Yeah? So how will this be such a convincing factor to trust the OP? "been here since 2006, and posted almost 4000 times."
He's off the trading table and on the surgery table. If DMo's back surgery was similar in nature, we'll have a better idea of Dekker's recovery and ability to play based on DMo's outcome (hopefully).
This is a Rockets forum, not a logic forum, so I would rather not get into it here...but I will humor you briefly. Original comment, in part, by Newlin: (emphasis added) Your subsequent response: Problem #1: It completely misses Newlin's point. He was not stating that the age of OP somehow gave him more credibility, nor is he discussing OP's profession. Newlin's point was that a poster with a history on this site suggests that he is a part of this community, or more correctly, actively engages to be a part of this community. Such posters care more about their reputations online (whatever it may be), and probably even the CF community as a whole. A poster with 4000 posts since 2006 proves that it is not some new account made overnight to troll individuals. What that has to do with Bill Cosby's age is beyond me. Problem #2: You default to extremes. Newlin was not arguing that OP is somehow infallible, or that OP is 100% credible. His argument was to lend credence as to why it seems more likely than not that OP is not simply trolling/lying to us all for laughs. It would indeed be strange for a poster that does not have a reputation or history of being a major troll, who has spent the time and effort to remain a part of the CF community, to somehow suddenly start trolling the boards. We all have a reputation (for better or for worse) on these boards based on our post history; some more than others (generally those that post more), such as JR or bballholic or, even to some extent, you. Is it impossible that OP would start trolling us now, after 9 yrs and 4000 posts? Certainly not, but it does seem "strange", and in my words, improbable. That's all Newlin stated. But you instead set up strawmen arguments, suggesting that Newlin was implying that anyone who disagrees with OP must be a "f**king liar". You can't take someone's qualified statements and then compare it to a much more extreme version. I mean, you can since you clearly just did, but it is in poor taste (as far as logic or convincing arguments go).
Well, first of all, let me make it clear that I am not interested to know if the OP is telling the truth or not , and don't care at all if he is Woj or just another Chris Broussard wannabe. Hence I was not participated in any of this discussion. I just found the logic of "he can be trusted because he was and old member and posted a lots" being laughable. The difference between Woj and Chris Broussard is not because whom had posted more tweets nor whom has been working in the NBA longer. But then again, this is the land of the free, you can believe whatever you like.
I'm certain that Morrey is well aware about cyber's leaks and knows who he is. However I don't think he can control everything. lol
What's laughable about that notion? It makes complete sense, for reasons I stated in my lengthier post. Being a member who has posted a lot and does not have a troll reputation on this site (the posts weigh more heavily than his join date) absolutely adds to credibility. Again, please don't confuse Newlin's (or even my) endorsement of OP as iron-clad; it is simply a positive in his favor that, absent other reasons against it, would help weigh in the direction of veracity. And the difference between Woj and Broussard is actually their reputation, but that reputation is absolutely based on their history of past tweets. If Woj had accurate (but not earth shattering) tweets, yet only 3 of them, then comes out with a shady scoop with his 4th post, his credibility would be questioned. If Broussard had tweeted thousands of times over the yrs with random nba comments (scoop or not related) and was not known as the troll that he actually is, and then he came up with this "scoop", then I'd be more inclined to believe him. Also note that we are not judging whether OP is right about Dekker's need for back surgery, simply that he heard his source say it in the manner in which he posted in the original post. Whether the source lied or has bad info, that's a whole 'nother ball game. Finally, in really any land, free or not, one can believe what he wants (probably just can't say it everywhere), but I think America today too often confuses "opinions" with "truths". People can absolutely believe incorrect things and be wrong, as entitled as they are to continue believing them. Still makes them wrong.
If you can understand the difference between Woj and Broussard, then it won't be hard for you to understand below. If a new user only registered in this site last week and made his first post last week saying : Sources : The Rockets is going to sign Marcus Thornton. Many people could see him as a troll and laugh at him, which is totally normal. But then today if this guy is going to post again : Source : The Rockets is going to sign XXX. There will be a large amount of posters here will believe in him. And this has nothing to do with his register date nor his posting record, which will be 2. Now, if you can share out of those 4000 posts that the OP made will have any example that can be convincing as the above mentioned, I think your point will be more valid.
I noticed that you tend to shy away from posts the attempt to educate you. Not recommended, but I guess it is a free country.
Just saw he is possibly paralyzed so they might need to amputate his back. This doesn't look good IMO.
I think pwnyxpress has an excellent point, one I made myself in the cybrex thread when Plowman first made what he described as some posts based on what he was told by people who had access to "inside" information. The guy had been here over a decade and I could not recall him ever making such a post at all, much less make one as a joke or as a troll. I was (and am) willing to give him the benefit of the doubt based on his long posting history and his reputation. Given that such information, if true coming from his source, didn't pan out doesn't mean that he didn't post information from what he felt was a reliable source. Circumstances change. What can be true one day can change simply because an organization decided to go in a different direction for a whole host of reasons. Why take the risk of tossing away many years of respectability at a BBS you clearly care about on a whim? Does that mean that the OP here, or Plowman then didn't pull the info out of thin air? No, it doesn't. It just makes it more unlikely that that's the case. You can laugh about that if you wish, and I could care less if you do. We all have to make our own judgements about posts of this nature. Personally, I really, really hope that Dekker has a minor back injury. Those are not unusual, and more often than not, taken care of with rest and some physical therapy. I'm inclined to believe that Dekker's back injury is minor, because of the lack of information, and because it's what I want to be true. Having said that, what I think of a member isn't bound by how long he/she has been here, but what I've read from them in that past and how long they've been here is always a factor I take into consideration.
There's no reason to trust OP as a source unless Dekker actually needs back surgery. Pretty simple. The reports of Dekker having a sore back came out before this rumor so it's reasonable speculation to say "he may need back surgery." Can't really be disproved.
only reason i kinda believe OP is because of DMO we all thought he'd be back (no pun intended) and out of nowhere he needed surgery and was out for the season
Why not? i dont think he's lying about what he heard or was told...but i do think the message changed a bit like a game of telephone. McHale probably texted something like, we're hoping he doesn't need surgery, and the other guy changed it up.
I can definitely see that. Saying I heard X who heard X from this other direct source, doesn't necessarily mean I will automatically believe X is true. But I do believe OP's circumstance at least.
