why attack a "source" on a FREE WEBSITE?

law_bee said:
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
Click to expand...

Lawbee, you're missing the point. We did let the process play out while we all bought into what was being said. Guess what, it caused a complete cluster####. So if you help caused the cluster#### and I point that out to you, and it hurts your feelings and you stop posting.... then you're probably a pansy anyway.

This is exactly why I said I respected both demjackets and 33, and I'll say it again. Both those posters will stand by what they said and take the criticism and they keep on posting. And I very well will listen to them again and believe them as I think they are good sources of info.

As far as Clough goes, would he lie to me, maybe. Would he lie to guys who stroke very big checks and donate some pretty big dollars to the institution and those that have non-profit business ventures with Ma-Tech? I kind of doubt it. I tend to take Clough at his word. Certainly more so than an anonymous internet poster who is an apparent "source of information". Which one would you believe?
 
We have lost good posters b/c of attacks
Click to expand...
There's that 'a' word again.

If Stingtalk loses a poster because I point out that free information is of zero worth (your words, page 1) and they view that as an attack, who's to blame? Me? Or them?


I've got a PM exchange saved, that I'd so love to hit this thread with. But I won't.
 
beej67 said:
There's that 'a' word again.

If Stingtalk loses a poster because I point out that free information is of zero worth (your words, page 1) and they view that as an attack, who's to blame? Me? Or them?
Click to expand...

Lets take that one step further:

If Stingtalk loses a poster because the free information he was giving that he represented as factual turned out to be wrong by all other accounts, and I point that out to them and they view that as an attack, who's to blame? Me? or Them?
 
I have no interest in taking it any further than is necessary to absolve me from blame, and to perhaps give me a template for how to respond to future instances in a way that won't piss the 'insider' off. I do believe insider presence makes Stingtalk a better board, and I wouldn't want the 'insiders' to leave, but there needs to be way to remind folks not to take anonymous net sources as gospel.

What about a smiley face? Like, an image we can stick beside info in a post (like an NSFW tag) except indicating that info is "alleged."
 
my point is leaking information is a dicey situation. I know one incident where Stingtalk was contacted by GT Admin to take down info b/c (even though it turned out to be true) it was not official and they were trying to correct it.

IMO I believe most of the info posted (that the poster was purporting to be factual) was probably pretty accurate. I believe the final summaries of these events are ALMOST ALWAYS white washed and cleaned up (to the best they can be) and when you use terms like "interview" it boils down to semantics.

I was NOT directing this post toward any ONE poster but to the board as a whole. I saw NUMEROUS posts by members who were frustrated by the CONFLICTING information.

In my job I deal w/ conflicting information all the time. I am getting ready to try a case where the V alleged someone raped her (they locked the poor bastard up) which she identified by a photo. When DNA tests were done the sample was linked to another guy (my client, 1-240trillion sample). When she was told by the police she was arguing with them that they are wrong.

The point is on a message board people are communicating their perception of certain data. Multiple sources can be referring to the SAME data but have different perceptions and draw VERY different conclusions.

I know for a fact that SOME posters have been attacked for communicating info that they believed was accurate (and probably was accurate).

So back to the original thought. I DO NOT believe the process was a cluster****. The GT coaching search has received positive comments nationwide. I don't think that the info posted on the board was a problem. In fact sometimes this info can have a positive impact on the process. It is possible that some "leaked" info was done purposefully to shape the process and alter the final result.

I understand the position "that if a poster can't take the heat then get of the kitchen," however that deny the board info which IMO is bad.

All this presumes people posting in "good faith" which is not always the case but eventually they will get caught if they post in bad faith. In fact I believe someone was caught recently and is no longer on the board.
 
why attack a "source" on a FREE WEBSITE?

Because it may be a twelve year-old or a doggie. Source as free = bullsh*t.

Welcome to the boards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top