Delete This Account

the conclusions reached by the person who wrote the piece being discussed are off base at best, and wrong at worst. to characterize owens as being "not impressed" by the region's housing market is pure baloney, and to get that impression from the piece that i wrote is irresponsible. he wasn't there. he didn't see what happened. he didn't hear what was said, and yet he takes this incongruous leap in logic in attempting to make 2-plus-X equal 4. t.o. provided me with a throwaway line, which essentially summed up what proved to be a tough day of home-shopping. and yet in referring to one of the places he saw, he actually called it "a nice place." hmmm? and yet writer of said piece comes to the assumptions that t.o. wasn't impressed. i also think it's insincere on the writer's part in how he couched the reference, as in "he was overheard." as if he spoke with a hand covering his mouth, and whispering it to his bodyguard pablo ... ooh, something "juicy." oh, lord. well, sure, t.o. was overheard. more specific, he was overheard by me in response to a question i asked. that happens a lot in my business particularly when interviewing a subject. guess the writer in question didn't want to reference The Associated Press. whatever. big deal. that's as far as i'll go on this. reach your own conclusions here. jw minor edit.

well, to put it politely, i couldn't have written the story better myself ... oops, i did. jw

um, that's the story The Associated Press moved. jw

and another backwoods county heard from.

i find it remarkable of how you immediately attempt to put the people you ask to respond to this on the defensive by suggesting the responder is some dog-loving Vick-hater and you, for some reason, stand on firm moral ground. either way, your ham-handed approach is either naive, or a clear sign that you're simply attempting to pick a fight on this issue. as for the so-called points you present, you seem to have a fascination with blood sport that might need professional attention. at the very least, you have trouble differentiating with people and animals. first you suggest that dogs are not people. and then you attempt to provide a human trait upon dogs by suggesting that "they don't do it for food or for any other justifiable reason." dogs do not differentiate between what's justifiable or not. that's a human trait, which suggests that you've just defeated whatever ill-conceived point you were attempting to make. jw Add: LUNACY!

TBD was No. 11, and Wawrow 12, I believe, eh?

Keep in mind, I think there's always been a celebrity-driven aspect to sports, going back to Babe Ruth's days. That's essentially what we do. We focus most of our time covering athletes who are known to the public. No offense to, say, John Wendling, who seems like a good guy. But in my line of work, if I wrote about Wendling on Monday and not T.O., then I'd have someone calling me 2 seconds after I pushed the file button. Maybe sooner. Heck, Donte Whitner saying he expected charges to be dropped were a distant second that day. In any given week, if I have a choice between leading with a known player or starter -- T.O., Trent, Lee, Stroud, Schobel (and you all know who I'm referring to here, without having to insert both names) -- or a backup, then I'd go with the name players, naturally, even if the backup provided me with a better quote in many cases. Of course there are some exceptions, but a backup or role player better have a compelling story in order to merit national attention. So, I don't know if ESPN is the only one moving in that direction, and I don't know whether "moving" is the apt verb. TV, by its very nature, has for a long time been a celebrity-making machine going back to JFK's debate against Nixon. It's no different, I think, with the regular fan in some cases, a reason why there's still many Jim Kelly jerseys spotted at games, and why I'm sure we'll be seeing far more T.O. jerseys than -- to continue using the comparison -- Wendling this fall. Simply judge the action on this board alone. It was big "news" last week when -- if I recall correctly -- Wendling was the subject of two separate threads. No one blinks an eye when that T.O. has five going at the same time. It might be a chicken-and-the-egg type thing, but I don't think the media is capable of "creating" a star without the public buying in at some point to provide some long-term validation. It happened during the radio payola scandals in the 1960s, when bought-off "hits" only went so far in comparison to public demand. And the same might just apply to athletes. The media can attempt to label an athlete as "the next big thing," but I think the public has a big say in it, too. jw

