Look Erik, most of us don’t care what Massie said or didn’t say. He didn’t sign with Bama, but we are still very pleased with our recruiting class. I do believe it was a much better haul than Ole Miss had. I wouldn’t want to trade. But if you guys are feeling really happy you snagged one away from ol’ Nick, then good for you. But putting these kids in the middle of your blog war is just wrong.

WAR POLYTECH BABY!!!

The source of the information isn’t very reliable. Why do I say that? It isn’t a bylined story produced by a professional journalist on the Ole Miss site. It was said in what a chat or message board discussion—the “journalist” didn’t think enough of it to put his name on the story, so he took the cheap way out and spread it on the Internet. That is unethical. Just as unethical as spreading something a recruit might have told him because he doesn’t know the difference between on and off the record. To be honest, I don’t consider anyone a journalist that works on the fan sites at Rivals or Scout—they are psuedo-journalists that are little better than bloggers or talk radio hosts.

I believe that you believe the source. I think your source is shakier than you think.

The biggest question is whether the source embellished what Massie said—or if Massie ever said it—or if your source’s account is accurate.

Do we believe a “journalist” that won’t even put his name on the story? Do we believe a story quoting Massie produced by a professional journalist?

Is that a hard choice to make? Honestly. Putting hyperbole aside for a moment.

Isn’t my position clear and reasonable?

I’m forced to say either Massie is a liar, in which case even if your source is true, we can’t believe your story because Massie is a profligate liar.

Or, we believe Massie is truthful and told the truth to Rapoport, in which case your source is wrong.

Massie was quoted by a professional journalist as saying the blog was “untrue.”

Now, do I believe Massie or you?

Hmm, tough choice. I’m going with Massie.

The law of contradiction holds, Ian’s quote where Massie says you are “untrue” stands in contrast to your report based on something someone unidentified told you happened.

Yawns. The real world believes real sources, not Internet message board BS. Show me a bylined story quoting Massie saying what you assert, and I’ll reconsider my analysis. Until then, you are just spewing hot air.

In other news…you’re ignorant. You hear what a Tider wants to hear. You see only what you want to see. It’s a disease that has spread unchecked through the Alabama fanbase and it’s damn pathetic.

I confirmed the first hand account of what Bobby Massie said with the source via email. He claimed it is “100% accurate.” That’s good enough for me.

Like the almighty Paul Finebaum said, “Nothing in Ian’s blog proves anything to be false.”

Just because Ian’s report makes you feel warm and special in your pants doesn’t make it gospel.

Holy shit you’re dumb. The fact that you can publish a website is damn amazing.

“Massie called you a liar. That’s good enough for me.”

Did he call me a liar…Or maybe was it the person who wrote that blurb???

Get your shit together.

I bet you still think OJ was innocent too. Congratulations on your life.

You contend your story is correct. If your story is correct, Massie lied to Rapoport because both stories can’t be true since Massie said your blog was “untrue.” We use the law of contradiction here since a thing can’t be both true and untrue at the same time, when two exclusionary claims are made, then one must be false.

Therefore, if Massie lied to Rapoport, your story is based on a liar.

If Massie is a liar, how could we believe your report since it would be based on a tale told by a liar?

Massie called you a liar. That’s good enough for me.

Your source is from a message board. LOL!

Ian’s source is the horse’s mouth.

I’ll put my trust in what is the truth, not some innuendo culled from message board BS. And if it isn’t message board crap, where is the writer’s story? If you can’t present a story under the reporter’s name then it is BS.

Besides, your argument is that your “source” tricked a college kid. Do you think a recruit knows the difference between on and off-the-record? SO, at the minimum, your version of events leads us to the conclusion that your “source” was unethical in revealing what a kid thought was a private conversation. That doesn’t instill confidence—it just shows what trash hang around your program in that they would exploit a kid like that. And that is IF we believe your version of events.

As for slander? Where the hell did that come from? Published material is libel. Since I ran a newspaper and later a magazine (spent about a decade in publishing), I think I know how frivolous lawsuits like that can be. But, you are one of the reasons first amendment freedoms online are under assault. Next time you publish something, don’t copy and paste crap off a message board and pass it off as fact. It makes all blogs look bad.

However, your sophistry is clear. Everyone knows you are a liar as you continue to embrace a story that the alleged “source” denies. He called it “untrue.”

Untrue is another way of calling it a lie.

You better hope Nicky doesn’t say that you don’t exist, or you’ll disappear just like Marty McFly in Back to the Future.

Which Bobby Massie is gonna tell the truth?

Believe what you want to believe, Tider, but nothing said on this issue makes me a liar.

Talk about “circular logic.”

You gonna try and sue me for slander too! Genius.