Just someone who likes to know that what I'm reading as fact actually IS fact.
- StLBravesFan

Mmmm OK, yeah.

Well, I won't get into when I cited a "source" or "sources" and I was later proven correct. But it's happened. More than once.

And one time, most notably when a source told me Winnipeg had hired Haviland—they can be wrong.

But in truth, there are blogs, this one included, where things are occasionally revealed before the press gets a hold of it. Sorry, it's a fact. most recently, the Hawks being in the Winter Classic.

Those who want to hold "bloggers" to the same standards as "journalists" (I've been both), don't get it. Some bloggers try to emulate journalists and report game summaries and quotes form the coach or team. great. as if there aren't enough journalists already doing that.

Some go for humor. Some of them are really funny.

Some wave pom pons for the organization and die-hard fans.

Some go for edgier points of view and occasionally rumors.

And let's face it, at least 8 times out of 10 is the critics either don't like the information, so they shoot the messenger, or they don't like the typical point of view of the messenger, so they shoot him (or her) over the message.

Excuse me about being skeptical about un-attributable comments on the Internet.

There are so many of them.

I will continue to be skeptical and ask my questions.
- StLBravesFan

Ask away. I also won't reveal the sources who have given me rock-solid info. And I can prove THAT. Nor will I expect others to do so. Sure, I might ask them offline. And it's up to them whether they want to tell me.

Correct me if I'm wrong—your premise is, if you're unwilling to divulge your source, what you say has no credibility. Yes? No?

As one who has done this for five years, talked to and identified sources for my own comfort who they were, I can tell you that's a flawed premise. Many of these sources could lose their jobs if it were known they were sharing with friends (bloggers or no). That simple. Doesn't take a genius to see that.

I know basically who Bucky's source is. Its valid.

Mmmm OK, yeah.

Well, I won't get into when I cited a "source" or "sources" and I was later proven correct. But it's happened. More than once.

And one time, most notably when a source told me Winnipeg had hired Haviland—they can be wrong.

But in truth, there are blogs, this one included, where things are occasionally revealed before the press gets a hold of it. Sorry, it's a fact. most recently, the Hawks being in the Winter Classic.

Those who want to hold "bloggers" to the same standards as "journalists" (I've been both), don't get it. Some bloggers try to emulate journalists and report game summaries and quotes form the coach or team. great. as if there aren't enough journalists already doing that.

Some go for humor. Some of them are really funny.

Some wave pom pons for the organization and die-hard fans.

Some go for edgier points of view and occasionally rumors.

And let's face it, at least 8 times out of 10 is the critics either don't like the information, so they shoot the messenger, or they don't like the typical point of view of the messenger, so they shoot him (or her) over the message.
- John Jaeckel

JJ, anyone who takes unattributable quotes on the Internet - even on the Blackhawks blog on HB - at face value without asking questions is a fool: i may be wrong, but I'm not a fool.

Congratulations on being right so many times - I'll assume you're right this time - and the next time I see a similar unattruted comment, I will ask again.

Mmmm OK, yeah.

Well, I won't get into when I cited a "source" or "sources" and I was later proven correct. But it's happened. More than once.

And one time, most notably when a source told me Winnipeg had hired Haviland—they can be wrong.

But in truth, there are blogs, this one included, where things are occasionally revealed before the press gets a hold of it. Sorry, it's a fact. most recently, the Hawks being in the Winter Classic.

Those who want to hold "bloggers" to the same standards as "journalists" (I've been both), don't get it. Some bloggers try to emulate journalists and report game summaries and quotes form the coach or team. great. as if there aren't enough journalists already doing that.

Some go for humor. Some of them are really funny.

Some wave pom pons for the organization and die-hard fans.

Some go for edgier points of view and occasionally rumors.

And let's face it, at least 8 times out of 10 is the critics either don't like the information, so they shoot the messenger, or they don't like the typical point of view of the messenger, so they shoot him (or her) over the message.
- John Jaeckel

Yess JJ we all know you broke the winter classic thing. Good job haha

JJ, anyone who takes unattributable quotes on the Internet - even on the Blackhawks blog on HB - at face value without asking questions is a fool: i may be wrong, but I'm not a fool.

