*The Official Apologetic Thread To Om*

[CMonster]

I COULD be wealthy.

I COULD have banged Britney Spears before she became a skank.

I COULD have been born in a different state instead of NJ

I COULD have knocked that one pin down to bowl that perfect game.

I COULD, I COULD, I COULD....

You COULD be stretching for something that is quite steep. In fact, I believe you are.

Dude, your post is ridiculous.

You are trying to compare things that have possibilities on the scale of quantum physics to the possibility of something that has been suggested by JLC and has a trail of circumstantial evidence.

Mathematically speaking, my could has a likely probability of 5-10%. Your coulds are probably closer to 0.00000000000000001%. Anyone who is a mathematician should feel free to correct me, but I assure you the conclusion remains the same.

So if one of us stretching, it ain't me.

edit: the odds of bowling a perfect game, for league bowlers, is 1 in 11,500, or .0008%. The point remains.

[praise_gibbs]

Dude, your post is ridiculous.

You are trying to compare things that have possibilities on the scale of quantum physics to the possibility of something that has been suggested by JLC and has a trail of circumstantial evidence.

Mathematically speaking, my could has a likely probability of 5-10%. Your coulds are closer to 0.00000000000000001%.

So if one of us stretching, it ain't me.

My 'coulds' are no different than your 'could'. Both are completely ridiculous. Both are full of made up BS.

Your could has a likely probabilty of 5-10%? Says who? Where are these facts that you are so confident that are better than gold? Are you even going to back up your claims or are you just going to sit back and committ slander?

Your claims are foolish. To be honest, I do not know what's worse? Your actual idea or the fact that you feel so confident about it.

[CMonster]

My 'coulds' are no different than your 'could'. Both are completely ridiculous. Both are full of made up BS.

Your could has a likely probabilty of 5-10%? Says who? Where are these facts that you are so confident that are better than gold? Are you even going to back up your claims or are you just going to sit back and committ slander?

Your claims are foolish. To be honest, I do not know what's worse? Your actual idea or the fact that you feel so confident about it.

Honestly, you can't even be reading my posts.

I've made it quite clear that this looks to be a mistake. You say that I am "confidant about it" yet I've both suggested otherwise and established a mathematical likelihood of 5-10%, which suggests I am anything but confidant about it.

My post has absolutely no made up BS in it. There is a clear trail of what transpired here in the past 24 hours and a clear history of Snyder playing dirty in business. Nothing is made up.

Where did I get 5-10%? From the accumulation of facts present here and the fact that it was brought up by JLC...not me. I did not originate this idea. Someone with deep connections did. And yes, there is a trail of facts that suggests that it is possible. And I'm guessing, given the suggestion by JLC and the subsequent trail of evidence that supports it's probably 5-10% likely to be true. Who cares? Call it 2%.

A far cry from the 0.0008% likelihood of your suggestion.

Committ slander? Do yourself a favor and take a break from the internet.

[praise_gibbs]

Honestly, you can't even be reading my posts.

I've made it quite clear that this looks to be a mistake. You say that I am "confidant about it" yet I've both suggested otherwise and established a mathematical likelihood of 5-10%, which suggests I am anything but confidant about it.

You follow up your "this could be a mistake" with more and more of your foolish claims. Sorry if I do not take you seriously.

My post has absolutely no made up BS in it. There is a clear trail of what transpired here in the past 24 hours and a clear history of Snyder playing dirty in business. Nothing is made up.

It isn't made up? You are saying that Dan Snyder used ES to gain and advantage in signing Smoot. Where is the track record of Mr Snyder doing anything like that? How is that fact?

Nothing is made up my ass.

Where did I get 5-10%? From the accumulation of facts present here and the fact that it was brought up by JLC...not me. I did not originate this idea. Someone with deep connections did. And yes, there is a trail of facts that suggests that it is possible. And I'm guessing, given the suggestion by JLC and the subsequent trail of evidence that supports it's probably 5-10% likely to be true. Who cares? Call it 2%.

A far cry from the 0.0008% likelihood of your suggestion.

So, now your percentage changes meanwhile my percentages remain the same?

While, it does not matter what the actual percentage is for my claims or yours, it just shows how you have no idea what you are talking about yet claim to.

Committ slander? Do yourself a favor and take a break from the internet.

Slander:

1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.

2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.

3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

–verb (used with object)

4. to utter slander against; defame.

–verb (used without object)

5. to utter or circulate slander.

