Either way there's gonna be blood on the floor when you tell her that you don't dig girls anymore

Victory is mine!

to continue with today's theme of stupidity.

one of my daily readings is the 10 spot on sportsillustrated.com. Last week the writer asked why a batter who fouls a pitch straight back is said to be "right on it" but the same is not said when somebody pops a pitch straight up.

Amazingly, this response actually made it from somebody's head, to their keyboard, to the 10-spot in a subsequent installment:

My mail ran about 50/50 on item No. 10 in Tuesday's edition, in which I questioned why broadcasters always say a batter "was right on that pitch" when he fouls one straight back but never say the same for a pop-up directly over the plate. Half lauded my insight while the rest sniffed that clearly I've never played baseball. Brad of Santa Barbara, Calif., offered what seems to be the most knowledgeable response: "Being a former college baseball player affords me the expertise in this matter. When a hitter fouls a ball straight back it is because he swung and hit the top of the baseball but not squarely enough to exactly reverse the rotation. Hitting the top of the baseball creates the backspin required for a ball to carry out of the park, which is why you hear so many Little League coaches yell, 'Swing down and through.' So in this instance the hitter really did miss the pitch just barely. But in the instance of the pop-up, the hitter swung and hit underneath the baseball, creating the opposite desired rotation and inducing a pop-up or lazy fly ball.

i was baffled. just speechless. it actually caused me to have trouble sleeping that night. so the next day i e-mailed the writer. here's an abreviated summary:

That guy's response upset me greatly. there's no bloody way hitting the top of the baseball will give it an upward trajectory.

The actual e-mail was a few sentences longer and didn't really contain much of my abbreviated summary except that i actually used the phrase "no bloody way" in describing the physics behind what the guy contended. then there was this gem in today's 10 spot:

Furthermore, Thursday's mailbag was full of letters saying that the explanation offered by 10 Spot reader Brad of Santa Barbara, Calif., on how a ball is fouled back to the screen had more holes than Mario Mendoza's swing. Many of the responses cited physics, geometry, calculus and other subjects that I specifically have tried to avoid by becoming a sportswriter, so this will be the final word on the topic.

(an aside for the uninitiated: Mario Mendoza)