Congratulations on being right so many times - I'll assume you're right this time - and the next time I see a similar unattruted comment, I will ask again.
- StLBravesFan

Ask any time. That's fair.

Yess JJ we all know you broke the winter classic thing. Good job haha
- BlazinMike

Right. Not bad for a hack. Maybe that's the "haha" part. Whatever.

Point is, it came from an unattributed source. Sure, you can always question that. But it doesn't have to be attributed to be valid. Yes? No?

Ask any time. That's fair.
- John Jaeckel

Fair but pointless, because he (or anyone else who asks) will never get any type of clarification, general/vague or heaven forbid, specific.

I dont care, I'll chose what to believe on a case by case basis.

Right. Not bad for a hack. Maybe that's the "haha" part. Whatever.

Point is, it came from an unattributed source. Sure, you can always question that. But it doesn't have to be attributed tone valid. Yes? No?
- John Jaeckel

Not saying you're a hack at all. The tone i was going for was, "we've heard the story about you breaking the winter classic thing a bunch of times, now I'm rolling my eyes because you brought it up again."

I didnt mean it to be offensive if that makes sense, honestly was just (frank)in' around.

5-3 Hogs

Not saying you're a hack at all. The tone i was going for was, "we've heard the story about you breaking the winter classic thing a bunch of times, now I'm rolling my eyes because you brought it up again."

I didnt mean it to be offensive if that makes sense, honestly was just (frank)in' around.
- BlazinMike

All good brother

Fair but pointless, because he (or anyone else who asks) will never get any type of clarification, general/vague or heaven forbid, specific.

I dont care, I'll chose what to believe on a case by case basis.
- BlazinMike

Bingo.

Believe what you want from who you want when you want it.

Frankly, with the quality of Hockey reporting in this City what it is, JJ's opinions, thoughts, rumors, and handling of things "Hawks", etc. are a very welcome addition/alternative to what otherwise is a town void of any opinions other than the message the all controlling mothership wants to spew.

Just someone who likes to know that what I'm reading as fact actually IS fact.
- StLBravesFan

Just my 2 cents, but in that case, you should not hang around rumor blogs looking for facts. And for that matter, you shouldn't read the newspapers because they get it wrong all the time.

Mmmm OK, yeah.

Well, I won't get into when I cited a "source" or "sources" and I was later proven correct. But it's happened. More than once.

And one time, most notably when a source told me Winnipeg had hired Haviland—they can be wrong.

But in truth, there are blogs, this one included, where things are occasionally revealed before the press gets a hold of it. Sorry, it's a fact. most recently, the Hawks being in the Winter Classic.

Those who want to hold "bloggers" to the same standards as "journalists" (I've been both), don't get it. Some bloggers try to emulate journalists and report game summaries and quotes form the coach or team. great. as if there aren't enough journalists already doing that.

Some go for humor. Some of them are really funny.

Some wave pom pons for the organization and die-hard fans.

Some go for edgier points of view and occasionally rumors.

And let's face it, at least 8 times out of 10 is the critics either don't like the information, so they shoot the messenger, or they don't like the typical point of view of the messenger, so they shoot him (or her) over the message.
- John Jaeckel

Honestly whether you are the first (or last) to break a story correctly, or throw something out here that turns out to be false. Its my opinion that its your job just to get the information here for us consumers. I personally don't care if there is "a rumor has it", or "a good source" attached. Hell you probably need to attribute it otherwise it is only opinion. Regardless it give us discussion points. I think that is why we are here. Definitely not for finger pointing or chest beating. Hope that does not insult any egos, sometimes the posts/comments here seem like there meant as personal attacks or maybe just to get a rise out of someone. HB is at its best when we get to inteligently discuss all things Hawks.

Just my 2 cents, but in that case, you should not hang around rumor blogs looking for facts. And for that matter, you shouldn't read the newspapers because they get it wrong all the time.
- DirkGraham

So - I shouldn't be questioning comments from people I don't know, asking them to verify their comments?

I originally questioned Gobucky's comment about the Indianhead on the classic shirts - not a Jaeckel comment - not allowed?

Then I commented on Nickmo's comment asking who was I to question - not allowed?

THEN Jaeckel gets involved.

