Doesn't that define unreliable?
It defines any reporter who lives off of rumors. Same goes with almost every reporter. Even guys like Adam Schefter fall into this categtor.
So he is really on what a source heard. Adding that comment just makes it like any other source.
He is just saying what Mike Reiss said. He is hearing this, but he doesn't know if it is true or not. Reiss doubted the motives of his source. Curran just doesn't know if his source is just spreading rumors he thinks are facts.
It meant something in the context of our last discussion where you said Breers guess was proof it wasnt about the Patriots.
It means something in terms of dismissing that the Patriots are being investigated at all.
In the sea of rumors, it is just another one.
And you are complaining about me putting word in my mouth. Everyone other than Sharks of Vegas knows the Wells investigation will be largely about the Pats. Breer never said otherwise. He just said he thinks the key part of the report will be about the League and Colts. Huge difference.
Curran cites a source, Florio cites a source. Both could be right or wrong, but if they conflicted I would have more faith in Curran, based upon track record.
The sources do not conflict at all. Curran doesn't talk about what his sources are saying about the investigation of the Patriots. Florio is only talking that his source says that Wells looks to be looking at the league with the same effort that Curran said his source is doing with the Patriots. Neither report confirms or denies the other. Curran never says that his source said that the investigation is exclusively or even primarily on the Patriots. Florio never says that Curran's report is false and that the investigation has turned away from the Pats.
This is a case where both Curran's and Florio's sources could be 100% correct. I am having a hard time finding a single way these sources contradict each other. Wells has been investigating this thing for nearly three months. I am sure he has put everyone involved under a microscope from the Pats to Kensil to Grigson to the refs to whoever.
Because Curran added that line and Florio didnt? That doesn't make Florios source better it makes Curran a better journalist.
When a reporter openly questions the validity of his source, I always give it less weight. If Curran had a strong feeling about his source, he wouldn't have added that line. The direct quote Curran puts in the article seems like hyperbole to begin with.
Not really because Florio doesn't either. Curran doesn't know if it is first hand or not. That doesn't change its value as a sourced rumor.
Again, if Curran openly questions the validity of the source's information in the article. It does change the value as a sourced rumor.
And you know that is wrong. I believe you will never find a single example of me insulting you, and am certain you will never find one that isn't retribution.
I tend to post about things I feel strongly about. The fact that I disagree with your attempts to change my opinion and do not care to be polite about it (since after all this is a message board) does not open up a license for you to act like a baby. Feel free to find any example of me insulting you, or putting words in your mouth.
You are insulting and condescending to everyone you argue with. Not just me. And yes, you have insulted me multiple times calling my arguments stupid and stuff like that. It seems like such in your nature that maybe you just don't see it when you post it. You insult people all the time.
