Okay... where to begin... went shopping and there were tons of responses while gone... so here goes:
RM: "Your argument about the $25,000 is, as I’ve stated here before, a canard. Paying any old scouting service $25,000 wouldn’t be a big deal."
SDR: That is actually my ONLY point about this... when it was first revealed, as I have previously stated, many articles referred tot eh payment as "excessive" and that the amount itself raised a caution flag. That part has since been proven a myth...
RM: "Paying the scouting service RUN BY WILLIE LYLES, specifically, raised a red flag. You’re continuing to ignore the nuance of that point, and you’re smarter than that, so i can’t figure out why. "
SDR: I have not ignored this point. I clearly state everywhere I talk about it that Will Lyles did not give Oregon $25,000 worth of information; nor did he give LSU $6000 worth of info; nor did he give Cal $5000 worth of info.
RM: "And the “Oregon is guilty” point made by some is another point you’re willfully oversimplifying. As I stated in my blog post, the evidence that suggests POTENTIAL wrongdoing by Oregon in the Lyles case goes well beyond his influence on Seastrunk."
SDR: This statement was not about you; it was about guys like Doyel, who, even you agree, has a very extreme position.
RM: "By claiming that A) it has only to do with Seastrunk, and that B) you’ve totally debunked the idea Lyles had ANY influence on Seastrunk at all,"
SDR: I never said he had no influence, what I said was: (Direct Quote from story)
"What it all boils down, the influence of Will Lyles, while real, was nowhere near as powerful as many have suggested."
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To those wondering why I took the debate here, it is simple. I put in a LOT of time and effort on my articles yet, somehow, the relevance of where they originated is being overlooked.
ReplyDeleteThis story is mine and DSA's, the relevance of that fact and the debate concerning this article should be held here and on DSA... others are more than welcome to share their opinions elsewhere, but I will only state my opinions here (and DSA) from this point forward!
And, FYI, I am not "hung up" on any aspect of this story other than it was misreported from the beginning and I am working to dispel that problem
ReplyDeleteHi Scott. This recap article was great, and a good post for your blog! I'd keep aggregating things like that versus trying to "keep the debate here". It feels like you'll be fighting the dispersed nature of the Internet with that one: Twitter, YouTube, comments and stories in other locations, and so on. People like to use what they use or write where they write for reasons: it's their job, it's convenient for them, it's part of their routine, etc. Since this story began with you collecting information from all over and putting it together in a cohesive and seamless article I'd say just stick with it. Keep doing the same with the conversation that has sprung form it like above and the same excellent and compelling story traits that were part of your first story will continue on in the conversation.
ReplyDelete