Good question. Keep in mind, Jordan and Gretzky played at a time when the media, in my opinion, was less celebrity-centric in some ways. Not to say characters didn't garner attention, going back to Mark "The Bird" Fydrich and "The Fridge." And there was always ABC's "Superstars" show, which is now being revived and Billy Jean King versus Bobby Riggs, events that were manufactured to create a buzz. And Jordan and Gretzky sure got their due, but in a less media cross-over way. T.O. is the athlete that has for various reasons taken it to another level, arriving at a time when ESPN was adding channels, the Internet was getting its legs and TMZ became a part of our lexicon. Owens had the right makeup to capture everyone's attention to cover all of those bases. It helps, of course, that he's a good quote, too, and not fearful of stating his opinion. (And I always raise my eyebrows when people in my line of work knock an athlete for being a good quote or providing his/her piece of mind. Blowhards or not, good talkers make my job much easier.) That said, Owens wouldn't have lasted this long in the limelight if not for his on-field success as a receiver. And I'll make certain comparisons, Anna Kornikova, was an OK tennis player, but rated more attention, I think, because of her looks. Dennis Rodman was a great player in his day, but once he left the Bulls, I think his star began to fade. Owens, so far, has maintained his profile because his play has not dropped off. He's the rare athlete, I think, that has the personality with the skills to still back up his A-list luster. Ocho Cinco comes to mind, but to a lesser degree, unable to so far match Owens' staying power. Having now seen T.O. practice up close, I'm impressed in how in shape he is. He is one of the most agile athletes I've seen, and he's 35. It's something to just see him gallop full speed on a route even when the ball isn't going his way. That's not to say that he belongs in the Jordan/Gretzky/Woods category as premier players. For one, Owens hasn't won a Super Bowl. But I think the public sometimes overlooks his ability because it's overshadowed by the mega persona. And I do think, if healthy, Owens will help this offense. jw

Oh, I don't entirely dispute that, though I'm getting a better idea of who Terrell is as I've followed him around this past week. Yes, he's got a larger than life personality and has a knack for drawing attention to himself. But I've also seen him say, so far, all the right things about "team" and his role on it. That aside, there have been few athletes that I've covered that generate/attract this type of monumental attention. I've kidded that I can get a story on the wire by simply writing, "T.O. tied his shoe." And that nearly happened on Monday, because as we were allowed into the fieldhouse to watch practice, there was T.O. on the sideline actually tying his shoe. I resisted the urge to call in an update to test theory. Guess my point is, and it's a bit of a "duh" one at that, is rarely do my bylined stories about the Bills/Sabres/Bonaventure etc. get much play outside the region. The farther you go, the more the pieces are chopped down and byline stripped. Fine. That's the business. The Bills, Sabres are part of the North American sports landscape, but have never been considered high-profile franchises, especially this decade. There have been the rare exceptions, the Kevin Everett stories, that nearly got as much play here as elsewhere. But nothing has matched the consistency of T.O. so far. And I've been curious about how much more more attention there will be on Buffalo and the Bills this season, and fascinated by the early returns, because I've already got friends pointing out my pieces, and it's only May. jw

What truly made Mr. Johnny Cash's version of "Hurt" haunting was the accompanying video, crooked wrinkled fingers intermixed with shots of Johnny and June, young and old. His career, legacy and reputation as a true rocker would not have been complete without this song. Next up for me is The Replacements' "Here Comes A Regular." jw

stand by it all you want, and i'm specifically referring to the latter statement, but wrong is wrong no matter how often you repeat it. jw

well, you saw fit to drop a comma right after generation ... i kid, i kid. couldn't resist. jw ADD: what i do find remarkable is how much attention T.O. is, in fact, getting across the continent this week. in my first nine years here in Buffalo, rarely did anyone e-mail me to point out that a bylined piece of mine showed up in their local paper. this week, i got e-mails from friends informing me they read my T.O. minicamp/key to the city piece in the Globe and Mail. the next day, another friend informed me my T.O. house-hunting piece landed in the Vancouver Sun. sure i'm in the business and understand how it works, but i'm fascinated by the attention this one athlete is capable of drawing. michael jordan and tiger woods -- gretzky to a slightly lesser degree -- are the only two athletes, whom i've covered, who immediately come to mind to have had this ability.

