We could all say we knew first and kept it to ourselves. That's just a petty argument. If you know it's true or untrue, why give a **** what others say? There are only a handful of places information can come from, most of it's about when to post it without dropping the club or the source in the ****. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
I think the original argument was that they are saying they reported it first. If they told you some weeks before or knew but kept it to themselves, then that isn't particularly relevant other than to provide some substance to their claims that they have sources. Strovo is pointing out they weren't the first to report it, despite their claims that they were, and suggested that they had no sources other than trawling the internet, which to be fair they haven't shown anything to suggest otherwise. Given the reasonably irritating regularity that they claimed to be the first to break most news when it wasn't factually true, I think it was fair for Strovo to challenge them on it.
when you've been reading these boards 606, CI, not606 for years & don't have your own sources - like me, it becomes clear who knows stuff, but the point is NOBODY can ever be 100% correct as things change.. it doesn't mean they or their source is a liar or an attention seeker afterall nobody makes any money from it.. besides part of the fun is the uncertainty and the breaking news..
No, I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill. I don't like it, and I will challenge it, when some kunt claims to have put some information out there first in order to cynically seek to improve their circulation and popularity (as has been proven to be the case with City Independent) when that is a lie. You are biased because you have been a pillar of that messageboard for years. If it were anywhere else in your community, like for example your much vaunted Hull Daily Mail reporting of football violence as against rugby violence, you would be among the first challenging the lie. Be more impartial.
I knew you were in for a new bike a few weeks ago Dutch, but not a word passed my lips on here. No need to big myself up.
You telling someone to be impartial. Is that the dictionary definition of irony? Challenge away, but don't be surprised to find people don't give your opinion much credibility. I, as you claim, you know stuff, post it. It's easy to claim news after the event.
Inadvertently it seems you have finally got the point! As for people on CI not giving credibility to my point, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest as the vast majority on there are sycophantic sheep, incapable of independent thought.
Was i passing that bike shop in town or checking with my informant in there?? Cliff Pratt's Ken Ellerkers Steve's Secknd Hand cycles on Chants. I've got you covered Dutch. Oh and give Strov a brake.
No way, we've all woken up at the crack of Dawn. She's done her bit. What about deciding it over a red hot Ruby Murray?
It was much easier in recent years to source info. All you had to do was bug Willie McKay. Unfortunately you still couldn't get a scoop as Duffen and Brown put it in the public domain before you had a chance!!!
He must have been gone about 8 years or more now. Funnily enough he went quite close to Leicester. Whatever else he was, he ran a decent pub to be fair.
In defence of CI, when releasing information which HAS been told to you by a reliable source/contact, it's impossible for some people to believe you. Especially if it doesn't happen. The thing is, you can be told info and it maybe stalls i.e. signing a player, but then they couldn't agree personal terms, so it doesn't happen. Even if you end up telling the right info, it's bloody hard to convince anybody that you have a reliable source.
