Home | Away

Monday morning QB

Well, I had the outcome right, but those Arizonas gave us all a shudder, didn’t they?  I should have realized that the new Very Angry Cardinal logo would be good for more than 13 points.  Still, as you can see from this comment on my dummy blog, “Future Search,” I had a few tiny details right.

In other news, remember when I said I was writing an essay on retaking the English-lit GRE for the first time since 1981?  Well, that essay is finally out, and available in a Chronicle of Higher Ed near you.  It’s sub-only, apparently, so you have to sub.  Which is odd, because, as all my internet friends know, love and information want only to be free.

[Update:  I am like totally wrong!  The essay is free as a bird, right here.  Oh, and while I’m updating:  “Glory Days”?  Really?  The very worst Bruce Springsteen song ever, and he has to close the halftime show with it?  Why?  In order to remind everyone that the joys of youth and athletic fame are ephemeral?  And that he once wrote a song that includes the phrase “throw that speedball by you”?]

And I’ve already received two emails informing me that the awful test question involving an awful parody of Marxist criticism is actually from David Lodge’s Small World.  Since one of my complaints about the test is that its “theory” questions are hideous beyond measure, I have to marvel at the fact that the GRE-maker-uppers actually ask people to identify Marxist theory via a David Lodge parody.  But then there’s the embarrassing bit about how I took the GRE in English literature and then wrote an essay invoking David Lodge in my fourth sentence but missed the David Lodge passage in the test itself.  I kind of have to love that.

Posted by on 02/02 at 11:25 AM
  1. The essay seems to be available here.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  12:59 PM
  2. Kewl!  So Amanda French was right.  I’ll update—thanks!

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  01:03 PM
  3. By the way, former Iowa Hawkey coach Hayden Fry was a believer in your manly-uniform theory: 
    http://www.sportspheres.net/pink-locker-room.htm

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  01:24 PM
  4. Ed Abbey on the beauty of the Gridiron:

    “"Football is a game for trained apes. That, in fact, is what most of the players are — retarded gorillas wearing helmets and uniforms. The only thing more debased is the surrounding mob of drunken monkeys howling the gorillas on."”

    Ah Cactus Ed-Speak not so consumer-phriendly…

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  02/02  at  01:27 PM
  5. Ah, one always wonders why ToS goes to the trouble.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  01:46 PM
  6. Worse than “Mary, Queen of Arkansas”?

    Posted by Professor Fury  on  02/02  at  01:50 PM
  7. Perhaps it’s due to reading east coast “leftist” sportsmen-scribes who view professional football as a struggle against the Oppressor...... Abbey at least was on to the academic-marxist schtick--and dissin’ pro schports probably not too smart, career-wise, eh.  Budweiser for the peoples, y’all!  I mean that in good way, of course

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  02/02  at  01:56 PM
  8. east coast “leftist” sportsmen-scribes who view professional football as a struggle against the Oppressor

    Yeah, those people make me sick.  I wish more academic elites and left intellectuals would disdain professional sports, especially football.

    And yes, yes, much worse than “Mary, Queen of Arkansas.” Not even the same league.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  02:11 PM
  9. I was rather surprised by Glory Days as well, but in the NYT he explains how he picked the setlist, and makes explicit that it was, in fact, “in order to remind everyone that the joys of youth and athletic fame are ephemeral.”

    Captcha: miss, as in what the Cards just did last night.

    Posted by JRoth  on  02/02  at  04:09 PM
  10. Worst Bruce song? He has outdone himself on the new cd with ‘Queen of the Supermarket’—embarrassing to even listen to it.  No more songs with ‘queen’ in their title I say. And I love Bruce.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  04:10 PM
  11. There is a word for bragging shamelessly while attempting to appear to be self-deprecating.  Not being an English major, I can’t remember what it is.  Can anyone help me out?  (Just a random question with no relevance at all to this post.)

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  04:11 PM
  12. Sigh. I suppose we should be grateful they didn’t pull the theory passage from The Pooh Perplex.

    And, Bloix, I was an English major but I can’t come up with the word either, though it describes a fair sample of my colleagues.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  04:46 PM
  13. </em> Maybe that’ll do it.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  04:51 PM
  14. (Guess not.  Michael, you’ll have to do it yourself.)

