What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

PFT-Did They Cross The Line? (1 Viewer)

It's just so trendy to bash PFT. Meanwhile news sites are reporting the rumor also, and they're not being called irresponsible.
Yes they are. ESPN radio did a long bit on how irresponsible they all were on this.J
Thanks for posting that Joe. Well I guess that removes any argument he has left. Wonder what his defense of them will be now? I just find it amazing that anyone can think this was ok. :wall:
Well, isn't that ironic? I just find it amazing that anyone can think a place that bills itself as the mouthpiece for the talk and rumors around the league wouldn't report what they're hearing.
I think the differnce is the seriousness of what they're reporting. They hear Bradshaw's going to be nude again in Failure to Launch 2? Sure, let it rip.They hear Bradshaw had a semi serious car wreck? Maybe should check first..They hear Bradshaw is dead? FOR SURE better check first.Works for other things. They hear player x has cancer. Do they report?They hear player X is gay. Do they report?I talk about the "you'll know what I know" thing. But when it comes to info that could be very damaging or embarrassing to the person, you have to weigh it out.J
PFT did not report any such thing. They reported that there were rumblings about it. Which, indeed, was correct and factual. Had the PFT headline read "Terry Bradshaw is dead," I'd be on your side. Since they reported the truth and were consistent with what they do, it's a non-issue to me.
Sorry, you're missing the point. When they hear Bradshaw is dead, you don't even report that you heard a rumor he's dead until you know more. When you hear Bradshaw got the part in the new movie, it's ok to report it as a rumor when you don't know.Do you really think they report every single thing they hear?J
Well, we obviously have different expectations and sensibilities about this stuff. I couldn't care less. I think PFT handled it very appropriately, with a quick apology and explanation very quickly. I'd rather they get quick to the story and get it wrong some of the time (regardless of content) than lug along and wait for 100% certainty. We already have that with every other source of NFL news.
 
It's just so trendy to bash PFT. Meanwhile news sites are reporting the rumor also, and they're not being called irresponsible.
Yes they are. ESPN radio did a long bit on how irresponsible they all were on this.J
Thanks for posting that Joe. Well I guess that removes any argument he has left. Wonder what his defense of them will be now? I just find it amazing that anyone can think this was ok. :wall:
Well, isn't that ironic? I just find it amazing that anyone can think a place that bills itself as the mouthpiece for the talk and rumors around the league wouldn't report what they're hearing.
I think the differnce is the seriousness of what they're reporting. They hear Bradshaw's going to be nude again in Failure to Launch 2? Sure, let it rip.They hear Bradshaw had a semi serious car wreck? Maybe should check first..They hear Bradshaw is dead? FOR SURE better check first.Works for other things. They hear player x has cancer. Do they report?They hear player X is gay. Do they report?I talk about the "you'll know what I know" thing. But when it comes to info that could be very damaging or embarrassing to the person, you have to weigh it out.J
PFT did not report any such thing. They reported that there were rumblings about it. Which, indeed, was correct and factual. Had the PFT headline read "Terry Bradshaw is dead," I'd be on your side. Since they reported the truth and were consistent with what they do, it's a non-issue to me.
Sorry, you're missing the point. When they hear Bradshaw is dead, you don't even report that you heard a rumor he's dead until you know more. When you hear Bradshaw got the part in the new movie, it's ok to report it as a rumor when you don't know.Do you really think they report every single thing they hear?J
Well, we obviously have different expectations and sensibilities about this stuff. I couldn't care less. I think PFT handled it very appropriately, with a quick apology and explanation very quickly. I'd rather they get quick to the story and get it wrong some of the time (regardless of content) than lug along and wait for 100% certainty. We already have that with every other source of NFL news.
That's cool. You do understand that PFT is disagreeing with you though on this case, right?J
 
