“Supper”-Bowl
In fact, we don’t even know who won, since it wasn’t reported on the national news this morning (Monday, February 4, 2008), perhaps reflecting how important the “Supper”-Bowl is in the national scheme of things (now that the chickens of the Dubya presidency are coming home to roost).
Although we suspect it was New England. Last we heard New England was ahead, although not by much — and it was near the end.
(My wife gets reports over the dreaded Internet, despite our supposedly wonky ISP.)
A number of factors were at play, but primary was our desire to eat “super.”
Eating “super” we watch the news; mayhem would be distracting — football boring.
Another factor was that the Supper-Bowl wasn’t on one of the three national networks.
I guess it was on FOX, and FOX has a Rochester affiliate.
But the channel-lineup in our area ain’t what’s in the Mezz TV-book.
I’m pretty sure FOX is in our channel-lineup, but I couldn’t find it right away — and I didn’t care anyway.
That’s the most important factor here: lack of interest.
I’ve tried to watch the Supper-Bowl before, and occasionally made two quarters.
I suppose if it included the Billy-Goats or the Iggles I might be interested.
The onliest reason to follow the Supper-Bowl is if the Pasties lost, which would allow me to take the blowhard to the cleaners.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home