Steve9347 Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 Felix clearly has an ax to grind. That's fine. Again, I didn't expect it to get this big and I purposely didn't share the post on Soxtalk, but it's all good. I had reason to believe Rose was playing tonight based on a source and ran with it on my "s***ty little blog no one reads". Apparently, over 60,000 people have read it in the last day and a half. So check YOUR facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:21 PM) Felix, You are comparing a free web blog to a paid for newspaper. I would assume there is a higher level of ethical integrity when you are CHARGING someone for the information. Had Steve charged people for a complete lie, Id agree that is pretty shameless and wrong. But when you give something away, can you really complain about the quality? Just because you're giving something away doesn't mean you shouldn't be held to an expectation of integrity. Just look at the SB Nation blogs. They're all free for people to use, and yet they are held to a higher standard. If they started throwing bulls*** stories about sources confirming things that haven't been confirmed, they wouldn't still have a blog. And like SS2k5 said, the "Ok, I lied, but it's your fault for not thinking critically" is about as weak an argument as humanly possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Felix @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) And like SS2k5 said, the "Ok, I lied, but it's your fault for not thinking critically" is about as weak an argument as humanly possible. Again. You said lie. There was/is a source. Just an FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:21 PM) Felix, You are comparing a free web blog to a paid for newspaper. I would assume there is a higher level of ethical integrity when you are CHARGING someone for the information. Had Steve charged people for a complete lie, Id agree that is pretty shameless and wrong. But when you give something away, can you really complain about the quality? Yes. Think about all the "free" services out there that people complain about: Facebook Pandora Email accounts (specifically Yahoo) If you put s***ty information/products/etc out there for everyone to see and advertise it, then expect brush back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:25 PM) Felix clearly has an ax to grind. That's fine. Again, I didn't expect it to get this big and I purposely didn't share the post on Soxtalk, but it's all good. I had reason to believe Rose was playing tonight based on a source and ran with it on my "s***ty little blog no one reads". So you said it was confirmed that he is without a doubt playing tonight. Here's a nice link for you to read: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/integrity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigruss Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Felix @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) Just because you're giving something away doesn't mean you shouldn't be held to an expectation of integrity. Just look at the SB Nation blogs. They're all free for people to use, and yet they are held to a higher standard. If they started throwing bulls*** stories about sources confirming things that haven't been confirmed, they wouldn't still have a blog. And like SS2k5 said, the "Ok, I lied, but it's your fault for not thinking critically" is about as weak an argument as humanly possible. Or Deadspin, people blast that s*** (on here especially) all the time when it's wrong. It's what people do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 To his credit, Steve is accepting the brushback and isnt getting mad about it. 5 years ago and this thread would be a nuclear wasteland Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:31 PM) To his credit, Steve is accepting the brushback and isnt getting mad about it. 5 years ago and this thread would be a nuclear wasteland Well, it is what it is, and I'm not wrong... yet. If I had read my article and then Rose doesn't play tonight, I'd be pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Felix @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:27 PM) Just because you're giving something away doesn't mean you shouldn't be held to an expectation of integrity. Just look at the SB Nation blogs. They're all free for people to use, and yet they are held to a higher standard. If they started throwing bulls*** stories about sources confirming things that haven't been confirmed, they wouldn't still have a blog. And like SS2k5 said, the "Ok, I lied, but it's your fault for not thinking critically" is about as weak an argument as humanly possible. I dont need an argument. The internet, tv, radio, news, is full of bulls***. Anyone that wants to believe journalists even from the most respectable newspapers should do it at their own peril. I have no real need to discuss why I should have to take the time to protect dumb people from themselves. I spend most of my real job being paid to do that, this is a website to have fun. If you cant comprehend that, if you think we are on the level of Sun Times, New York Times, Financial News, Journal of American Medicine (Ill let you pick which ones you consider "legitimate" or "ethical"), then I dont know what to say. It seems Steve had some information. It seems that Steve decided to run with that information. If he is wrong, I expect blow back. I expect people to get all in a fuss about how he is wrong. And most likely, Ill just approve the posts. Because journalism in todays society = opinion not fact. And opinion doesnt mean s***. QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:28 PM) Yes. Think about all the "free" services out there that people complain about: Facebook Pandora Email accounts (specifically Yahoo) If you put s***ty information/products/etc out there for everyone to see and advertise it, then expect brush back. How has there been brush back? Even if Steve is wrong, more people will come to the site tomorrow than 3 days ago. From a