No more kidding/joking about having a "source."

I would like to suggest a rule that falsely posting about having "inside information" or having a "source" that is in the know should be strongly prohibited on TigerForums.

The reasons are:

1) These are malicious and selfish kinds of posts. Only an immature and vindictive person would get enjoyment from pulling everybody's chain with false information. These kinds of "jokes" are especially malicious during this time of a coaching change.

2) These "jokes" are not in the least funny to anybody except the person who posts this kind of junk. In fact, they cause unnecessary stress and angst to Fellow LSU Tiger fans, rather than amuse them.

What kind of LSU Tiger fan gets enjoyment from fooling fellow LSU Tiger fans? Certainly not the kind of LSU Tiger fan that I want to converse with on this board.

 

:thumb: :thumb:

 

People like to hear themselves talk.

Oh, by the way, Bertman's going to coach the tigers in '05, and might actually play himself. My garbage man's cousin told me.

 

I suggest that if you are unwilling to name your source, then don't post.

 

I agree but on the flip side if someone really thinks something is legit, they should not get taken to the cleaners by others.

 

Lafitte....by FAR, the noblest post you've ever made. Top shelf. :thumb:

 

If someone thinks they're legit they should post their source and put that it's just word of mouth.

 

You can only do that in certain situations. It is your job to follow posters over time and see if what they have posted is pretty accurate. There is no such thing as 100% correct in this endeavor, regardless who the source is. Every newspaper and media person out there has been wrong before with "insider" info.

 

although I was gone last week, I suppose many are questioning crawfish thinking he made up his info when in fact I know that he was getting this from someone supposedly in the know. He was not taking a 50/50 guess for attention or being malicious so I will attest to that. Everything I read last week I got from near the same source as well but chose not to pass it on. He did this simply to let the people here know what others, supposedly close to the situation, were told as usually reliable sources.

Nick played everyone like a cheap fiddle. I don't fault crawfish since there was no harm intended by him though maybe in the future we could possible preface everything as speculation or hearsay unless 100% sure.

 

It can go both ways. If you can get information that you want to pass on then why not? It doesn't hurt anyone other than getting a bunch of people riled up on an internet message board. Take it with a grain of salt and listen to all sides. I passed on some "inside" info that turned out to be wrong but it was no less information I deemed of interest. Also if the "source" could wind up in some trouble if it were found out he/she was passing this on then they have to remain nameless. I'm sorry but I fail to see why there should be a "rule" reguarding this issue.