What constitutes as news

[Bmwolf21]

That's not libelous. Any more than calling Lydman a bum -- he doesn't, after all, sleep behind the arena under newspapers. Come on, BM, I know you're better than this. I see the point. It's just a bad example. Of course, if someone is stupid enough to say that Jacques McHogoff (fictional name) didn't pay his taxes last year and has a gambling problem and is throwing games, they deserve to be sued. I don't see how that's an argument against... whatever you are arguing against.

You're right, that 1 a.m. example might not have been the best I could come up with, but it could still be seen as libelous, as it could easily be construed as malicious and intending to damage his standing with the Buffalo Sabres. Calling someone a bum is a pretty generic term, like calling someone a jerk. Besides, most of the time stuff that ends up drawing legal attention in the form of libel/slander are innocuous, innocent-sounding things. Not to mention that different states have different definitions of libel - NY States's def. is pretty liberal - "a libelous statement is one which tends to expose a person to hatred, contempt or aversion or to induce an evil or unsavory opinion of him in the minds of a substantial number of people in the community." That gives the the "injured" party plenty of leeway in deciding if he/she has been damaged, and the option of legal action if so.

A letter asking me to tone down my negative rhetoric would find the wastebasket in a hurry. Your comment about "restoring order" is telling and I think we're finally getting to the crux. But that's all I'll say about that for now...

Usually all you would have to do is write a retraction, but if you ignored the letter, they would likely follow it up with an injunction or lawsuit. Some sites would use it as a wake-up call to start editing and watching what their writers write, but others will ignore it at their own peril.

For the record, I obviously feel strongly about the issue, but not because I am worried about anyone getting sued ... I just think it hurts the credibility of everyone if everything is lumped together. I obviously got a bit wordy selling my side ;)

I am in the same boat, BTP - I am not worried about someone getting sued, to be honest I am hoping some blogger or fan site gets sued to help restore some sense of sanity to the Internet media. There are too many pseduo-experets, who have no credibility or experience, passing off their opinions as news and fact, and in the process, they make the experienced media and the entire medium look bad.

You've made this point a few times. There's no arguing with it. Everyone would agree. But how do you present an opinion? Do you want a flashing OPINION OPINION OPINION at the top of the page? Don't you know when you are reading news and when you are reading opinion?

I think we've gotten away from the original aspect of this debate, so here's my thought on the news vs. opinion aspect - most newspapers go out of their way to identify when you are reading opinion - whether it is by putting it on the editorial page, or by identifying columns by name or with a columnist's photo, or something similar. Generally speaking you can tell when you are reading an opinion piece in the newspaper, while the Internet opinion pieces (either intentionally or unintentionally) blur the line between opinion/commentary and hard news.

[Stoner]

I prefer a gussied up Punch Imlach, fedora and x-ray vision.

 

Come to think of it, it DOES look like Punch when Bob Kelly scored on that wraparound.

 

 

You're right, that 1 a.m. example might not have been the best I could come up with, but it could still be seen as libelous, as it could easily be construed as malicious and intending to damage his standing with the Buffalo Sabres....

 

....Usually all you would have to do is write a retraction, but if you ignored the letter, they would likely follow it up with an injunction or lawsuit. Some sites would use it as a wake-up call to start editing and watching what their writers write, but others will ignore it at their own peril.

 

Replying to this thread is like eating potato chips, you just can't stop. It's too tempting.

 

What are you saying, BM? That if you wrote that Spacek was a bum, a slug or a crook, then got a letter from the Sabres telling you to "tone down your rhetoric," that you would write a retraction? Please tell me I am totally misreading your posts.

 

And that you really don't want a fellow Sabre fan to get sued just to teach them a lesson for "passing off their opinions as news and fact." Not that that is even possible.

 

OK, I'm done. These putzes are making me thirsty.

[SCSabresFan!]

I like the letsgosabres site, as well as the Sabrerattling and welcome the links.

