Does poker belong in Sports section?
Here's the burning question: Is it sport or is it entertainment? I'm referring to poker.
Apparently, your sports editor has deemed it the former, being that The Sun devotes so much space to poker coverage. Poker has taken the mantle as the "sport du jour" recently. I just hope and pray that this, too, shall pass.
In my opinion, this is not a sport. What a horrific waste of space in your sports pages! Bill Ordine probably would not recognize a round ball unless it slapped him upside the head.
Instead of cheapening your paper with poker coverage, why not allot that space to more local sports coverage, whether it be at the rec, high school or college level?
How about devoting it to lawn bowling coverage? Anything but coverage about a supposed sport where the only thing that increases is the gluteus size of the folks who play it.
I want to put your sports editors to a challenge: Let your readers decide if this drivel belongs in the sports pages. Do a survey in which your readers make the final decision where poker coverage belongs, whether it be in the sports pages or alongside the horoscopes in the Today section.
If the readers decide that it stays put, I'll simply cancel my subscription and glean my "real" sports information elsewhere.
Patrick R. Lynch
Cutting Open names isn't a good move
It is past the time when you should have added an editor who has a clue. The U.S. Women's Open golf tournament was going into the final rounds two weekends ago, and your paper was able to print the names of only 31 of the golfers who made the cut?
Why don't you save some space by discontinuing the ridiculous practice of listing "former Oriole" after every baseball move made. No one cares that some worthless ballplayer spent two weeks with that team.
I know you are trying to help the fans of Baltimore decide which paper we prefer (you are slipping steadily), but you don't have to make the choice so easy.
Devote a little thought to what you are covering and its relative importance and you might have a fighting chance of surviving.
Angelos assures local ownership
Perhaps there is help down on the farm and maybe they can compete in 2007. But when I moved to Baltimore in 1986, many in this town resented that the club was owned by Washington attorney and power broker Edward Bennett Williams.
Williams' estate then sold the team to Eli Jacobs, a reclusive Wall Street investor who rarely even showed up in Baltimore and who was vilified for all the obvious reasons, too. Let's face it: Baltimoreans have a collective chip on their shoulders and an inferiority complex especially when it comes to out-of-towners.
Regardless, all these provincial fans who are so outraged should remember that Peter Angelos was hailed in 1993 as the new owner because he was locally born and bred and he was immensely successful. He can't be stupid, and he must be aware of profits and losses.
If you think his product is so inferior, stay away from Camden Yards and turn off the TV. Take up golf, tennis or fishing. But remember, Peter Angelos is a local guy and it wasn't that long ago that out-of-towners were calling the shots with the Orioles.