    As for the David Lodge-as-theory question, I can say with certainty that it was there ten years back, when I took the Subject Test.  I’m not sure what that means---parodies of theory haven’t developed much in the past decade?---but I can say that at my (admittedly theory-heavy) program, there was negative correlation between success on the GRE and completing the degree.  I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true across the boards.

    Posted by SEK  on  02/02  at  04:56 PM
  15. There is a word for bragging shamelessly while attempting to appear to be self-deprecating. 

    Will this be on the exam?

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  04:59 PM
  16. Okay, now I’ve actually read the article, very funny and appropriately damning of the test. I’m still agog that theory recognition (!) gets tested via parodies--ya don’t have to be Sigmund Freud to get the implications there.

    I took the GRE-lit twice in the pre-theory days-- a few years before you Michael--4 years apart and had the exact same questions both times: heavy on the Irish renaissance and Ruskin, lite on anybody of color anywhere anyhow. Light, actually on anything post Faulkner, I think. Yeesh.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  05:04 PM
  17. "applicants should be able to read all kinds of texts closely and with great care”

    If anyone still felt the need to use a test in addition to the verbal GRE, I’d recommend the LSAT on that basis, although it’s hardly ideal for the purpose (there isn’t a lot of poetry on it, for example, or at least there wasn’t in 1990).

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  05:14 PM
  18. I first took the GRE back in the late 60s, and fortunately do not remember how i did (although i was accepted into graduate school w/ $$).  I retook it a couple of years ago, mostly because i was tutoring a number of students for the SAT and two for the GRE.  I felt so happy getting great scores on the math and verbal; that was until i realized that after 40 years of this academic schtick, i should be able to get high scores.  I recognized reading passages used throughout the verbal section, remembered the other verses of poems used in some questions, had been tutoring math, and felt more than familiar with the test procedures.  If i hadn’t done well i would have felt terrible.  Yet doing well, and realizing that that was expected, garnered me not much more than a shoulder shrug as i looked in the mirror. 

    I really didn’t mean to mention safeties yesterday in the SuperBowl thread; it just came up.  I mean, who knew that a lineman would hold in the endzone to protect a quarterback from a sack (and possible fumble)?

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  06:16 PM
  19. I enjoyed the article very much, but the “Beowulf to Virginia Woolf” brought back seriously hairy flashbacks to the PSU MA/English comprehensive exams circa 1992.  Jinkies!  Six areas, four authors each--any question fair game!  Two days of “put your pencil down and write the most traditional New Critical answer you can muster.” Please say you all have done something enlightened in the interim, Michael!

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  06:27 PM
  20. The ridiculous theory parodies were there when I took the GRE Lit in 2003.  I also remember a question that had you match the first line of a novel to that novel’s title.  “Call me Ishmael” was on there, but I don’t remember the others.  On a random Victorian question I got the answer correct only because I had been reading Adam Bede in a recent class. 

    Having never read Paradise Lost (at this point I’m doing it just to spite Stanley Fish) I was at a serious disadvantage.  Given the percentage of Milton questions on the exam it should be renamed the MAT.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  06:43 PM
  21. I’m sure there was some irony in Springsteen’s choice of “Glory Days.” I was in a living room full of out of shape people recalling their exploits on the gridirons of their youth. In truth, all of Springsteen’s sports references are thin. He knows nothing of the jargon of baseball or football. But, then again, he’s from New Jersey. Do they have any professional sports franchises there? Are the Devils in the NHL still? Being a tax haven for New York teams does not count. Regarding “speedballs,” Chet Baker used to have an excellent one according to some fellow jazz musicians/users.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  07:34 PM
  22. Hmmmph.  Some of us like “Mary, Queen of Arkansas.”

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  08:06 PM
  23. And that he once wrote a song that includes the phrase “throw that speedball by you”

    I’d like to see ETS work that fine phrase into the GRE, whichever constituency it chooses to please in doing so.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  08:10 PM
  24. So, if my understanding is right, ETS claims the GRE predicts first semester MA grades.  That is all.  What does the subject test predict?  Anything?

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  08:21 PM
  25. But he didn’t sing “throw that speedball by you,” did he?

    I thought it was some new football-themed lyric.

