Trackbacks

• Trackbacks are closed for this post.

Comments

• 5/20/2008 12:37 PM Adam Gaffin wrote:
  
  I'll grant you "no-no" but "BoSox" has been around forever as a headline-ish word, right up there with "Hub" and as opposed to "ChiSox."
  
  Reply to this
  1. 5/20/2008 1:16 PM Mike Mennonno wrote:
     
     It's a critical mass thing, Adam. First it's "BoSox," which sounds sort of French, if you know what I mean (I don't have a problem with that, but I know some people might), plus it rhymes with Botox.  But, hey, it's tradition! So whatever. But because you blindly accept "BoSox," things like "no-no," for "no-hitter" slip into the lexicon, someone adds it to wikipedia, and pretty soon it's "he frow fast bo-bo at ba-ba, and den ba-ba hit homo!" That's what baseball reportage will look like in another generation if you don't draw the line.
     
     Reply to this
• 5/20/2008 1:39 PM Tony wrote:
  
  Face it Mike. You've seen the fans lumbering to the stadium. This is being written in language they can understand. Though, I do think some of the words were a little big for the poor dears.
  
  Reply to this
• 5/21/2008 1:46 PM cb wrote:
  
  I can abide the "BoSox" thing... that just saves headline space. But "no no"?? Ugg ugg.
  
  
  Reply to this
• 5/22/2008 1:36 PM RG wrote:
  
  Gay Gasp! (clutching the pearls of course) "no-no" how gouche....
  
  Reply to this
  1. 5/22/2008 3:35 PM Mike Mennonno wrote:
     
     "no-no" is not really gauche.  In fact, my point was the opposite.  That it was a little too precious and cutesy.  I'm not sure if the cutesification of the sport is due to the sky-high ticket prices, which might have the effect of keeping the gauchest out of the ballpark, but this being "America's game" I find it interesting that baby-talk endears it to us.
     
     Reply to this

Leave a comment