Yes slander. Now, back your **** up or your credibilty (or lack there of even) will be down the tubes.

[mark327]

:munchout: I'm canceling my Comcast premium digital package .For a Saturday evening this is the best thing on right now :laugh:

[Never21Forgotten36]

:munchout: I'm canceling my Comcast premium digital package .For a Saturday evening this is the best thing on right now :laugh:

haha. yessirrrr

[praise_gibbs]

:yawnee:

...........

[bubba9497]

If anyone with half of a working brain cell read any of smoots quotes yesterday especially those reported in the post, had zero doubt smooter was a redskin again.

I mean seriously..... he was begging to come back. He in essence signed a blank contract and was just waiting for the details to be filled in :laugh:

[bedlamVR]

Wow geeeze I am sorry I thought I was only from another country not another planet ...I realy thought Om's mistake was honest and a little premature if anything thats it I was poking fun on that basis ...

..then JLC the only reported from the WP i look at claims this big consiparcy and you think WTF...?????

I am glad Smoot has apprently signed and ffs people this is all a game in the big picture does itit really matter when and how its a game ppl ?

Om I appologize if you think ... or y'know read my posts... you need an appolgy from me ... otherwise ppl grow up :doh:

[thinker]

I'd hope you guys would give credit to the staff here that we're not a bunch of naive yo-yo's who would allow ourselves to do anything beyond try and provide you guys with news and content as Redskin's fans. Seriously - who are you to insinuate theres more to it than that?

I give the creators, builders, and MODs of this site a tremendous amount of credit. Still, I don't give ANYONE credit for being someone who can't get tricked or used on occasion. Just like I never buy into the "whatever Joe Gibbs does must be right" theory, I'm not going to buy into the theory that the MODs could NEVER get used or tricked. Again I HAVE NO IDEA what happened here. It's just a good opportunity for the MODs to examine the issue amongst themselves to make sure they are protecting the great site THEY built.

[shagman]

Never doubted you OM!!

[CMonster]

Good grief.

Sorry if I do not take you seriously.

Go ahead and don't take me seriously. Do you think I care? Am I the pied piper?

It isn't made up? You are saying that Dan Snyder used ES to gain and advantage in signing Smoot. Where is the track record of Mr Snyder doing anything like that? How is that fact?

Stop making leaps. I did not say it was a fact. I said it was probably 5-10% likely. However, it is a fact that Snyder plays hardball when negotiating. And if you don't know that it's a fact that Snyder has spent years accumulating media properties to control the message being sent out to the fan base then this discussion is over your head.

What IS fact, is that a Redskins owned media property claimed that Smoot was "SIGNED" when he was not. Not surprisingly, this story was then reported on PFT.com, which had 700K page views. This is also a fact. Those are the ONLY facts here. The rest is JLC's speculation. A wise man would notice that this speculation is supported by circumstancial evidence. You choose not to take me seriously, so there we are.

I've said it's 5-10% likely that this suggestion is true, which is that Snyder would have combined his access to media outlets to influence negotiations. So no where did I suggest it was fact. In fact, I've suggested that it was 90-95% unlikely to be fact.

[

2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:

Uh, yeah, and by that definition, you would be equally guilty of slander.

[CMonster]

I give the creators, builders, and MODs of this site a tremendous amount of credit. Still, I don't give ANYONE credit for being someone who can't get tricked or used on occasion. Just like I never buy into the "whatever Joe Gibbs does must be right" theory, I'm not going to buy into the theory that the MODs could NEVER get used or tricked. Again I HAVE NO IDEA what happened here. It's just a good opportunity for the MODs to examine the issue amongst themselves to make sure they are protecting the great site THEY built.

Nicely said. The important thing is to make sure the integrity of ES remains.

[redskns21]

This is f'ing stupid. Really, GET OVER IT!!!! It's crap like this, be it semantics, people being way too sensitive, etc. that is really making this site a far cry from what it used to be.

[bedlamVR]

Its a message board run by the fans and that is all it should ever ben seen as ...no offence realy

i think the Ops do a fantastic job here

Look I am in the UK I am a born and bred UK fan and the likes of ES have opened up the NFL world wide and for people to think Om on a message board scared NFL suiters from Smoot is crazy just crazy even 5-10%

Please ppl get a grip .... :doh:

[praise_gibbs]

Are you going to back your **** up? Or just continue to rehearse the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over until you are blue in the face?

Good grief.

Go ahead and don't take me seriously. Do you think I care? Am I the pied piper?

I do think you care. If you really didn't. Would you really be replying to me? Me thinks the answer to that would be no. So, thanks for caring. :grouphug:

Stop making leaps. I did not say it was a fact. I said it was probably 5-10% likely. However, it is a fact that Snyder plays hardball when negotiating. And if you don't know that it's a fact that Snyder has spent years accumulating media properties to control the message being sent out to the fan base then this discussion is over your head.

So, you are hinting to it being fact. Same difference. Come on Suzy, where is the backing?

What IS fact, is that a Redskins owned media property claimed that Smoot was "SIGNED" when he was not. Not surprisingly, this story was then reported on PFT.com, which had 700K page views. This is also a fact. Those are the ONLY facts here. The rest is JLC's speculation. A wise man would notice that this speculation is supported by circumstancial evidence. You choose not to take me seriously, so there we are.

So, are you trying to say that PFT is apart of this Roswell ****? Or are they just a victim because ES member after ES member sent emails to PFT claiming that they should post that Smoot is signed because "Om said so'?

I've said it's 5-10% likely that this suggestion is true, which is that Snyder would have combined his access to media outlets to influence negotiations. So no where did I suggest it was fact. In fact, I've suggested that it was 90-95% unlikely to be fact.

Yet, you keep up with the crop circles and UFO propaganda.

[ Uh, yeah, and by that definition, you would be equally guilty of slander.

Equally? or .000008%?

[newshog]

It's a pure question of integrity. If Om said that Smoot was signed when he was in fact NOT yet signed, then that goes directly to integrity. It wouldn't matter if the claim was made by Om, Andyman, LavarLeap56, or Dan Snyder himself--it would still be an untruth. And for people who are coming specifically to learn the truth of negotiations between players and team, it isn't a stupid "question of semantics" to be tossed away--it cuts directly to the core of why we come here.

Om himself eventually said (unless I'm misremembering) that he overstated the case (and so the asterisk was added); so it is simply obfuscation to claim that he is a primary source same as Andyman or LL56 or someone similar. That's not the question at hand. The point is, the word that Smoot was signed simply wasn't true at the time it was originally claimed--whether it eventually came true or not is immaterial. And that needs to not happen on this site, in my opinion, if it is to have integrity. I'm almost more troubled that some mods don't seem to see this as an issue. I join with others in hoping that it was just a one-off mistake and will be looked at carefully by the mods in the future.

[praise_gibbs]

It's a pure question of integrity. If Om said that Smoot was signed when he was in fact NOT yet signed, then that goes directly to integrity. It wouldn't matter if the claim was made by Om, Andyman, LavarLeap56, or Dan Snyder himself--it would still be an untruth. And for people who are coming specifically to learn the truth of negotiations between players and team, it isn't a stupid "question of semantics" to be tossed away--it cuts directly to the core of why we come here.

Om himself eventually said (unless I'm misremembering) that he overstated the case (and so the asterisk was added); so it is simply obfuscation to claim that he is a primary source same as Andyman or LL56 or someone similar. That's not the question at hand. The point is, the word that Smoot was signed simply wasn't true at the time it was originally claimed--whether it eventually came true or not is immaterial. And that needs to not happen on this site, in my opinion, if it is to have integrity. I join with others in hoping that it was just a one-off mistake and will be looked at carefully by the mods in the future.

uhh.. Smoot is not signed. He will be tomorrow, March 4th. So, basically nothing changed except more media outlets are reporting it.

[Tarhog]

It's a pure question of integrity. If Om said that Smoot was signed when he was in fact NOT yet signed, then that goes directly to integrity. It wouldn't matter if the claim was made by Om, Andyman, LavarLeap56, or Dan Snyder himself--it would still be an untruth. And for people who are coming specifically to learn the truth of negotiations between players and team, it isn't a stupid "question of semantics" to be tossed away--it cuts directly to the core of why we come here.

Om himself eventually said (unless I'm misremembering) that he overstated the case (and so the asterisk was added); so it is simply obfuscation to claim that he is a primary source same as Andyman or LL56 or someone similar. That's not the question at hand. The point is, the word that Smoot was signed simply wasn't true at the time it was originally claimed--whether it eventually came true or not is immaterial. And that needs to not happen on this site, in my opinion, if it is to have integrity. I'm almost more troubled that some mods don't seem to see this as an issue. I join with others in hoping that it was just a one-off mistake and will be looked at carefully by the mods in the future.

