Jason Witten: No fight, no altercation, no fractures in the locker room or with TO

[bbgun]

Aren't you saddened by your own predictability? I would be.

I'm good. Thanks for asking. How are you doing with your willful gullibility issues? I can provide the name of a specialist if that helps.

 

[dbair1967]

Tragic that he's been put in this position. Jason, the good soldier, takes one for the team. Now you know why he was cheered and TO wasn't.

Those people booing represent the masses that got SUCKED in by BSPN and Werder, while I'm sure it may have bothered TO some, I think he knows that people were booing something that was massivly blown out of proportion and exaggerated badly by somebody who has it out for him.

I doubt he hears many (if any) boo's Saturday night. He did the right thing last night calling out Ed Werder, and I think people will give him credit for it.

 

[Aikmaniac]

Where are you guys finding this Brett Favre-walk comment?

 

[Maikeru-sama]

Tragic that he's been put in this position. Jason, the good soldier, takes one for the team. Now you know why he was cheered and TO wasn't.

 

[bbgun]

but, but, but...Ed has sources

And players never lie or project a "united front" for the sake of the team. Remember everyone: nothing happened ... because TO said so.

*plonk*

 

[theogt]

I'm good. Thanks for asking. How are you doing with your willful gullibility issues? I can provide the name of a specialist if that helps.

There's nothing inherently more reliable about third hand information, than first hand information. In fact, you'd almost always assert the opposite. We're both "believing what we read." You just want to believe the negative information, even though there's an obvious potential bias toward it being slanted and exaggerated. And we're just wanting to believe the positive information, even though there's an obvious potential bias toward it being minimized and dismissed. The only difference is that one is first hand information, and the other his third hand, filtered information.

Who seems more gullible?

 

[tomson75]

There's nothing inherently more reliable about third hand information, than first hand information. In fact, you'd almost always assert the opposite. We're both "believing what we read." You just want to believe the negative information, even though there's an obvious potential bias toward it being slanted and exaggerated. And we're just wanting to believe the positive information, even though there's an obvious potential bias toward it being minimized and dismissed. The only difference is that one is first hand information, and the other his third hand, filtered information.

Who seems more gullible?

Wouldn't have said it better myself.

 

[bbgun]

There's nothing inherently more reliable about third hand information, than first hand information. In fact, you'd almost always assert the opposite. We're both "believing what we read." You just want to believe the negative information, even though there's an obvious potential bias toward it being slanted and exaggerated. And we're just wanting to believe the positive information, even though there's an obvious potential bias toward it being minimized and dismissed. The only difference is that one is first hand information, and the other his third hand, filtered information.

Who seems more gullible?

Yes, I see the team as it really is whereas you prefer the warm and fuzzy censored version replete with "mediot" character assassination, impugned motives, and attention-starved fans screaming in the street. If this is some sort of mental health competition, I win.

 

[theogt]

Yes, I see the team as it really is whereas you prefer the warm and fuzzy censored version replete with "mediot" character assassination, impugned motives, and attention-starved fans screaming in the street. If this is some sort of mental health competition, I win.

"I'm right, you're wrong."

Excellent argument.

 

[ValleyBoyz]

Well thats it for me...The only thing Werder had going for him was that Witten (the only other person who can outright deny the report besides TO) hadn't come out and unequicovally refuted the report.

With Witten and TO now saying that the report was a lie Werder doesn't have a foot left to stand on. And anybody who wanted to put it on TO's character as not being trustworthy are you now gonna say the same thing about Witten? Sorry, but I'm gonna believe 2 of our players over Werder who has displayed some seriously agenda driven journalism the entire year if not ever since TO came on board.

 

[tomson75]

And players never lie or project a "united front" for the sake of the team. Remember everyone: nothing happened ... because TO said so.

*plonk*

No one is saying 'nothing happened'. He simply said there was no fight, no altercation, and that there are no fractures in the locker room. Reading comprehension 101. Maybe your big brain is getting in the way here a bit? I thought your favorite past time was ridiculing conspiracy theories on this forum....now you're leading one.

 

[Gemini Dolly]

Where are you guys finding this Brett Favre-walk comment?

http://www.dallascowboys.com/multimedia/multimedia_center.cfm?id=3A88D6F7-A183-A4ED-F36320820EF260A1

Towards the very end.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I don't "want" to believe the negative information, but I'm afraid I do, which doesn't make me correct. First of all, "something" happened or you would have seen uniform, encompassing denials. Most likely, the Cowboys would have asked ESPN, publicly, not to send Werder to cover the team. Truly, unfairly damaged parties do strike back against the media.

Of course, it could have been overblown -- and to some extent, it probably was. But it was almost certainly serious. Romo said he had, what, a 90-minute conversation with Witten? That suggests something serious, and Witten is not so soft as to be bothered by an erroneous report. He was almost certainly bothered by the substance.

Here's what I think: Cowboys fans ought to hope the "sources" Werder cited are never named. In this case, pray Werder is the professional. If so, he will continue to cite anonymous sources.

Best case, the sources weren't players. And there is a fair chance they weren't. But there also is a fair chance they were.

I agree wholeheartedly with those who claim everything to do with the Cowboys is blown out of proportion. But it doesn't mean nothing happened, and it doesn't mean what happened wasn't serious.

Until Jerry Jones demands a retraction and an apology from ESPN, and until he publicly requests Werder not cover the team, I will assume the reports were at least substantially correct, though possibly dramatized.

TO is a better football player than Werder, but he doesn't have as much credibility.

I wish I didn't believe any of that, but I do. Saying otherwise won't change it. And I do believe it will all be in the open eventually, possibly in a future book, and folks will go on the record to confirm.

 

[Idgit]

Yes, I see the team as it really is whereas you prefer the warm and fuzzy censored version replete with "mediot" character assassination, impugned motives, and attention-starved fans screaming in the street. If this is some sort of mental health competition, I win.

"I'm right, you're wrong."

Excellent argument.

You two. Arguing about this is like arguing about whether or not a beautiful woman is pretty-to-the-bone or is her beauty just skin deep. The right answer is, what possible difference can personality make as long as she's superficially really, really hot?

I guess, if the beautiful woman later splits apart from the inside and isn't hot anymore, then that'd be pretty gross, but until that happens I'm not going to worry about it.

 

[bbgun]

"I'm right, you're wrong."

Excellent argument.

"Jerry and Wade say all is well, so it is."

You can't fake that kind of chemistry.

 

[theogt]

"Jerry and Wade say all is well, so it is."

They'd never lie.

That's still not an argument.

 

[bbgun]

That's still not an argument.

I rely on several different reporters telling us essentially the same thing and you rely on blind faith. TO wasn't accused of doing something that he hasn't done before. There's no "mystery" to this anymore.

 

[zrinkill]

Yes, I see the team as it really is whereas you prefer the warm and fuzzy censored version replete with "mediot" character assassination, impugned motives, and attention-starved fans screaming in the street. If this is some sort of mental health competition, I win.

So just to be clear .....

In your eyes Ed Werder is telling the truth ...... and Witten is a liar.

 

[Route 66]

Something happened but hopefully it's in the past.

 

[theogt]

I rely on several different reporters telling us essentially the same thing and you rely on blind faith. TO wasn't accused of doing something that he hasn't done before. There's no "mystery" to this anymore.

Actually, there's no confirmation that any reporter independently verified Werder's sources. Any reports that came after can simply piggyback off his story. So, indeed, you may be only relying on Werder, to whom your only link is the blindest of faith.

Got it?