Originally Posted by
new city champ
Why is that? You have no specific knowledge that it's made up. That's just an assumption on your part. You have no specific knowledge that there is no source. That's another assumption. And you have no specific knowledge the information is "bull." That's just another assertion.
I don't feel free at all to come here and make stuff up about anything with no source whatsoever. And you have no reason to assert that I do. Like, none. It's just your assertion. Why would anyone bother to do that? What would be the point?
It seems like what you're trying to say is if you don't know the source of the information, you just assume it's untrue and concocted. That's an odd position to take on an internet message board, which is not a hard news site or the paper of record. Publishing hard news is a different operation with different standards, as it should be. Even there just because you can' t confirm information or get independent verification doesn't mean the information is not true or made up. It means it just doesn't meet the standards for publication. I promise you reporters swap unverified information all the time that often leads to hard news. If you want, just consider this board information swapping, which is pretty much all it is.
If someone is posting all kinds of outlandish allegations or claiming super-exclusive inside information--like the Coach Pete guy did (I recall, for example, that "coach pete" claimed to know--for a fact--that the refs were paid to fix the Saints NFC championship game with the Rams), then, yes, question their sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But when people are just passing on second-hand info from someone they know with access, why accuse them of fabrication? That's kind of crazy.