1) The article that set me off:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page3/story?page=katcher/sports_seinfeld

[note, it used to say "no bread for you". After my email, he must have changed it to the correct "no soup for you"]

2) my email: wow, you butchered the most overused and cliched seinfeld line of all time!

Way to exploit the current renewed interest in

Seinfeld (b/c of the dvds) for your own personal gain.

While this article has nothing to do with sports, at

least you'll get a lot of hits riding on their

coattails.



Next time, though, you may want to take your head out

of your ass and get the quote right.  Seriously, even

the biggest mark knows it's "No soup for you".  I

believe even my retarded 4 year old nephew can walk

around and say that.



Page 3 is a joke, and you are at the forefront

throwing around screwed up punchlines.  Your mom must

be proud.



Happy Thanksgiving,



Dennis



http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheSoupNazi.htm



3) His Response:



Congratulations! You, the anonymous Dennis J., known around the world

as

"krofatigue," as are officially the winner of the Rudest E-mail Ever.

(And,

trust me, you beat some stiff competition over the years.)



The reason? It's Thanksgiving, dude. I missed a word. How bad is your

life

that things like this inspire such a reaction from you?



My mom must be proud, you say. She is. She raised a son who doesn't

send out

insulting e-mails on Thankgiving because someone made an honest mistake

--

botching one word out of 3,500. Can't speak for all moms on that,

though,

huh?



Paul



P.S. C'mon, you're not old enough to have a 4-year-old nephew, are you?

I'm guessing you've got the day off from high school today.



4) My retort

Paul,

You dismissed my earlier email as a juvenile and unjustified attack of your work; being overly critical of one incorrect word in 35,000. I suppose such a dismissal isn’t to be unexpected as I wasn’t going to go into the depths of why your article is worthy of such ire. However, now that I know you actually read your emails, let me explain:

First, a general assessment of espn.com and page 3.

I think it’s a great danger to view things such as your article in isolation. To do so would be to allow virtually anything to seep into society as anything can be justified as “hey, it’s not the end of the world.” However, your article is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with espn.com and page 3 (and, to a larger extent, society).

The ONLY motivating factor in society is money. Corporations exist only to generate money. There is no appreciation of the arts, general interest in benefiting society, or even an attempt to put out a quality product. ESPN is clearly the most “important” sports website because it’s the most popular. However, its content is two notches below mediocre. My appreciation of sports has not been increased in the slightest by espn.com. I can’t even stomach sportscenter. In fact, in an informal poll of “real” sports fans, I have been unable to find a SINGLE PERSON who watches sportscenter on any consistent basis.

Any freshmen who has taken an intro to microeconomics course would argue that if espn isn’t satisfying the demand for sports fans, then another company will step up. However, that is not the case. The hardcore sports fans, of which I am one, will ALWAYS be there. We’ll grumble and complain, but in the end, our love of sports will force us to keep coming back for more. Thus, unfortunately, ESPN is doing the “business appropriate” thing by catering to the casual fair-weather fans. Ratings and revenue are generated by drawing in as many people as possible. Thus, all genres are plagued by the desire of the corporations to suck in the casual fans. Sportscenter has less to do with sports now and more in common with MTV (which doesn’t even play music anymore!).

I can’t even tell you how many times I’ve been “tricked” into clicking on an article at espn.com only to be bait-and-switched. I can honestly say that I’ve learned absolutely nothing about sports from either the website or the channel. Have you tried watching the NBA show (I forget the name, something about Fastbreak) with Steven A. Smith. It’s a disgrace to sports.

Page 3 is by far the most shockingly blatant example of such exploitation of the “art” of sports. If espn.com is insulting to real sports fans, at least Page 3 is upfront with their “screw you, we don’t care what you want” promotion of the “entertainment” side of it.

Page 3 exists SOLELY to keep people “stuck” on espn.com as long as possible. It’s all about generating revenue and getting those big bucks from advertisers. It both exploits average people and is insulting to real sports fans who wish to enjoy their hobby and become more intelligent on the subject.

Now, an assessment of your article in particular.

Your article was one of the “most sent stories” for several days. I resisted as long as I could, but in the end, my enjoyment of Seinfeld forced me to click on the link. As soon as I saw “no bread for you”, I realized that my initial reservations were correct. Your “article” (and I use that term loosely) isn’t so much a “writing” as it is a trick to sell advertisements.

Was there an original thought in your article? If so, please point me towards it. All I saw was you riding the coattails of the success of Seinfeld. Here is how your thought process must have went: “hmm, people like Seinfeld. If I write about Seinfeld, people will click on my article.” Well, if your mom is in fact proud of such “work”, then I’m happy both for her and you. But, I refuse to believe that she or you can objectively say that what you do is noble or even something to be proud of. You are a corporate sellout, pure and simple. It requires no intelligence or skill to do what you do. No original thought at all.

I’m sure you consider yourself a “writer”. You are not (well, at least not based on this one article. Perhaps you do real work on the side or something). You collect words and ideas from other people and create money for big business. You are one step above writing out hallmark cards.

I doubt you went to college with the aspirations of writing such mediocre work. Reread your article about Seinfeld and sincerely ask yourself if you are “proud” of it. In your defense of your mistake, you didn’t say “one wrong word in an otherwise intelligent article.” Instead, you pointed to the volume of the article, 35,000 words. Is that how you define your work? By quantity over quality? If so, that’s a shame. And, in addition to its mediocrity and pointlessness, you should also be ashamed of the fact that you exploited someone else’s work. You had nothing to do with Seinfeld, and yet you felt completely comfortable with exploiting it for your own profit. If you had written a review of the show, or somehow had an original thought, then it would have been ok to reference it. However, simply collecting the funny moments under the guise of being sports related and slapping together a nice little bullet point list is NOT original. It’s not even writing.

And seriously, “no bread for you” is more than just a one word mistake. Not all words are created equally in a real writing (that has originality and thought). It’s practically the title of your article, and you butchered it. Yikes.

Ok, I look forward to your defense of your article and/or profession (should you take the time out to actually respond). I’m curious as to how you can justify your work. Perhaps there is something I am missing. And, as for anonymity, my name is Dennis J*********, and I’m far from a High school student.

Have a great day,

Dennis