Does Anyone Know if Players/Coaches Post on the Zone?

[AbeBeta]

What you just mentioned is why I think people hate hearing about 'scoop.' That guy always had an 'insider' who told him things - half of which never occurred.

I think we all have to recognize that some "scoop" will never turn out to be true. That doesn't make the scoop untrue. For example, another member here gave me some scoop about what would happen to the coaching staff. It didn't come true -- I have no doubt that the scoop was true. Stuff happens, things don't always turn out.

Most folks will be skeptical of scoop. But there is a line between being a skeptic and being a jerk.

 

[AbeBeta]

This thread is making me miss Brown Sugar

I sure miss my Hambrick-related scoop too

 

[Crown Royal]

OTOH, you got folks who just won't take the tidbit of info FWIW and just say, "cool, hope it's true" or whatever. No, they have to be buttholes about it.

I just relived the third grade.:laugh2:

 

[Hostile]

That's incredibly infuriating.

Yeah it is. I see how hard so many people work and see something like that slip through our grasp here and I just cringe.

I haven't opened a news site in quite some time. I just don't see the point.

Same with me and I see no reason to go to other forums much either even though I have memberships all over. There's too much to absorb here without ever going there.

What you just mentioned is why I think people hate hearing about 'scoop.' That guy always had an 'insider' who told him things - half of which never occurred. Same guy who 'reviewed film' and what not. Couch scout.

I don't know about that CR. Maybe that plays a role, but some of the people who brought us stuff here were nothing like that guy.

We have a few of those guys in the board right now, come to think of it.

I hate the ones who think this forum survives because of the controversy they bring. The person mentioned above told me this forum would die without him. A year later and we're so far still breathing.

:laugh2:

Brandon Everage was garbage - you don't deserve to live that one down.

You are absolutely right. Like I said, I have enjoyed the teasing over that one. That's my "30 yard slant."



Honestly the ONLY bad thing about that episode was that boozeman has not spoken to me since then. Despite the whole fallout of the split he was still cool. It ended that day. That I regret because I respect his opinions.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I think we all have to recognize that some "scoop" will never turn out to be true. That doesn't make the scoop untrue. For example, another member here gave me some scoop about what would happen to the coaching staff. It didn't come true -- I have no doubt that the scoop was true. Stuff happens, things don't always turn out.

Most folks will be skeptical of scoop. But there is a line between being a skeptic and being a jerk.

That's very true. But sometimes it depends on the attitude of the poster. I've never seen a poster treated with great disrespect who said, "Hey, I know someone who told me this news and I have no reason to doubt him. If you don't believe me, cool, but here's what I heard."

Contrast that with the posters who have to make a huge production out of how important they are and feel the need to claim that anyone who doubts him is just a jealous fast-food worker who will never be as highly-paid and important as he is. I think we all know who I have in mind.

 

[Crown Royal]

I think we all have to recognize that some "scoop" will never turn out to be true. That doesn't make the scoop untrue. For example, another member here gave me some scoop about what would happen to the coaching staff. It didn't come true -- I have no doubt that the scoop was true. Stuff happens, things don't always turn out.

Most folks will be skeptical of scoop. But there is a line between being a skeptic and being a jerk.

I agree with you most of the time. But the guy I am thinking about (who we all know & love) was notorious for slinging the words 'someone in the know told me' when it was blatantly obvious it was untrue.

I have never questioned someone's insider info, even when revealed to be untrue, unless I felt they were posting nonsense that fit in with their agenda. I think these few folk are pretty obvious, though.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Annoying, yes, but it should be expected, particularly when there's no credibility behind the poster at all. The recent incident got pretty bad because (1) the guy had been wrong numerous times in teh past, and (2) he was just too arrogant for his own good.

I'm not speaking of any particular individual. There are folks here who have been with the board, before the Zone was the Zone, and rarely post. Or they've been on the board for years and decide to share something they think is interesting. You being a regular poster doesn't make your news any more legit than the guy who's been a long time lurking member in my eyes. It's all a rumor until it's verified by a legit news source. But it burns me up, when I see people come down on the poster because he or she doesn't have "board cred"

I just relived the third grade.:laugh2:

I was trying to be family-friendly.

 

[theogt]

I think we all have to recognize that some "scoop" will never turn out to be true. That doesn't make the scoop untrue. For example, another member here gave me some scoop about what would happen to the coaching staff. It didn't come true -- I have no doubt that the scoop was true. Stuff happens, things don't always turn out.

Most folks will be skeptical of scoop. But there is a line between being a skeptic and being a jerk.

And there is a line between giving a potential "scoop" and guaranteeing something.

You can say, "My source told me that X team is very interested in X player."

Or you can say, "I guarantee that X team will sign X player. It's just a matter of time."

 

[Hostile]

I wasn't referring to the Petitti situation. That's a bit different when it gets personal. Family members are family members, so I can understand that.

As for the vitriol over Torrin Tucker, there wasn't anyone really advocating for keeping Tucker. If they had, they would have been met with the same vitriol, if not more.

Really? I believe I defended Tucker a couple of times with no backlash.

Come on T, you're a smart guy. You really think all of that was about the player and those who defended him, and none of it about his Father?

If so then I'd like to talk to you about buying some ocean front property that I happen to own. You're not that naive.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

That's very true. But sometimes it depends on the attitude of the poster. I've never seen a poster treated with great disrespect who said, "Hey, I know someone who told me this news and I have no reason to doubt him. If you don't believe me, cool, but here's what I heard."

Contrast that with the posters who have to make a huge production out of how important they are and feel the need to claim that anyone who doubts him is just a jealous fast-food worker who will never be as highly-paid and important as he is. I think we all know who I have in mind.

Well...there has been at least one time where someone was treated really rude and it went beyond what it should have. That is one of the people who had good info and has decided to quit posting it.

 

[theogt]

I'm not speaking of any particular individual. There are folks here who have been with the board, before the Zone was the Zone, and rarely post. Or they've been on the board for years and decide to share something they think is interesting. You being a regular poster doesn't make your news any more legit than the guy who's been a long time lurking member in my eyes. It's all a rumor until it's verified by a legit news source. But it burns me up, when I see people come down on the poster because he or she doesn't have "board cred"

I simply disagree. If someone has 5000 posts over a couple years (or even just a few hundred over a couple years) and has never went about making things up, I'll believe them much easier than someone else who only has 5 posts. I think it's a reasonable expectation for the latter person to receive much more skepticism.

If someone has been on the board for a long time and posts, albeit rarely, they can still conjur up a good deal of credibility. But if it's a lurker who has never posted, and just creates a new screenname, he should expect the same amount of skepticism as some Commander poseur playing a joke.

 

[AbeBeta]

I agree with you most of the time. But the guy I am thinking about (who we all know & love) was notorious for slinging the words 'someone in the know told me' when it was blatantly obvious it was untrue.

I have never questioned someone's insider info, even when revealed to be untrue, unless I felt they were posting nonsense that fit in with their agenda. I think these few folk are pretty obvious, though.

Just to be clear here -- I'm not aware of or don't recall the situation you are talking about -- so I'm not saying you were or are a jerk (although your avatar makes me cringe).

Certainly if you constantly post absurd crap you should be fair game

 

[Hostile]

This thread is making me miss Brown Sugar & Dale.

Very much.

 

[Crown Royal]

I simply disagree. If someone has 5000 posts over a couple years (or even just a few hundred over a couple years) and has never went about making things up, I'll believe them much easier than someone else who only has 5 posts. I think it's a reasonable expectation for the latter person to receive much more skepticism.

If someone has been on the board for a long time and posts, albeit rarely, they can still conjur up a good deal of credibility. But if it's a lurker who has never posted, and just creates a new screenname, he should expect the same amount of skepticism as some Commander poseur playing a joke.

Skepticism and hostility are two different things (and members, for that matter). I am a skeptic about everything, whether it comes from a Junior Member or Hostile. But I still will give the benefit of the doubt and not attack them for it.

 

[Phoenix-Talon]

Very much.

Wasn't Dale a Mod who graduated and went into sports writing. Anyone heard how is he doing?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I simply disagree. If someone has 5000 posts and has never went about making things up, I'll believe them much easier than someone else who only has 5 posts. I think it's a reasonable expectation for the latter person to receive much more skepticism.

If someone has been on the board for a long time and posts, albeit rarely, they can still conjur up a good deal of credibility. But if it's a lurker who has never posted, and just creates a new screenname, he should expect the same amount of skepticism as some Commander poseur playing a joke.

I can understand that somewhat.

But let me tell you there is a reporter that everyone knows that has a username here.

That person posted some info but people started ragging on him a great deal.

I have not seen that person post in a long time.

I also know that another reporter has visited this board, do not know if they have actually joined but they have visited this board.

But just because they may not have a large post count does not mean that they are not credible or have some info.

Once again i understand what you are saying because we have indeed had people come in with their first post and say blah blah blah that is completely bogus.

 

[WoodysGirl]

I simply disagree. If someone has 5000 posts over a couple years (or even just a few hundred over a couple years) and has never went about making things up, I'll believe them much easier than someone else who only has 5 posts. I think it's a reasonable expectation for the latter person to receive much more skepticism.

If someone has been on the board for a long time and posts, albeit rarely, they can still conjur up a good deal of credibility. But if it's a lurker who has never posted, and just creates a new screenname, he should expect the same amount of skepticism as some Commander poseur playing a joke.

You can disagree, but it's not about believability (my new word). Unless it's posted by a reputable news source, it should all be treated with skepticism. But it's about giving the same respect until the info has been proven right or wrong and not being a turd (thanks PFT) about it in the process.

 

[theogt]

Really? I believe I defended Tucker a couple of times with no backlash.

Come on T, you're a smart guy. You really think all of that was about the player and those who defended him, and none of it about his Father?

If so then I'd like to talk to you about buying some ocean front property that I happen to own. You're not that naive.

I think a couple things happened with the Petitti/Pittdawg situation. I think, first, some people got a little too attached to the player just because his father posted here. I think that his father posting here certainly brought him a lot more support than would have happened otherwise. Then, I think, second, that that created a bit of a backlash.

But in any event, that's certainly not what I was talking about at all. Pitt had every reason to get upset and leave over the crap that was said. I was personally embarassed for the behavior of some very regular Zoners.

 

[Crown Royal]

Just to be clear here -- I'm not aware of or don't recall the situation you are talking about -- so I'm not saying you were or are a jerk (although your avatar makes me cringe).

Certainly if you constantly post absurd crap you should be fair game

I was never a jerk to him - it was much to fun to be nice, kill him with logic & not get angry, just wait for him to. He didn't really think much of me - I wasn't worthy of arguing with because I refused to enter into 'controversy' or to get angry when he tried to be provocative (translation - ridiculous).

I'll give you a hint - he loves Bledsoe more than life itself, thinks that the Cowboys always secretly coveted Ty Law, and is named Nors.









OK that last part isn't a hint.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Wasn't Dale a Mod who graduated and went into sports writing. Anyone heard how is he doing?

Sadly his career did not pan out.

Last I heard he was a model for goodwill.

:laugh2: