Recruit in the spring

[GGGG]

Honestly, every time a respected poster puts something up here from an "unnamed source," it usually ends up to be fairly accurate.  I include mu03eng in that mix.  I appreciate the info.

This in part is why these boards exist.  So that knowledgeable people can pass along information.  It is up to the audience to judge whether or not the information is worthy of our attention.

[MUfan12]

Honestly, every time a respected poster puts something up here from an "unnamed source," it usually ends up to be fairly accurate.  I include mu03eng in that mix.  I appreciate the info.

This in part is why these boards exist.  So that knowledgeable people can pass along information.  It is up to the audience to judge whether or not the information is worthy of our attention.

Exactly. Everyone wants information but no one seems to grasp that you can't always divulge who you get it from.

[ATWizJr]

Everybody wants unsubstantiated info?  That's conjecture, not info.  I've got some tea leaves for you.

[GGGG]

Everybody wants unsubstantiated info?  That's conjecture, not info.  I've got some tea leaves for you.

I want info from reliable sources.  I don't expect reliable sources to "prove it."  History has judged certain posters to be reliable.  I appreciate their contributions.

[ATWizJr]

I want info from reliable sources.  I don't expect reliable sources to "prove it."  History has judged certain posters to be reliable.  I appreciate their contributions.

exactly.  how do we judge their reliability if they can't be named? 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

exactly.  how do we judge their reliability if they can't be named?  

They can be named. That's MUENG03, he has a long history of posting correct inside information on this site. Similar to Big Daddy Dillard. Or wadesworld.

Could they be making stuff up? Sure. But they have made enough predictions that have ended up coming true for me to give them the benefit of the doubt? Yes. It's not like they are posters like ThatDude who makes negative prediction after negative prediction that don't end up coming true.

I'm with you in that I won't hold anything said here as the gospel truth unless I heard it myself, but I still appreciate the tidbits.

[mu03eng]

exactly.  how do we judge their reliability if they can't be named? 

So let me see if I understand this.

If I, as anonymous internet poster, tell you fact X I heard from a source about Marquette it's very suspect.  However if I, anonymous internet poster, also tell you that fact X was heard from an assistant coach the information is then verified???  

You do realize that two "facts" verifying each other from an anonymous poster in no way make either verified, yes?  How does my telling you my source make my information any more or less credible?  I can just as easily make up the source as the information.

That's like saying I have a tiger rock which prevents tigers from showing up.  How do I know it works?  Well I haven't ever been attacked by a tiger so it must work.

[NersEllenson]

So if I said my source was Wojo, that makes me more believable?

Absolutely not.  I've shared on this board that Wojo has no credibility - yet some don't believe me (as the source of that information.)    

[mu03eng]

Absolutely not.  I've shared on this board that Wojo has no credibility - yet some don't believe me (as the source of that information.)    

Ya know....I have to give it to you.....that was very well played 

[tower912]

mu03eng doesn't make pronouncements very often.   If he says he believes something to be ironclad, I trust he is telling the truth as far as he knows.    Things sometimes change, but I believe mu-3eng. 

[ATWizJr]

So let me see if I understand this.

If I, as anonymous internet poster, tell you fact X I heard from a source about Marquette it's very suspect.  However if I, anonymous internet poster, also tell you that fact X was heard from an assistant coach the information is then verified???  

You do realize that two "facts" verifying each other from an anonymous poster in no way make either verified, yes?  How does my telling you my source make my information any more or less credible?  I can just as easily make up the source as the information.

That's like saying I have a tiger rock which prevents tigers from showing up.  How do I know it works?  Well I haven't ever been attacked by a tiger so it must work.
[/quote   I think it is a matter of degree and that matters. "Fact" X from some unnamed source could just as easily be rumor X, wishful thinking X, or plain old made up X.  Fact X from an assistant coach is obviously more credible.

[Lennys Tap]

Ners - thanks for the humor, well done.

mu03 - thanks for the information, much appreciated.

[GGGG]

I think it is a matter of degree and that matters. "Fact" X from some unnamed source could just as easily be rumor X, wishful thinking X, or plain old made up X.  Fact X from an assistant coach is obviously more credible.

When certain posters state X, I am inclined to believe them.  I appreciate what they are posting and hope they continue to do so, while understanding that they have sources they cannot divulge.

When other posters state X, I am inclined not to believe them.

It really *is* that simple.

[mu03eng]

I think it is a matter of degree and that matters. "Fact" X from some unnamed source could just as easily be rumor X, wishful thinking X, or plain old made up X.  Fact X from an assistant coach is obviously more credible.

How is it more credible?  The whole point is it comes down to the credibility of the poster, because I can just as easily make up a source if I want to pass a rumor.  Whether I say it's from President Lovell or God himself makes no difference on whether what I'm saying is A) credible and B) correct

[🏀]

I've sniffed mu03eng out...

[jsglow]

Ners - thanks for the humor, well done.

mu03 - thanks for the information, much appreciated.

+1.

[MDMU04]

I think it is a matter of degree and that matters. "Fact" X from some unnamed source could just as easily be rumor X, wishful thinking X, or plain old made up X.  Fact X from an assistant coach is obviously more credible.

You do realize that people often are told things in confidence, and by revealing sources that person could be ruining relationships or worse, don't you?

Would you require citations for every piece of information that people might hear and care enough to share like some sort of bibliography?

Use your discretion and believe what you want. Don't shoot the messenger when they say something you might not want to hear.

[mu03eng]

I've sniffed mu03eng out...

[ATWizJr]

How is it more credible?  The whole point is it comes down to the credibility of the poster, because I can just as easily make up a source if I want to pass a rumor.  Whether I say it's from President Lovell or God himself makes no difference on whether what I'm saying is A) credible and B) correct

 Really?  Info from an unnamed source is as or more credible than info from an assistant coach?  I don't think so.

[GGGG]

One last thing, badgering posters to "prove it," will only drive the posters with good information away, while it will likely not deter those with bad information from continuing to post.

[mu03eng]

 Really?  Info from an unnamed source is as or more credible than info from an assistant coach?  I don't think so.

You miss the point, if I "say" its an assistant coach, to you that makes it believable...my point is that piece of info can be just as unreliable.

[GGGG]

 Really?  Info from an unnamed source is as or more credible than info from an assistant coach?  I don't think so.

You don't get it.  

If he said "I heard this from an assistant coach," how would you know if he is telling the truth?  How does that make an anonymous poster more credible in your eyes?

He is either credible as a poster...or he isn't.

[kmwtrucks]

ATWIZ, So just as a Recap MUENG says STone is not coming here for sure iron clad.  If he does not come that means MUENG passed on Accurate or reliable Info.  If Stone comes to MU then MUENG's info or contacts cannot be deemed reliable.  When you throw in ironclad he is stating as close to fact as he thinks possible.   But with most info you also need to understand that with dealing with 16 year old kids that things can change so saying everything he stats will happen is not the same as could or May happen.  You need to look at the Body of work.  IE if someone stats MU is in the lead for a recruit is not saying he will come, Just that we are at or near the Top of his choices at that time.

[4everwarriors]

For the record, if I share info with y'all, it's the gospel. No chit.

[GOO]

Yep.  A few posters have proven they have inside info by continually providing valid info.  E.g. Big Daddy.
Choose to believe them or not.  What their source or type of source is immaterial.  If they have shown they get it right a lot, then that is all that we need to know.

I'll love to see Big Daddy's list of who we are recruiting for the spring and for 2016.  I'm guessing a Wing and a Point Guard.  Maybe a rebounding type of PF.