Well-written or true and correct? I'm not sure i agree with either, but I'm just curious which you meant. I'd say both. I don't often agree with Mariotti, but I definitely think he has a grasp on this situation. I think his article would have been stronger if he had left his personal experience out of it, but I think he did a nice job with the topic. I think he's interpreted Dusty's motives in this issue very well. The notion of Dusty's motives here, I guess, is important. Did I miss an article or report that showed that Dusty shopped this story around until he found someone who would tell his tale of woe? It seems just as likely that the story grew more organically than that and that it isn't a case of Dusty "making excuses" but rather just answering questions and a writer trying to tell accurate facts in a compelling, provocative and interesting way. If a reporter had asked Jay M "Hey Jay, did you ever get any response from fans about that whole Ozzie calling you a [expletive] thing?" and Jay responded exactly as he did in his article... "I was subjected to national attention after Ozzie Guillen, the White Sox manager, referred to me as ''a [bleeping] [expletive]'' in late June. My mailbag, so to speak, was a hodgepodge of reaction. There was a fair share of hatred, mostly from Sox fans who defended their maligned manager and weren't sophisticated enough to grasp what Guillen had done wrong. A handful of goofs stooped low and fired homophobic and ethnic slurs. But refreshingly, I found the majority of non-Sox fans to be focusing on Guillen's ignorance -- and questioning why some members of the Chicago media would defend him." You can bet the writer would focus more on the "hatred from Sox fans" than the "majority of non-sox fans focusing on Guillens ignorance" and we would all be pointing and laughing at "crybaby Jay". That would not be an accurate or reasonable reason to hate on Jay M either especially when there are so many other more compelling and acurate reasons to do so...kinda like Dusty.