It's just so trendy to bash PFT. Meanwhile news sites are reporting the rumor also, and they're not being called irresponsible.
Yes they are. ESPN radio did a long bit on how irresponsible they all were on this.J
Thanks for posting that Joe. Well I guess that removes any argument he has left. Wonder what his defense of them will be now? I just find it amazing that anyone can think this was ok. :wall:
Well, isn't that ironic? I just find it amazing that anyone can think a place that bills itself as the mouthpiece for the talk and rumors around the league wouldn't report what they're hearing.
I think the differnce is the seriousness of what they're reporting. They hear Bradshaw's going to be nude again in Failure to Launch 2? Sure, let it rip.They hear Bradshaw had a semi serious car wreck? Maybe should check first..They hear Bradshaw is dead? FOR SURE better check first.Works for other things. They hear player x has cancer. Do they report?They hear player X is gay. Do they report?I talk about the "you'll know what I know" thing. But when it comes to info that could be very damaging or embarrassing to the person, you have to weigh it out.J
PFT did not report any such thing. They reported that there were rumblings about it. Which, indeed, was correct and factual. Had the PFT headline read "Terry Bradshaw is dead," I'd be on your side. Since they reported the truth and were consistent with what they do, it's a non-issue to me.
Sorry, you're missing the point. When they hear Bradshaw is dead, you don't even report that you heard a rumor he's dead until you know more. When you hear Bradshaw got the part in the new movie, it's ok to report it as a rumor when you don't know.Do you really think they report every single thing they hear?J
Well, we obviously have different expectations and sensibilities about this stuff. I couldn't care less. I think PFT handled it very appropriately, with a quick apology and explanation very quickly. I'd rather they get quick to the story and get it wrong some of the time (regardless of content) than lug along and wait for 100% certainty. We already have that with every other source of NFL news.
That's cool. You do understand that PFT is disagreeing with you though on this case, right?J
In part. PFT has instituted a rule pertaining to reporting about rumors of someone's death. So be it. I just hope that doesn't filter on down to other areas when they report rumors that are circulating, but for which they don't have independent confirmation just yet.
 
cobalt_27 said:
Joe Bryant said:
cobalt_27 said:
Joe Bryant said:
cobalt_27 said:
Joe Bryant said:
cobalt_27 said:
It's just so trendy to bash PFT.

Meanwhile news sites are reporting the rumor also, and they're not being called irresponsible.
Yes they are. ESPN radio did a long bit on how irresponsible they all were on this.J
Thanks for posting that Joe. Well I guess that removes any argument he has left. Wonder what his defense of them will be now? I just find it amazing that anyone can think this was ok. :kicksrock:
Well, isn't that ironic? I just find it amazing that anyone can think a place that bills itself as the mouthpiece for the talk and rumors around the league wouldn't report what they're hearing.
I think the differnce is the seriousness of what they're reporting. They hear Bradshaw's going to be nude again in Failure to Launch 2? Sure, let it rip.

They hear Bradshaw had a semi serious car wreck? Maybe should check first..

They hear Bradshaw is dead? FOR SURE better check first.

Works for other things. They hear player x has cancer. Do they report?

They hear player X is gay. Do they report?

I talk about the "you'll know what I know" thing. But when it comes to info that could be very damaging or embarrassing to the person, you have to weigh it out.

J
PFT did not report any such thing. They reported that there were rumblings about it. Which, indeed, was correct and factual. Had the PFT headline read "Terry Bradshaw is dead," I'd be on your side. Since they reported the truth and were consistent with what they do, it's a non-issue to me.
Sorry, you're missing the point. When they hear Bradshaw is dead, you don't even report that you heard a rumor he's dead until you know more. When you hear Bradshaw got the part in the new movie, it's ok to report it as a rumor when you don't know.

Do you really think they report every single thing they hear?

J
Well, we obviously have different expectations and sensibilities about this stuff. I couldn't care less. I think PFT handled it very appropriately, with a quick apology and explanation very quickly. I'd rather they get quick to the story and get it wrong some of the time (regardless of content) than lug along and wait for 100% certainty. We already have that with every other source of NFL news.
That's cool. You do understand that PFT is disagreeing with you though on this case, right?J
In part. PFT has instituted a rule pertaining to reporting about rumors of someone's death. So be it. I just hope that doesn't filter on down to other areas when they report rumors that are circulating, but for which they don't have independent confirmation just yet.
In a lot of ways they already have this. When someone (Welbourne?) was contemplating retirement last year, they said they knew about a possible retirement but wouldn't name the player yet (other than the fact that it wasn't Favre). When they found out about the Bush allegations, they wouldn't mention him by name until the yahoo guys came out with the full article.Why this type of self-filtering wasn't applied in the case of a death rumor is very hard to understand, and can't really be defended. The way he posted it was quite unfortunate and hopefully he has learned from it. At least the retraction was quick and apologetic.

 
What if some FBG saw this rumor on PFT and decided to start a thread about it here, using the same language that PFT did. Would that person be under the same kind of scrutiny that PFT is?

