So we were taking Kelly

[skinsdad62]

you want to convince me put a name to the source otherwise its speculation . could be right could be wrong

 

[j_y19]

We are debating because you guys jumped on Dean pretty harshly for simply posting a link that supported his side of the argument. Again "proof" was too strong a word but if that's enough to get you guys all worked up to this point, well......

And again dismissing anonymous sources is a stupid argument. If Woodward and Bernstein had ignored their anonymous source American history would have been written differently. They are anonymous for a reason and that reason is obvious, it doesn't mean what they say is unfounded.

Well, history has context. I realize you are a fairly new poster, although you do post regularly. But we've seen dean do these types of posts for YEARS so that is why you may not understand our reaction. He falls in love with a guy and then tries to pass off bloggers, analysts, even other posters opinions as a proven fact that he was right. Its grown tiresome to many.

As for the anonymous quotes you are right, it doesn't make what they say unfounded, but it doesn't make it founded, either. Again, second hand quotes from an anonymous source is not proof. It wasn't the anonymous leaker that sunk Nixon. It was the rest of the investigation that Deep Throat steered them to that provided the "proof".

 

[Sportster 72]

We are debating because you guys jumped on Dean pretty harshly for simply posting a link that supported his side of the argument. Again "proof" was too strong a word but if that's enough to get you guys all worked up to this point, well......

And again dismissing anonymous sources is a stupid argument. If Woodward and Bernstein had ignored their anonymous source American history would have been written differently. They are anonymous for a reason and that reason is obvious, it doesn't mean what they say is unfounded.

No one said anything other than it was not proof and it is not. I have teased dean good naturedly for weeks. I think dean understands I wasn't calling him wrong. Hell I told dean on Thursday I believe that Doc Walker and Cooley wanted the pick to be Kelly. I also said maybe he was SM's first choice IF he was there. Good lord, drama much??

 

[skinsdad62]

hey he could very well could have been the guy if he was there . i would call it a good pick too

but nothing above could hardly qualify as "proof "

tandler does have some buffoon in him

 

[redskinsfan]

I can't tell you why people misrepresent the truth in articles and statements. But they do...a lot. Most people in the media do.

Again, the reason Dean gets sooo much crap is he speaks in definitives.

Good advice. For me, I NEVER, NEVER speak in definitives. NEVER.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

you want to convince me put a name to the source otherwise its speculation . could be right could be wrong

So I'll put you down as of the opinion that Deep Throat, the guy who brought down a President, was full of hot air. And you can't possible see how a player or coach would not want their name attached to inside information due to ramifications has no reason to give a quote without a name to it.

 

[skinsdad62]

So I'll put you down as of the opinion that Deep Throat, the guy who brought down a President, was full of hot air. And you can't possible see how a player or coach would not want their name attached to inside information due to ramifications has no reason to give a quote without a name to it.

deep throat smeep throat , he came out anyway if you want me to buy an unamed source from a news outlet i want names because all to often its their opinion passed as fact . its not 100% full proof for sure but if you arent man enough to say it so your boss knows it too then simply dont say it .

that is the way i conduct business and will always conduct business . no one else has too but i will so any jackwaggon example you want to come up with refer to the lines above because i argued this during the early RG3 years . some were true some were false

that is where i stand and you aint changing it period deep throat or not

 

[redskinsfan]

deep throat smeep throat , he came out anyway if you want me to buy an unamed source from a news outlet i want names because all to often its their opinion passed as fact . its not 100% full proof for sure but if you arent man enough to say it so your boss knows it too then simply dont say it .

that is the way i conduct business and will always conduct business . no one else has too but i will so any jackwaggon example you want to come up with refer to the lines above because i argued this during the early RG3 years . some were true some were false

that is where i stand and you aint changing it period deep throat or not

I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I will say the following: yes, unnamed sources can be questionable (e.g., ones used by The Globe); but if the reporter publishing what that source said is credible (e.g., John Keim), I'll put a lot of credit in that source. That's because reputable reporters won't post nonsense and will vet the source itself and what the source is saing. And there were quite a few solid reporters stating that Kelly was Scot's guy at #21, if he was there.

 

[skinsdad62]

I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I will say the following: yes, unnamed sources can be questionable (e.g., ones used by The Globe); but if the reporter publishing what that source said is credible (e.g., John Keim), I'll put a lot of credit in that source. That's because reputable reporters won't post nonsense and will vet the source itself and what the source is saing. And there were quite a few solid reporters stating that Kelly was Scot's guy at #21, if he was there.

paulson and tandler are the only ones i know of with others leaching off of that . again it could be 1000% true that he would have taken kelly . i just dont think trotting out tandler and paulson will do it for me as far as believing their reporting is something i will take to the bank

 

[gkekoa]

Considering SM is a BPA guy and he stated he was surprised Doctson was there, I believe Doctson would have been his pick over Kelly. Kelly may have been the guy he expected to get at 21, but with Doctson there and not taken, I do believe Doctson would have been the pick.

 

[Sportster 72]

In the end, does it matter? Someone on here I respect a lot said quite awhile back that there is too much trying to be right on here. Forums are primarily about opinion and not fact.

 

[redskinsfan]

Yeah, this is now a moot issue. Time to start talking about things that matter like how the Browns are now saying that RGIII will be competing for his job this year.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

deep throat smeep throat , he came out anyway if you want me to buy an unamed source from a news outlet i want names because all to often its their opinion passed as fact . its not 100% full proof for sure but if you arent man enough to say it so your boss knows it too then simply dont say it .

that is the way i conduct business and will always conduct business . no one else has too but i will so any jackwaggon example you want to come up with refer to the lines above because i argued this during the early RG3 years . some were true some were false

that is where i stand and you aint changing it period deep throat or not

"deep throat smeep throat" Really? That's where you are going?

You obviously know nothing about journalism. I suggest you read up on the phrase "protection of sources". It's gospel to journalists and for a good reason.

 

[skinsdad62]

"deep throat smeep throat" Really? That's where you are going?

You obviously know nothing about journalism. I suggest you read up on the phrase "protection of sources". It's gospel to journalists and for a good reason.

i could care less about tandlers version of journalism which in of in itself is questionable . comparing watergate to a freaking draft pick is a huge reach to begin with

my stance is the same and will always be the same whether i "understand " journalism or not . if you use an unnamed source and call it "fact " or "evidence" my personal court of law is going to question it strongly period .

you want to accept it as fact you go right on ahead and understand that questioning it doesnt equate to dismissing it

i have said this numerous times in the past and nothing in the past 3-4 years has changed my mind

and if you are making a comment to a reporter that you cant let your boss know about in regards to a stinking draft pick then simply dont state it . that is all that had to happen fear of being fired need not apply

 

[gkekoa]

i could care less about tandlers version of journalism which in of in itself is questionable . comparing watergate to a freaking draft pick is a huge reach to begin with

my stance is the same and will always be the same whether i "understand " journalism or not . if you use an unnamed source and call it "fact " or "evidence" my personal court of law is going to question it strongly period .

you want to accept it as fact you go right on ahead and understand that questioning it doesnt equate to dismissing it

i have said this numerous times in the past and nothing in the past 3-4 years has changed my mind

and if you are making a comment to a reporter that you cant let your boss know about in regards to a stinking draft pick then simply dont state it . that is all that had to happen fear of being fired need not apply

Actually, if we are talking legality...it is called hearsay.

 

[Darrell Green Fan]

i could care less about tandlers version of journalism which in of in itself is questionable . comparing watergate to a freaking draft pick is a huge reach to begin with

my stance is the same and will always be the same whether i "understand " journalism or not . if you use an unnamed source and call it "fact " or "evidence" my personal court of law is going to question it strongly period .

you want to accept it as fact you go right on ahead and understand that questioning it doesnt equate to dismissing it

i have said this numerous times in the past and nothing in the past 3-4 years has changed my mind

and if you are making a comment to a reporter that you cant let your boss know about in regards to a stinking draft pick then simply dont state it . that is all that had to happen fear of being fired need not apply

One more comment and I'll move on. As I said already Dean's "proof" was not proof at all, it was too strong of a word. But your total dismissal of unnamed sources, backed by j_y and his face palm, is just plain wrong. Anonymous sources are a huge part of journalism, reporters have been relying on them for centuries. It's completely idiotic to dismiss them because there is no name to them.


When names are attached you hear players say they back Jim Zorn 100% when we all know damn well that's BS. But it's what the player has to do to protect himself. When you want the truth the player/coach needs the protection of being anonymous. End of story.

 

[skinsdad62]

One more comment and I'll move on. As I said already Dean's "proof" was not proof at all, it was too strong of a word. But your total dismissal of unnamed sources, backed by j_y and his face palm, is just plain wrong. Anonymous sources are a huge part of journalism, reporters have been relying on them for centuries. It's completely idiotic to dismiss them because there is no name to them.


When names are attached you hear players say they back Jim Zorn 100% when we all know damn well that's BS. But it's what the player has to do to protect himself. When you want the truth the player/coach needs the protection of being anonymous. End of story.

my retort that you quoted plainly states not to equate questioning an unnamed source to dismissing an unnamed source

i dont give a rats ass if unnamed sources have been used since the advent of the press. doesnt make them more trustworthy then someone attaching their name to a story

it isnt wrong and it will never be wrong unless you are a mindless sheep who follows the crowd

 

[Sportster 72]

Seriously, this is still going on??