Only those who are willing to suspend their disbelief should participate here?

There must be a pea-pod in your garage.

So - I shouldn't be questioning comments from people I don't know, asking them to verify their comments?

I originally questioned Gobucky's comment about the Indianhead on the classic shirts - not a Jaeckel comment - not allowed?

Then I commented on Nickmo's comment asking who was I to question - not allowed?

THEN Jaeckel gets involved.

Only those who are willing to suspend their disbelief should participate here?

There must be a pea-pod in your garage.
- StLBravesFan

Chill out, Dude. You are looking here for rock solid facts. Get help.

Chill out, Dude. You are looking here for rock solid facts. Get help.
- DirkGraham

Wow.

"Chill out".

The phrase of the Hockey Buzz day.

Yeah - I'm done - no reason to keep trying to make thinkers out of some of the Luddites here.

Chill out, Dude. You are looking here for rock solid facts. Get help.
- DirkGraham

Isnt it a bannable offense to post rumors without a link to the source? I think its reasonable to ask for a link to where the quote was heard or for any other type of proof.

He's not taking him to court, he's just asking for clarification. Dont understand what the big deal is, its completely up to stlbravesfan to question/not believe someone without proof in the form of a link or some type of explanation.

EDIT: from the code of conduct link at the bottom of the page -

10. Rumors must be given a source unless a poster has been approved by HockeyBuzz—No fake trades.
If you didn’t read it on a HockeyBuzz blog, please link to legitimate news source. There's too much going on in the REAL hockey world without posting fake rumors and trades

Isnt it a bannable offense to post rumors without a link to the source? I think its reasonable to ask for a link to where the quote was heard or for any other type of proof.

He's not taking him to court, he's just asking for clarification. Dont understand what the big deal is, its completely up to stlbravesfan to question/not believe someone without proof in the form of a link or some type of explanation.

EDIT: from the code of conduct link at the bottom of the page -

10. Rumors must be given a source unless a poster has been approved by HockeyBuzz—No fake trades.
If you didn’t read it on a HockeyBuzz blog, please link to legitimate news source. There's too much going on in the REAL hockey world without posting fake rumors and trades
- BlazinMike

Jeez, chill out Mike! Proof and legitimate news are for losers.

Jeez, chill out Mike! Proof and legitimate news are for losers.
- HawkintheD

Im not sayin, I'm just sayin, you know?

Yeah, except they didn't use the 1957 logo. It (frank)ing sucks harry donkey balls. (frank)ing losers.

It's supposed to look like this...


- Ogilthorpe2

Completely agree with you on this Ogie...why bother even doing the darn things if they're not going to give it an old time hockey feel. The Indian Head in its most current form wasn't used until I believe either the 1964 or 65 season. Not buying one either. How could McD the marketing genius blow this...enter Bettman.

Regin. Haha.

No, really, that's who I thought.
- John Jaeckel

Regin probably should have made the team out of camp. Except that Carcillo popped up unexpectedly and with Rosy staying and Leddy going tey needed to carry 7 Dmen.

And oh I forgot, that superstar Brad Richards was guaranteed a spot no matter how poorly he plays.

Completely agree with you on this Ogie...why bother even doing the darn things if they're not going to give it an old time hockey feel. The Indian Head in its most current form wasn't used until I believe either the 1964 or 65 season. Not buying one either. How could McD the marketing genius blow this...enter Bettman.
- DK002

It may get better. it might have an ad on it...

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/...ays-league-exec-1.2826466

Regin probably should have made the team out of camp. Except that Carcillo popped up unexpectedly and with Rosy staying and Leddy going tey needed to carry 7 Dmen.

And oh I forgot, that superstar Brad Richards was guaranteed a spot no matter how poorly he plays.
- RickJ

I think his play has improved. It's a shame we was demoted to the 4th line. As someone had said, it would be nice to have the bickell/regin/morin line reunited.

Hockey blogs are entertainment. Kind of like a virtual bar. And since most guys here don't know each other (I assume anyway), nobody is going to value a fellow blogger more than a good source behind the scenes. So it makes sense that nobody would ever name a source. A good blog is way more likely to cough up an accurate story behind the scenes than a newspaper or the team itself.