New Feature

[dukenilnil]

Uh, DBR... before you go about taking pot shots at individuals (John F.), you should do your homework. "Prodigal" does not mean - as you appear to think it does -wayward, but rather means "wasteful" or "recklessly spendthrift." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prodigal. The "Prodigal son" was so named, not because he left and returned, but rather, because he was wasteful of the inheritence bestowed upon him.

Normally, I wouldn't care to correct errors in a fansite/blog, but the mean-spirited nature of the "new feature" is unbecoming and deserved some rebuke.

[ReformedAggie]

and what does Pontificated Poster mean?

[crimsondevil]

..."Prodigal" does not mean - as you appear to think it does -wayward, but rather means "wasteful" or "recklessly spendthrift."...
Normally, I wouldn't care to correct errors in a fansite/blog, but the mean-spirited nature of the "new feature" is unbecoming and deserved some rebuke.

That may be true, but by using the phrase, "prodigal son", an association with the parable is evoked that would not exist had they used "wayward alumnus."

Yeah, it's a bit of a potshot, but that's quite a tone to take with your first post, isn't it?

[allenmurray]

Uh, DBR... before you go about taking pot shots at individuals (John F.), you should do your homework. "Prodigal" does not mean - as you appear to think it does -wayward, but rather means "wasteful" or "recklessly spendthrift." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prodigal. The "Prodigal son" was so named, not because he left and returned, but rather, because he was wasteful of the inheritence bestowed upon him.

Normally, I wouldn't care to correct errors in a fansite/blog, but the mean-spirited nature of the "new feature" is unbecoming and deserved some rebuke.

You might be correct as regards the dictionary definition. However, language is a living thing, not always subject to dictionary definitions. In general usage the way DBR used the term is well understood - prodigal as the wayward person - who was wasteful (not just with money but also with talent and with his very life through bad choices).

But it still may he been a poor usage. In the way in which most folks are familiar with the term, the prodigal repented (meaning to turn away from evil) and returned to the embrace of his family. I'm not sure that Feinstein has either yet turned away or been welcomed home. ;)

[YourLandlord]

Who even cares about this guy? He's not even in the top-100 of most important or most relevant living Duke alumni.

Why give him the attention he so sorely desires? You realize that front page posts like this one probably give him hours if not a full day of pure glee. Ignoring him would be the worst insult.

He certainly doesn't deserve any attention.

[allenmurray]

Who even cares about this guy? He's not even in the top-100 of most important or most relevant living Duke alumni.

Why give him the attention he so sorely desires? You realize that front page posts like this one probably give him hours if not a full day of pure glee. Ignoring him would be the worst insult.

He certainly doesn't deserve any attention.

It seems your comment would better be directed at DBR - who began the whole thing as a front page featrue. :confused:

[gus]

You might be correct as regards the dictionary definition.

I'd argue he's not correct about the dictionary definition. DBR is not claiming Feinstein is "prodigal". They are calling him a "prodigal son", which, as others are noting, is an entirely different thing. A "prodigal son" is indeed wayward -- that is an essential component of the definition.

[Indoor66]

And why, pray tell, do any of us care, think about or acknowledge JF?

[BD80]

Uh, DBR... before you go about taking pot shots at individuals (John F.), you should do your homework. "Prodigal" does not mean - as you appear to think it does -wayward, but rather means "wasteful" or "recklessly spendthrift." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prodigal. The "Prodigal son" was so named, not because he left and returned, but rather, because he was wasteful of the inheritence bestowed upon him.

Normally, I wouldn't care to correct errors in a fansite/blog, but the mean-spirited nature of the "new feature" is unbecoming and deserved some rebuke.

You know I'm inclined to agree. Referring to JF as "prodigal" is not apt. Prodigal refers to wasteful, as in wasting a god-given talent. JF has never displayed such god-given talent of which he could be considered wasteful.

Let's just say tool and be done.

[Kfanarmy]

While I didn't see the "new Feature" to be that tough a pot shot, and think the OP is looking pretty hard to find fault, I was actually more curious about Feinstein's qualifications as an analyst...given his take on the South Region:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031402795.html

Anyone know if he has any special BB analytic skills?

[Mike Corey]

Uh, DBR... before you go about taking pot shots at individuals (John F.), you should do your homework. "Prodigal" does not mean - as you appear to think it does -wayward, but rather means "wasteful" or "recklessly spendthrift." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prodigal.

Words can have more than one definition.

The Oxford English Dictionary notes that one of the definitions of "prodigal" is as follows:


Of a person: that has lived a reckless or extravagant life away from home, but subsequently made a repentant return. Also more generally and fig.: that has gone astray; errant, wayward; wandering.

The Bible is not the only written document to have used the word this way. Shakespeare did so in Winter's Tale; Jane Austen did so; Charles Dickens did so; Sammy Coleridge did so; and so on and so forth.

So DBR was perfectly within the bounds of the language when it used the word as it did.

[snowdenscold]

And the primary definition of "moot" might be 'debatable', but as others have said, language is living and fluid and most people don't use it in that sense anymore.

[Billy Dat]

Unrelated to Duke...but funny how many media wars happen in the blog/twitter age. This week, we get not only Doyel/Marriotti but now Feinstein/Chad:

"Last thing: I see where Norman Chad is taking shots at me again in his stale Washington Post column. Apparently I can’t write and he can. Let me just say this: If I ever end up commenting on poker on TV for a living, don’t ask any questions, just shoot me."
http://www.feinsteinonthebrink.com/index.php?id=2271854427778487637

[killerleft]

John Feinstein is a lintlicker AND a Cootie King! But mostly irrelevant. He has made himself so.

[roywhite]

While I didn't see the "new Feature" to be that tough a pot shot, and think the OP is looking pretty hard to find fault, I was actually more curious about Feinstein's qualifications as an analyst...given his take on the South Region:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/14/AR2010031402795.html

Anyone know if he has any special BB analytic skills?

Thanks for the link. I enjoy seeing JF spout off with great assurance and turn out to be wrong. Happens pretty often.