Buffalo puts Adam Mair on waivers

[mjlegend 155]

http://twitter.com/TSNBobMcKenzie

Edmonton puts Steve MacIntyre on waivers. Buffalo puts Adam Mair on waivers. Washingotn's Michael Nylander clears.

Healthy scratch this season, but I always thought he had a lot more to offer than most teams were able to get out of him. With a lot of forwards either underpeforming or not gritty enough, do we want to give him a look? Feel free to shoot it down. I think I'm getting desperate.

[Echolalia 2,961]

It really irks me that twitter is becoming the most used site for sourcing information.

By the way, this is nothing against you. Just something that I'm noticing in general.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Echolalia

[cusimano_brothers 1,655]

In the summer, I saw an interview on tv with Jack Dorsey, the man who created Twitter and is now one of it's co-owners. At that time, he said the company wasn't making any money.

[mjlegend 155]

It's Bob McKenzie, though. He knows his s***. I wouldn't even think of posting or taking very seriously an Eklund rumor from Twitter.

Edited November 9, 2009 by mjlegend

[Doggy 130]

It's Bob McKenzie, though. He knows his s***. I wouldn't even think of posting or taking very seriously an Eklund rumor from Twitter.

Yeah Bob McKenzie is rock solid. The most reliable source in the media without a doubt.

[Echolalia 2,961]

It's Bob McKenzie, though. He knows his s***. I wouldn't even think of posting or taking very seriously an Eklund rumor from Twitter.

My issue doesn't really stem from who twittered the information, whether its Eklund, Bob McKenzie, or Jesus. My issue is that anyone can get a twitter account and say anything, so it kind of degrades the authenticity of information, regardless of who says it, simply because the medium being used isn't selective. I look at it kind of like the wikipedia of updates. Anyone can say anything, and its fairly obvious when most information is correct or not (although there are definite gradients with both sites), but because it isn't an actual textbook (that hint of authenticity that I referred to earlier), you can't get away with relying solely on it.

Another qualm I have lies in the character limitations. If new information on anything comes out, I want all the facts and supporting information, quotes, sources, etc. 120 characters or whatever the hell they allow isn't enough space to provide all of that.

Anyway, sorry to derail the subject.

[Guest Lidstromboli]

the wings don't need another 4th liner

[Doggy 130]

My issue doesn't really stem from who twittered the information, whether its Eklund, Bob McKenzie, or Jesus. My issue is that anyone can get a twitter account and say anything, so it kind of degrades the authenticity of information, regardless of who says it, simply because the medium being used isn't selective. I look at it kind of like the wikipedia of updates. Anyone can say anything, and its fairly obvious when most information is correct or not (although there are definite gradients with both sites), but because it isn't an actual textbook (that hint of authenticity that I referred to earlier), you can't get away with relying solely on it.

Another qualm I have lies in the character limitations. If new information on anything comes out, I want all the facts and supporting information, quotes, sources, etc. 120 characters or whatever the hell they allow isn't enough space to provide all of that.

Anyway, sorry to derail the subject.

But it's not from Eklund, it's from McKenzie. His twitter is as good as a TSN.com article in terms of credibility. Twitter itself is not a source of information. The people behind those accounts are the sources. No-one but Bob McKenzie can tweet in his name, therefore the authenticity of his information can't be degraded.

Wikipedia is open to vandalism. Twitter is not.

[Echolalia 2,961]

But it's not from Eklund, it's from McKenzie. His twitter is as good as a TSN.com article in terms of credibility. Twitter itself is not a source of information. The people behind those accounts are the sources. No-one but Bob McKenzie can tweet in his name, therefore the authenticity of his information can't be degraded.

Wikipedia is open to vandalism. Twitter is not.

I understand that, and like I said, I don't take issue with who says what. Rather, I have an issue with the fact that anyone can get a twitter and say anything, which taints the word of those who may actually be credible, simply by association through Twitter. Anyone can get a twitter account. Not anyone can get a journalism degree and end up reporting for the nhl or tsn or sports illustrated. Sure, those journalists and reporters can get twitter accounts and folks can follow them, but by doing so they're taking a couple steps backwards because they're now using the same heavily limited medium that is in no way designed for properly giving information of this caliber that most people use to report how long it took them to get off the s***ter. Again, its not the person behind the twitter, but the medium itself that I have an issue with.

[russianswede919293 95]

To rerail this thread...

I hope we do not claim him.

