VOR Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 (edited) http://www.wivb.com/global/story.asp?s=8494353 Edited June 21, 2008 by VOR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sven233 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 WOW! OK! Well, that is interesting. Not sure what to think about that. I guess this is better for Lynch. IF Johnson was driving, instead of coming off as a hit and run driver, he will come off as a loyal friend who didn't want to get his friend in trouble. However, Lynch still could have been the driver. Don't get me wrong, it still looks BAD, but if Lynch wasn't driving, that does change some things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJDLRCXR2ZM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billieve420 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Crazy if this story is true Steve Johnson should have came forward because the truth was eventually going to come out. I wonder if this is going to hurt Johnson's chances of making the team this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernMan Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Where does it say Johnson was driving? It says that he was in the vehicle but makes no claim about him driving. On the other hand, there is a section that states, "The District Attorney says the agreement is predicated on the fact that Lynch was driving the hit and run sport utility vehicle" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 According to this story's headline he was: http://www.wivb.com/global/story.asp?s=8494353 Ummm not seeing where it says Johnson was driving, especially since the article says that Lynch's deal is predicated on it being Lynch who was behind the wheel.... nothing says Johnson was driving the car Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkAF43 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Where does it say Johnson was driving? It says that he was in the vehicle but makes no claim about him driving. On the other hand, there is a section that states, "The District Attorney says the agreement is predicated on the fact that Lynch was driving the hit and run sport utility vehicle. The District Attorney says the agreement is predicated on the fact that Lynch was driving the hit and run sport utility vehicle." beat me to it, damn i type too slow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billieve420 Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Probably would have helped to read the whole article. Misleading title since it only mentions Johnson was in the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthernMan Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 beat me to it, damn i type too slow This is why I believe there should be a qualifying test for voting in presidential elections. I swear too many people are swayed by misleading headlines and often don't examine the content of the full article before drawing a conclusion. What's worse is it's then parroted and repeated enought that it becomes "fact". I often quiz my elderly mother-in-law to see what she thought she heard after one of these tv news stories. You'd be surpised how often I have to set it straight for her with actual facts and demonstrate how she was being misled by a clever turn of a phrase by media types who have their own agenda. I suspect the poster who started this thread has to move his lips when he reads. That should always be the dead give-away that bad information can't be far behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 Where does it say Johnson was driving? It says that he was in the vehicle but makes no claim about him driving. Ummm not seeing where it says Johnson was driving, especially since the article says that Lynch's deal is predicated on it being Lynch who was behind the wheel.... nothing says Johnson was driving the car It says it where I said it says it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 It says it where I said it says it. Umm...no it doesn't. Try taking some reading comprehension classes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 It says it where I said it says it. Headline: "Driver of Marshawn Lynch's SUV revealed." First story: News 4 has learned that Steve Johnson was the other player in the car. No mention of driver. Second story: The District Attorney says the agreement is predicated on the fact that Lynch was driving the hit and run sport utility vehicle. Clark says no other person or persons are being investigated in connection with the hit and run accident during which Lynch's SUV hit and injured a female pedestrian from Canada in Buffalo's entertainment district. Clark confirms that another person was in the Lynch vehicle at the time of the accident, but will not name that person. I'm trying to figure out how anyone can read that and come to the conclusion that Johnson was driving, but it isn't working for me. Help me out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Try taking a reading class. What part of "According to the headline" can you not read or understand? Geez. Are you really this dense? The headline reads "Driver of Marshawn Lynch's SUV revealed" -- yet the article reveals nothing of the sort. We learn only that Steve Johnson was "in" the vehicle, and that Marshawn is the only player facing charges. How you interpret that to imply Steve Johnson was the driver of the SUV is beyond me. If anything, the headline is misleading, and you've compounded the confusion by drawing an illogical conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 The inference is that Johnson was driving. The headline states "Driver of Marshawn Lynch's SUV revealed." Then it starts-off with "Frank Clark won't tell us who was in Marshawn Lynch's Porsche SUV. But, Friday night, News 4 has learned it was his close friend, Buffalo Bills' Wide Receiver Steve Johnson." But I can see that it was more likely a poorly organized article which should have started-off talking about Lynch and not Johnson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 21, 2008 Author Share Posted June 21, 2008 Are you really this dense? The headline reads "Driver of Marshawn Lynch's SUV revealed" -- yet the article reveals nothing of the sort. We learn only that Steve Johnson was "in" the vehicle, and that Marshawn is the only player facing charges. How you interpret that to imply Steve Johnson was the driver of the SUV is beyond me. If anything, the headline is misleading, and you've compounded the confusion by drawing an illogical conclusion. What, did you sit there hitting refresh 20 times in a row after posting your initial reply? I posted that and deleted it almost immediately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Although their headline is vague, I wouldn't call it misleading. I know what VOR is trying to do here, but it still isn't working for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 Although their headline is vague, I wouldn't call it misleading. I know what VOR is trying to do here, but it still isn't working for me. That headline doesn't belong on that article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 The Lynch hardliners are still grasping at straws to vindicate him. Just accept that he was driving and move on, it's over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 The Lynch hardliners are still grasping at straws to vindicate him. Just accept that he was driving and move on, it's over. There is a difference between a Lynch hardliner and a Fact hardliner. As you age, you'll be able to tell the difference, too, so be patient, Skippy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted June 21, 2008 Share Posted June 21, 2008 There is a difference between a Lynch hardliner and a Fact hardliner. As you age, you'll be able to tell the difference, too, so be patient, Skippy. Well the FACT of the article then is that Johnson was only in the car, not the driver. Nowhere in the article does it say tha Johnson was the driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts