praise_gibbs Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 If I apologize to OM, even though I didn't post anything, does that mean I'm getting laid?? Works with my wife. You want to bang Om? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 You want to bang Om? :laugh: I thought he wanted Om to bang his wife. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 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. Thats the point - YOU don't know that an agreement wasn't reached yesterday. You think you do, but the fact is you don't know. If Dan Snyder tells me its a done deal (just as an example), but he, Smoot, and the agent agree to keep it under wraps for 24 hrs, that doesn't mean an agreement wasn't reached. It means they don't feel the need to share it with you yet. I do agree, saying an agreement had been 'signed' was apparently factually incorrect. But no more so than saying 'Smoot is a Redskin' when that in fact hasn't occured. Sorry, I think if you're consistent, you can't argue this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I thought he wanted Om to bang his wife. :whoknows: He said appologizing to his wife gets him laid. It's either wanting to do the banging or get banged. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolling Thunder Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Too late for OM. Dan snyder heard she was a free agent and flew her in the the Wizards game. She better come back with a fat contract! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Sigh. Mistakes. Om's claim. Yada yada. How many times does this need to be said? Om was given "signed". He then posted that on the board. He was simply the messenger. He made no claims and reported nothing but was given to him. As things come to light, it would seem as though Smoot was doing everything he could to help get a deal done. How do we know there wasn't a verbal agreement for a contract signing. Or perhaps maybe a signed letter of intent? Without knowing that and the specifics of what Om was given and why, then anything else is nothing but speculation. You guys keep going on and on about this and the only integrity in question is going to be yours, ( not that it's doing all that well now). If there was a mistake, it wasn't by anyone here on this board. It would fall on whomever gave Om that info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolling Thunder Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 He said appologizing to his wife gets him laid. It's either wanting to do the banging or get banged. :laugh: You are correcty sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newshog Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 '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. Can you tell me right now that there was as much a deal last night as there was tonight? If so, why did Om correct his statement? If I have a reporter who has earned my trust telling us that he heard directly from Fred Smoot himself that a deal was not done, I'm afraid I'm going to go with that. You can't get any more inside than one of the two parties in the negotiation. 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. Are you serious? You honestly can't tell the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMonster Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Thats the point - YOU don't know that an agreement wasn't reached yesterday. You think you do, but the fact is you don't know. If Dan Snyder tells me its a done deal (just as an example), but he, Smoot, and the agent agree to keep it under wraps for 24 hrs, that doesn't mean an agreement wasn't reached. It means they don't feel the need to share it with you yet.I do agree, saying an agreement had been 'signed' was apparently factually incorrect. But no more so than saying 'Smoot is a Redskin' when that in fact hasn't occured. Sorry, I think if you're consistent, you can't argue this point. C'mon man. While ES claimed that Smoot was "signed", or implied that an agreement was in place or whatever, Warpath Insiders and WP were both reporting to the contrary. That no deal was in place was later corroborated in the WP by Gibbs. And while this isn't a fact, historically speaking, no one has enjoyed bragging publicly about his ability to negotiate and close a deal more than Dan Snyder, so I have a hard time believing that Snyder just decided to sit on the announcement of this deal being agreed to or consumated. But if you want to suggest that I don't have scientific evidence that everyone but Om was wrong and that semantically speaking every sportswriter in the country is incorrect in their reporting of the contractual status of agreed to but unsigned contracts then you would be correct. However, I think it would be more productive to just admit to a screw up and assure the membership that it won't happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Thats the point - YOU don't know that an agreement wasn't reached yesterday. You think you do, but the fact is you don't know. If Dan Snyder tells me its a done deal (just as an example), but he, Smoot, and the agent agree to keep it under wraps for 24 hrs, that doesn't mean an agreement wasn't reached. It means they don't feel the need to share it with you yet.I do agree, saying an agreement had been 'signed' was apparently factually incorrect. But no more so than saying 'Smoot is a Redskin' when that in fact hasn't occured. Sorry, I think if you're consistent, you can't argue this point. John, think about the quality of the individuals you are addressing. Is it really worth it? Think about everything you've done for this site for the past 5 years.... and then think about the quality of individuals that question your "integrity" or motivation. Get to the heart of the core in figuring what the hell they're arguing about and why... and move on. These aren't the people you sacrifice for. It's evident the majority gets it... and that's why you continue on. Forget the trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Can you tell me right now that there was as much a deal last night as there was tonight? If so, why did Om correct his statement?If I have a reporter who has earned my trust telling us that he heard directly from Fred Smoot himself that a deal was not done, I'm afraid I'm going to go with that. You can't get any more inside than one of the two parties in the negotiation. Are you serious? You honestly can't tell the difference? You're saying a reporter