    Oh, and Faulkner never saw combat—but came back from flight school in canada with a cane, a limp, and a claim it was a combat wound.

    Captcha: way.  As in, no way I’d believe that Count no-’count.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  08:46 PM
  26. the “Beowulf to Virginia Woolf” brought back seriously hairy flashbacks to the PSU MA/English comprehensive exams circa 1992.  Jinkies!  Six areas, four authors each--any question fair game!

    Isn’t that weird?  Illinois used to have a similar exam.  It was all about coverage anxiety:  these were exams designed by faculty who (a) were Very Concerned about These Kids Today and wanted to make sure that the exam covered everything ever written in English and (b) liked infantilizing their students (see also (a)).  I have a little rant about the history of the Illinois exam in this essay, about two-thirds of the way down.

    I’m happy to say that neither Penn State nor Illinois has an M.A. exam any longer.  At Illinois, we finally got rid of it on the grounds that those exams bore no useful relation to anything that students would conceivably do in their later careers.  I’m guessing that Penn State came to the same realization well before I arrived here in 2001.

    Posted by Michael  on  02/02  at  08:54 PM
  27. Oh, and Faulkner never saw combat

    That’s what I thought—but the correct answer is Crane.  Minus one-and-one-quarter for me.  It was like taking a holding penalty in your own end zone.

    Posted by Michael  on  02/02  at  08:57 PM
  28. 1) I used to hate “Glory Days” too, then I began to suspect Springsteen is actually making fun of John Mellencamp in that song. So now I like it. My interpretation may well be misguided, but it lets me enjoy the song, so I’m going to stick with it.

    B) There is a word for bragging shamelessly while attempting to appear to be self-deprecating.

    -- I believe the term you are looking for is “sand-bragging.”

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  09:09 PM
  29. Crane never served in any military capacity, but he “saw” combat repeatedly as a war correspondent in the Spanish American War and in minor European conflicts.  Faulkner did serve briefly in the military in WWI, but he was injured in a training accident and never saw combat in either the literal or figurative sense.  So you were right and the test was wrong. Go recalculate your score- you’ve got another 2.25 points coming to you.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  09:41 PM
  30. Fun article.

    wanted to make sure that the exam covered everything ever written in English
    Hmmph. Them’s some pretty dry pickings in the 12th and 13th centuries.

    Do they have any professional sports franchises there?
    If you count professional Wife Carrying, there’s the Fightin’ Delaware Water Gaps, although I think when Sparta refused to build them a stadium they relocated to Queen of Prussia. So the answer’s no, sadly.

    Posted by Karl Steel  on  02/02  at  10:19 PM
  31. Mary Queen of Arkansas is an excellent song. As a matter of fact I have just put it on to enjoy it.

    Glory Days is a terrible self-parody.

    Those are my simple, and verifiably correct, opinions.

    Posted by  on  02/02  at  10:42 PM
  32. Queen of Prussia
    for which--or for whom--they are undoubtedly still searching
    [ps, thx for fixing the tags: would that you could fix my joke]

    Posted by Karl Steel  on  02/03  at  12:37 AM
  33. Whew!  I’m glad to hear the MA Comps are no more--though my study group and I learned a lot from each other in the preparation for it.  We were relentless.  We combed previous question sets, figured out how the exam makers would try to get as many authors in as possible ("count on it--Wallace Stevens is On His Own!"), and read til we nearly dropped.  Happily, we all passed.

    Afterward, we were invited to bring our exam answers to one of the profs who scored it.  I took mine to Dr. Nameless who said, “I was disappointed with how all of you answered the Shakespeare question.  I was looking forward to seeing how you treated the final scenes.” “Dr. Nameless,” I said, “the question didn’t specify the final scenes.” “Elfarran! I wrote the damn question,” he said, fumbling for a copy.  “Oh, look at that. You’re right!”

    I asked a good deal of Impertinent Questions after that and was smilingly told, “You act like we know what the hell we are doing!”

    At the time I was angry and frustrated, but even now, I am still left with a feeling of sadness--I had two years of wonderful instruction, incredible exchanges with peers and faculty alike and THIS was all I was asked to demonstrate?  I felt cheated.  I guess I still do.  And I’m glad to hear it’s gone.

    Posted by  on  02/03  at  12:40 AM
  34. I don’t really see the reason for all the groaning about the Lit GRE. Am I incorrect in assuming that grad schools have other ways of assessing the theory competence of applicants, primarily in the form of a transcript and professor recommendations? If so, then is it too extreme to suppose that the lit GRE makes no claim of informing grad schools about applicants’ qualifications in that arena. Its brief is more limited, to give a sign about a student’s familiarity with the canon. Canon wars of 1991 aside, this is a desirable thing to measure, no? Nobody’ll ever make them read Congreve again, after all. I don’t see why providing an incentive to make sure applicants know the general lineage of Beowulf-Chaucer-Shakespeare-Milton-Dryden-Congreve-etc. is so worthy of scorn. (Full disclosure: I took the lit GRE in late 1991, and did well on it, but didn’t attend grad school. I spent the summer before senior year studying for it, which is why I know who John Lyly was. About once a month I thank my stars I took the GRE.) Now, if the material is truly irrelevant to grad school, that might actually say something about grad school or undergrad school even more than the GRE. Worth a thought.

    Posted by Martin  on  02/03  at  06:00 AM
  35. Hmmm, Martin, let me think about this.  Ah, yes, I just remembered this part.  “Over all, with regard to the old canon and the new, the test was remarkably comprehensive—covering every period of English literature as well as a great deal of material in other languages (in translation).”

    So I’ll give you my 2.25 points from the Faulkner/ Crane question if you can show me that I was “groaning” about the test’s coverage of Teh Canon or that I thought this aspect of the test was “worthy of scorn.”

    Posted by  on  02/03  at  08:34 AM
  36. Oh, and Faulkner never saw combat

    But he was briefly a quarterback in high school. (QB was a very different position at the time). Would the Ravens still have won their Super Bowl with Zombie William Faulkner at quarterback?

    Posted by  on  02/03  at  08:35 AM
  37. "The GRE subject test seems to be something of a compromise — a compromise among at least three different constituencies: those who believe that applicants should demonstrate an understanding of literary history and ability to analyze forms, those who believe that applicants should know who wrote what when, and those who believe that applicants should be able to read all kinds of texts closely and with great care.”

    Forgive my naiveté, but why don’t these departments/supervisors set their own, uncompromised tests, if writing samples aren’t enough?

    Posted by  on  02/03  at  08:42 AM
  38. Because, as some people told me as I was writing the essay, they find the verbal GRE on the general exam to be a plausible enough measure of reading and writing.  And asking applicants to take a different test with each application would be logistically nasty, as well as just plain nasty.

    Posted by  on  02/03  at  08:48 AM
  39. I love it! A very David Lodge thing to do. In Changing Places, bragging/self-deprecating was the whole point of a game called “Humiliation” where English professors named the great works they hadn’t read and then got a point for each other person in the game who had read it. To win, one of the junior faculty members denies he has read Hamlet. He wins but loses his tenure bid.

    Captcha: better, as in worse

    Posted by  on  02/03  at  09:16 AM
  40. the Faulkner/ Crane question

    ...perhaps the geniuses of ETS might upgrade the bio-questions--make them more political relevant, contextualize, like: a “name the whore who Crane humped ‘fore dying of TB or something” meme

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  02/03  at  10:21 AM
  41. Michael: Fair enough, you are too admirably nuanced for “groaning,” that’s true, but I can counter with, yours are not the only words appearing on this page. I don’t think I said you felt the test failed at measuring “English literature as well as” etc., but you do emphasize the poor presentation of theory in the test as if it were a real demerit, which it probably isn’t.

    Add to that the insistence on the vast nature of “literature,” which is closer to an academic’s handy trope than a concept that would be relevant in the construction of a multiple-choice exam of this type, and you’re left with a perhaps overstated skepticism about the test’s utility: “Very little of the test, as far as I could see, had anything to do with gauging someone’s aptitude for graduate study in literature.” Really? That seems extreme. A familiarity with a guy like Dryden (the exact kind of really major poet from the distant past the test *does* rescue) isn’t helpful in grad school?

    Overall, you seem glad that the intended audience for the GRE (admissions depts.) is junking it, but I don’t really see why anyone should celebrate that.

