Talked to an ex-Parcells player last night

[Pottsville Maroons]

I appreciate the information provided by WVCowboy in the original post and I can appreciate his respect for the privacy of the individual in question. I was honestly surprised to see this thread still on page one since the issue that has been raised is so inconsequential.

I know there have been other posters on this board who have run into "such-and-such-player", metioning them by name, and while it is cool to have the name dropped, it doesn't make the information provided any more or less valuable since names can be made up just as easily as information or misinformation can. If people on here accept, as I usually do, that one of our fellow posters talked to so-and-so and he said this-and-that, then why can't we accept that this information is correct, as well, in spite of the anonymity of the source?

 

[iceberg]

I appreciate the information provided by WVCowboy in the original post and I can appreciate his respect for the privacy of the individual in question. I was honestly surprised to see this thread still on page one since the issue that has been raised is so inconsequential.

I know there have been other posters on this board who have run into "such-and-such-player", metioning them by name, and while it is cool to have the name dropped, it doesn't make the information provided any more or less valuable since names can be made up just as easily as information or misinformation can. If people on here accept, as I usually do, that one of our fellow posters talked to so-and-so and he said this-and-that, then why can't we accept that this information is correct, as well, in spite of the anonymity of the source?

because that would be respectful, promote good will to all posters, and be too easy to do.

some people just can't have all that. : )

 

[superpunk]

Who the hell did you talk to? End this nonsense.

Did you order the code red?

You want answers?

I think I'm entitled.

You want answers?

I want the truth!

Take caution in your tone, Commander. I'm a fair guy, but this heat is making me absolutely crazy

 

[Concord]

Who the hell did you talk to? End this nonsense.

Did you order the code red?

You want answers?

I think I'm entitled.

You want answers?

I want the truth!

Take caution in your tone, Commander. I'm a fair guy, but this heat is making me absolutely crazy

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

 

[Concord]

Has WV given up the National Secret yet?

 

[Fan Since 77]

nevermind. nothing you do seems to go beyond my comprehension but it sure does bypass my apathy.

Ironic, since it still has.
Comprehension- Fan Since 77 does not need names. Fan Since 77 has other reasons to doubt the story. Names would not change Fan Since 77's reason to doubt the story.

Grades:
Me: A+
You: F

 

[iceberg]

Ironic, since it still has.
Comprehension- Fan Since 77 does not need names. Fan Since 77 has other reasons to doubt the story. Names would not change Fan Since 77's reason to doubt the story.

Grades:
Me: A+
You: F

oh no fair! you didn't tell me we were going to get graded! that would have changed everything!!!

wait, no it wouldn't. i know what you said and in the context of which it was said and the entire scope of the thread since i'd been in it since it started.

if YOU were not very clear on YOUR meaning, that isn't MY problem.

in the end MY stance is still the same - believe him or don't.

if you don't, yay. high 5 yourself and declare another pyric victory.

 

[Jay]

People took my comments the complete wrong way, as I end up getting bashed?

All I was saying was that this situation isn't the same as the situation a journalist is in if he is in a debacle as to giving someone attribution or not.

As I said already three times, the information is greatly appreciated. It didn't have to be shared, and it was. So again, thank you.

The reaosn I think people want to know the former player is probably because they're wondering if it was someone that's really close to Parcells, someone who won a Super Bowl with Parcells, or if it was just someone who didn't play much but was a backup or special teamer? Everyone is just curious, that's all.

 

[lshaver22]

There's a HUGE, HUGE difference between posting on
Two points:

-First, there's this sentence:
Now, here's the problem.. the whole reason behind this is to watch out for libel.

To begin with, what is "this?." You don't start a paragragh the sentence above. You need to tell me what "this" is. Judging from the paragragh above, I can only guess the "this" you're referring to is anonymous source. That means you're basically telling me that editors won't allow anonymous sources because they're scared of libel. From what I've been taught (and I know there are a couple of other reporters/editors from major papers that roam this board and probably some lawyers as well. Please correct me if I'm wrong.), that's incorrect.

The reason for the practice of not allowing anonymous sources is credibility . A paper loses credibility with readers when it prints anonymous sources. In some cases, such as Watergate, the risk is worth the reward. In other cases (as the reporter who was jailed over the Plume leak), it apparently isn't. The reporter ends up in jail. As we saw in the post with WVCowboy, he lost some credibility with posters because he refused to name a name. That's Ok because I think the desire to protect a person's anonymity is greater than the value of the information he put out there. Look at this way: Is your life really going to change that much because WV Cowboy withheld the name? You only want to know because of simple curiosity. That's really not a good enough reason for him to disclose the name.

-Secondly, there's this: There's a HUGE, HUGE difference between posting on an internet message board and writing something that will be published in a newspaper.

At first, I agreed with you. Over the past few years, I've begun to I disagree with that (and I realize I'm probably in the minority here, but let me make my point). This is a bigger issue than CowboysZone or sports message boards. It goes to ploitical bloggers putting incorrect information out, as well. I would be willing to bet that clicks on CowboysZone and many other message boards and blogs on the net far exceed the readership on many small, daily newspapers.

The reporters on these papers are held to the standards of journalism. Posters on this board and blogs aren't. Yet the damage that could potentially result from something a poster puts up is bigger because the readership is wider. Therefore, even though you're hiding behind some screename on some Internet message board you still need to show restraint when reporting information that someone in the public eye (or formerly in the public eye) gave you. I realize that WVCowboy's post wasn't a huge deal because it wasn't negative. But if this former player WVCowboy chatted with had negative things to say, it would have been a different story. That's why I applaud WVCowboy's judgement.

Message boards and blogs are wonderful ways to communicate, but they have their pitfalls as well. Used irresponsibly, they have the potential for great harm (probably moreso in politics than sports, but the potential still exists).

Anyway, thanks for the post, Jay. I do appreciate and respect your opinion.

 

[WV Cowboy]

Fan Since 77 has other reasons to doubt the story. Names would not change Fan Since 77's reason to doubt the story.

So you are going with, ... WVCowboy made this up ??

Anybody can say whatever they want to about whether I mention the guy's name that I sat with or not, but trust me, he said the things I put in the original post.

The reaosn I think people want to know the former player is probably because they're wondering if it was someone that's really close to Parcells, someone who won a Super Bowl with Parcells ...

Then they didn't read the original post.

 

[ilovejerry]

I sat beside an ex-NFL player last night at a basketball game that played for Parcells and won a Super Bowl with him.

We talked about a lot, but I didn't bother him a whole bunch because he was watching the game. But at halftime I asked him if he thought Parcells would keep T.O.

He felt that Parcells would keep him as long as he felt he could control him. He said if Parcells felt he couldn't control him he would be gone.

He went on to say that he felt all of this T.O. stuff was not a factor in the lockerroom.

He also got a kick out of Parcells saying, "He hears everything I say, he could tell you 3 wks from now what I said today."

He laughed when he talked about that, I bet it brought back some memory or something.

He also felt Bill had changed, which he seemed to think was a good thing.

I would have like to talk with him more about Parcells, but like I said he was watching the game and I didn't want to me any more annoying than I was.

Ok WV,

If you don't mind We have to let them know so I will do the honer, We were at The deadbeat dad's club and I excused myself to go outside and try and score some Crack, and who happened to be waiting in the crack line with me but L.T, what's the chance of that, So I started to pepper him with questions and he asked if I wouldn't mention it,
So there you guys Go.....