why attack a "source" on a FREE WEBSITE?

law_bee

law_bee

Dodd-Like
Joined
Nov 25, 2001
Messages
6,399
it seems that MANY just go APE the moment that something posted on a website turns out to be inaccurate.

1. FREE info is worth exactly what you paid for it

2. Info can correct at the time the post is made then later become inaccurate. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? People change their minds!

I remember BC taking a job one day then turning it down and going back to his old job. I am thinking that a few media sources sent out some inaccurate info.

3. Also sometimes an 18 y/o kid will tell some people somethings and tell other different info.

The point of this is do you want to attack people for giving you FREE INFO? Do you believe everything you read in your local rag? How bout your local/national politician?

Why do you want to run off someone who is probably giving you 90% good info? You people need to lighten up and QUIT ATTACKING POSTERS who are posting info. There is an ignore setting if you don't want to read their info, but some of us want to see what they have to post. I read numerous sources and come to my own conclusions.

MAYBE YOU WOULD RATHER BE TREATED LIKE MUSHROOMS!

Do you remember life b/f the Internet? When you relied on Walter Conkrite (sp?) to give you your info?
 
1. FREE info is worth exactly what you paid for it
Click to expand...
Yes. Exactly.

So why is merely pointing out the value of free info (just as you have done) considered a personal attack by some of the people providing the free info?
 
just want to say that StinGTalk is a board that promotes information. The ONLY standard should be "good faith" basis for the post.

If someone can show malice then the board would correct the problem, however I see some attack posters b/c they DO NOT like the info.

Over the past 5+ years we have lost valued members who choose not to post b/c of attacks from posters. Some of these were GT athletes whose opinions and insights were very interesting.

The point is at Stingtalk we give the BENEFIT of the doubt to GT fans who choose to post their comments or opinions. If you find a poster's info to consistently be inaccurate then give SPECIFIC INSTANCES so the other readers can judge for THEMSELVES. General personal attacks on members is not acceptable.

The Internet is about getting info QUICK. Sometimes you sacrifice quality when dealng w/ 2nd and 3rd hand information. If you cannot accept that sacrifice then you should probably rely on the official press release.

But DO NOT take away the info from those of us who can judge for ourselves.

If you choose to personally call out a poster that should be done w/ a pm. Also if a member feels they have been improperly attacked by another member on the board OR in a pm feel free to forward to the moderators.

gtfan
 
because some people are a little pompous about the whole thing.

and no, I'm not talking about Dem.
 
Wait, so you're saying that email I got from "CuteTeenVirgin" is not legit? There isn't a way to add 15 inches of girth to my "love tool"? Things that I read on the internet may not be true?

Seriously, if you don't take everything you read with a grain of salt, then PM me, because I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
 
A big part of the problem is with the person posting the info. Some folks take a gamble with their credibility and some don't.

Example: Imagine I hear a rumor about something that would be interesting to the class. The rumor is "bombshell" information. I log onto Stingtalk and I have a choice to make.

I can post the info in one of two ways. I can take a chance that the rumor is true and try to raise my status on the board by saying something like: "I have it on solid authority from deep within the inner smoke-filled rooms deep within the GTAA that blah, blah, blah."

OR, I can say: "I overheard the janitor tell the receptionist that he overheard DRad tell Gailey to hire a Realtor if he didn't win the UGa game so take it for what its worth."

In the first scenario, if the rumor turned out to be true, I would be the Breaker of Breaking News of Stingtalk dot com and loved and respected by all. However, if it turned out to be false, I'd look like an idiot and would expect to be tarred and feathered.

In the second scenario, I'm off the hook regardless if the rumor is true or false since I represented the quality of the source accurately and didn't "take credit" for the info. I just passed it along just like I heard it.

So, I think where the problem comes in is when folks aren't really completely transparent with how valid and verifiable the source of the info is.
 
ultimately the reader should be allowed to judge for himself. Stingtalk is not selling some product. There is no fee for posting or reading.

As long as it is not malicious then there should not be a problem.

Like the poster said internet news is "fast food" news. If you want gourmet then wait on the press release.
 
Lawbee, I don't know if this is addressed at me or not, because my response to demjackets and 33 in another thread was not an attack, just a big dose of reality.

Information is a dangerous thing on a message board when its represented in a factual way and not merely someone's opinion. A good example of this was all the loose (not saying it was false but definitely loose) information on Will Muschamp who we later learned was never even interviewed. Why would the AJC miss out on that if he was in fact interviewed? that's suspicious.

Who knows. Maybe we contacted him, maybe we sat down and asked if he would be our DC. Maybe we talked to him about being a head coach. But for a week it was represented that Muschamp was the guy, and then Clough nixed DRAd's decision. I know this is BS because Clough was out of town during this period and not even dealing with the coaching search. How do I know? Because Clough told me and some others the very same, and those people he definitely wouldn't have lied to or misrepresented anything.

But the information provided made us think Clough kept DRAd from doing his job and DRad was pissed off about it, and then they were both flooded with emails from the masses about the fans being up in arms. It was a cluster####! And everyone on the message boards was all up in arms over what a handful of posters were representing.

Well if you're going to represent it as factual information you need to be careful. My response to both 33 and demjackets was merely a "I respect these guys and enjoy their posts but they can be wrong as bad as the next guy". And that's the truth.

We all need to be a little mindful of how we react to information posted on a message board and that includes me as well.
 
So here's my question. Say a board insider posts some info that may or may not be true, but I'm not willing to blindly enshrine as truth. (since it's by definition free info, per the top post up there) What words do I have to say to remind people that it's free anonymous info, of no intrinsic value, without offending the guy who posted it?

I've tried to say "Hey, look, this is free info from an anonymous source, which might not be right" before, and I've been immediately hounded in response by PMs saying "All you keep doing is talking crap about me, everytime something comes up you say I'm a fraud." (for example). Now clearly I didn't intend any offense with the helpful reminder that free info is "worth what you pay for it," yet the providers of that free info take my reminder as an attack.

I don't want to piss anybody off. How do I go about not pissing people off?
 
Back during the head coaching search process I asked one particular poster for a source on some 'insider' information he had provided --and he lambasted me for it.

I wasn't 'questioning' the information provided, I'm just not prone to accept what someone posts on a message board as the almighty truth. Regarding not 'pissing people off', I think that those providing the information need to at least understand that by simply posting something and declaring it the almighty truth because 'you said so' is bound to draw doubt in some peoples mind.

Much of what was posted during the search process was false, some was factual, and some I'll never know if there was truth to it or not. The speculation was a lot of fun --and that's just it-- I had fun with it. But as BOR stated, the inaccurate information concerning Muschamp did create a cluster**** of misinformation --and that should not have gone down like it did.
 
Alright, I'll come clean. I am not a real person. I am just a web-crawling program that searches for pictures containing monkeys, parasols, or both.
 
WracerX said:
Alright, I'll come clean. I am not a real person. I am just a web-crawling program that searches for pictures containing monkeys, parasols, or both.
Click to expand...

I have definitive evidence that WracerX, JTS, and myself are (in fact) real people.

I cannot say the same thing with 100% certainty about Kirbee. Yet.
 
beej67 said:
I don't want to piss anybody off. How do I go about not pissing people off?
Click to expand...

If someone doesn't accept that there is a difference between opinion and fact then it is their problem if they get pissed off when you point that out to them. And yes, an anonymous source is nothing but an opinion until the information is proven to be correct.
 
cyclejacket said:
If someone doesn't accept that there is a difference between opinion and fact then it is their problem if they get pissed off when you point that out to them. And yes, an anonymous source is nothing but an opinion until the information is proven to be correct.
Click to expand...

QFT

I'll add this: I sometimes think about how I come across to people and I realize that I probably piss off most of them. Then I realize that I don't really care.
 
BarrelORum said:
QFT

I'll add this: I sometimes think about how I come across to people and I realize that I probably piss off most of them. Then I realize that I don't really care.
Click to expand...
Wow, the new softer, gentler BOR. :biggthumpup:
 
If someone doesn't accept that there is a difference between opinion and fact then it is their problem if they get pissed off when you point that out to them.
Click to expand...
Well MY opinion is almost always fact. 94.03% of the time. Thas' a fact!
 
BarrelORum said:
QFT

I'll add this: I sometimes think about how I come across to people and I realize that I probably piss off most of them. Then I realize that I don't really care.
Click to expand...


You had me worried about going soft with that first sentence but then you redeemed yourself with the ending, attaboy BoR
 
BarrelORum said:
I know this is BS because Clough was out of town during this period and not even dealing with the coaching search. How do I know? Because Clough told me and some others the very same, and those people he definitely wouldn't have lied to or misrepresented anything.
Click to expand...

You don't know this. You can state you don't believe this b/c C was out of town, but that is different than know this. With conference calls and i-net video feeds you are NEVER out of town. I personally believe that C was involved in this process whether he was ATL or Tibet.

Why the AJC get it wrong? lol (didn't check the source, incompetence, they hire idiots...choose 1 or pick all 3)

Is it possible C would personally lie to you? ABSOLUTELY, these people do Clinton's all the time...meaning it is only an interview if they call it an interview. Maybe it was a debriefing or pre-interview. In O'leary's last year BB congratulated him on the ND job right after the GT/FSU game..allegedly.

I DO NOT KNOW IF ANYTHING IS TRUE that is posted on this board, but YOU do not know what is false as well.

It boils down to what YOU choose to believe based on the information provided. If YOU choose to believe someone is inaccurate then that is ok, but I don't want YOU to make that choice for me. We have lost good posters b/c of attacks and unless you KNOW someone is purposefully, maliciously misleading the board I believe you should let the process play out. IMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top