ALL PRAISE JOHN CURRIE FOR ACTING A YEAR TOO LATE
- Thread starter 2&2 Slider To Leyritz
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Yeah, I’m pointing out the idiocy of your proclamation. Just like me calling you a wife beating Nazi doesn’t make it so. But, the only online evidence we have says you are, so prove otherwise.
deacdiggler
"Well known member"
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 24,095
- Reaction score
- 12,253
It's entirely your fault rj. Here's why.
Goodman has sources. I'll grant that you might too. But only one of you is in the BUSINESS of sharing information that you get from your sources after careful vetting. That means that whether you like it or not, Goodman is going to get some credibility that you simply don't. That means there's going to be a higher burden of proof on you to convince your audience that your information is right while his is wrong.
Every time someone puts out the $15 or $18mm number, you call it bullshit, based on some communication that you had with a Tier One Source. The identity of your source appears to have been validated by a few of your friends/supporters. I'm willing to concede that your source is, in fact, Tier One, based on what you have told us and based on what a couple of your friends have said. However, the content of that communication is definitely in question. I think you have said that the $15-18mm is "exaggerated" or "inflated," but you have never shared what the source said it was. For example, if the deal was $18 million for 6 years, but the final year was only guaranteed if we made the tourney at least once, your source might have been telling you that it was only a $12 million buyout vs $15. Does that justify all of this?
There are several easy ways to solve this. One answer is to share the communication and hide the names if you don't want to disclose who your source was. Based on the assurances of others that your contact is Tier One, that would probably sway some people and build some momentum for you. Another option is to share the whole thing (incl names) with a neutral source that everyone trusts - such as BabyDeac, who has offered to serve as an arbitrator. A third option is just to let it go and let people make $15mm comments.
What should be clear is that the option that you have chosen (which is to assail anyone who mentions $15mm and loudly and aggressively insist that they're wrong, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary) is NOT effective. Yet you keep after it, to the point that the mere mention of the $15mm buyout causes a 100 post pileup where you insist that we should all believe you instead of the guy whose business it is to know.
Here's his current bio: "Jeff Goodman has covered basketball for the last two decades at all three levels – NBA, college and high school. He has worked for ESPN, CBSSports and FOXSports and most recently spent five years at ESPN as a multi-platform basketball insider – on SportsCenter, doing sideline for games, features, 1-on-1 sit-downs and also establishing himself as the pre-eminent news-breaker in college basketball." I know you don't like him, but the man has 264,000 followers on Twitter and has a professional reputation that pretty much has him linked to NCAA basketball as Adam Schefter is to the NFL. Not only did he originally disclose the amount of the contract and buyout, but he subsequently reported that Wake was trying to get out of it and was negotiating it down, citing "sources." (That's more than one source.) This explanation is completely consistent with the long delay that we all suffered through waiting for the firing to happen after the pandemic started.
On the other hand, there's your source, who remains unidentified and whose information revealed to you remains undisclosed. You treat this source like they're Deep Throat, and somehow your journalistic integrity relies on keeping your source's identity AND the information that they shared completely hidden. I get that you have a friend whose confidence you don't wish to betray, and I can respect that. However, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to keep your source and his/her information completely secret, that's fine, but you have to give up thinking that we're all going to believe that you had some inside knowledge. If you want us to believe that, you have to prove it (as noted above) because the burden of proof is on you, the non-professional "guy who knows someone," to show that the professional journalist was wrong.
Until then, any train wreck of a thread where you insist that you're right without proof is YOUR FAULT.
Goodman has sources. I'll grant that you might too. But only one of you is in the BUSINESS of sharing information that you get from your sources after careful vetting. That means that whether you like it or not, Goodman is going to get some credibility that you simply don't. That means there's going to be a higher burden of proof on you to convince your audience that your information is right while his is wrong.
Every time someone puts out the $15 or $18mm number, you call it bullshit, based on some communication that you had with a Tier One Source. The identity of your source appears to have been validated by a few of your friends/supporters. I'm willing to concede that your source is, in fact, Tier One, based on what you have told us and based on what a couple of your friends have said. However, the content of that communication is definitely in question. I think you have said that the $15-18mm is "exaggerated" or "inflated," but you have never shared what the source said it was. For example, if the deal was $18 million for 6 years, but the final year was only guaranteed if we made the tourney at least once, your source might have been telling you that it was only a $12 million buyout vs $15. Does that justify all of this?
There are several easy ways to solve this. One answer is to share the communication and hide the names if you don't want to disclose who your source was. Based on the assurances of others that your contact is Tier One, that would probably sway some people and build some momentum for you. Another option is to share the whole thing (incl names) with a neutral source that everyone trusts - such as BabyDeac, who has offered to serve as an arbitrator. A third option is just to let it go and let people make $15mm comments.
What should be clear is that the option that you have chosen (which is to assail anyone who mentions $15mm and loudly and aggressively insist that they're wrong, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary) is NOT effective. Yet you keep after it, to the point that the mere mention of the $15mm buyout causes a 100 post pileup where you insist that we should all believe you instead of the guy whose business it is to know.
Here's his current bio: "Jeff Goodman has covered basketball for the last two decades at all three levels – NBA, college and high school. He has worked for ESPN, CBSSports and FOXSports and most recently spent five years at ESPN as a multi-platform basketball insider – on SportsCenter, doing sideline for games, features, 1-on-1 sit-downs and also establishing himself as the pre-eminent news-breaker in college basketball." I know you don't like him, but the man has 264,000 followers on Twitter and has a professional reputation that pretty much has him linked to NCAA basketball as Adam Schefter is to the NFL. Not only did he originally disclose the amount of the contract and buyout, but he subsequently reported that Wake was trying to get out of it and was negotiating it down, citing "sources." (That's more than one source.) This explanation is completely consistent with the long delay that we all suffered through waiting for the firing to happen after the pandemic started.
On the other hand, there's your source, who remains unidentified and whose information revealed to you remains undisclosed. You treat this source like they're Deep Throat, and somehow your journalistic integrity relies on keeping your source's identity AND the information that they shared completely hidden. I get that you have a friend whose confidence you don't wish to betray, and I can respect that. However, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to keep your source and his/her information completely secret, that's fine, but you have to give up thinking that we're all going to believe that you had some inside knowledge. If you want us to believe that, you have to prove it (as noted above) because the burden of proof is on you, the non-professional "guy who knows someone," to show that the professional journalist was wrong.
Until then, any train wreck of a thread where you insist that you're right without proof is YOUR FAULT.
Strickland33
Well-known member
You whining about somebody posting Nazi propaganda is rich.
Goodman's source is unidentified. My source, whom you just conceded is real, would have seen the contract and been asked to participate in ending the contract (you can read this anyway you'd like as the Top 5 Tier 1 people would have either negotiated the firing or been asked to fund it).
I'll take the word of someone who knows and has been intimately involved over a totally unknown source as should any reasonable person.
Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the positions of the doubters. They would want me to get the Queen of England to video chat with someone here to verify that it's Tuesday in North America. Even after the Queen would talk to you, there would be another "requirement" before anyone gave in and another and another.
Your blind hatred and investment in it keep you and others from being rational.
deacdiggler
"Well known member"
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 24,095
- Reaction score
- 12,253
These two posts are a good example. Townie asked for the "screenshots" which would prove communication directly with a Tier One Source. RJ had a hissy fit, insisting that he never had a DIRECT COMMUNICATION with a Tier One Source, despite having insisted for months that he had exactly that level of information.
Why would I lie for a guy I’ve never met on a message board? I also don’t sell out other people and burn their sources. I’m pretty sure most anyone here, outside of you, appreciate that. If that means an angry, middle-aged, wife beating Nazi in his suburban Charlotte modular calls me a liar on the Internet, I’ll sleep well.
deacdiggler
"Well known member"
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 24,095
- Reaction score
- 12,253
Okay, look - the bolded text above is the disconnect. YOU, rj, are absolutely entitled to take the word of your source over Goodman's. What you're asking the rest of us to do is to take YOUR word that your source is right, over Goodman's. Put another way, to the rest of us, BOTH sources are unknown. One of them is a professional journalist whose job is to get information and who has PLURAL sources. The other is you, who has a lot of enthusiasm and passion but not a lot of history of sourcing scoops.
I know you appreciate the difference that the extra layer of communication creates. It's like a game of telephone. You're the second guy in line from your source, and we're all third. The only way for us to know that you shared information correctly is to hear it from the first guy in line. I understand you don't want to do that, so please just let it go. Revel in your personal insider information, by all means - but please don't ask the rest of us to do the same.
Finally, if you think that any of these posts are blind hatred, I'll ask you to take a poll. This is what reason looks like.
deacdiggler
"Well known member"
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 24,095
- Reaction score
- 12,253
stupid multiquote.
Someone who has seen the material has verified the source and the content.
As I said, if 300 people saw it had it in an email or on their phone, you and others here would say, "Well. it's only 300."
Others have stated I have given them information, sometimes months in advance, that have been proven true. One person even posted I gave him interim events that would happen that did.
But none of that will EVER matter to you. Milhouse, Strickland or others. You guys will always come up with another excuse.
I am completely comfortable with this. That what I'm saying is true will destroy many board personas and show you and your crowd to be petty, ignorant and jealous creates a demand from you to keep coming with excuses and rationalizations rather than being included in information and insights.
RJ has to be wrong for your positions of years, your insults, your hate and arrogance to be validated. If I do have, not just this, but other information, you guys will be proven to having wasted years and proven to be full of shit. You and others can't accept that.
deacondamo
El Jefe
I think we can all agree that Currie did not fuck this up.
I couldn't agree more.
Louis Gossett Jr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2012
- Messages
- 12,896
- Reaction score
- 6,796
This, so much this. It doesn't even matter if it was done by a legitimate poster who stumbles into a thread and posts something about the buyout all of a sudden is just a tsunami of RJ bullshit. Why, why the fuck do you care so much? Either the post was done by an irregular poster who gives zero shits about tier one sources, RJ drama, and is just going about their posting and them thinking the buyout was 15 million is a fleeting thought. Alternatively, it was posted by a usual suspect knowing the response they would get but then means you are looking for some validation from Milhouse, townie and S33. So once again why the fuck do you care so much?
06deacon
The Pumpfaker
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2012
- Messages
- 11,464
- Reaction score
- 4,150
It’s like trying to explain covid stuff to 2and2. The more clearly you explain it so that anyone could understand, the more it causes them to dig in further because they’re too prideful to face facts looser.
06, if I'm not mistaken, you are a lawyer. Would you give confidential for posting on an internet board because some yahoo demands it?
Also, remember I didn't start this fire again. But defending myself is wrong to you.
Also, remember I didn't start this fire again. But defending myself is wrong to you.