 

I have known hockey reporters in major markets and they were given hockey because that was the cub reporter of the sportsdesk.

 

Hell, Jerry Sullivan admits to no hockey expertise, but still writes an occasional hockey column.

 

If we link Jerry, we should link the others - who probably have more expertise than a lot of trained journalists.

 

 

All hail the Hockey Shepra!!! Let's drink from his magical Stanley Cup and close this debate.

[Bmwolf21]

What are you saying, BM? That if you wrote that Spacek was a bum, a slug or a crook, then got a letter from the Sabres telling you to "tone down your rhetoric," that you would write a retraction? Please tell me I am totally misreading your posts.

PA, I don't want to continue debating media law, libel and defamation with you., but I do think you are totally misreading my posts. So I'll try again, hopefully for the last time...

First, as a fan, I might be likely to say something while watching a game at home or with friends about a player being a bum or a crook or something. But as a journalist in a professional capacity I would restrict my writing and commentary to his on-ice/on-field performance without name-calling, nor would I make insinuations or assumptions about his/her personal life unless I had some evidence to back it up (known as the Truth defense to libel.) If I did have some sort of off-ice story that would potentially be trouble, I would probably be careful and involve my editors in how to approach the issue.

 

If something I wrote caught someone's attention and they wanted a retraction or clarification, I honestly don't know what my response would be. There's no blanket response to say "I would never write a retraction" or "I would always write one;" it would depend on the story, the person, whether or not I could prove what I had written was true, and what the editorial staff at the publication had to say.

 

I'm not even going to go into the bum/jerk/crook thing again - I've already covered that. Suffice to say it depends on how the libelous statement relates to his role as a limited public figure, if it contains malice, holds him up to scorn, etc.

And that you really don't want a fellow Sabre fan to get sued just to teach them a lesson for "passing off their opinions as news and fact." Not that that is even possible.

I think you're putting words in my mouth - I never said I wanted to see a Sabres fan or LGS.com get sued. At the same time, just being a Sabres fan doesn't mean I'll excuse them if they screw up. My point was the the whole Internet - including blogging, opinion/commentary articles, fan sites, everything - has become infested with pseudo-experts in every field who pass their opinions off as fact. I am saying a lawsuit would set a precedent for the whole Internet media industry, as well as for bloggers, fan sites, etc, and make them look at the garbage some of them allow to be posted.

 

And lawsuits are possible and likely, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. Libel and media law are tricky subjects, with a lot of gray areas open to interpretation, giving plaintiffs a lot of leeway on which to sue, and likewise giving the defense a lot of leeway in defending their statements. Saying something is just opinion or commentary is not an all-encompassing shield that allows writers to say anything they want without repercussion.

[Stoner]

But as a journalist in a professional capacity I would restrict my writing and commentary to his on-ice/on-field performance without name-calling, nor would I make insinuations or assumptions about his/her personal life unless I had some evidence to back it up (known as the Truth defense to libel.) If I did have some sort of off-ice story that would potentially be trouble, I would probably be careful and involve my editors in how to approach the issue.

 

Who are you arguing with and what does all that have to do with Sabre fan sites and their links here? I'm not aware that any site has called names (slug is about as mild as it gets) or delved into personal lives. There was some discussion of Tallinder here over the summer, but everything that was said was a fact on the record. Even if a poster slipped up, do you really think a player in that situation would go after a fan in court? Not likely. Why stir it up and publicize some rumor that 110 people read and make it known to millions? Believe it -- when a pampered professional athlete who can't stand a little criticism decides to sue a fan, it will be a huge story, and the athlete will be the bum/crook/cretin.

 

My point was the the whole Internet - including blogging, opinion/commentary articles, fan sites, everything - has become infested with pseudo-experts in every field who pass their opinions off as fact.

 

Again with "passing off opinions as facts." That seems to be your big beef, and I just don't get it.

