Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Fatters: Peterman Is Burning Bridges And F3 Feels Duped But That Isn't What He Meant You Cretins
BiggusDickus
Member Posts: 553
http://northwestfootballfucktards.wordpress.com/2014/09/08/fatters-pete-is-burning-bridges-and-i-feel-duped-but-that-isnt-what-i-mean-you-cretins/
He's "already having to ban people (paying customers) because they can't attack what is said without attacking the messenger." Poor fella. Maybe some nachos or some nice teenage boy hip swivel will cheer him up
He's "already having to ban people (paying customers) because they can't attack what is said without attacking the messenger." Poor fella. Maybe some nachos or some nice teenage boy hip swivel will cheer him up
Comments
Which brings up the obvious question: Why do they have press credentials?
FTFY
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.
::shudders::
Who can tell you you're just pissing in the wind