Motion to ban PFT reports from the main forum.

[Jimmy James]

And for you, or anyone else, to tell me what I can or cannot read is a form of just that.

Move them to the smack forum

Where do you get that anybody is suggesting we want to tell you what you can or cannot read? We are expressing our preferences about what passes here just as you're expressing yours. I note that you didn't address the "censorship" already present in this forum. Could that be because there isn't a rational way to accept some intermediate level of content discrimination and argue against more or less of it?

But to say that PFT shouldn't be in here because you don't like what is said, well that grasshopper, is (as you say) ludicrous.

I clearly said that my problem isn't with the content -- it's with the lack of authority. I have no problem with PFT reports that cite specific named sources. Anything less from a site such as PFT amounts to writing on a scrap of paper blowing down the street.

(Edited to make it a bit less confrontational)

 

[Iryman]

LOL @ Jimmy James - how could we now know that you was a lawyer befor that occupation thread cosidering how much you love to debate on the boards!!!!!! LOL

 

[LIQUID24]

Seems like an argument for the sake of an argument :D

 

[Jimmy James]

LOL @ Jimmy James - how could we now know that you was a lawyer befor that occupation thread cosidering how much you love to debate on the boards!!!!!! LOL

I just want it to be clear that I'm a law student and not a lawyer. I am in no way competant to give legal advice, so nothing I say should be considered legal advice. You should also never trust anything you just read from a stranger on the Internet no matter what he says his expertise is.

That has nothing to do with your point, but I feel it is important to note this so there is no confusion.

Another question: do I argue like this too much? Perhaps I should tone it down just a notch or two.

 

[Jimmy James]

Seems like an argument for the sake of an argument :D

I think that's probably a fair criticism. I get a bit fired up when it is implied I encourage censorship, and maybe I shouldn't be so worried about things like that here. To pull in something from the Eli Manning brain thread, I am an INTJ -- I do sometimes lose the forest for the trees when I deal with other people.

 

[LIQUID24]

I think that's probably a fair criticism. I get a bit fired up when it is implied I encourage censorship, and maybe I shouldn't be so worried about things like that here. To pull in something from the Eli Manning brain thread, I am an INTJ -- I do sometimes lose the forest for the trees when I deal with other people.

It wasn't really criticism as much as an observation.
I've never seen anyone get into as many heated arguments as you JJ . I think you carry yourself pretty well and I agree with you most of the time. Most of the time :D

 

[Iryman]

Another question: do I argue like this too much? Perhaps I should tone it down just a notch or two.

Hell no. Don't tone a thing down. Personally i really like what you have to say. Prob cause i tend to agree with a lot of your points. But no toning down!!!!!!! These forums are all about debating. I guess i should have said practicing law instead of laywer. would that be correct. LOL

 

[Jimmy James]

Nah -- I can't practice law, pretend to practice law, or anything of the type until I finish school, pass the bar exam, and get admitted to the state bar. If I do, I may find myself facing criminal charges and disciplinary action from the bar that would prevent me from ever becoming a lawyer.

That's why I try to be cautious about making sure people know that they can't rely on anything I say from any kind of legal perspective -- the people who run this profession have no sense of humor about this topic.

 

[xiidaen]

PFT doesn't bother me - you know where it's from and react accordingly. If you like them, listen. If not, don't. Or take the middle line and accept it with a grain of salt. I do belive, for example they (or the precursor) was one of the first sites reporting the Gardener release, something I found hard to believe at the time.

I'd much rather ban the 'Wanny is a #@$%#$^' type posts (especially where that's all they say) and move the Fiedler debates back to the Fiedler forum. But now that the bandwagons have died down, what does that leave us? :)

 

[relive1972]

Why stop at PFT? Let's go ahead and ban every source who was either wrong or has something negative to say about Miami.

Be pretty boring around here once that happens.

PFT's articles are rumors. Take any rumor with a grain of salt.

 

[plc001]

Why stop at PFT? Let's go ahead and ban every source who was either wrong or has something negative to say about Miami.

Be pretty boring around here once that happens.

PFT's articles are rumors. Take any rumor with a grain of salt.

Exactly. You ban PFT on the main forum its an awefully gray area you start to step into. All news sources print retractions. PFT probably has to do that a little more frequently, but where do you draw the line? I say leave it the way it is.

 

[P4E]

I'm surprised PFT "presented by the National Enquirer" hasn't made a report of Dave Wannstedt is having Jay Fiedler's illegitimate lovechild.

There's no such thing as an illegitimate child.

 

[ZOD]

*sniff, sniff*

:escape:

 

[Mebeverine]

Simple solution: any reports from PFT must have "PFT" at the beginning.

Example:

NO = "RICKY WILLIAMS RUNNING PROBLEMS ARE DUE TO AMPUTATED LEG"
YES = "PFT: RICKY WILLIAMS RUNNING PROBLEMS..."