 

I'm a pseudo-expert for sure. If I say the Sabres' power play has blown chunks of late, do you have a problem with that? Can you give an example of commentary that is so egregious that you wish a lawsuit would come around to have a chilling effect on speech?

[Taro T]

PA, I don't want to continue debating media law, libel and defamation with you., but I do think you are totally misreading my posts. So I'll try again, hopefully for the last time...

First, as a fan, I might be likely to say something while watching a game at home or with friends about a player being a bum or a crook or something. But as a journalist in a professional capacity I would restrict my writing and commentary to his on-ice/on-field performance without name-calling, nor would I make insinuations or assumptions about his/her personal life unless I had some evidence to back it up (known as the Truth defense to libel.) If I did have some sort of off-ice story that would potentially be trouble, I would probably be careful and involve my editors in how to approach the issue.

 

If something I wrote caught someone's attention and they wanted a retraction or clarification, I honestly don't know what my response would be. There's no blanket response to say "I would never write a retraction" or "I would always write one;" it would depend on the story, the person, whether or not I could prove what I had written was true, and what the editorial staff at the publication had to say.

 

I'm not even going to go into the bum/jerk/crook thing again - I've already covered that. Suffice to say it depends on how the libelous statement relates to his role as a limited public figure, if it contains malice, holds him up to scorn, etc.

I think you're putting words in my mouth - I never said I wanted to see a Sabres fan or LGS.com get sued. At the same time, just being a Sabres fan doesn't mean I'll excuse them if they screw up. My point was the the whole Internet - including blogging, opinion/commentary articles, fan sites, everything - has become infested with pseudo-experts in every field who pass their opinions off as fact. I am saying a lawsuit would set a precedent for the whole Internet media industry, as well as for bloggers, fan sites, etc, and make them look at the garbage some of them allow to be posted.

 

And lawsuits are possible and likely, no matter how much you want to believe otherwise. Libel and media law are tricky subjects, with a lot of gray areas open to interpretation, giving plaintiffs a lot of leeway on which to sue, and likewise giving the defense a lot of leeway in defending their statements. Saying something is just opinion or commentary is not an all-encompassing shield that allows writers to say anything they want without repercussion.

And how exactly is this different than "traditional" media outlets with people like Jerry Sullivan, Colin Cowherd, nearly any Sportscenter anchor, etc.? That's just in the sports end of things.

[SCSabresFan!]

And how exactly is this different than "traditional" media outlets with people like Jerry Sullivan, Colin Cowherd, nearly any Sportscenter anchor, etc.? That's just in the sports end of things.

 

Colin Cowherd is as useless as a dick on a dog.

[sorry - a popular Southern saying]

[Taro T]

Colin Cowherd is as useless as a dick on a dog.

[sorry - a popular Southern saying]

I've heard "useless as tits on a boar", but never that one.

 

What, do people in SC have something against puppies? Or do they have other methods of getting puppies?

[Bmwolf21]

Who are you arguing with and what does all that have to do with Sabre fan sites and their links here? I'm not aware that any site has called names (slug is about as mild as it gets) or delved into personal lives. There was some discussion of Tallinder here over the summer, but everything that was said was a fact on the record. Even if a poster slipped up, do you really think a player in that situation would go after a fan in court? Not likely. Why stir it up and publicize some rumor that 110 people read and make it known to millions? Believe it -- when a pampered professional athlete who can't stand a little criticism decides to sue a fan, it will be a huge story, and the athlete will be the bum/crook/cretin.

Again with "passing off opinions as facts." That seems to be your big beef, and I just don't get it.

 

I'm a pseudo-expert for sure. If I say the Sabres' power play has blown chunks of late, do you have a problem with that? Can you give an example of commentary that is so egregious that you wish a lawsuit would come around to have a chilling effect on speech?

PA, I am not arguing with you anymore - we're apparently talking about different things completely. You asked me a direct question, and I gave you a direct answer, yet you act like you don't know who/what I am talking about. And you know I am not suggesting that any player is going to single out a message board poster out for talking about their on-field play - otherwise DeLuca would have to answer to have a dozen Sabres and half of the Bills front office, players and coaches.

 

When talking about online media, I contend that you can't separate commentary analysis written on a fan site from similar writing in a blog; but you want to include or uninclude aspects of the media as it fits your arguments - you keep focusing on a handful of Sabres fan sites when I am talking about a more general application of Internet media, commentary and media law.

 

But at least we can agree about you being a pseudo-expert. :thumbsup:

And how exactly is this different than "traditional" media outlets with people like Jerry Sullivan, Colin Cowherd, nearly any Sportscenter anchor, etc.? That's just in the sports end of things.

As someone (I think BTP) posted before, working for ESPN, the AP, a long-time newspaper, etc. - a credentialed media outlet - gives it a kind of "offical stamp of approval" that the person involved has some journalism training and education, understands a little about media law and what they can say or can't say, and usually has some sort of editing process that prevents libelous things from making it onto the air or into print. Additionally, with bigger media outlets, they tend to take more care to make sure that commentary is properly labelled, whether it be through headlines in newspapers ("Commentary" "Analysis" "Jerry's Take" etc.) or something similar.

 

There are exceptions to every rule, and ESPN itself is guilty of blurring the line as of late - their "fake news conferences" come to mind. And again, just because it's a big name show or person, or they claim they are just giving their opinion on something, it doesn't shield them from any and all repercussions.

[PTS]

I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread but after reading three pages of some well-written posts, I'd like to say a few things.

 

First, I completely agree with Scott when he says this is some really good stuff. I can look at a thread like this and decide what changes need to be made on my site. The first change I made is that any column we post such as the original one in question now has the words "COMMENTARY -- " added as a prefix to the title of the article.

 

This tag will be added to all of our editorials that are not breaking news, game recaps or anything of the sort. This way everyone knows that this particular piece is the writer's viewpoint, nothing more, nothing less.

 

The second change is there is a direct link to the writer's e-mail address if you should have any concerns and one more link to the site in general should you want to give us any feedback.

 

That being said, anything that doesn't have that commentary prefix, I fully expect people to judge any news reported on our site like they would anywhere else. Using the Tallinder story for example, we sat on that for almost a day before we broke it out early Saturday morning. Working in the WNY media for quite some time and being involved with hockey in general, I have established some direct connections with the organization as well as people very closely associated with the team.

 

If it turned out I was wrong on Tallinder, my site should have been butchered and all credibility lost. However, I ran the story because I knew it was directly from the source, that being the Sabres.

 

Traditional media works very strangely and I know for a fact that teams often tell media organizations to hold onto actual news because the team doesn't want it out yet. The Donahoe Bills were giant culprits of this. I don't think the Sabres are nearly as bad as the Bills when it comes to reporting "bad" news but there is one story right now in the media that I feel might be all fluff.

 

So you may continue to view my site as a fan site, but I don't and I won't. We're building an alternative media network for the Sabres, and as such we want people to judge us on what we report and what we do. We have some big plans for the site, of which, one will definitely "cross us over the line" which some of you have talked about.

 

What makes The Buffalo News any better? The fact that they get all night to correct their reporters' grammar mistakes and typos? When you report on the spot like we or any internet sports site does, those mistakes will be made, unfortunately.

 

So you need to ask yourself this, would you rather find out something like "Tallinder has a broke arm and Paetsch will play tonight" on Saturday morning -- with the chance there might be a typo or two -- or would you want to wait until The Buffalo News publishes overnight for Sunday morning delivery. Hell, even WGR wouldn't report the injury minutes before game time.

 

Finally, as for the original column in question, I just ask that you read the author's previous report on our site. It is one in which he was credientialed -- if that makes him more important to some people. He has direct quotes from players and is more "newsworthy" than his most recent commentary column.

 

Good stuff all around. PA, you are the best.