Stroud was present.

well, this has taken an odd turn. looking for a camera, turn out a little humbled. and no offense taken. jw

Thanks. Very thorough. As for the Doc, it's more than an admiration. I'd eat his stuff for breakfast, lunch and dinner and still not be full. jw

don't know if this board is ready for the opinions of a canadian-born sports writer who's read one too many -- or perhaps three two few -- hunter s. thompson screeds in his life and has a certain fascination for watching certain night-time politico hosts on two certain cable networks, as well as the very funny jon stewart. though your offer's tempting, i shall however respectfully decline invitation to jump into those waters because of numerous professional concerns in regards to the perception of bias and objectivity. i hope you understand. --- now, back to the topic at hand, have been told that i should avoid sony because of its propriety nature of products, meaning i'd be more or less forced to buy sony accessories to go with the sony camera. and from my preliminary scan, i'm leaning toward cannon or nikon. they seem to be the most reliable. likely to make selection memorial day weekend. otherwise, happy victoria day weekend to those back home. jw

wow, so much to learn. so, if i follow correctly, the digital camera was a left-wingnut response to those non-eco-friendly hannity huggers for developing the disposable camera. how am i doing? jw edit: and slowly, he gets sucked in by that dark side ...

i take offense to that comment. and i've called others out for it as well. thing is, fat people can lose weight and become slim. for others, ignorance seems to be a tougher weight to shed. jw

but he says he's got digital camera now, no longer using "rolls" of film. ouche. jw

oh, can't we all just get along? jw EDIT: and i know that's a loaded question, so it was my intention to be light-hearted here, rather than incite any political debate. that's what ppp is for, or so I'm told.

Thanks, but why do you take your camera to bar fights? jw

Here's a couple of favs that immediately come to mind: ¶ "I still don't know who that is. Who is this Willie Parker?" -- Bills cornerback Terrence Mcgee, Jan. 2, 2005, in response to reporters referencing Parker, the Steelers-then fourth-string running back, gaining 102 yards rushing in a 29-24 win in the 2004 season finale that ended Buffalo's hopes of making the playoffs. ¶ ¶ "It was an honor. This is my last year. It don't look like I'm going to be holding no championship trophy over my head, so I wanted to get the feel of one." -- Charles Barkley of the Houston Rockets Nov. 30, 1999, in response to question of him holding the CFL Grey Cup championship trophy the night before in nightclub celebrating with the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. ¶ ¶ The ones who love us best, are the ones we'll lay to rest, ¶ and visit their graves on holidays at best. ¶ The ones who love us least, are the ones we'll die to please. ¶ If it's any consolation, I don't begin to understand them. ¶ -- The Replacements, "Bastards of Young. ¶ ¶ Anywhere's better than here. ¶ -- The Replacements, "Anywhere's Better Than Here." jw

the reader.

Thanks for prompt replies folks. And I did do a search on this board for other threads on digital cameras, but nothing came up. I'll, though, peruse the link provided by fezmid (thanks for that). A couple of things: -- Having just turned 46, am not much of a web shopper. I'm old-fashioned and like to have the thing I'm buying in hand. That said, I might head over to a local store, check out what I like and then go to the site's you suggested and do some price comparisons. So thanks for that. -- Looking for a versatile camera, that's good indoors and outdoors, used for a variety of things like Christmas with the family to vacationing on the beach. -- Also, not a big bells-and-whistles type guy. Something simple, though solid, is what I prefer. Need something that takes good pictures, is easy to handle, and the only real bell/whistle is one that has good zooming capabilities. I've seen some that can get in pretty tight from a couple of dozen yards away. -- As for size, something relatively sleek, that won't be too bulky while trudging around some foreign town on vacation. -- Finally, since this is our first digital, is there anything I should be looking out for in regards to hooking the thing up to our home computer. We have an imac, which I'm guessing should be pretty adaptable. jw

Folks: My better half has finally seen the light on the advantages of having a digital camera. We've been in the dark ages for some time by sticking with a film camera. Please hold your comments, as this regards my wife. I however, am open to whatever smartassinated comments that may come. And/but/now seriously, now that we're in the market to upgrade, anybody have any suggestions on what we should be looking out for. Planning to spent between $150-$250. And my wife noted that Target currently has some Sony digital camera on sale for about $179, or something like that. jw