simple marketing/economic perspective it actually was pretty brilliant. Look at this thread, there are just a certain amount of people who will believe anything. No matter what. So I assume some will believe that Steve did have inside information, it just didnt pan out. Because that happens more times than not, even to the most reputable reporter. The fact is, the only people with real inside information, are usually not allowed to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Except for the fact that you are wrong. Regardless of whether it happens or not, the simple fact is that it wasn't confirmed when you posted the article saying it's confirmed. You might have had "a source" that made it sound like it was likely that he would play tonight, but that is far from being confirmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Confirmed by who? Did steve ever say the bulls confirmed? No Literally if I look at my cat and say "Kitty stay silent if you think Rose will play tonight" and she says nothing, its technically confirmation. I know how newspapers get away with this bulls***, its not really that difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Felix @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:36 PM) Except for the fact that you are wrong. Regardless of whether it happens or not, the simple fact is that it wasn't confirmed when you posted the article saying it's confirmed. You might have had "a source" that made it sound like it was likely that he would play tonight, but that is far from being confirmed. k Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:39 PM) Confirmed by who? Did steve ever say the bulls confirmed? No Literally if I look at my cat and say "Kitty stay silent if you think Rose will play tonight" and she says nothing, its technically confirmation. I know how newspapers get away with this bulls***, its not really that difficult. In this context, when you say "a source close to the situation confirmed that Derrick Rose will play Monday" (or whatever it was until it was edited), you are flat out lying. There is no other way to put it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 06:39 PM) Confirmed by who? Did steve ever say the bulls confirmed? No Literally if I look at my cat and say "Kitty stay silent if you think Rose will play tonight" and she says nothing, its technically confirmation. ... COME ON Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Felix @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:41 PM) In this context, when you say "a source close to the situation confirmed that Derrick Rose will play Monday" (or whatever it was until it was edited), you are flat out lying. There is no other way to put it. who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 And in Steves, wait for it, OPINION the source was "close" and was "confirming" rumors that were already on the internet about Rose coming back Monday. Are we now going to get into an argument of what is "close", because we may as well just start arguing if pizza is good or if its hot/cold. This is why news is bulls***, because nothing means anything when you really break it down. Unless there is a name attributed to a quote, I expect its a flat out lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 And if Steve is wrong I hope everyone mocks him, he went out on a limb, you live with those risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (RockRaines @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:43 PM) who cares? Anyone who gives two s***s about journalism? EDIT: I've said all I can say, and at this point Badger is just arguing stupid points solely for the purpose of arguing (lawyer, etc.). Have fun, gents. Edited March 18, 2013 by Felix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:44 PM) And in Steves, wait for it, OPINION the source was "close" and was "confirming" rumors that were already on the internet about Rose coming back Monday. Are we now going to get into an argument of what is "close", because we may as well just start arguing if pizza is good or if its hot/cold. This is why news is bulls***, because nothing means anything when you really break it down. Unless there is a name attributed to a quote, I expect its a flat out lie. You have no standards, so you expect everyone else to be the same way. Uh, ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Felix @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 01:53 PM) Anyone who gives two s***s about journalism? I've said all I can say. Have fun, gents. lol Are you really defending journalistic integrity and standards? If you care about journalism, perhaps you should go after the big guys, the ones who are making millions/billions off of creating false stories, using shady sources and basically taking advantage of the fact that most people believe anything they read. Its odd that I cant recall you ever venturing in the filibuster to talk about the media and the problems with factual reporting. I guess your outrage is selective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 02:02 PM) You have no standards, so you expect everyone else to be the same way. Uh, ok. You actually are right. I really do not have any standards when it comes to free blogs on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Was soxobama Steve's source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 02:09 PM) Was soxobama Steve's source? Sources close to the situation are telling me that Steve is Soxobama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted March 18, 2013 Author Share Posted March 18, 2013 BTW, this is the latest in the day that we've gone with no word of whether Rose is playing that evening. #THERETURN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Mar 18, 2013 -> 02:10 PM) BTW, this is the latest in the day that we've gone with no word of whether Rose is playing that evening. #THERETURN KC Johnson posted hours ago that Thibs said "unlikely". He also said that means he's out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts