In the past few days, Tony LaRussa said this about Bill Bellichick: "He's interesting. He's funny. He's a great friend. I can't respect our relationship more than I do. He's about as good a friend as you can expect to have. ... If you go to dinner, you're going to talk about a lot of subjects. It's real apparent that Bill has no ego. He's not there to impress you on his championships. He's just sharing and asking. He shares with guys he knows are interested. It's like going to graduate school times 100." This sentiment has been echoed in other forums by Doc Rivers, Tom Thibideau, Bill Russell, Terry Francona, Ozzie Newsome, and Pulitzer Prize winner, the late David Halberstam. (I've got lots more of these people and their praise, all commenting on Bill's graciousness, charity and lack of ego). And, yet people at the Globe including Toni Maz, Ron Borges, Chris Gasper and especially Bob Ryan and Dan Shaughnessy have repeatedly referered to Bill as the evil genius, a Nixon like character, paranoid, miserable and stubborn, with carefully chosen photographs designed to show the coach in the worst possible light. So Globe readers, who do you believe is more credible, the list of agenda drive reporters whose egos can't tolerate a coach that has the audacity to not pay homage to them or listen to them, or the list that includes the best manager in baseball, the best coach basketball, the best GM in football and the greatest historian of our time. JUST ASKING. As an addendum, how do Bill and Bob Kraft look compared to the management team at the Kremlin on Yawkey Way that these same reporters touted as great for so many years? Reply