HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Philadelphia Flyers (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=21)
-   -   ********* who made up Hartnell/Carter rumor was wrong (obviously) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=718008)

RIPRichardsCarter 12-24-2009 02:44 PM

********* who made up Hartnell/Carter rumor was wrong (obviously)
 
Quote:

"I don't know how they dreamed those stories up. It really plays on guys' minds. Guys are dealing with personal issues, and that's the last thing you need is people talking about sleeping with other guys' wives and all sort of stupid stuff," Hartnell said after yesterday's morning skate in Tampa.

"It's obviously frustrating. I don't know how a person [the writer] can sleep with himself at night when he does something like that. I've been buddies with Carts for a few years now, and obviously that stuff is totally untrue."

Carter said the story "makes me look like an idiot. The guy is dealing with lives, and he doesn't realize it."

Peter Luukko, president of the Flyers' parent company, Comcast-Spectacor, called the blog "vicious and irresponsible" and said the organization is considering a lawsuit.

Quote:

Brennan, 22, the Temple senior who wrote the blog and suggested that the incident may cause the Flyers to trade Carter or Hartnell, would not disclose his source. He said it was not a player or someone from the public-relations department.

"Someone I know works for the Flyers, and I wrote it as a rumor," he said earlier this week. "I didn't write it as a fact in case the guy was wrong. I didn't want to be unfair because I didn't witness it."

He said it was a "credible source" who "works close to the players. I didn't make it up."

Brennan, who said he used to be an intern at WIP-AM (610), said he was surprised by the reaction the story has created in Internet chat rooms, because "I didn't know anyone read my Web site. I didn't do it to make a name for myself. I did it to practice writing and reporting."
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/sport...nd_Carter.html

ForsbergIsOdin 12-24-2009 02:47 PM

But... I wanna go there.

RIPRichardsCarter 12-24-2009 02:49 PM

Ah, very upsetting that was removed, but understandable. Just want this guy to get a little taste of what it's like. I guess his name is in the article, so anyone can look him up if they really want to send him anything...

BackWithaVengeance 12-24-2009 02:51 PM

The guy is a jerk. Stupid *******!

Carter sums it up perfectly: "The guy is dealing with lives, and he doesn't realize it."

BackWithaVengeance 12-24-2009 02:53 PM

Before I forget, thank you for the post Quacker.

RIPRichardsCarter 12-24-2009 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BackWithaVengeance (Post 22835046)
Before I forget, thank you for the post Quacker.

No problemo. Saw it in the paper today and decided it was worthy of posting because the rumor was beginning to spread.

PhillyFan4Ever 12-24-2009 03:39 PM

the story my wife is spreading about me being hot - not a rumor

UseYourAllusion 12-24-2009 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhillyFan4Ever (Post 22835499)
the story my wife is spreading about me being hot - not a rumor

Yeah, that's more of a fabrication.

Spongolium* 12-24-2009 04:39 PM

What a clown. I really do hope the flyers take a lawsuit against this guy. He was obviously doing it for his own name. Quite clearly. This source that he has within the flyers organisation is as real as checkered paint

MsWoof 12-24-2009 05:01 PM

I'm glad the Flyers, Carter and Hartnell are speaking out about this crap. There are too many people with too much time on their hands and they expect their 15 minutes of fame to come at the expense of others. I do hope there will be a lawsuit.

JDinkalage Morgoone 12-24-2009 05:03 PM

This is equal/worse than the doofus who made up the Ibanez on steroids rumor. These guys should be made an example of and have their interwebs taken away.

When I was younger... the internet held such promise to me. Finally, we can all share information, and the possibilities for knowledge and collaboration are endless!

Now, too many idiots are able to have opinions voiced to mass public. Too many new "celebrities." But that's a conversation for a different day.

MojoJojo 12-24-2009 05:11 PM

Reminds me of the Lindros/Brindamour rumor. Even though its been over a decade since Brindy was traded and the rumor has been debunked time and time again, people wont let it go and insist that they knew someone with inside information.

Valhoun* 12-24-2009 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hextall89 (Post 22836166)
This is equal/worse than the doofus who made up the Ibanez on steroids rumor. These guys should be made an example of and have their interwebs taken away.

When I was younger... the internet held such promise to me. Finally, we can all share information, and the possibilities for knowledge and collaboration are endless!

Now, too many idiots are able to have opinions voiced to mass public. Too many new "celebrities." But that's a conversation for a different day.

To be fair, the catalyst to that rumor was an over the hill player well past his prime being on pace to hit 40-50 homers until he slowed down towards the end of the season. And, what about baseball makes you think that that isn't an entirely possible scenario? I'm not saying that it should have been given a lot of air time or anything like that. I'm just saying that it definitely was in the realm of possibility.

captainpaxil 12-24-2009 06:14 PM

the "source" should be terminated immediately. something tells me its probably some intern with the training staff from temple. just a reasonable guess and since this guy had no trouble throwing bs out on the net i see no problem in playing amateur detective. intern hears about a group of players going to a spot downtown to choose a random spot ill say buckheads. guy shows up hoping to play on his connection to the team and scrape up some leftovers. lisa hartnell tags along as the token girl so that there isnt that "kobe bryant looked safe on tv too" question hanging in the air. maybe lisa dances with carter no big deal theyre young people out at a club. the best part about having married friends is that wives are ten times the wingman your buddies are. but ancilary intern guy is feeling rejected as 8th guy on the professional hockey player bandwagon still leaves you dancing with the "sweet girl" you coulda got on your own. the one woman in crew wont give him the time of day (cuz shes married) so carter must be seeing her. they did dance together right? boom basic college whisper down the lane becomes big internet rumor with no more credibilty then the above paragraph.

bstreetbully 12-24-2009 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spongolium (Post 22835990)
What a clown. I really do hope the flyers take a lawsuit against this guy. He was obviously doing it for his own name. Quite clearly. This source that he has within the flyers organisation is as real as checkered paint

If the story is true, do you really expect anyone to publicly admit it? A lawsuit will go nowhere. There is SCOTUS case law that reporters do not have to reveal their sources. A lawsuit here would be as laughable as the one JC Romero filed against GNC and the $6 an hour clerk who told him "that stuff won't cause you to test hot."

Instead of simply calling the 800 number in the clubhouse and asking about the product, he took the word of a $6 an hour clerk and lost 1.5 million because of it. LMFAO

DrinkFightFlyers 12-24-2009 10:14 PM

Idiot.

CantSeeColors 12-24-2009 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bstreetbully (Post 22837927)
If the story is true, do you really expect anyone to publicly admit it? A lawsuit will go nowhere. There is SCOTUS case law that reporters do not have to reveal their sources. A lawsuit here would be as laughable as the one JC Romero filed against GNC and the $6 an hour clerk who told him "that stuff won't cause you to test hot."

Instead of simply calling the 800 number in the clubhouse and asking about the product, he took the word of a $6 an hour clerk and lost 1.5 million because of it. LMFAO

The lawsuit will go nowhere (as an aside, it'd be a libel suit and wouldn't really have anything to do with revealing sources, but whatever), but the doucheknob will still have to hire a lawyer to make it go away.

UseYourAllusion 12-24-2009 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CantSeeColors (Post 22838233)
The lawsuit will go nowhere (as an aside, it'd be a libel suit and wouldn't really have anything to do with revealing sources, but whatever), but the doucheknob will still have to hire a lawyer to make it go away.

It will still cost him less than a case which goes beyond getting dismissed at the very getgo.

CantSeeColors 12-24-2009 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion (Post 22838249)
It will still cost him less than a case which goes beyond getting dismissed at the very getgo.

Would it get dismissed at the get go? I'm not too well versed in libel claims, but there should be enough merit here to get past a motion to dismiss. Definitely a cost to and a pain in the ass for the kid.

UseYourAllusion 12-24-2009 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CantSeeColors (Post 22838268)
Would it get dismissed at the get go? I'm not too well versed in libel claims, but there should be enough merit here to get past a motion to dismiss. Definitely a cost to and a pain in the ass for the kid.

It will be a great cost to him either way, but I don't think the Flyers get very far. Libel in the US (mostly my understanding from before Law school) is near impossible.

captainpaxil 12-24-2009 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bstreetbully (Post 22837927)
If the story is true, do you really expect anyone to publicly admit it? A lawsuit will go nowhere. There is SCOTUS case law that reporters do not have to reveal their sources. A lawsuit here would be as laughable as the one JC Romero filed against GNC and the $6 an hour clerk who told him "that stuff won't cause you to test hot."

Instead of simply calling the 800 number in the clubhouse and asking about the product, he took the word of a $6 an hour clerk and lost 1.5 million because of it. LMFAO

liable and defamation of character are very real threats to consider for an online reporter. so far as i know they arent protected under pennsylvania shield law and even then in order to publish even the rags like the enquirer need to be able to present a case for reasonable believability. the absence of notes tapes and/or failure to produce a witness would constitute failure of due diligence on his part and lose him the case. for him to win a libel suit he needs to prove the intention of satire (umm see i put an e5 next to it) or that somewhere on his site there is a for entertainment purposes only tag. otherwise hed be held to the news standard which means he would need to either source the rumor or prove its believability. i heard it from my buddy and printed it as news is a recipe for disaster as a libel defense.

lisa hartnell and carter both have a case and its a rather easy one to make all you have to do is show publication and proof of distress. if they can show an obvious malicious intent it doesnt even matter if the rumors were true. the problem is that most libel suits tend to end in a retraction and teh damage from this one has already been done.

PhillyFan4Ever 12-25-2009 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion (Post 22838289)
It will be a great cost to him either way, but I don't think the Flyers get very far. Libel in the US (mostly my understanding from before Law school) is near impossible.


they prolly wont. but the fact alot of people are missing is he basically called hartnells wife a ***** and an adulteress. i think ed snider would gladly foot that bill if she wanted to press the issue.

McNasty 12-25-2009 01:09 AM

A court case would just get this guy more publicity.

Spongolium* 12-25-2009 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UseYourAllusion (Post 22838249)
It will still cost him less than a case which goes beyond getting dismissed at the very getgo.

and he wont write **** again after

CS 12-25-2009 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captainpaxil (Post 22838418)
liable and defamation of character are very real threats to consider for an online reporter. so far as i know they arent protected under pennsylvania shield law and even then in order to publish even the rags like the enquirer need to be able to present a case for reasonable believability. the absence of notes tapes and/or failure to produce a witness would constitute failure of due diligence on his part and lose him the case. for him to win a libel suit he needs to prove the intention of satire (umm see i put an e5 next to it) or that somewhere on his site there is a for entertainment purposes only tag. otherwise hed be held to the news standard which means he would need to either source the rumor or prove its believability. i heard it from my buddy and printed it as news is a recipe for disaster as a libel defense.

lisa hartnell and carter both have a case and its a rather easy one to make all you have to do is show publication and proof of distress. if they can show an obvious malicious intent it doesnt even matter if the rumors were true. the problem is that most libel suits tend to end in a retraction and teh damage from this one has already been done.

This is correct. The Temple senior is in for one wild ride on this one. He made a HUGE mistake.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:47 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.