    Posted by Martin  on  02/03  at  12:01 PM
  42. Well, we’ll just have to disagree as to whether theory questions are useful, Martin.  But I thank you for the kind word.  I still think the idea of asking students about Marxist theory by way of David Lodge’s parody is completely cynical, and that knowing something about the work of Raymond Williams or Roman Jakobson or Sigmund Freud is a good thing.

    And I’m still puzzled as to why you emphasize the aspect of the exam to which I gave a qualified thumbs-up—the questions about literary history and forms.  Those questions, at least, try to determine the extent of an applicant’s knowledge of facts, important writers (like Dryden!), etc.  Whether that kind of knowledge offers anyone a sense of a candidate’s aptitude is another matter; there are some pedants out there who know plenty of things but are still mediocre readers, and some applicants (including a few in my own program) who didn’t even major in English but turn out to have first-rate minds.  But I prefer those questions to the “spot the obsolete idiomatic usage” questions, the grammar/ usage questions, and the who-didn’t-fight-in-a-war kinds of questions.

    Lastly, I don’t think my insistence on the vast nature of “literature” was just a handy trope; it was the basis of my (again, qualified) sympathy with the test’s designers.  As for why I’m nevertheless pleased that the test is required by only 41.5 percent of English departments, I’m happy anytime a multiple-choice test is replaced by a writing sample.  I’m retroactively amazed that none of the places to which I applied in 1981—Berkeley, Hopkins, Virginia, Columbia, Yale—required one of those.

    Posted by  on  02/03  at  12:28 PM
  43. lineage of Beowulf-Chaucer-
    ?

    Anecdotally, I think my high GRE scores (on the subject test and the others) may have done the trick of getting me into my (funded) 2-year MA program, which turned out to be the platform for my getting into a good doctoral program. I had NO IDEA how to apply to grad school, and I’d been out of my BA for too long to seek out advice from the undergraduate institution: so my cover letter stunk. The writing sample may have been okay, but I suspect the GRE scores were what distinguished me from the lumpenundergraduates. If my suspicions are right, there’s something to be said for that, even if all I can really say is that I’m very good at taking tests.

    Posted by Karl Steel  on  02/03  at  02:18 PM
  44. #11:  Dissimulative?

    Posted by  on  02/03  at  02:37 PM
  45. Beatnik Lit. Jeopardy?

    Brautigan for 800, Alex. 

    In Trout Fishing in America, “Shorty” refers to..........

    Posted by Ezra Hound  on  02/03  at  03:05 PM
  46. Michael: Your points are well taken, and as always I appreciate the civil desire to engage in discourse—as trademarks go, it’s a good one! I was a little surprised at the mild note of disgust in the comments, while also regarding your essay as an appropriate spur for some of those comments.

    I didn’t remember this apparently perennial tradition of presenting theory via parody, and I agree it’s a bad compromise. I wouldn’t oppose a superior presentation of that material. Having taught SAT prep recently, I can admire the desire to have an essay while still wondering how you cover a large body of raw information in an essay—that is, standardized essays become almost as codified as a multiple choice exam.

    Since you as much as say that you’d prefer to see the lit GRE disappear, I’m myself puzzled that you object to my noticing this. The qualified thumbs-up isn’t much of an endorsement if you think the entire project should be scrapped and replaced with timed bouts of lengthy prose. Or am I wrong?

    But again: you shoehorned a modicum of respect in what was overall a disparaging take on the project. I can see that. I do it the other way around: for an impossible quixotic (Cervantes reference!) task, it’s not so bad and does an important thing fairly well.

    Posted by Martin  on  02/03  at  03:12 PM
  47. I’m glad I’m not the only dork who took the subject test again recently for fun.  And weirdly, I think I got the same score as you, Michael.  And that question asking to match up the cities with their descriptions was a bee-yotch!

    Btw, the test writers love parodies of all kinds.  I remember a Kenneth Koch parody of either Frost or Williams on the version I took in 93, and the point was not to identify Koch as the poet, but rather the poet he was parodying.  WTF?  And they love to put criticism passages on there and ask you what text or author the critic is talking about.

    Posted by Dr. Virago  on  02/03  at  03:16 PM
  48. Since you as much as say that you’d prefer to see the lit GRE disappear, I’m myself puzzled that you object to my noticing this. The qualified thumbs-up isn’t much of an endorsement if you think the entire project should be scrapped and replaced with timed bouts of lengthy prose. Or am I wrong?

