N'kosi - The New Guy at work that thinks he knows better

[TexasCane90]

Side bar question: Where did Eason end up anyways?

Washington If I remember correctly

 

[moshated305]

Careful if u talk bad about kosi u risk having thread deleted by mods.

CIS or CNN? U make the call

It makes the site look bad. This place is a cesspool. A lot of BS posted on these boards it's no wonder no one takes this place seriously. But I guess if you guys want to sit around and discuss every BS rumor and believe every wannabe insider then carry on.

 

[1mg of Epi]

Recently there was a thread on a new name for the site... now I'm thinking CanesUnSight might work?

I'm sorry for harping on this, but I really despise censorship.

I hate getting political, but I think its one of the most Un-American things you can do.

With the PC culture running rampant, and 'free speech zones' in cities, I cannot stand censorship.

Say what you mean, mean what you say.

Even if you say something I totally disagree with, at least I can can respect you in the fact that you are unafraid to say how you feel.

/end rant, carry on.

Honestly, if getting suspended doesn't work, and if the rumors are true that he doesn't want to improve his craft, freelances his way into interceptions, refusing to listen to coaches, I see no reason why he should be here.

He reminds me of the Jeff George recruitment. Prima Donna.

theres a difference between allowing differing opinions, and allowing obvious lies.

 

[jkdood]

theres a difference between allowing differing opinions, and allowing obvious lies.

To be fair, this is not an "easy" topic. Controversial to be sure. Look at news sources, especially these days. Used to be a mainstream reporting (before social media reporting mega-bloomed) would require 2 confirmed identified sources perhaps. Now one anon will do for some. Some say well if you say "unconfirmed source" or "reported by xyz" it's OK; others say wait and check.

And different rules for different topics; rape, trump, politics, FOOTBALL! I think we should be able to say "247 has a post saying blah blah" or even "an ex-player told me that blah blah". And somehow get the credibility (past reveals) out there to help judge it. But if someone (CIS?) has/wants different standards, I'm actually sorta OK with that, although disappointed.

 

[1mg of Epi]

To be fair, this is not an "easy" topic. Controversial to be sure. Look at news sources, especially these days. Used to be a mainstream reporting (before social media reporting mega-bloomed) would require 2 confirmed identified sources perhaps. Now one anon will do for some. Some say well if you say "unconfirmed source" or "reported by xyz" it's OK; others say wait and check.

And different rules for different topics; rape, trump, politics, FOOTBALL! I think we should be able to say "247 has a post saying blah blah" or even "an ex-player told me that blah blah". And somehow get the credibility (past reveals) out there to help judge it. But if someone (CIS?) has/wants different standards, I'm actually sorta OK with that, although disappointed.

Yea it is a tough decision on a board like this... a poster with a solid history on the board posts some news, I’d probably let that slide. At least moreso than someone w 6 posts.