"Ken's Kanada".....Year in review from Peters.....

You should be the professional writer, not Peters. You are actually good at it. I have no idea how you'd handle a crappy performance by the Cats but your article on a good performance is enjoyable rather than Peters idiotic style. He should have been fired ages ago. He's been booted off the civic beat, the Bulldogs beat and nearly got the boot from the Ticats. Is there a theme here?


You are Bull for defending an childish, moronic sports writer

His puns are such a small an insignificant part of the broadcast. So much so that I pretty much tune that part out as the segment has all but ended.

He brings a lot of substance to the table whether you agree with hm or not. I don't find that in KP's articles.

re rfttown wrote-
Do you guys feel the same way about
Don Cherry's sidekick Ron MacLean

when you see the obvious glee
he gets from his use of puns
on Hockey Night In Canada?
um yA - skock when CBC gave them a huge salaly offer a few years back, they are as out of touch as said reporter :roll:

Rocky: I've registered a few complaints against Ken Peters in the past, but I don't consider myself a "Ken Peters basher" -- more like a basher of poor writing. To prove it, I just paid Ken a compliment in another thread I started.

"IMO sometimes, even if you hate the messenger, there may be something in his message worth listining to."

Section 8:
Its already been said much better in past columns by Steve Milton.
I have exchanged e mails with Ken Peters about his tiresome cliches and he really believes they add to the writing.
So there is no hope. His writing overall is juvenile compared to Steve Milton.

Bring back Wade Hemsworth, a great writer who loves Hamilton and the Ti-Cats.

I noticed what you did in the other thread, EXPat, and you're right, you have never gone on a personal attack about Peters. I share your opinion of not knocking the person, but sometimes, his writings.

The folk singer? I didn't know he had a collumn in the Spec at one point.

No really - I've had my share of fun at Ken's expense. He makes it too easy sometimes. Here's the most recent one I can think of:

[url=http://www.ticats.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=12818&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=]http://www.ticats.ca/index.php?name=PNp ... highlight=[/url]

And then there was this one from the old board, for which I got chastised by the then-owner (now Caretaker) due to my unfortunate choice of thread title.

[url=http://beige.ticats.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=136351&highlight=#136351]http://beige.ticats.ca/index.php?name=P ... ht=#136351[/url]

I still maintain that in both cases I was only critiquing the content of the stories, not the man himself. And I call on fellow KP critics to go on record with your approval when he writes a story you like, thus helping to maintain a proper balance in the world while at the same time increasing the credibility of your more critical posts.

You are right, mr62cats. Ken's columns are about the Cats.

That is the only thing that
draws me into reading them.

I, too, sent one e-mail to Ken Peters.

If you think his writing is juvenile, mr62,
you should have seen his return e-mail.

The softest and sweetest way
to describe his response is

it was far from a professional
or even a considered adult reply

to a serious question that I raised,
and a suggestion I asked him to consider.

What I really mean to say is
calling that e-mail 'juvenile'
is really too kind a word.


You see, Ex-Pat and rocky123
I have a more personal grudge
than most Ken Bashers here.

Ron from Tigertown:

In Ken Peters' defence, his e mails were quite civil. I expected worse since I pointed out (kinda tongue-in-cheek)that not all Tigers in the world are Bengals. I told him on the point of accuracy alone his Bengal cliche was off the mark. Add the irritation factor and no wonder the readers get ugly.

Turbo wrote:
'You should be the professional writer, not Peters. You are actually good at it.'

You are just kidding, right?

Ahhhhhh....my first critic!...no stoppng me now! :lol:

You go, boy....

Mike, remember this about critics...

Those who can do, do...
Those who can't do, teach...
Those who can't do or teach, criticize.

I don't like that quote, Wilf.

I order you to write out this sentence 100 times.

click here

I hear you, Ron.
When I submitted that, I did not expect any response from "doers", nor from "critics". But, I fully expected that the "teachers", yourself included, would waste no time getting back to me.
Yes, it was a generality.
Yes, it was unfair to teachers in general.
Yes, good teachers, like you, Mark, and many others should feel upset.
As penance, I will write 100 times,"I will NOT criticize teachers again, since that turns me into a critic, and puts me into the very group I am criticizing."

Does that make sense?

Dear, Dear Wilf.

Actually,you are behind the times. That old chestnut has been updated for the modern era.

It now reads as follows.

Those that can, do.
Those that can't, teach.
Those that have no clue- they become administrators.

College Teacher/Administrator

Mark, you should know that one uses "that" when speaking about 'things'. When speaking about 'people'
one uses "who" or "whom".
Point made???

Why, oh why, my friend, did you think that I wrote that?
Note that I said that there was a modern version. Watch - to your horror - 'School of Rock' where the word 'that' is used instead of 'who'. There it is quoted as, "Those that can, do. Those that can't, teach gym."

Look at what has happened. Here's a popular site called, "Ask the English teacher." http://crofsblogs.typepad.com/english/2 ... _that.html.

Oh the fun one can have with declensions.

Now imagine...
I have actually see it put in the following manner.

Thos WHICH can, do....

Either Mencken or Shaw - both of whom had this attributed to them - would cry. (Or is that 'who'?) :slight_smile: