re: Can Admins bring back whacked threads?

quote:

---

TchPowDog

---

I don't understand why you are so butthurt we are giving him a hard time. I personally don't care if he has sources or not. He was wrong, and based on his wording he indicated that we got a great hire. So unless he meant O, he was not in fact correct.

You decided to chime in, but i was simply showing that guy who said Random was always right, that he indeed was not.

quote:

---

How did you know this before it was made public through the media?

---

Never thought i would be using his name in a positive light, but DALSU actually reported that shite before Random and then Random said it a day later. None of that means they do or don't have sources.

If i came on and made a prediction posed as insider info and it worked out, then am i an insider?

quote:

---

Random gave us as much insight in real time as Alleva could've given us.

---

I guess that makes DALSU F King or something because he broke it before Random.

quote:

---

You people are morons for thinking Random and his sources are full of shite.

---

Anyone who is screaming at me trying to defend a random (no pun intended) poster they have never met IRL on a non pay site as insider of the year is a moron. Why are you so worked up over this?

quote:

---

RANDOM GAVE YOU ACCURATE NEWS DAYS BEFORE IT WAS OFFICIALLY REPORTED!

---

And a day after DALSU.

I enjoy these threads because of the entertainment value. You're acting like i am internet bullying your little brother or something. Thanks for adding to the entertainment.

Can we bring back the "80 % Jimbo" nonsense and the permenant ban you promised

quote:

---

Lol. Wow. Take a Xanax dude

---

lol I've had a long day.

quote:

---

People are so starved for info that they'll let this guy continue to play them like a fiddle.

---

It is quite amusing isn't it? Random probably just reads stories like this;

LINK

And then comes and posts basically what it is saying and then watches the mullets swim to the bait, all the while he is laughing his arse off at the mockery he is making out of this site. And if you look he posted the crap he posted AFTER that report was published!!! Hmmmmmmmmm makes you wonder!

So you're saying he said we had a homerun hire after it was reported we had a homerun hire by the largest sports information service on the planet. All the while not saying his sources had confirmed the hire. A hire that had been agreed to by both parties until one of them decided to try to initiate a bidding war and the other got his feelings hurt and withdrew the offer.

Am I missing anything?

If this is the best you got, we can agree to disagree as to whether this disqualifies Random as a source despite pst history that seems to have been overwhelmingly favorable (most that I think I recall is recruiting related).