jester43 Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 I saw a twit where he stated that he is a huge supporter of the Cottonelle moist flushable wipes. who isn't? have you tried those things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VOR Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Hey: I would strongly suggest that when copying my post in your response that you do NOT change it by adding in a word, thus altering the meaning of what I wrote. I did not write "all." You inserted it. And that's plain wrong. My post read: jw rjcoles wasn't trying to claim that you said it. He was editorializing. But he was still wrong because none of the extras were hired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 6, 2009 Share Posted June 6, 2009 Hence the use of the word "may" in my post. And it would not surprise me one bit... 6 of one, half dozen of the other... Change "may" to "did not" -- because the source of that information had already been reported -- and you may have something there. Hey: I would strongly suggest that when copying my post in your response that you do NOT change it by adding in a word, thus altering the meaning of what I wrote. I did not write "all." You inserted it. And that's plain wrong. My post read: jw You're right, John. That's B.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 You can reject an applicant for that? Isnt that some type of discrimination? Ever live in a community with a snobby HOA committee? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Yeah, no one's ever done that on this board before. My bad... Just like no one ever speculate's, right Lori... Here's the difference. I excerpted this from the first "Ask Tim" thread, but it applies equally to Wawrow. (Emphasis mine). Either one would be rightfully pissed to have someone here intentionally misquote them: I'll talk about all sorts of topics here that I might not be prepared to write about, but because my byline is the symbol of whatever credibility and integrity I've built up in this profession, there will be some questions I won't be able to answer. In the Internet Age, anything I post here could be construed as a published story. John didn't say precisely who told him there were no extras hired, but I would assume that came directly from someone on the VH1 crew, perhaps when he rode along with them to report on one of Owens' house-shopping expeditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Here's the difference. I excerpted this from the first "Ask Tim" thread, but it applies equally to Wawrow. (Emphasis mine). Either one would be rightfully pissed to have someone here intentionally misquote them: Yeah, my bad. I don't like it either, but it happens all the time on this board. Not that it's right. It was more about being lazy, easier to cut, paste, and edit. John didn't say precisely who told him there were no extras hired, but I would assume that came directly from someone on the VH1 crew, perhaps when he rode along with them to report on one of Owens' house-shopping expeditions. I got the information about the hired people second hand. When talking directly to the individual, they weren't hired, just called and encouraged to come down and be on television. But I was merely speculating in my original post. Funny how some people get so defensive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Yeah, my bad. I don't like it either, but it happens all the time on this board. Not that it's right. It was more about being lazy, easier to cut, paste, and edit. I got the information about the hired people second hand. When talking directly to the individual, they weren't hired, just called and encouraged to come down and be on television. But I was merely speculating in my original post. Funny how some people get so defensive... shameless weasel. jw ADD: and thanks lori for the defense. however, let's for a moment forget what Tim and i do for a living. there is no defense for what "ricojes" did, whether it was to me, Tim, a first-time poster or to you. he/she seems to have some knowledge of that, not enough to be smart about it though. RETRACTED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 shameless weasel. jw Dude, you have issues. rj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Dude, you have issues. rj yes, one of them involves shameless weasels such as yourself. jw RETRACTED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 yes, one of them involves shameless weasels such as yourself. jw At least I don't resort to childish name calling, welcome to ignore... rj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 At least I don't resort to childish name calling, welcome to ignore... rj if by ignore, that means you'll stop altering my posts, then i'm all for it. ignore away. as for childish name-calling: to be shameless, means that a person lacks a sense of shame, guilt or knowing that you have done something wrong. that applies aptly to what you did. you acknowledged that you did something wrong, but justified it as being `lazy,' and that, well, 'everyone does it.' a weasel is a carnivorous mammal with white or yellowish (i prefer the latter here) underparts; and also can be applied to someone who is, according to Merriam-Webster, "sneaky, untrustworthy or insincere." i think i've covered the bases here. jw RETRACTED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Speaking of shameless weasles....how is Larry Quinn doing these days? Nothing against John, but as Quinn and Golisano were flushing the franchise down the toilet, they avoided all local media and would only talk to John. It was that lack of accountability to the truth that led me to dump my fanhood and long held season tickets to the Sabres. Just wondering how that all played out and how you felt as a reporter being in the middle of that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Speaking of shameless weasles....how is Larry Quinn doing these days? Nothing against John, but as Quinn and Golisano were flushing the franchise down the toilet, they avoided all local media and would only talk to John. It was that lack of accountability to the truth that led me to dump my fanhood and long held season tickets to the Sabres. Just wondering how that all played out and how you felt as a reporter being in the middle of that situation. they also talked to the CBC, from what i recall. with all due respect, i don't know if i was ever caught in the middle of any situation. i was simply attempting to do my job by asking questions and reporting on the answers i got, while adding what perspective i had to be fair. i understand the frustrations of Sabres fans, and i think i've written on numerous occasions that the team's troubles over the past few years stem in many ways from losing Drury and Briere to free agency. and, to be fair, i do not agree with your reference to Larry Quinn. that does not mean you don't have a right to your opinion. i just don't agree with it. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Let me explain, from now on this is what I see when you post. You have chosen to ignore all posts from: john wawrow. · View this post · Un-ignore john wawrow I am not going to deal with posters such as yourself. And by bolding your post, it is implied that your original post had been edited. Get a clue dude, I do feel sorry for you though... Edit...forgot to sign it... rj i think your ignore's not working, since you're still reading what i'm posting. ... but good luck with that. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Let me explain, from now on this is what I see when you post. You have chosen to ignore all posts from: john wawrow. · View this post · Un-ignore john wawrow I am not going to deal with posters such as yourself. And by bolding your post, it is implied that your original post had been edited. Get a clue dude, I do feel sorry for you though... Edit...forgot to sign it... rj Implied by who? Most of us use the [bold] tag to emphasize specific points in our own posts. When I read the excerpt you supposedly quoted ... Edit:extras at the airport, i'm told, were NOT all hired. home owner does not deny the incident, home owner's real estate agent does. ... I saw no reason to believe that anyone other than John wrote any of those words, until he pointed out the discrepancy. Turns out, his description -- not your uncredited rewrite -- was correct. And because he called you on it, you think he has issues? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Implied by who? Most of us use the [bold] tag to emphasize specific points in our own posts. When I read the excerpt you supposedly quoted ... ... I saw no reason to believe that anyone other than John wrote any of those words, until he pointed out the discrepancy. Turns out, his description -- not your uncredited rewrite -- was correct. And because he called you on it, you think he has issues? Yes, after I admitted I was wrong to edit his post he attacks me. So, I don't know what else I can say. If it's bothering him that much and he wants a formal apology, section 119, row 1 is the place to find me 7 Sundays in the fall. Until then, just ignore him and move on... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... With that I am out, fairwell T.O.s Twitter Shocker!! thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Yes, after I admitted I was wrong to edit his post he attacks me. So, I don't know what else I can say. Just ignore him and move on... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... I will not edit other posts... apology now accepted. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 they also talked to the CBC, from what i recall. with all due respect, i don't know if i was ever caught in the middle of any situation. i was simply attempting to do my job by asking questions and reporting on the answers i got, while adding what perspective i had to be fair. i understand the frustrations of Sabres fans, and i think i've written on numerous occasions that the team's troubles over the past few years stem in many ways from losing Drury and Briere to free agency. and, to be fair, i do not agree with your reference to Larry Quinn. that does not mean you don't have a right to your opinion. i just don't agree with it. jw Thanks for the insight. I am sure on a personal basis Quinn can be just fine. I was talking in regards to being a custodian of the franchise. Just like most other places, his #1 goal is to make money and not worry about accountability. The fact that fans keep ponying up for a mediocre product only goes to prove him right....so I give him credit for that. At the time they would not return any calls from the Buffalo News. Golisano only talked to CBC after getting flack for running a fluff piece with Robitaille on their own network. It seemed as if Quinn would almost use the AP as a PR press release when he wanted to respond to issues they were getting heat for, but didn't want to get pounded by questions. I am sure you were doing what you could, but I don't forgive Quinn for his actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Thanks for the insight. I am sure on a personal basis Quinn can be just fine. I was talking in regards to being a custodian of the franchise. Just like most other places, his #1 goal is to make money and not worry about accountability. The fact that fans keep ponying up for a mediocre product only goes to prove him right....so I give him credit for that. At the time they would not return any calls from the Buffalo News. Golisano only talked to CBC after getting flack for running a fluff piece with Robitaille on their own network. It seemed as if Quinn would almost use the AP as a PR press release when he wanted to respond to issues they were getting heat for, but didn't want to get pounded by questions. I am sure you were doing what you could, but I don't forgive Quinn for his actions. i think -- hope at least -- i asked many of the same questions that any other reporter would've asked Larry. and i spoke to Golisano after the first of the two-part Robitaille piece. keep in mind, they didn't call me. i called them. Golisano acknowledged to me the Sabres could've been proactive. and then he said he was impressed with the young core of his team. that's what i reported. i then wrote this: ¶ Golisano has been blamed for the team's woes, and also knocked for making far fewer public appearances then he did when the Sabres were winning. ¶ It doesn't help that he hasn't addressed the reasons behind the Sabres lack of foresight in failing to lock both Drury and Briere _ the team's two unquestioned leaders _ into long-term contracts long before they were eligible to become free agents. ¶ "You know, we probably could have," Golisano said. But he then defended the decisions by arguing that re-signing one or both to lucrative deals would have severely limited the Sabres from signing other players because of salary-cap constraints. ¶ "I don't know if that would've served us well," Golisano said. "With the benefit of hindsight, I think we did the best that we could actually do. Everybody's making a big deal of it, like we arbitrarily decided that we weren't going to take these players. That's all wrong. We wanted to keep both of them." ¶ If that's the case, the Sabres went about it in strange fashion. They made few if any attempts to re-sign both when they had a chance a year earlier. They also refused to negotiate with them during the last half of the season and, instead, waited until the final week before free agency began to make them offers. ..." i hope that you weren't inferring that The AP is a p.r. service, because we most certainly are not. i also hope that because The AP has a reputation for being fair, that that is why many athletes/executives/etc. choose to talk to us. and that, by no means is to suggest that other publications, including The Buffalo News, are unfair, because i have the utmost respect for the people that work there. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 My own fact-free point of view, Time To Choose: the Sabres did the same thing to The News that Donahoe pulled on WGR. They didn't like the beating they were taking, so they decided to freeze out their supposed persecutors. (I have to admit, I'm not an expert on the situation. Did they also ignore calls from the beat writers, or just the columnists?) But while Sully and Gleason are free to take shots at Golisano and Quinn in their News columns, Wawrow's job is to write an unbiased report for a national audience, and providing both sides of the issue to his readers is absolutely necessary. To be honest, the last graf in the piece quoted above dances fairly close to the dividing line between reporting and opinion. (I agree completely with the sentiment expressed there, mind you -- I'm just a little surprised that it got in.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts