End of Saban/Herald/Radio story

Commissioner's party. Friday night. Plenty of witnesses, if you need 'em.

I sent you the PM sometime Saturday, though it may have been late Saturday night/early Sunday morning.

 

Are you still here?

The time stamp says it came through after 4 a.m. my time on Sunday. That would be after 7 a.m. where you are.

Now go finish your bedtime routine by beating off to your portfolio.

 

I know all the players involved.

Blondebomber, whoever it is, didn't hear a thing from the sports editor or managing editor. Both are serious professionals who don't spread gossip. Complete fabrication by "bomber." Case closed.

 

Wow. My blatant guesswork must have included enough truth to generate such vehement rebuttals. Anything so "completely fabricated" certainly would have been laughed off on the last thread and never even brought up here ... Or one would think. And, for the record, ejs came onto this thread and brought it up. Tell Tami I said hello.

 

Pilot: You're right, at this point. I felt the false information needed to be cleared up publicly. The pissing match should be conducted in private.

Of course, as I was sending you this msg, I saw that blonde had to resort to the "beating off to your portfolio" line. I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I'm only telling you that I was involved in the process to provide a time element, and show that I have some idea what I'm talking about here.

As for the times of the PMs, blonde's response to my PM came in at 11:30 a.m. on 2/3/07, according to my computer. So that's Saturday. Maybe there's a glitch somewhere, but this is just getting stupid.

 

Whatever, man. I was being sarcastic. I know what I was told and by whom. Heraldchick knows everybody involved and they would never say those things ... I'll bet a week ago she would have said she knew Jeff Darlington and that he would never share off-the-record tapes with the competition.

 

In your rdefense, you never said WHERE the SE in question works. . . .

 

last night as in the previous night. what's the difference?

seriously, what's your issue with Jeff? you seem to have a personal problem with him of some sort. did he beat you out for a job?

if you want to criticize what he did in this particular situation, again, that's your right.

but there was no reason to try to kill his character with your "revelation" in the first place, even if it had been accurate. it added nothing to the discussion about off-the-record conversations.

 

Unless you're on a Super Bowl bender, I would think that come 7:02 a.m. Sunday in Florida (4:02 a.m. my time), "last night" would be considered Saturday.

As for whether what I said deserved to be included in the conversation, we can disagree. But while I shared the info I had, you turned into an ongoing discussion. I'm sure Jeff appreciates that favor just as much.

 

And I don't have an issue with Jeff. Again, I was just sharing inside info. But I do have an issue with you. Whereas I used to see a byline that usually meant a decent read, I now see a petulant, condescending dufus.

Take a seat next to Jemelle and Gregg (sorry if I slipped up on all those double-consonants).

 

Actually, I was on a Super Bowl bender, not that I'm proud of that. (Though I wasn't awake at 7 a.m. Sunday, so I'm still questioning that stamp).

I turned this into a discussion to clear it up.

I've gotten accused of enough things that I haven't done, and it sucks. I'm not comfortable letting false information sit out there about friends of mine.

You call that petulant and condescending, that's fine. Call me a "dufus," that's fine, too.

You were sharing inside info... and essentially sharing the identities of those who allegedly gave you the info. So you put them out on the line too and, considering the respect I have for them, I don't like that either.

As for whether you'll read me anymore, I guess I'll have to live with that.... since I don't even know who you are.