[Bmwolf21]

PTS, great post. Lest people misunderstand, I am not attacking fan sites for what they are - I just want to make sure that what we are getting is accurate (usually is) and has some sort of editorial oversight going on. Most of the Sabres sites seem to have that, but I was talking more about fan sites in general, as well as blogs, etc.

 

I like that you are deciding what direction to go with and pushing the site in that direction, so there is no ambiguity about the site's purpose. Actually, I wish I could I would see sites like yours for other teams I follow, like one for Florida State - it sucks having to go to 5 or 6 different websites every day to get new news.

 

Again, you guys do great work and don't get enough thanks, so let me say thanks! and if we ever meet up, PTS and SDS get one of these on me... :beer:

[BetweenThePipes00]

I told myself I wouldn't get involved in this thread but after reading three pages of some well-written posts, I'd like to say a few things.

 

First, I completely agree with Scott when he says this is some really good stuff. I can look at a thread like this and decide what changes need to be made on my site. The first change I made is that any column we post such as the original one in question now has the words "COMMENTARY -- " added as a prefix to the title of the article.

 

This tag will be added to all of our editorials that are not breaking news, game recaps or anything of the sort. This way everyone knows that this particular piece is the writer's viewpoint, nothing more, nothing less.

 

The second change is there is a direct link to the writer's e-mail address if you should have any concerns and one more link to the site in general should you want to give us any feedback.

 

That being said, anything that doesn't have that commentary prefix, I fully expect people to judge any news reported on our site like they would anywhere else. Using the Tallinder story for example, we sat on that for almost a day before we broke it out early Saturday morning. Working in the WNY media for quite some time and being involved with hockey in general, I have established some direct connections with the organization as well as people very closely associated with the team.

 

If it turned out I was wrong on Tallinder, my site should have been butchered and all credibility lost. However, I ran the story because I knew it was directly from the source, that being the Sabres.

 

Traditional media works very strangely and I know for a fact that teams often tell media organizations to hold onto actual news because the team doesn't want it out yet. The Donahoe Bills were giant culprits of this. I don't think the Sabres are nearly as bad as the Bills when it comes to reporting "bad" news but there is one story right now in the media that I feel might be all fluff.

 

So you may continue to view my site as a fan site, but I don't and I won't. We're building an alternative media network for the Sabres, and as such we want people to judge us on what we report and what we do. We have some big plans for the site, of which, one will definitely "cross us over the line" which some of you have talked about.

 

What makes The Buffalo News any better? The fact that they get all night to correct their reporters' grammar mistakes and typos? When you report on the spot like we or any internet sports site does, those mistakes will be made, unfortunately.

 

So you need to ask yourself this, would you rather find out something like "Tallinder has a broke arm and Paetsch will play tonight" on Saturday morning -- with the chance there might be a typo or two -- or would you want to wait until The Buffalo News publishes overnight for Sunday morning delivery. Hell, even WGR wouldn't report the injury minutes before game time.

 

Finally, as for the original column in question, I just ask that you read the author's previous report on our site. It is one in which he was credientialed -- if that makes him more important to some people. He has direct quotes from players and is more "newsworthy" than his most recent commentary column.

 

Good stuff all around. PA, you are the best.

 

PTS, thanks for weighing in ... I like your site and I think it is pretty clear it is not just a fan site. I guess my point was that your site would be one of the legit ones thrown under the bus as "Internet crap" ... ah whatever, I've said my piece.

[SCSabresFan!]

What, do people in SC have something against puppies? Or do they have other methods of getting puppies?

I will ask some of my southern friends why they say crazy stuff like this.

[SCSabresFan!]

PTS- Excellent post and made many of my points valid. I know media outlets who sit on stories for fear. I've seen it countless times. I'm in the college basketball and NASCAR business and things are run a bit differently with these sports. Let's take NASCAR for example. If you follow the sport you are familar with jayski.com, a huge fan site. Jay, who runs the site is a NASCAR nut and started a news/blog sitein the mid 90's. Jayski's is well-known by both NASCAR drivers and fans. While not always accurate on rumors, Jayski's often has the first scoop on new stories due to contacts formed with members of many NASCAR teams. He's not part of any media, but I trust 99% of what he says over NASCAR journalists. His site has gotten so popular, ESPN bought it.