talking to a potential signee by definition is getting the closest thing to the truth possible. I'm saying there may be things going on behind the scenes that some are privy to that trumps that - trust me, you CAN get 'more inside' than a reporter talking to a player. I'm not 'telling' you anything - and neither would Om. I'll concede the point regarding use of the word 'signed' - but beyond that, I think we knew, thats KNEW, Smoot was going to be a Redskin, and that was the gist of what we were trying to communicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 John, think about the quality of the individuals you are addressing. Is it really worth it?Think about everything you've done for this site for the past 5 years.... and then think about the quality of individuals that question your "integrity" or motivation. Get to the heart of the core in figuring what the hell they're arguing about and why... and move on. These aren't the people you sacrifice for. It's evident the majority gets it... and that's why you continue on. Forget the trash. Thanks - I needed that. Sheesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Smoot is not signed while people are saying that he is. That is no different than what is/was being ****ed about. Om relayed a message and was slayed for it. Where is the slaying of the other media outlets that are doing the same as Om did? I heard a lot about double standards earlier.. this seems like a prime example of double standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Amoot is not signed while people are saying that he is.That is no different than what is/was being ****ed about. Om relayed a message and was slayed for it. Where is the slaying of the other media outlets that are doing the same as Om did? I heard a lot about double standards earlier.. this seems like a prime example of double standard. Amoot? Does he sing too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Die Hard Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 I'll concede the point regarding use of the word 'signed' - but beyond that, I think we knew, thats KNEW, Smoot was going to be a Redskin, and that was the gist of what we were trying to communicate. If it were up to me... I'd keep the information myself and only communicate it to the people worth a damn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willskins Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Wow, this is still going on... Don't we all come hear to discuss the signings AND speculation, occasionally with some welcomed insider scoop thrown in to make it a little more fun? Be thankful we have this outlet, and people that give us these gems. Good night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Amoot? Does he sing too? Dammit!! :doh: :notworthy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Well, after this crap, I hope we never again try to pass on some scoop here. Its not worth it. Judging by the level of 'outrage', I wouldn't be surprised if one of these guys with the nosebleeds isn't JLC himself Isn't that right PG? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolling Thunder Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Everyone needs to chill. Let's get some perpective. This is not life or death, just a message board. We are all here (with some exceptions) because we love the skins and look forward to hearing the latest buzz and opinions from our fellow fans. Remember what brings us together and let's not dwell on what pulls us apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twenty-eight Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 If it were up to me... I'd keep the information myself and only communicate it to the people worth a damn Thats what im afraid of. Next time you guys get this kind of information are you just going to keep it to yourselves til its official? I hope not... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 John, it ain't worth it when one of them has an agenda as transparent as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newshog Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 trust me, you CAN get 'more inside' than a reporter talking to a player.How? If it's a quote from the player himself, how could you be more inside?I'm not 'telling' you anything - and neither would Om. I'll concede the point regarding use of the word 'signed' - but beyond that, I think we knew, thats KNEW, Smoot was going to be a Redskin, and that was the gist of what we were trying to communicate. That's all I'm getting at--say what you know to be true (e.g. "It appears from everything we can glean that Smoot will be signed") and avoid saying what you don't know to be true, and you won't be questioned on matters of integrity, because there will be no grounds to do so. And you'll be giving people the kind of inside information they look for when they come here. I think a mistake was made in this case, and so long as it's recognized and avoided in the future, I can't see why anybody would have a problem with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
praise_gibbs Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Well, after this crap, I hope we never again try to pass on some scoop here. Its not worth it. Judging by the level of 'outrage', I wouldn't be surprised if one of these guys with the nosebleeds isn't JLC himself Isn't that right PG? * * That is exactly right. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Everyone needs to chill. Let's get some perpective. This is not life or death, just a message board. We are all here (with some exceptions) because we love the skins and look forward to hearing the latest buzz and opinions from our fellow fans. Remember what brings us together and let's not dwell on what pulls us apart. Bingo. There just seems to be a few who are taking this way too seriously, (and themselves as well), and trying to spoil things for the rest of us. Ain't workin'. At least not for me anyway. Anytime there's a scoop to be shared, I'll take it. And Tarhog, it's the few who ***** and moan about it who aren't worth it. The scoops are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK Posted March 4, 2007 Share Posted March 4, 2007 Thats what im afraid of. Next time you guys get this kind of information are you just going to keep it to yourselves til its official? I hope not... It's real damn tempting. Kinda like a few things we've been sitting for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.