off the train with a feeling of what in the world did I do wrong with my kids. What a miserable wretch of a parent I've been. How could I have reared two non-saxophone-playing, non-orphanage-working human beings? Then, just off the escalator into the lobby of Penn Station, a guy sidled up next to me. "Hey, loved your story on the makeup lady the other day.'' And that made it all worthwhile.




This just made me cringe. So the fact that some lout on the train "loved" his story about the makeup lady made him feel better as a parent? Huh?
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
What bothered me about that little story is I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic with the "I must be a bad parent!" comments. As is the theme with his "travel notes," he's making fun of someone else on the train/plane with him. In this case, he's making fun of the guy for having active, well-rounded kids, and for having the gaul to discuss his kids with his brother, mother, friend, whatever.

The irony, of course, is that Mr. King has, for years, droned on and on about what his daughters are up to on their respective softball teams, or what college they're heading to, or whatnot, in his forum.

On top of that, as you say, he then gives himself a very public pat on the back that is appropos to nothing.

I think he's just an insecure old coot who happens to be good at writing about football.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
15,375
New York City
What bothered me about that little story is I'm pretty sure he's being sarcastic with the "I must be a bad parent!" comments. As is the theme with his "travel notes," he's making fun of someone else on the train/plane with him. In this case, he's making fun of the guy for having active, well-rounded kids, and for having the gaul to discuss his kids with his brother, mother, friend, whatever.

The irony, of course, is that Mr. King has, for years, droned on and on about what his daughters are up to on their respective softball teams, or what college they're heading to, or whatnot, in his forum.

On top of that, as you say, he then gives himself a very public pat on the back that is appropos to nothing.

I think he's just an insecure old coot who happens to be good at writing about football.
Agreed. He actually think's he's sticking it to that yuppie helicopter parent in this column, but he just ends up looking like an ass.

I think there should be something called the Peter King Principle; in the internet age good reporters are given so much bandwith, on various TV shows and on the internet, that they no longer have time to actually do a good job reporting a story. King, Z, Mort must spend a combined three hours a week reporting, a minute and a half each editing, and the rest of the time is for bloviation.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Agreed. He actually think's he's sticking it to that yuppie helicopter parent in this column, but he just ends up looking like an ass.

I think there should be something called the Peter King Principle; in the internet age good reporters are given so much bandwith, on various TV shows and on the internet, that they no longer have time to actually do a good job reporting a story. King, Z, Mort must spend a combined three hours a week reporting, a minute and a half each editing, and the rest of the time is for bloviation.
Not to mention, maybe the guy was talking about his retarded sister, or his invalid mother, or his wife who had brain cancer, or whatever.

The bottom line is that publicly chastizing a guy for being a concerned parent (or whatever his relation to the subject of his conversation was) is more reprehensible than being a loud talker.
 

JimBoSox9

will you be my friend?
SoSH Member
Nov 1, 2005
16,667
Mid-surburbia
I don't get all the love for Patriot Reign. It has some then-untold stories, such as the coaches hating Patrick Pass (especially Weis), but Brady loving him, so he stuck around. Other than that, it was really a long magazine feature stretched out into book form.
I think you nailed the reason why, though. Because the Patriots were/are so well-known for playing things very close to the vest and controlling leaks, Holly was in a position to fill the book with information that even hardcore Pats fans didn't know. An insider book that really does get inside info-wowee! I don't think anyone really holds Holly's prose in high regard, the freshness of his anecdotes is what gets the buzz and the love.
 

Reverend

for king and country
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2007
64,026
Not to mention, maybe the guy was talking about his retarded sister, or his invalid mother, or his wife who had brain cancer, or whatever.

The bottom line is that publicly chastizing a guy for being a concerned parent (or whatever his relation to the subject of his conversation was) is more reprehensible than being a loud talker.
I think... I don't understand any of this.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
I think... I don't understand any of this.
Did you read the article? King gets on a guy for talking loudly, on his cell phone, about a female who goes to camp and volunteers at a home. He implies that the guy was acting obnoxiously. How was he acting obnoxiously? Was he talking too loud? Maybe he was, but if that's the issue at hand, then what he was talking about is irrelevant, and literally millions of people talk loudly on their cell phones, oft-times because they have to. No, the key issue here is not the volume of the guy's voice. King's major bone to pick is the fact that the guy was, in all likelihood, talking about his daughter (although we don't KNOW that he was talking about his daughter. "She" can mean many things. King makes that assumption) who sounds like a pretty well rounded person. Why is this such a bad thing? King chooses his column, which is read by far, far, more people than could have overheard the guy on the phone in the first place, to make fun of some man for talking about his female aquaintance, of whom he is proud. To me, that's kind of fucked up. It's especially fucked up when one considers that King does the exact same thing that the man he's criticizing does in the very same column when he raves about how wonderful the King girls and their friends are in softball or at Tufts, or whatever.

King's reaction strikes me as hypocritical, hypersensitive, overkill vented in a very prominent location. Hence, it seems worse than the thing that he is writing about in the first place, which is just some guy talking about his daughter on a cell phone.
 

epraz

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2002
6,175
drleather, PK didn't complain about the guy talking about Phoebe, he just said:
loud enough for the folks in a two-seat radius to hear.
And then he spent the rest of the section talking about how that girl was a go-getter or whatever.
 

RFDA2000

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2005
367
drleather, PK didn't complain about the guy talking about Phoebe, he just said: And then he spent the rest of the section talking about how that girl was a go-getter or whatever.
Yeah, I took it as his way of saying I wasn't being a weirdo and listening in on this guys conversation. That he was talking loud enough for PK not to be creepy to be listening to his conversation.
 

RFDA2000

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2005
367
drleather, PK didn't complain about the guy talking about Phoebe, he just said: And then he spent the rest of the section talking about how that girl was a go-getter or whatever.
Yeah, I took it as his way of saying I wasn't being a weirdo and listening in on this guys conversation. That he was talking loud enough for PK not to be creepy to be listening to his conversation.
 

Leather

given himself a skunk spot
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
28,451
Yeah, I took it as his way of saying I wasn't being a weirdo and listening in on this guys conversation. That he was talking loud enough for PK not to be creepy to be listening to his conversation.
If that's the case, then why recount the whole story? Moreover, why the snarky comment about being a bad parent?

People talk loudly on their cell phones fucking everywhere. King chose this incident for reasons other than the volume. A 2 seat radius? Big fucking deal. You can hear someone turning a newspaper from 2 seats away.