65 replies to this topic

[Roadbeer]

For official inquiries, I agree.
But Random Joe Blow asking for it? Really?

[Prophet of Doom]

Buddahcjcc, on 04 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Really, provide examples of where journalists HAVE revealed their sources for articles when ppl demand them. Theyre usually quite reluctant to do that. Historically so for that matter.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Deep_Throat

http://books.google....lopedia&f=false

a secondary history lesson as wikipdea is largely laughed at

Not sources. SOURCE MATERIAL. Two completely different things. Sheesh.

Roadbeer, on 04 April 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

For official inquiries, I agree.
But Random Joe Blow asking for it? Really?

Oh, so it should only be required if someone official asks for it. and who pray tell are these officials on the internet? hmm?
Road, clearly you and I have differing views on this matter, and while I believe that anyone has the right to ask any journalist for source material to clear up a subject, you do not. So lets just agree to disagree, as neither one of us is going to convince the other. I feel any journalist worth the name would freely give said information as there is no reason not to unless something is being hidden. Clearly that is not your view. thankfully these are opinions, and we are each entitled to our own.

Edited by Prophet of Doom, 04 April 2013 - 10:47 AM.

[Roadbeer]

Not sure, but let me ask you back,

What makes you so important that anyone should feel obligated to release any source material to you of any kind?

Edit:

True, I view it as a cog in the process that allows people to get hung up on debating motives over merits. If every person wanted source material released on every article they didn't agree with, no future reporting would get completed. Most articles are a one-off... report what you know and move on.

It comes down to this.10 paragraphs were written based off of "quotes" from Russ and Brian, a dozen Tweets have been fired off in response. To many, one side or the other (for WHATEVER reason) lacks credibility.

So we have 150 pages ranting about MOTIVES. When 150 pages should have been dedicated to the MERIT of the topic. I think the OP of this thread is where we should be now. Ok, ALL of this has been said, can we get a response that squashes all the conjecture? In the FORUMS of the GAME not freakin Twitter and an obscure gaming forum that previous to last week, I've never freakin heard of.

Edited by Roadbeer, 04 April 2013 - 10:59 AM.

[Prophet of Doom]

Roadbeer, on 04 April 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Not sure, but let me ask you back,

What makes you so important that anyone should feel obligated to release any source material to you of any kind?

Because I am the public, and the public has a right to know. I take it you feel that the public has no right to know where what they are being told comes from?

[Prophet of Doom]

Roadbeer, on 04 April 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Not sure, but let me ask you back,

What makes you so important that anyone should feel obligated to release any source material to you of any kind?

Edit:

True, I view it as a cog in the process that allows people to get hung up on debating motives over merits. If every person wanted source material released on every article they didn't agree with, no future reporting would get completed. Most articles are a one-off... report what you know and move on.

It comes down to this.10 paragraphs were written based off of "quotes" from Russ and Brian, a dozen Tweets have been fired off in response. To many, one side or the other (for WHATEVER reason) lacks credibility.

So we have 150 pages ranting about MOTIVES. When 150 pages should have been dedicated to the MERIT of the topic. I think the OP of this thread is where we should be now. Ok, ALL of this has been said, can we get a response that squashes all the conjecture?

The problem is that NO response would squash all conjecture. You have to believe it or not, because anything they say now will have some conjecturing that they lied, and some conjecturing that the author lied. Or was mistaken. or any of a whole host of other conjectures. THERE WILL NEVER NOT BE CONJECTURE. But as was stated previously, we will all get our info in due time, and those who cannot wait are going to be unhappy. thats the long and the short. Im just glad I am content to wait. Of course, I have faith in pgi, because they have done nothing to break that faith. IMO.

[DrSecretStache]

Roadbeer, on 04 April 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Not sure, but let me ask you back,

What makes you so important that anyone should feel obligated to release any source material to you of any kind?

Edit:

True, I view it as a cog in the process that allows people to get hung up on debating motives over merits. If every person wanted source material released on every article they didn't agree with, no future reporting would get completed. Most articles are a one-off... report what you know and move on.

It comes down to this.10 paragraphs were written based off of "quotes" from Russ and Brian, a dozen Tweets have been fired off in response. To many, one side or the other (for WHATEVER reason) lacks credibility.

So we have 150 pages ranting about MOTIVES. When 150 pages should have been dedicated to the MERIT of the topic. I think the OP of this thread is where we should be now. Ok, ALL of this has been said, can we get a response that squashes all the conjecture? In the FORUMS of the GAME not freakin Twitter and an obscure gaming forum that previous to last week, I've never freakin heard of.

From what I can tell, Bryan called bs, then the author called bs, said he had sources and audio, but apparently has never revealed them. I'd call Bryan 'official.'

And as for deep throat, we're not discussing a political issue that was illegal and caused huge political backlash. We're discussing a video game that some guy did an interview for. It's not exactly uncalled for.

It really comes down to waiting. He's said he's going to get us something. That's the best we can get.

Edited by Zoughtbaj, 04 April 2013 - 11:33 AM.