Fatters: Peterman Is Burning Bridges And F3 Feels Duped But That Isn't What He Meant You Cretins

Here's gem from the comment thread:

And again - you may want to keep your assumptions to yourself regarding any motivation I had in this piece. I wrote about what I saw, and generally about what I've seen go on in spring and fall. This is my opinion based on what I've seen, nothing more - and definitely wasn't motivated by any agenda off the field. This was about Saturday's game, and honestly it's pretty innocuous stuff. Anyone who thinks this was driven by personal animosity or something else toward the UW staff is frankly peeing in the wind.

It's easy to assume - just like people assumed something very specific about the title of the story. Assuming things is typically a bad idea, and I'd caution you to steer clear of that around here - especially when you're also throwing out accusations of not just our relationship with one staff, but with two staffs. That's really not your business. But I'll will give you kudos for this: I like the revisionist take on the notion that we were the ones bringing up concerns over Petersen's recruiting in the Pac-12 - as if that was an original thought. Thanks! I guess we get credit for that, so that's something.

cfetters wrote: Apparently according to some there's no bridges to be burned because we don't get access to anything anyway

W, JW.

For the questioning yesterday of why I wrote what I wrote, the comments in that thread by Fetters and Kim Jong Vino are exactly the reason. They'll spend their entire time deflecting, distracting, blaming others, and saying that what we meant to say is being lost for other reasons and that it just quite frankly isn't their fault (cue Robin Williams RIP).

But it is their fucking fault. As Fetters ADMITS, his title was designed to draw attention. There wasn't a lot of truth in it at all and there's very clearly not a direct link between burning bridges and the article. Normally, burning bridges is a phrase used to talk about personal relationships. But since Fetters never clarifies what he's referencing, it allows him to retrospectively make claims as to who or what is driving the burnt bridges.

The part where Fetters talks about that he's writing an opinion piece, etc. and all that went around that just goes to show what a shoddy "journalist" Fetters is as he gets called out for what a journalist actually is. It is an Exhibit A as to why the fact that they have a sounding board mouthpiece to talk about the program is so dangerous.

Finally, the absolute worst part of reading all of that was the classical "there's things that we're hearing that we can't talk about so we infer, etc" and "we're right more often than we're not." We know for a fact that the last part of that isn't true at least 81% of the time. However, the first part shows how truly bad of a journalist that they are. If they have a source feeding them actual information, then the "real" journalist action is to say "from an unnamed source" and run with your comments then. It provides credibility to what you're saying. Instead, they continually hide behind "what we're hearing" ... which never turns out to be true.

Unsurprisingly, their comments make the original comments even worse.