    No, you’re right, Martin, it’s not much of an endorsement.  It amounts to something like “the test’s designers did reasonably well with an impossible task that I think is better left undone.” I’m only pointing out that you’re defending what I think of as one of the test’s stronger points.

    And you’re right about the generally disparaging tone, in the essay and in these comments.  All I can say is that I didn’t expect to be so disappointed by the test; I really thought it would be a fun and instructive way to spend an evening.

    Two last points, just tangentially.  One:  the comp lit and foreign-language doctoral programs require no such test whatsoever, and yet they too have to gauge their applicants’ aptitude for literary study.  So it’s only English we’re talking about.  Two, even within English there are programs—like mine—that have substantial offerings in rhetoric.  For students looking to get a PhD in English and specialize in rhetoric, the literature GRE is somewhat beside the point. 

    Dr. V:  Dorks Unite!  Glad to hear your experience and mine were so similar.  That’s how we know we’re not crazy!  And the really annoying thing about the cities question is that one of the three questions—the one involving some poem that begins “Earth has not anything to show more fair”—was a slam dunk (it’s London, folks!), and the other two were just, like, hunh?

    Posted by  on  02/03  at  05:48 PM
  49. I haven’t chimed in yet, but if I had, I would have done a fair amount of groaning about the GRE Lit test, which I took in 1994. My beef is with the kind of preparation it encourages: I spent countless hours in anxiety-fueled cramming; six months after taking the test, I had forgotten 95% of what I “learned.” I spent a bit of time with the Norton Anthology, sure, reading things that I might not have encountered otherwise. But I spent far more time with Benet’s Reader’s Encyclopedia, trying to memorize plot summaries and character names and dates of publication of works I had never encountered as an English major, and would never encounter again in six years of graduate school or eight years of subsequent college teaching. Lots of what I was encouraged to study was woefully antiquated, too--does anyone really teach Longfellow anymore?

    In retrospect, I would have been better off spending that summer slowly and carefully reading Milton and Proust, or better yet reading Marx and Freud. I would have encountered a much smaller body of material, but I would have encountered it in a more meaningful and memorable way.

    Posted by  on  02/03  at  11:53 PM
  50. The cities question prompts me to bore with the story of my own GRE Subject Test fun. [Warning: any actual practicing academic geographers may wish to not read any further.] My senior year of college I decided that maybe I could salvage my academic career in a field that I actually liked. And reading up on the GRE I discovered that sure enough there was a Geography Subject Exam (sadly that appears to be no longer the case). My original plan was to seriously study up for it, but that devolved into take a couple of books out of the library the day before the test.

    When the proctor tentatively called out “Geography?” while passing out the tests, the other test-takers at my well-regarded but somewhat-head-up-its-pompous-ass college broke out in snickers. But a few minutes later I chortled back in triumph upon reading the first question, which asked to choose which among four (or five?) crops was an important export of Bangladesh (the correct answer, of course, being jute). It was a fun and very instructive few hours. They provided subscores, and I did quite well on the Physical Geography part as would befit someone who had spent much of the past decade and a half engrossed in maps and almanacs. However, I pretty much tanked on Social Geography (I think that is what it was called), which assumed familiarity with some actual theories and shit like that. Averaged out to a respectable score, but in the event, my life took a different course and I never used it.

    Posted by  on  02/04  at  12:23 AM
  51. I just wanted to say that your Super Bowl predictions were uncanny. Could you please do the NBA playoffs next?

    Posted by  on  02/04  at  12:10 PM
  52. To concur with Michael and respond to an inquiry:  1) yes, “throw that speedball by you” is the worst Springsteen lyric ever and nakedly displays his acknowledged ignorance about sports; and 2) in the Super Bowl halftime show he substituted “hail mary,” which was lame, but not quite as much.  I love Bruce, too, but he needs an editor when it comes to sports-related lyrics.

    Posted by  on  02/06  at  02:23 AM
  53. Good, be it sports or academics one always finds repetition.What stands out is documentation that too published and copyrighted, rest is the same

    Posted by Avandia lawyer  on  02/10  at  01:56 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main