It defines any reporter who lives off of rumors. Same goes with almost every reporter. Even guys like Adam Schefter fall into this categtor.
Which is my point. I think its well known that Florio is wrong more than most.
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.
He did not say Reiss was his source.
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.
I'm not putting words in your mouth, I am restating what you said in the other discussion. Is it inaccurate? In what way?
The discussion was that you felt Breer's article meant the investigation was not focussed on the Patriots and you felt it was 'proof' because he is 'dialed in to the league'. Am I misrepresenting your position?
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.
The source may not have conflicted but the posts about what they meant did. Breers article (without a source by the way) was being used to state that the investigation was not about the Patriots but the league There were pages of posts about what is between the lines because he is 'dialed in'. My position was it was his opinion, without inside info. Currans piece led it to seem they were focussed on the Patriots.
Both can be correct, but both interpretations really cannot.
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.
See above. The contradiction is in the conclusion being drawn.
If you are no longer saying Breer's article means the investigation is not about the Patriots, then there is nothing to discuss other than there are a bunch of people throwing hypotheses out there.
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.
We differ. I think Curran's line is implied in virtually every 'sourced' article.
Again, if Curran openly questions the validity of the source's information in the article. It does change the value as a sourced rumor.
see above. We can disagree here, but I think we both agree it is pretty much equal to Florios either way.
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
That is just wrong. I do not insult anyone. (Possibly in retaliation I have)
Condescending is in the eye of the beholder. I do not attempt to be condescending but I put little effort into politeness in a discussion, so maybe it is taken that way, but not intended.
I am sure I have called an argument stupid, if I thought it was. That is not an insult. Calling you stupid, would be, and I have never done that. What you posted early was, and I have never made a comment like that to you. Feel free to find any, but don't waste your time they do not exist.
. 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.
I really do not. Again, I post on topics I feel strongly about.I am not easily swayed on those topics. If disagreeing with your is insulting that is really your issue. If you think being adamant about my opinion and painstakingly responding to why I disagree with the opposite is insulting I'm not sure what to tell you.