Thread: *cue Jeff Hardy joke*
View Single Post
Old 11-09-2008, 12:58 PM   #32
Kane Knight
Ron Paul 4 EVA
 
Kane Knight's Avatar
 
Posts: 152,467
Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Kane Knight makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Class Act Carl View Post
You say no reliable source has claimed a brand, but no reliable source has claimed that someone has failed a dozen tests either. Both these nuggets of gossip come from the same newsbite.

So how can you speculate on who it is, yet not take the "it's a SmackDown guy" part verbatim also?
Wrestling Observer and Prowrestling.net are the same source? They looked like different newsbites being reported from different sources to me. I've been told over MSN that the WO one is on their pay site or one of their newsletters or whatever, and that's the one that has credibility and it's the one that doesn't say Smackdown.

BOTH sources give a number near a dozen. One says Smackdown, but it's the less reliable source. Why should I have to take "Smackdown" verbatim when I'm not drawing the number from that source without corroborating evidence from a source that's reliable?

Would this apply if it was the WO and LOP posting the same item, with LOP, a site which is wrong almost 100% of the time, posting an additional note that it was a Smackdown star?
Kane Knight is offline   Reply With Quote