 

PTS - what site is yours? I'm a bit slow tonight - maybe my southern roots are showing.

[Stoner]

Like Henry received a spinal surgeon gift from above on "Lost," this morning I got this from Forbes, linked on Sabres Report: http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2006/1127/106.html

 

It might help my cause here. This is Forbes, for crying out loud, one of the heavy hitters in the magazine world. This is real professional journalism. These people don't kid around. Articles probably pass muster through 10 people before hitting the press. Lawyers look at it too! Two lawyers even!

 

And yet the lady they assigned a story on the comeback of the Sabres clearly has never watched a hockey game and didn't bother, apparently, to run her story past someone who has. See her odd description of hooking for proof.

 

Beyond that, there are typos; several factual errors, including the Sabres' record one year; a claim that I doubt is true (that Golisano instructed the coaches to spend more time in practice on the players' shots); a "passing off of opinion as fact" when she writes that the Sabres front office was in "disarray" during the ownership crisis; and one glaring omission: any mention of the Sabres spending to the cap this year and the financial ramifications of that.

 

It was a pretty good story, all in all. She hit the big points and got them right. But it was one of those moments when the "mainstream media" is talking about something you really know, and you realize they are full of crap.

 

Bottom line: I could pick 10 people on this board, and several from various fan sites, and each could write a better story. And when they did, the link to that story certainly would deserve a mention on this site as much as that offering from Forbes.

 

And Elvis has just left the building.

[BetweenThePipes00]

What did you expect? It's like Sports Illustrated writing an analysis of the economy as it relates to defense spending.

[Bmwolf21]

PA, good find. Goes to show there are articles (and writers) that slip through the cracks. There are some bad aspects to that story, inluding poor research on hockey rules, how they acquired players (most Sabres fans know we didn't Drury, but rather traded for him) and calling Kotalik one of the league's most deadliest snipers. ;) I think the financial aspect of the article looks OK, but the overall writing is average at best. I am very surprised that an article focusing on the Sabres' financial resurrection didn't include even a passing mention of the new sweaters or slug controversy.

 

At least she got this part right:

Known as arrogant and divisive, Quinn was an unpopular choice among some fans, but Golisano didn't care:Quinn knew how to knock heads and cut costs.

[Stoner]

Is the Quinn quote good journalism though? You're the stickler. Isn't that her opinion? Or someone's unattributed opinion?

[SCSabresFan!]

Is the Quinn quote good journalism though? You're the stickler. Isn't that her opinion? Or someone's unattributed opinion?

 

And who the hell is Lawrence? :P

[BetweenThePipes00]

Is the Quinn quote good journalism though? You're the stickler. Isn't that her opinion? Or someone's unattributed opinion?

 

 

 

PA, now you are just being a pain in the ass. You obviously feel that anyone who types anything anywhere about the Buffalo Sabres deserves a link on this site. We get it.

 

And if I am exaggerating, that means you DO believe there is some sort of line to be drawn. So we just disagree on WHERE that line should be drawn. Obviously you are not going to change your mind, and I am certainly not going to change mine, because I fight the credibility battle every day and it is a tough fight because there is so much crap out there.

 

Just agree to disagree.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

Wow, I didn't realize this was such a big deal.

 

But let's take quick survey.

 

There appear to be eight types of links on the front page:

 

A. Newspapers (Buffalo News, Niagara Gazette, etc.)

B. Wire services (AP, CP, Sportsticker, etc.)

C. Radio-TV-Cable (WGR-AM, WGRZ-TV, etc.)

D. Sports Networks (ESPN, Fox Sports, TSN, etc.)

E. Official Sites (Sabres.com, NHL.com)

F. Fan Sites (SabresFans.com, etc.)

G. Opponents? Gameday Coverage

H. Amerks Daily Coverage

 

Which ones do you read each day?