[Doggy 130]

I understand that, and like I said, I don't take issue with who says what. Rather, I have an issue with the fact that anyone can get a twitter and say anything, which taints the word of those who may actually be credible, simply by association through Twitter. Anyone can get a twitter account. Not anyone can get a journalism degree and end up reporting for the nhl or tsn or sports illustrated. Sure, those journalists and reporters can get twitter accounts and folks can follow them, but by doing so they're taking a couple steps backwards because they're now using the same heavily limited medium that is in no way designed for properly giving information of this caliber that most people use to report how long it took them to get off the s***ter. Again, its not the person behind the twitter, but the medium itself that I have an issue with.

I'm new to twitter but I'm pretty sure you only have to read whom you choose to read. The only person I follow on twitter is McKenzie so I don't give a crap about what anyone else is writing.

The reason twitter is a great medium for sourcing info from a reliable insider like Bob McKenzie, is because it's quicker and easier for him to break his news immediately so you hear things quicker than waiting for it to appear oon TSN.com or something.

You really have no argument here at all, I gotta say.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I'm new to twitter but I'm pretty sure you only have to read whom you choose to read. The only person I follow on twitter is McKenzie so I don't give a crap about what anyone else is writing.

The reason twitter is a great medium for sourcing info from a reliable insider like Bob McKenzie, is because it's quicker and easier for him to break his news immediately so you hear things quicker than waiting for it to appear oon TSN.com or something.

You really have no argument here at all, I gotta say.

I wasn't really trying to make an argument as its somewhat difficult to debate opinions. I'm not overlooking the conveniences of Twitter and I don't have any misconceptions on how it works, I just prefer that my news come from established mediums specialized for transmitting that information, rather than a below-average, 120-or-so character blog originally designed so people can relay about what they had for breakfast.

I don't even mind when others use Twitter to get a heads up on information in a timely fashion (if its there why not use it?), but instead of relying solely on that for the entire piece of news, its important to me to find an actual article that has been written after facts have been checked and double checked. Has this been verified? How did this occur? How was it found out? What are the repercussions? There have been plenty of statements released from inside sources that have been incorrect or incredibly misleading already since Twitter's birth, and I expect that trend will continue because an unfiltered, live release of information doesn't allow much time to check your sources, and the emphasis is on convenience and speed in our society. Additionally, because there is no filter prior to somebody publishing something, it opens the doors for all kinds of unprofessionalism. This has already been a huge issue with Twitter, as we've seen people have meltdowns live, people use the wrong choice of words in the heat of the moment, etc. That type of environment isn't an ideal location for me to use as a prime source of information. I don't see anything wrong with using it as a "head's up, this may or may not be the case" type of scenario, but before I do anything, I'm going to check the facts with a relevant source of info that can provide a real look into what's going on.

And this isn't just an issue that I have with hockey news. Its journalism in general.

[Doggy 130]

I wasn't really trying to make an argument as its somewhat difficult to debate opinions. I'm not overlooking the conveniences of Twitter and I don't have any misconceptions on how it works, I just prefer that my news come from established mediums specialized for transmitting that information, rather than a below-average, 120-or-so character blog originally designed so people can relay about what they had for breakfast.

I don't even mind when others use Twitter to get a heads up on information in a timely fashion (if its there why not use it?), but instead of relying solely on that for the entire piece of news, its important to me to find an actual article that has been written after facts have been checked and double checked. Has this been verified? How did this occur? How was it found out? What are the repercussions? There have been plenty of statements released from inside sources that have been incorrect or incredibly misleading already since Twitter's birth, and I expect that trend will continue because an unfiltered, live release of information doesn't allow much time to check your sources, and the emphasis is on convenience and speed in our society. Additionally, because there is no filter prior to somebody publishing something, it opens the doors for all kinds of unprofessionalism. This has already been a huge issue with Twitter, as we've seen people have meltdowns live, people use the wrong choice of words in the heat of the moment, etc. That type of environment isn't an ideal location for me to use as a prime source of information. I don't see anything wrong with using it as a "head's up, this may or may not be the case" type of scenario, but before I do anything, I'm going to check the facts with a relevant source of info that can provide a real look into what's going on.

And this isn't just an issue that I have with hockey news. Its journalism in general.

Okay, that was well-put.

I see what you're saying now. I do agree that they always have to be backed up with a legitimate article, but I just think Bob McKenzie's twitter is a pretty damn good source. Despite the imperfections of twitter, I think they're overcome in this case, by the legitimacy of Bob McKenzie as a newsbreaker.

[Wings_Dynasty 267]

the wings don't need another 4th liner

Uhh, yeah they do since the fourth liners are now playing on the second line.

[PrairieDawg 52]

Pick up MacIntyre.

Waive Lebda.