Red Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Just to make sure you aren't confused here: John Wawrow is a reporter for the AP. All of his posts on TSW have been credible. If John posts it as fact ("this has happened" or "will happen") I think it is safe to believe it. He normally follows up with a link to a story he has written (which is picked up by major newspapers). OTOH, Skooby is an attention-starved, forum troll. He pretends to have contacts, posts outright lies disguised as fact, not opinion, and as far as I can tell is mostly interested in having the conversation turn its focus to him. Now every Skooby post isn't a lie, some are a repeat of something that's been said by others in other threads (and said better). Others are spectacularly obvious observations, couched as insight. Most are simply the clueless ramblings of a guy who knows less about football than my mother, and my mother doesn't watch football. Dean, than that is your prerogative. I prefer to wait for an official word.
The Dean Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Dean, than that is your prerogative. I prefer to wait for an official word. Understood. As you are new here, I just wanted to give you the lay of the land, poster-wise, from my perspective. You are free to do what you wish with that info.
SKOOBY Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 For what, being a parasite on SKOOBY's arss that lives off of every post SKOOBY makes just so he can throw insults. I heard that he was waived, I posted it first on here and that can be verified. If I started a new thread on it, I get cremated by all the haters, so I post it on the DiGi thread and still get grief. You haters need to realize that I hear stuff from different sources and when I do you hear about it. If you can't handle hearing about it early, avoid my posts. I will only put up what I hear, what I believe to be factual.
Red Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 I heard that he was waived, I posted it first on here and that can be verified. If I started a new thread on it, I get cremated by all the haters, so I post it on the DiGi thread and still get grief. You haters need to realize that I hear stuff from different sources and when I do you hear about it. If you can't handle hearing about it early, avoid my posts. I will only put up what I hear, what I believe to be factual. next he'll be telling us that he sees dead people
SKOOBY Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 You were correct on this one, though. Before you posts against me again, recheck here and sit down.
The Dean Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 I heard that he was waived, I posted it first on here and that can be verified. If I started a new thread on it, I get cremated by all the haters, so I post it on the DiGi thread and still get grief. You haters need to realize that I hear stuff from different sources and when I do you hear about it. If you can't handle hearing about it early, avoid my posts. I will only put up what I hear, what I believe to be factual. Are the voices in your head "sources"? The point you are avoiding is, you post things you hear as if they are facts, and you give no background about the source (high quality source, read it on another board, etc). And sometimes you simply lie.
SKOOBY Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 [/b] dude, c'mon. you act as if you are some divine holder of inside knowledge or something. Understanding how things work helps as well but if one person knows something they must be torchered until they fess up how they know. That seems fair doesn't it?
SKOOBY Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Are the voices in your head "sources"? The point you are avoiding is, you post things you hear as if they are facts, and you give no background about the source (high quality source, read it on another board, etc). Sometimes a link is not possible, is that OK? If they show up in links after I posted them does that make them less factual or mean that the folks that lit up the mob torches jumped the gun? You're lighting of all the torches is an embarassment, just say oops Skooby called it early and rules my world / mind. Then I call it even.
Red Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Understanding how things work helps as well but if one person knows something they must be torchered until they fess up how they know. That seems fair doesn't it? uh, huh? just provide a link and I think less people would have any legitimate beef with what you post.
Red Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Sometimes a link is not possible, is that OK? If they show up in links after I posted them does that make them less factual or mean that the folks that lit up the mob torches jumped the gun? You're lighting of all the torches is an embarassment, just say oops Skooby called it early and rules my world / mind. Then I call it even. nope. gossip is for ladies.
SKOOBY Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 nope. gossip is for ladies. Dude, I was called a liar for posting up facts on a DiGi thread. Guilty until proven innocent doesn't work on the Internet and I realize that but there is lines you just don't need to cross. Benefit of the doubt needs to be given from now on, none of this badgering is necessary.
evilbuffalobob Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Bills’ DiGiorgio waived after having knee surgery The Injuran Bug... here we go again... this is just the start...
The Dean Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Dude, I was called a liar for posting up facts on a DiGi thread. Wrong. You were called a liar because you are a !@#$ing liar: http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1478371 Still haven't bothered to explain that one. And you really have NO idea how to post something you have heard, without making it seem like it is fact? Really? How about something like this, "I'm hearing the Bills have waived John D because of this injury. No link at the moment. I'll follow up when I get one." Then, if it isn't true, you aren't a liar. If you say "X just happened" because you hear it has or will, and it turns out to be untrue, then you are a liar.
Guest dog14787 Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 nope. gossip is for ladies. SKOOBY was called out on his post for being dishonest, come to find out his post was true, so who lies? Same thing happened on another thread yesterday, SKOOBY gets called dishonest and it turns out to be false, meanwhile SKOOBY is helping folks here on TSW save money. Being new Red, take the time to draw your own conclusions about fellow posters here on TSW
Dan Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Dude, I was called a liar for posting up facts on a DiGi thread. Guilty until proven innocent doesn't work on the Internet and I realize that but there is lines you just don't need to cross. Benefit of the doubt needs to be given from now on, none of this badgering is necessary. Incorrect assessment. One accurate report does not undo the multitude of inaccurate posts. Its fairly standard to state your source when posting a rumor or scoop. Would it be so hard to preface any scoop with... "I read on another board..." or "After reading this (link), its my opinion that..." or "I talked to a friend in the FO, and they said..." or "I have a gut feeling that..." Folks like JW and TG can post "scoops" as factual with little supporting statements because they're credentialed writers paid to get this information. I have no evidence to think you are. Hence, just provide some idea as to where you're getting your inside information from and much of this discussion goes away. However, realize that if half or more of your scoops are from stuff you've read on other boards and are ultimately wrong, all your posts will be scrutinized. Ask any reporter what happens when they get just one story wrong, let alone the majority of their stories. Finally, I'd add; it was nice to see you post the scoop in an existing DiGi thread. At least that's progress.
The Dean Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Incorrect assessment. One accurate report does not undo the multitude of inaccurate posts. Its fairly standard to state your source when posting a rumor or scoop. Would it be so hard to preface any scoop with... "I read on another board..." or "After reading this (link), its my opinion that..." or "I talked to a friend in the FO, and they said..." or "I have a gut feeling that..." Folks like JW and TG can post "scoops" as factual with little supporting statements because they're credentialed writers paid to get this information. I have no evidence to think you are. Hence, just provide some idea as to where you're getting your inside information from and much of this discussion goes away. However, realize that if half or more of your scoops are from stuff you've read on other boards and are ultimately wrong, all your posts will be scrutinized. Ask any reported what happens when they get just one story wrong, let alone the majority of their stories. Finally, I'd add; it was nice to see you post the scoop in an existing DiGi thread. At least that's progress. Agreed. Credit where it is due. Baby steps.
Dan Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 Agreed. Credit where it is due. Baby steps. Exactly. Sometimes we have to celebrate the small successes in life.
Red Posted July 25, 2009 Posted July 25, 2009 SKOOBY was called out on his post for being dishonest, come to find out his post was true, so who lies? Same thing happened on another thread yesterday, SKOOBY gets called dishonest and it turns out to be false, meanwhile SKOOBY is helping folks here on TSW save money. Being new Red, take the time to draw your own conclusions about fellow posters here on TSW why does everyone assume I am calling SKOOBY a lady? I just don't care for gossip. I understand that a whole industry has emerged that is mostly sport gossip. As I said earlier, just provide a link and I am cool.
Recommended Posts