Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome I'd say Washington Times reporters are welcome as long as they show some integrity and get both sides opinions. Bah, who am I kidding?
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome Did that BS ed even really take a side?
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome Anyone noticing much difference between the reportage at the two papers these days?
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome I think we need to get the Washington Blade on our side. They, if anyone, would support a stadium full of guys running around in shorts and playing with balls.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome I don't think so. Pretty wishy-washy. Incidentally, for those who didn't catch the editorial from the preceding thread, I linked it in the sitruc quote above. I'm pretty sure 'BS' stands for Baltimore Sun, although in this case it could also stand for bull shit. And, of course it doesn't stand for BigSoccer, although in that case it could also stand for bull shit I also went to the BS talk forums to see if there was any commentary. That place is so poorly organized that whatever comes in is probably going to get lost, but I think we should patrol it to be able to drop in our pro- arguments.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome That was a good catch, I missed it today. It was pretty resonable, if a little short on information. It's interesting to have an editorial about something which has got essentially no coverage from the Sun. I wonder if someone from newspaper A picked up the phone and called newspaper B? I'm tempted to write in, but I think it's still best to let it slide for now unless something else comes up. I also checked the forums and did not see anything, but it's hard to say for sure cause the subforums are just kinda guidelines, just like here, so it could turn up anywhere.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome Somebody gets me. For whatever reason I forgot to link to the editorial(ctrl+v still puts that link out), so thanks.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome I wrote a reply to the editorial as soon as I saw it. I have been in touch with the editor, so it may see print. I will let you know. What I did find stunning was that I made a reference to the MSA study in my letter. The editor asked for a link to the study. They had clearly not even bothered to look at it. I really wish I could work in a business where you were under no obligation to have any supporting facts. Just decide how you feel about something, slap together a few 'graphs, then head for the bar.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome Well, supposedly they had to work hard for a long time under those obligations to be an "editor". Kinda like the original bloggers. It's sorta like when they say that you can't break the rules of grammar and punctuation until you've proven that you know them all. Of course, if you just continually break the rules it becomes very easy to forget them altogether.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome The Sun and Post have an editorial sharing arrangement so it may have developed out of that.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome I'll write a letter to the Editor of the Blade. Yes, many readers of the Blade do enjoy guys running around in shorts.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome I also wish that the Baltimore Sun editorial page editors had checked with the Stadium Authority to see how this mid-sized well located stadium and concert venue fits into their revenue generation plans.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome How much you want to bet all kinds of state and county officials and business leaders are invited to the 'Welcome Home' luncheon at Harbor Place?
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome Nice avatar. Very nice. The team ought to contact you for its use.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome It's definitely poor story construction; but I've come to expect no less from the local bird cage liners. Hell, it's not uncommon to see the Post and the Times making its/it's, there/their/they're, and to/too mistakes. I'm still waiting on the sports article referring to one side as "the looser."
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome It's called discussion. It's what this forum is for.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome I'm sure this has been posted, but I saw it in the News and Analysis section. http://www.behindthebadge.com/2009/02/dc-united-stadium-proposal-faq.php
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome By the way, but isn't the roman numeral for 19, XIX, not XVIV? I must be slipping. Mrs. Winoman will certainly verify that!
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome It's 5:29 and Goff's up next on Comcast Sports...gonna be talking about the stadium situation among other things.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome Here's what he said: Defensive issues. Real experience gap there. Still looking, but not much out there. Questions about midfield (older), attack (Luciano scoring), Gomez will have more of an impact than Gallardo had last year Not convinced they'll be playing in new stadium in '12 PG has been very accommodating, but until everything's been approved, won't believe it until concrete is being poured. MD v DC will be good, good relationship between the two teams, should be a lot of fun.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome Did I miss it? I got tennis chick. Edit: Well damn, tune in 2 minutes too late and I guess I did miss it.
Re: Stadium News XVIV:: Washington Times Reporters Not Welcome You are correct, and on ash wednesday no less. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIAdHEwiAy8"]YouTube - Life of Brian - ROMANES EUNT DOMUS[/ame]