I think what you just wrote is poetry. Really.

I wonder: What rhymes with "sarcasm"?

Sigh.

You can't just call something "poetry" and make it so.

I mean, most of that stuff doesn't even rhyme.

I like to believe that progressives tend to have other things to do. If only there were more of 'em in Congress.

Whatever the case, is 'big city liberal scum' a putdown? Sounds like a compliment to me, at least coming from those jokers . . . .

Ajax was incredible in the early and mid-90s! Didn't they win it all in 1995?

Are you surprised that neither of their center-backs left during the transfer window? (Could still happen, but you know.) Seemed like there was a lot of chatter . . . .

Can't you just see it: City travel to Moscow for one of those dark, cold, oddly-timed games and drop a couple of points . . . .

(You're surely right about Gala, but I wouldn't want to have to get a result in Istanbul. You?)

Group F is rough — as are Groups B, D, and H (though H would've been crazier in 1997).

But isn't there also something to say about Groups E and G — though in the other way? Chelsea and Atletico got awfully nice draws . . . .

But is one!

But can't you find plenty of obtuse idiocy elsewhere? Like, um, on the Food Network?

Her brother's name is Hilter.

Mix up the letters in "Aaryn" just a little, and what do you get?

No wonder she wants to be even whiter.

Go away, please.

$2?

Seriously. Please stop. You just look sillier and sillier. (Perhaps I read the piece since I wrote that post yesterday, smarty!)

And as for the bullshit, what do you say when you look in the mirror?

(1) How do you know I've not read it? Do you, Don Van Natta, also work for the NSA?

(2) If I give you $1, will you leave me alone? I'm sure someone else would be happy to deal with your self-indulgent brand of "analysis" for a while.

(3) And to think: I thought I liked you.

Take back my thank you. And go shine up your Don Van Natta fan-club card. You obviously like to wave it around.

Perhaps you're Don himself. (Your defense of him and of ESPN is a bit too fulsome to avoid suspicion.) Or perhaps you just think it's fun to accuse others of slinging mud by . . . wait for it . . .…

(1) Thanks. I appreciate your reply.

(2) But I'm not sure an article on espnfc quite counts as coverage. And I'm not sure that it's that easy to dismiss the Ian Black story as uninteresting. But perhaps I'm wrong. It's been known to happen.

(3) Whatever the case, perhaps Don Van Natta is a fantastic guy. He's…

Thank you. This is a fun conversation, and I thank you for it.

I also hope you're right about the durability of King's legacy and the cultural salience of the Battle of the Sexes. Truth be told, I've never watched the match start to finish, though what snippets I've seen fit precisely with what you describe: A…

He did?!?

Interesting — and thank you.

I'm glad to hear that the piece reads favorably to King — who is, I dare say, pretty much a superhero in a pant-suit. She is incredible, and she deserves all the plaudits she gets and more.

Riggs may be despicable. I have no idea. And perhaps this is a story worth telling, or at least…