What are you talking about? Where did I mention post count or anything like that? I simply said observe what is going on around here. The same people that you say give you a hard time would be giving anyone a hard time if their sources weren't known.
Growing up has a lot to do with not getting so defensive when people reply to you. Especially when you are clearly wrong about something. I learned this when I first came to the board and I often help out with the new posters. Just paying if forward.
Alright, that's fair. I still don't really understand (again, assuming you're not in the media) why you can't divulge what your source is, but it is your business and right not to do so The reason I asked, if you care, is because I've yet to be on a message board where someone posted inside information and wasn't immediately "flamed" if they did not divulge their source(s) and/or provide a link.
Actually, don't bother Kori, this is just as good.
It's not that that replied, it's how you replied. Even more mystifying than that is why you'd reply in that way at a simple question that wasn't even directed at you? This is the typical message board. You got a group of veteran posters who band together, give no credence to what any new poster has to say and think they're policing the board. Known source? You mean proven?
What am I wrong about? I didn't call the person I liar. Congratulations. You must feel proud for having learned that and for "paying it forward".
The whole "if you divulge your sources, you won't have sources" line holds true when you're in the media. When you're a random fan on a message board, that holds no weight. If you don't want to divulge them, fine, that's your right.
Well said, but that doesn't excuse the numerous amount of losers who are on every message board attempting to police it (I'm not referring to moderators and/or those who come up with the rules). Just look at the genesis of this discussion and then think of how foolish it is that so many were offended by a simple question not even directed at them. It's baffling.
Occasional is one s, not two, for future reference.
Playing the 'everyone's bashing on the n00b' card isn't really showing that you're a more credible or informed poster than those with higher post counts.
That is what everyone is doing and who said I was attempting to prove I am more credible than a poster with a higher post count? What I said was, you shouldn't base your opinion of my basketball a en or credibility on the fact that I have a low post count. Apparently you're incapable of distinguishing between the two.
No one was offended but you, hence all of the replies to everyone. So now no one can address something that was not directed at them? This is a message board and I did not see anyone address you with the comments. In fact, Phila and I were having a conversation in which I asked him about the info because I know his sources are good. So quit interrupting our conversation.
Clearly, you all were. The vulgar language and the venom spewing from all of your posts made that abundantly clear. Good job, you just contradicted yourself in the same paragraph. The genesis of this whole thing was me asking a simple question directed at one specific poster and then a bunch of arrogant snobs rushing to that posters defense over nothing.
Thanks Phila, I appreciate all the information.
And don't backpedal with the Clinton semantics again.
Take your own advice and get over yourself.
1) You are wrong because you said "losing your sources only applies to members of the media". That is wrong, yet you keep stating it.
2) Your logic is all jumbled up. You don't trust him so you ask for his sources. Then you say "I don't need a name, you just could have said someone inside the Spurs organization". If he was lying about the information, could he not just as easily say "my source is inside the Spurs organization" and lie about that? What is it about seeing him type those words out that would make you believe him or trust the "source" any more?
You would have to rely on others on the board not flaming him and calling him out. Which is what I said at the beginning.
Backpedal? It's not my fault you can't distinguish between two very different things. And don't try denying that, because it's been established.
No, it was pointing out that you are contradicting yourself by saying "I did not direct the question at you, yet people are responding". No one directed anything towards you and you responded to a conversation that Phila and I were having and questioned his sources.
Quit saying genesis as well.
So now, it's the 'lalalalala, I can't hear you', defense?
This isn't really true. SpursTalk is a high traffic board. The following sequence of events is highly plausible:
-Let's say one of my sources is Marcus Haislip (for the record, it's not). He occasionally gives me inside information that isn't public knowledge.
-I tell you that my source is Marcus Haislip.
-Someone within the Spurs organization or one of their children reads this. The coaches tell Marcus not to give out confidential information.
-I no longer have a source.
You want a tip, here's a tip: if you're going to quote someone on something, then don't paraphrase. I did not say that.
It's not that I didn't trust him, I just found it odd that someone could post inside information on a message board without naming their source(s) or providing a link and not get "flamed" for it. You're right, he easily could do that, but at least it's something to go off of.
Or, I can do what I just did and ask a simple question. If he doesn't have a problem with this, why do you and all of the rest of you wannabe message board police? This is mind boggling.
You have a serious problem with reading comprehension.So now, it's the 'lalalalala, I can't hear you', defense?
Like I said though, he didn't have to be that specific. If that were the case, all he'd have had to say is "it's an employee of the Spurs", or even less specific "someone who would know". It's all moot now, you people need to let it go.
Damn..I got excited when I saw that this thread reached 5 pages, thought their might have been more updates..looks like it's just a useless argument that has kept going for 2 pages..
Just because he cooled down afterwards doesn't mean you never ticked him off.
You got that right.
The police are out in full force tonight.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