Let me draw a parallel. Jason La Canfora's blog currently is titled 'Smoot is a Redskin', going on to say an agreement has been reached. Thats posted by a Washington Post writer on their site.

In fact, Smoot is NOT yet a Redskin. He's apparently signed NOTHING. There is no legally binding agreement.

So why would Jason state these things. Well, because he likely spoke to Smoot, the team, or Smoot's agent who indicated it would happen. How do you think Om may have gotten his information? Perhaps the same damn way?

So seriously, if you can get down off the soapbox for a second, explain to me what the difference is. Because in my mind, there is none.

[praise_gibbs]

Let me draw a parallel. Jason La Canfora's blog currently is titled 'Smoot is a Redskin', going on to say an agreement has been reached. Thats posted by a Washington Post writer on their site.

In fact, Smoot is NOT yet a Redskin. He's apparently signed NOTHING. There is no legally binding agreement.

So why would Jason state these things. Well, because he likely spoke to Smoot, the team, or Smoot's agent who indicated it would happen. How do you think Om may have gotten his information? Perhaps the same damn way?

So seriously, if you can get down off the soapbox for a second, explain to me what the difference is. Because in my mind, there is none.

There is no difference. None at all.

[newshog]

So seriously, if you can get down off the soapbox for a second, explain to me what the difference is. Because in my mind, there is none.

No, you're right, Tarhog--to be absolutely accurate, Jason La Canfora shouldn't make those claims either before they're true. (Incidentally, I think La Canfora should go off and be a columnist, because he's really not interested in pure reportage, as he shows day in and day out with both blog and reports--I'm absolutely no apologist of his.)

However, at this stage in the game it appears from all concerned that an agreement has been formalized. If Om had said this evening what he said yesterday, I wouldn't have any beef with it. But when Om made his initial claim yesterday, so far as I can tell (including Keim's report straight from Smoot's mouth) they were still negotiating. THAT'S the important difference.

[CMonster]

Let me draw a parallel. Jason La Canfora's blog currently is titled 'Smoot is a Redskin', going on to say an agreement has been reached. Thats posted by a Washington Post writer on their site.

In fact, Smoot is NOT yet a Redskin. He's apparently signed NOTHING. There is no legally binding agreement.

So why would Jason state these things. Well, because he likely spoke to Smoot, the team, or Smoot's agent who indicated it would happen. How do you think Om may have gotten his information? Perhaps the same damn way?

So seriously, if you can get down off the soapbox for a second, explain to me what the difference is. Because in my mind, there is none.

The difference between saying "an agreement has been reached" when an agreement has been reached is different than saying someone has been "signed" when in fact no agreement has been reached.

Everyone in the free world knew that it was a foregone conclusion that Fletcher would end up here but no one reported "signed" or "reached agreement" until that actually happened.

Let's not try to pretend that a mistake was not made. It was and that's ok (as long as nothing else was going on). These things happen. As long as it doesn't happen again, NO HARM NO FOUL. But the incorrect reporting calls the integrity of the site into question and just accept the responsibility for that and move on and not let it happen again. And then that will be the end of the story.

[Rolling Thunder]

If I apologize to OM, even though I didn't post anything, does that mean I'm getting laid?? Works with my wife.

[DieselPwr44]

[Tarhog]

No, you're right, Tarhog--to be absolutely accurate, Jason La Canfora shouldn't make those claims either before they're true. (Incidentally, I think La Canfora should go off and be a columnist, because he's really not interested in pure reportage, as he shows day in and day out with both blog and reports--I'm absolutely no apologist of his.)

However, at this stage in the game it appears from all concerned that an agreement has been formalized. If Om had said this evening what he said yesterday, I wouldn't have any beef with it. But when Om made his initial claim yesterday, so far as I can tell (including Keim's report straight from Smoot's mouth) they were still negotiating. THAT'S the important difference.

'So far as I can tell, they were still negotiating' ---- ahh, now see, this is where you may be a little off. Because for all you (or anyone else) know, it may truly have been a done deal - as done as it is tonight - last night.

You say it 'appears from all concerned that an agreement has been formalized'. Again, because the traditional media guys weren't privy to it doesn't mean there wasn't essentially an 'agreement' in place last night. And the truth is, there STILL isn't an agreement in place, not one thats binding anyway. So I think nailing Om for not being more careful with his words, while giving every other media outlet a pass tonight for saying things that 'technically' aren't yet factual, well, it doesn't pass the smell test.