Overheard tonight on CBS Sports radio1 - a debate over whether Carmelo Anthony is a "star" or a "superstar".
There have been dumber discussions, I suppose, but none in recent memory.
"Star" vs "Superstar" is one of those pointless distinctions that only exists to get bored guys to dial up indignantly to defend the honor of millionaires who wouldn't know them from Frank Stallone. Does it matter if someone is a "star" or a "superstar" or a "Class W Wolf-Rayet Star With Anomalously High Levels of Carbon"? Are there formal certifications one must pass to be promoted? Do they involved multiple choice tests? Is a bench guy like Kwame Brown a B-type asteroid? Is an actual superstar doomed to start fusing helium and eventually explode in a supernova somewhere near the top of the key in the middle of the third quarter?
And why are you suddenly asking if a guy you were ready to run out of town yesterday is a "superstar" today based on one decent playoff game?
The mind, it boggles.
1I was listening to CBS largely because one of the booth crew at ESPN insisted on talking extensively about a team's "Nuculus". Which, I believe, is located next to its pancreas. There are very few mispronunciations that will actually drive me to tooth-grinding rage, but the "nuclear/nucular" is one of them. THE L COMES RIGHT AFTER THE C, PEOPLE. IT'S NOT HARD.