So which is it Simmons?

So, Bill Simmons apparently doesn't like what a lot of bloggers do (criticize other writers), but can't resist getting involved himself.... Here's how he leads off one of his most recent articles.

"I hate writing a rebuttal to another writer's column. I hate it. These days on the Internet, people spend far too much time writing about other writers instead of just writing about sports. Pretty soon, there will be Web sites devoted to writers writing about writers who write about other writers. We're not headed in the right direction.

At the same time, I couldn't let Scoop Jackson's "Vegas wasn't that bad" column just fade away without disputing two crucial pieces of his argument:"

So what are you Simmons? Are you a blogger or aren't you? You don't want others to criticize your writing, which many bloggers do quite often, but yet, you seem to find it worthy of filling up a page with way too many words. And you get paid to do this. So if criticizing others writing is not worthwhile, then why are you doing it in a paying gig. If it is okay (and it must be since you decided to partake in what is perhaps the easiest way to come up with "original" material), then embrace the fact that the bloggers are onto something with this whole criticizing writers thing, and don't lead an article criticizing a fellow writer, demeaning others who might do so.

Also, since you've made it clear that you are trying to become a blogger, and improve your readership presumably, with your new CBB blog (a subject which you admit to having little knowledge about), where did the comments go for your articles? Are you free to criticize others, but unable to take it like a man when others criticized you on "The Day ESPN.com Stood Still".

I must admit, I used to enjoy reading your material very much Mr. Simmons, however, since you have attempted to become a blogger, which is clearly something you detest doing, your writing has become more shallow than even mine. (And I don't get paid). Interesting note, that you are somewhat correct in your "prediction" from your article. This little post was a post that was a writer criticizing a writer who was criticizing a writer.

I also find it interesting that you complain about the fact that all of this criticizing leads to less coverage of sports. Well, you weren't even following up on a sports story. Sports are what happen on the field. The original article and yours were focused on cultural, geographical and legal issues, and have absolutely nothing whatsoever, at all to do with sports. So, while you begrudge the lack of sports coverage, you just wrote an article on an article that had nothing to do with sports, but rather things that happened around a sporting event. Based on how Chris Berman and a lot of your other colleagues feel about the "off-the-field" coverage they have been getting lately, it seems that either the ESPN crew needs to stop being so critical and comprehensive in your coverage of all of the off-the-field shortcomings of athletes, or be prepared for the fact, that your celebrity status as ESPN staff has now made you fair game for the same kind of scrutiny.