 

Which ones should be eliminated?

 

Which ones should be moved from the main page to a different section of the site?

[SCSabresFan!]

Wow, I didn't realize this was such a big deal.

 

But let's take quick survey.

 

There appear to be seven types of links on the front page:

 

A. Newspapers (Buffalo News, Niagara Gazette, etc.)

B. Wire services (AP, CP, Sportsticker, etc.)

C. Radio-TV-Cable (WGR-AM, WGRZ-TV, etc.)

D. Sports Networks (ESPN, Fox Sports, TSN, etc.)

E. Official Sites (Sabres.com, NHL.com)

F. Fan Sites (SabresFans.com, etc.)

G. Opponents? Gameday Coverage

H. Amerks Daily Coverage

 

Which ones do you read each day?

 

Which ones should be eliminated?

 

Which ones should be moved from the main page to a different section of the site?

 

Keep them all. I like how the links are broken down. Maybe color code the sections or links?

[Bmwolf21]

PA, now you are just being a pain in the ass. You obviously feel that anyone who types anything anywhere about the Buffalo Sabres deserves a link on this site. We get it.

 

And if I am exaggerating, that means you DO believe there is some sort of line to be drawn. So we just disagree on WHERE that line should be drawn. Obviously you are not going to change your mind, and I am certainly not going to change mine, because I fight the credibility battle every day and it is a tough fight because there is so much crap out there.

 

Just agree to disagree.

Hit the nail on the head there, BTP. I know I am just as guilty for continuing the debate up to PA's original Forbes post, but I am going to back out of it as well. I am agreeing to disagree - we have our idea of what should be considered news and what should be considered commentary, which is obviously different from what PA considers each to be, so I'll leave it at that.

[Knightrider]

PA, now you are just being a pain in the ass. You obviously feel that anyone who types anything anywhere about the Buffalo Sabres deserves a link on this site. We get it.

 

And if I am exaggerating, that means you DO believe there is some sort of line to be drawn. So we just disagree on WHERE that line should be drawn. Obviously you are not going to change your mind, and I am certainly not going to change mine, because I fight the credibility battle every day and it is a tough fight because there is so much crap out there.

 

Just agree to disagree.

 

Actually, he isn't. He is trying to tell you you should always be skeptical of any source of information. The line you draw isn't the same as the one other people would draw. You should draw that line yourself. I've found that I no longer care to waste my time reading Jerry Sullivan's columns anymore. I see his byline, and I simply close the window. He offers little more than what I can find on TBD. I also try not to miss Chuck Pollock, at the Olean Times Herald. I also search TBD every week for Bill from NYC's A Few Thoughts About The Game in no particular order thread. It always has info that I cannot find elsewhere about the Bills. But that is my opinion. It isn't gospel, or ratified by anyone but me. Just as you should discriminate what you like to read also.

 

SDS or \GBiD/, is there an easy way to put the author on the blurb of the front page of SS and TBD?

[Stoner]

First off, hi GoBills. I haven't expressed it in a while, but thanks so much for the work you do on the links. It continues to be nothing short of amazing. In case folks don't know it, this is the guy who gives us all the great links.

 

I feel the same way about splitting up the links as I do about adding new subforums. There just isn't the volume to justify it. The links page is great as is... I'd like to see it left the way it is. SDS -- add the blog. The more the merrier.

 

So, BTP, when you feel like you're losing the argument, just call names, eh? And, BM, quit? :)

 

Knight, thanks for getting it. Let the reader be the arbiter of crap, the King of Flushing Queens.

 

All right, fellas, it's all over. Five each for fighting, Ink gets the instigator and Knight is fourth man in. And I get the 10-minute misconduct. Get your Snickers out, it might take the scorekeeper and ref a while to straighen all that out. :)