 
What if some FBG saw this rumor on PFT and decided to start a thread about it here, using the same language that PFT did. Would that person be under the same kind of scrutiny that PFT is?
If I understand what you're saying, someone sees the rumor at PFT (or somewhere) and starts a thread further spreading the rumor? Then I feel the same way. It's wrong. Where I see the problem with PFT or any others "news/rumor" mill is that they should pause in this situation. You would hope that reporting on ones death would be treated differently than other rumors. I guess it comes down to this: who can you trust to believe? A rumor about a guy being traded is harmless. A runor about being dead? Not so much.And you're correct in questioning if posters have the same repsonsibility. I think we should. I know I wouldn't start or fan a rumor about a FBG poster for any reason. I certainly wouldn't start one about someone being dead. Would you?
 
What if some FBG saw this rumor on PFT and decided to start a thread about it here, using the same language that PFT did. Would that person be under the same kind of scrutiny that PFT is?
If I understand what you're saying, someone sees the rumor at PFT (or somewhere) and starts a thread further spreading the rumor? Then I feel the same way. It's wrong. Where I see the problem with PFT or any others "news/rumor" mill is that they should pause in this situation. You would hope that reporting on ones death would be treated differently than other rumors. I guess it comes down to this: who can you trust to believe? A rumor about a guy being traded is harmless. A runor about being dead? Not so much.And you're correct in questioning if posters have the same repsonsibility. I think we should. I know I wouldn't start or fan a rumor about a FBG poster for any reason. I certainly wouldn't start one about someone being dead. Would you?
I would post something like this:
I'm hearing that PLAYER X just died. :thumbup:Totally unconfirmed, but a couple folks just mentioned this.Is there anyone out there that can verify whether or not this is true?
 
What if some FBG saw this rumor on PFT and decided to start a thread about it here, using the same language that PFT did. Would that person be under the same kind of scrutiny that PFT is?
Hi desp,Of course not. A poster on a message board is very different from a business that operates a news service.J
 
I think there is a difference between someone posting in what amounts to a community like the FBG boards, vs someone who takes upon them self the role of being a broadcaster of information as is PFT. Not that there isn't personal responsibility necessary in both places, but the latter requires more of it.

I would have a problem with Joe sending out a FBG-wide email about an unconfirmed rumor of someone's death, as he is a broadcaster.

I wouldn't have as much a problem with Joe posting here on the board in an attempt to get that confirmation, especially if he tried to get it elsewhere and was unsuccessful, and if he handled it here tactfully and clearly.

 
What if some FBG saw this rumor on PFT and decided to start a thread about it here, using the same language that PFT did. Would that person be under the same kind of scrutiny that PFT is?
Hi desp,Of course not. A poster on a message board is very different from a business that operates a news rumor service.

J
Is it, really?
Yes.J
And you accounted for my "correction" on your post to more properly characterize them as a "rumor" service, not a news service? If you still contend it's different, that's cool. Just want to be sure we're on the same page of the discussion.
 
I think there is a difference between someone posting in what amounts to a community like the FBG boards, vs someone who takes upon them self the role of being a broadcaster of information as is PFT. Not that there isn't personal responsibility necessary in both places, but the latter requires more of it.I would have a problem with Joe sending out a FBG-wide email about an unconfirmed rumor of someone's death, as he is a broadcaster.I wouldn't have as much a problem with Joe posting here on the board in an attempt to get that confirmation, especially if he tried to get it elsewhere and was unsuccessful, and if he handled it here tactfully and clearly.
I would have a problem if Joe did this, as well. I would not have a problem if a poster did this.I would not have a problem if PFT did this.Therefore, it's obvious that I view PFT as more like one of our posters than I see them like Joe.My expectations are different. The FBG brass has established themselves as offering information/news and earn more of my respect and confidence when they "report" it than if a poster or PFT do so. That's not to say posters and PFT doen't provide valuable services, as I think they do. But, my confidence in what they "report" is qualified heavily by the fact that we're dealing with unverified information much of the time.Therefore, I can shrug off the occasional errors by PFT and our posters, whereas I'd be less likely to do so if Joe or the others in the hierarchy did so.That being said, and contrary to popular opinion/shtick, our posters are more right than they are wrong. PFT is more right than wrong. If this wasn't the case, I wouldn't bother with either of them. But, I find value in what they bring that is beyond the scope of what Joe and the FBG.com offer.
 
I think there is a difference between someone posting in what amounts to a community like the FBG boards, vs someone who takes upon them self the role of being a broadcaster of information as is PFT. Not that there isn't personal responsibility necessary in both places, but the latter requires more of it.I would have a problem with Joe sending out a FBG-wide email about an unconfirmed rumor of someone's death, as he is a broadcaster.I wouldn't have as much a problem with Joe posting here on the board in an attempt to get that confirmation, especially if he tried to get it elsewhere and was unsuccessful, and if he handled it here tactfully and clearly.
I would have a problem if Joe did this, as well. I would not have a problem if a poster did this.I would not have a problem if PFT did this.Therefore, it's obvious that I view PFT as more like one of our posters than I see them like Joe.My expectations are different. The FBG brass has established themselves as offering information/news and earn more of my respect and confidence when they "report" it than if a poster or PFT do so. That's not to say posters and PFT doen't provide valuable services, as I think they do. But, my confidence in what they "report" is qualified heavily by the fact that we're dealing with unverified information much of the time.Therefore, I can shrug off the occasional errors by PFT and our posters, whereas I'd be less likely to do so if Joe or the others in the hierarchy did so.That being said, and contrary to popular opinion/shtick, our posters are more right than they are wrong. PFT is more right than wrong. If this wasn't the case, I wouldn't bother with either of them. But, I find value in what they bring that is beyond the scope of what Joe and the FBG.com offer.
Thanks cobalt.I think the difference lies in where you and I see PFT. I see them more like us. You see them not so much like us. That's cool. No worries there. I do see what you're saying.J
 
It is what it is said:
What if some FBG saw this rumor on PFT and decided to start a thread about it here, using the same language that PFT did. Would that person be under the same kind of scrutiny that PFT is?
Hi desp,Of course not. A poster on a message board is very different from a business that operates a news rumor service.

J
Is it, really?
Yes.J
Joe, wouldn't you guys edit their posting in this case? For example, as you guys did when I posted that Parcells was retiring after the playoffs...when you guys added the word "speculation" to the original post.
Hi it is,Yes, we'd edit like you say there in order to more accurate and descriptive.

J

 
I'm not sure PFT qualifies as a "business", except in the legal sense (as an LLC). Florio has a "day job" and, from all accounts, treats PFT as a hobby, not a money-maker.

 
I think there is a difference between someone posting in what amounts to a community like the FBG boards, vs someone who takes upon them self the role of being a broadcaster of information as is PFT. Not that there isn't personal responsibility necessary in both places, but the latter requires more of it.I would have a problem with Joe sending out a FBG-wide email about an unconfirmed rumor of someone's death, as he is a broadcaster.I wouldn't have as much a problem with Joe posting here on the board in an attempt to get that confirmation, especially if he tried to get it elsewhere and was unsuccessful, and if he handled it here tactfully and clearly.
I would have a problem if Joe did this, as well. I would not have a problem if a poster did this.I would not have a problem if PFT did this.Therefore, it's obvious that I view PFT as more like one of our posters than I see them like Joe.My expectations are different. The FBG brass has established themselves as offering information/news and earn more of my respect and confidence when they "report" it than if a poster or PFT do so. That's not to say posters and PFT doen't provide valuable services, as I think they do. But, my confidence in what they "report" is qualified heavily by the fact that we're dealing with unverified information much of the time.Therefore, I can shrug off the occasional errors by PFT and our posters, whereas I'd be less likely to do so if Joe or the others in the hierarchy did so.That being said, and contrary to popular opinion/shtick, our posters are more right than they are wrong. PFT is more right than wrong. If this wasn't the case, I wouldn't bother with either of them. But, I find value in what they bring that is beyond the scope of what Joe and the FBG.com offer.
Thanks cobalt.I think the difference lies in where you and I see PFT. I see them more like us. You see them not so much like us. That's cool. No worries there. I do see what you're saying.J
:coffee: That's exactly how I'd characterize this division. I think others expect "more" coming from PFT than I do. They're in an interesting (and dangerous) position because they present themselves as wearing two different hats much of the time. In the "Buy or Sell" tradition, I'm selling them as a "news" outfit but "buying" them as a rumor mill. But, I understand that the perception (cultivated, I think, by PFT themselves) is that they present "news." And, I think this most recent incident with TB suggests they have a ways to go before reaching that level of respect.
 
Personally, I view EVERYTHING I read on the internet with dubious suspicion. Any jerk-off can build a website and post to it. I don't think we can assume any individual who publishes exclusively on the internet as entirely credible.

PFT told us up-front this was unsubstantiated and I took it as such. I enjoy visiting PFT every day, but I don't hold them in such high regard that my trust in the news business comes under attack when they publish something that doesn't come to pass. Honestly, there are a lot of people who post regularly on this forum that I trust as least as much as I do PFT.

Personally, if PFT reported that my mother died, I think I would call up my dad and see how she was way before I got too panicky. I just can't see how this "story" really impacted too many people's lives in any sort of serious way.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This discussion is still going? I wish there was this level of outrage when real harm was being committed in the world. I do find it outlandish for Cowherd to climb up on a soapbox based on the actual facts of this situation. What a PFT potshot artist [and yes, there is history here]. I totally disagree that the big networks are much better at confirming reports, as a general rule. What a self-serving and totally inaccurate depiction of ESPN. Maybe they feel they are more careful reporting deaths, but PFT was not reporting a death. This was a one time occurrence, which makes it a perfect opening for ESPN to broadcast generalities about their high standards.

In any event, if ESPN wants to debate scruples, what about Mike and Mike rolling with the TO suicide attempt? Was that not a situation where people should be acting with a sense of reverence when facts are unknown? How about Mort speculating that Carson Palmer was so severely injured that he would miss the first 8 weeks of a season? Is the impact to fans and teammates reading this "news" less important than Mort getting his utter guesswork on the market? How about when they report 'rumblings' that this guy is going to lose his job, and he in fact does not? What of situations where they report another guy is going to get a job, and he does not? What about ESPN's speculation that this guy is going to be cut from his team? Do the livelihoods of these men take a backseat to ESPN being first on the scene? Should their families be subjected to these rumors? There are any number of "mistaken reports" that come from ESPN that have untold impacts on the people ESPN leaves in their dust, and their families. But no harm, no foul, because ESPN is just speculating or citing anonymous sources. They're "careful"?

But that's not even the underbelly of ESPN and its high standards. IMHO it goes without saying most of the ESPN stories are being spoonfed to ESPN by biased agents and others who are merely using ESPN to broadcast their version of "news" -- not that ESPN cares, as long as they have an unnamed source and something to go public with. Len Pasquarelli specifically has been cited a zillion times for authoring fluff "news" pieces unmistakably aimed at helping the clients of his agent sources. Furthermore, I can't recount the number of ESPN "news" stories related to drama they themselves instigated to create the news they'd like to report. Over the years this has become a more common occurrence. Last but not least, as for Mr. Cowherd's own media professionalism, this is a guy who has repeatedly ripped off PFT material without attribution. Once he even claimed on air he'd never heard of PFT, despite proof that he'd used their material for on-air discussion.

There are any number of ethical conundrums taking a backseat to ESPN media interests on a daily basis that outweigh PFT's errant "we're hearing unconfirmed rumors" report -- a mistaken report that had an almost immediate correction, explanation and apology mind you.

Let me know next time you hear ESPN apologize for an errant report.

 
BigJim® said:
This discussion is still going? I wish there was this level of outrage when real harm was being committed in the world. I do find it outlandish for Cowherd to climb up on a soapbox based on the actual facts of this situation. What a PFT potshot artist [and yes, there is history here]. I totally disagree that the big networks are much better at confirming reports, as a general rule. What a self-serving and totally inaccurate depiction of ESPN. Maybe they feel they are more careful reporting deaths, but PFT was not reporting a death. This was a one time occurrence, which makes it a perfect opening for ESPN to broadcast generalities about their high standards. In any event, if ESPN wants to debate scruples, what about Mike and Mike rolling with the TO suicide attempt? Was that not a situation where people should be acting with a sense of reverence when facts are unknown? How about Mort speculating that Carson Palmer was so severely injured that he would miss the first 8 weeks of a season? Is the impact to fans and teammates reading this "news" less important than Mort getting his utter guesswork on the market? How about when they report 'rumblings' that this guy is going to lose his job, and he in fact does not? What of situations where they report another guy is going to get a job, and he does not? What about ESPN's speculation that this guy is going to be cut from his team? Do the livelihoods of these men take a backseat to ESPN being first on the scene? Should their families be subjected to these rumors? There are any number of "mistaken reports" that come from ESPN that have untold impacts on the people ESPN leaves in their dust, and their families. But no harm, no foul, because ESPN is just speculating or citing anonymous sources. They're "careful"? But that's not even the underbelly of ESPN and its high standards. IMHO it goes without saying most of the ESPN stories are being spoonfed to ESPN by biased agents and others who are merely using ESPN to broadcast their version of "news" -- not that ESPN cares, as long as they have an unnamed source and something to go public with. Len Pasquarelli specifically has been cited a zillion times for authoring fluff "news" pieces unmistakably aimed at helping the clients of his agent sources. Furthermore, I can't recount the number of ESPN "news" stories related to drama they themselves instigated to create the news they'd like to report. Over the years this has become a more common occurrence. Last but not least, as for Mr. Cowherd's own media professionalism, this is a guy who has repeatedly ripped off PFT material without attribution. Once he even claimed on air he'd never heard of PFT, despite proof that he'd used their material for on-air discussion.There are any number of ethical conundrums taking a backseat to ESPN media interests on a daily basis that outweigh a the errant "we're hearing unconfirmed rumors" PFT report -- a mistaken report that had an almost immediate correction, explanation and apology mind you. Let me know next time you hear ESPN apologize for an errant report.
:bag: The TO suicide issue is a perfect illustration as to why the talking heads at ESPN have absolutely no moral ground to stand on and bash PFT. This was equally, if not more, damning than the 20 minutes it was thought TB might be dead.Another recent incident where the "news" media totally ran with the story before absorbing all the facts was the Vick-marijuana-airport fiasco. ESPN got it all wrong and didn't do appropriate fact-checking here, either.That doesn't address, specifically, what PFT did with the Bradshaw rumors. One can be of the opinion that all of these were in the wrong. But, it certainly leaves little room for the Dan Patricks and Colin Cowherds to speak of their journalistic integrity when they, themselves, are guilty or running with rumors before doing the research to check it out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My point was, when i read it, i read

TERRY BRADSHAW DEAD?We're picking up some unconfirmed reports from diverse sources that Hall of Fame quarterback Terry Bradshaw died in a car accident on Thursday.We don't know whether it's true, and if it is true the world would suddenly be a far less enjoyable place. If anyone knows about this, please drop us a line.And Terry, if you're out there, let us know you're okay."
OK they said they've heard about this, but cant confirm it, arent saying its true, and are looking for someone to give them more information. And PFT isnt ESPN, its not a national news/sports outlet. Either way, this is a big deal in the world of the media for being first.But, It seems to me many people read this
TERRY BRADSHAW DEAD!Confirmed reports from diverse sources that Hall of Fame quarterback Terry Bradshaw died in a car accident on Thursday.We know it's true, and the world is suddenly be a far less enjoyable place.
I might have added another sentence again saying "unconfirmed and rumor', but i dont think its that out of line considering what other media outlets print every week.
 
Thanks cobalt.I think the difference lies in where you and I see PFT. I see them more like us. You see them not so much like us. That's cool. No worries there. I do see what you're saying.J
I see FBG and PFT quite differently, Joe. FBG is several things. The Blogger is always the first place on the site I read. It's like Ben Maller's site ---- recent news stories from all over. FBG also has tons of player profiles, performance logs, projections, in-depth writeups of games and players, tools, and live rankings. I'm not sure where else you'd find all that. The guts of FBG are the message boards, though. This is the only place to find this quality of intelligent discussion of NFL football and of fantasy football, and everything related. One of the ongoing, but infrequent, parts of the discussions here are rumors that break here. We pay great attention to those, and it takes time to find out if they're really true or not. The rumors are not hung out like news articles --- they're openly discussed and debated. Some end up happening, some do not. Most are posted in good faith.PFT has more rumors then FBG has in the message boards. Rumors are early news or early mistakes. Just like on the boards here, you can't tell which is which right away at PFT. I find the rumors helpful in that they're an early heads-up --- whenever "it" happens I was already forewarned and ready (to accept a trade for example), and whenever "it" doesn't happen I've lost nothing. Where PFT falls short, necessarily, it that they just post the rumors and stories. There's no discussion. That's what FBG is for. You can read more intelligent discussion here than anywhere.Maller = newsPFT = rumorsFBG = some news, some rumors, lots of discussion
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top