Fetters getting smacked around by former Ballard HS coach
" />
" />
" /> Comments
-
-
As for Bryan Bdub, it's possible for him to care less if a kid plays at Bellevue.
-
Looks like your friend needs to charge his phone.DerekJohnson said:These came from a friend of mine; I haven't seen the rest of this thread.
" />" />" /> -
And that Derek needs to learn how to post pics w/o the image and " /> things everywhere.TommySQC said:
Looks like your friend needs to charge his phone.DerekJohnson said:These came from a friend of mine; I haven't seen the rest of this thread.
" />" />" /> -
Looks like I had a relapsewhatshouldicareabout said:
And that Derek needs to learn how to post pics w/o the image and " /> things everywhere.TommySQC said:
Looks like your friend needs to charge his phone.DerekJohnson said:These came from a friend of mine; I haven't seen the rest of this thread.
" />" />" /> -
Fetters posted that 11 page "response" by a Bellevue assistant coach that reads like a 6th grader's essay where the requirement was 11 pages. Fetters posted something like "now what do you guys think".
The funny thing is, more posters sided against the dawgman company line after he posted it, including this little tidbit.
Poster A (Bellevue player):Also ask yourself this--What do Kim, Chris and Scott have to gain by standing up for Bellevue in this Seattle Times onslaught?
Poster B: I would get banned for stating the reason. I was banned last week for it.
and also this:
Poster C: I don't care if a majority of people "want Bellevue to fall no matter what" (nor do I care enough to argue the legitimacy of that sweeping statement of yours). I'm not one of them, and I have no axe to grind with Bellevue. But these are very serious allegations coming from a very prominent newspaper. You and the Dawgman staff are fighting tooth and nail to try to convince people to disregard everything that is being reported, but most reasonable people are not so easily convinced.
As for your question of what do the Dawgman staff here have to gain by defending Bellevue? That's quite easy to determine. Their ability to get access to high school athletes and programs is an integral driver of their revenue; subscriptions from members who want reports on those athletes and programs. Bellevue just so happens to be the most successful program in the state with the highest number of high profile college football recruits. Not only do the staff have relationships with the people being accused of wrongdoings, but they also want to continue to building those relationships and continue to get better access to the players and coaches. The self interests here are not hard to identify, and I'm sure the folks at Bellevue are going to be grateful for the defense the Dawgman staff has mounted for them, whether it's justified or not. -
your fren is on the sauce, hard
-
I don't really agree. I think you are making a $10 argument for a 10 cent problem. They know the Bellevue guys and the Bellevue guys were nice to them over the years; they look up to the BHS guys. It's not really about business, it's just about validation.bananasnblondes said:Fetters posted that 11 page "response" by a Bellevue assistant coach that reads like a 6th grader's essay where the requirement was 11 pages. Fetters posted something like "now what do you guys think".
The funny thing is, more posters sided against the dawgman company line after he posted it, including this little tidbit.
Poster A (Bellevue player):Also ask yourself this--What do Kim, Chris and Scott have to gain by standing up for Bellevue in this Seattle Times onslaught?
Poster B: I would get banned for stating the reason. I was banned last week for it.
and also this:
Poster C: I don't care if a majority of people "want Bellevue to fall no matter what" (nor do I care enough to argue the legitimacy of that sweeping statement of yours). I'm not one of them, and I have no axe to grind with Bellevue. But these are very serious allegations coming from a very prominent newspaper. You and the Dawgman staff are fighting tooth and nail to try to convince people to disregard everything that is being reported, but most reasonable people are not so easily convinced.
As for your question of what do the Dawgman staff here have to gain by defending Bellevue? That's quite easy to determine. Their ability to get access to high school athletes and programs is an integral driver of their revenue; subscriptions from members who want reports on those athletes and programs. Bellevue just so happens to be the most successful program in the state with the highest number of high profile college football recruits. Not only do the staff have relationships with the people being accused of wrongdoings, but they also want to continue to building those relationships and continue to get better access to the players and coaches. The self interests here are not hard to identify, and I'm sure the folks at Bellevue are going to be grateful for the defense the Dawgman staff has mounted for them, whether it's justified or not.
If they were that shrewd about business, HH wouldn't have existed in the first place and dm.c would be amazing.
Bellevue can't tell them anything they won't already know. They don't need BHS for anything at all. Everyone knows everything within 2 minutes of it happening now anyways. They aren't really shrewdly self-interested in the business sense; they're just defending people that were nice to them for no reason beyond that. -
Flagged for giving Doogman way too much credit.Dennis_DeYoung said:
I don't really agree. I think you are making a $10 argument for a 10 cent problem. They know the Bellevue guys and the Bellevue guys were nice to them over the years; they look up to the BHS guys. It's not really about business, it's just about validation.bananasnblondes said:Fetters posted that 11 page "response" by a Bellevue assistant coach that reads like a 6th grader's essay where the requirement was 11 pages. Fetters posted something like "now what do you guys think".
The funny thing is, more posters sided against the dawgman company line after he posted it, including this little tidbit.
Poster A (Bellevue player):Also ask yourself this--What do Kim, Chris and Scott have to gain by standing up for Bellevue in this Seattle Times onslaught?
Poster B: I would get banned for stating the reason. I was banned last week for it.
and also this:
Poster C: I don't care if a majority of people "want Bellevue to fall no matter what" (nor do I care enough to argue the legitimacy of that sweeping statement of yours). I'm not one of them, and I have no axe to grind with Bellevue. But these are very serious allegations coming from a very prominent newspaper. You and the Dawgman staff are fighting tooth and nail to try to convince people to disregard everything that is being reported, but most reasonable people are not so easily convinced.
As for your question of what do the Dawgman staff here have to gain by defending Bellevue? That's quite easy to determine. Their ability to get access to high school athletes and programs is an integral driver of their revenue; subscriptions from members who want reports on those athletes and programs. Bellevue just so happens to be the most successful program in the state with the highest number of high profile college football recruits. Not only do the staff have relationships with the people being accused of wrongdoings, but they also want to continue to building those relationships and continue to get better access to the players and coaches. The self interests here are not hard to identify, and I'm sure the folks at Bellevue are going to be grateful for the defense the Dawgman staff has mounted for them, whether it's justified or not.
If they were that shrewd about business, HH wouldn't have existed in the first place and dm.c would be amazing.
Bellevue can't tell them anything they won't already know. They don't need BHS for anything at all. Everyone knows everything within 2 minutes of it happening now anyways. They aren't really shrewdly self-interested in the business sense; they're just defending people that were nice to them for no reason beyond that. -
Any time you reference JCDuck and cite his integrity (keep in mind that this is the same individual that once sent me his phone number so that we could rumble over the phone) as a comp against anybody, notably the Lemon Party, that's when you know you should re-evaluate your position.
