Thank you for a thoughtful and reasoned answer.
I can't disagree with anything you said there.
Thank you for a thoughtful and reasoned answer.
I can't disagree with anything you said there.
what publications do you read?
How the hell have you been a member for over a year? Jeez, dude:
Being from out of state I never read the Freep to begin with, except when clicking links to their articles posted here or around the web. But after this, I make it a point to not click on any link to the site. What really put me over the edge was their taking advantage or people who are still essentially kids. Being disengenuous towards 17-18 year olds who are excited to be playing the sport they love, for a great institution like Michigan, and totally misrepresenting their comments is dispicable. And it wasn't a one time thing either, they have shown a trend of this behavior. They caused these kids to appologize to their coach and feel terrible; simply for expressing their happiness and excitement.
Behavior like that is why I now avoid the Freep, the shoddy journalism is anothe. And I hope my lack of clicks, however few they would be, helps to drive the message home that conduct such as that is unethical and wrong.
Also previous comments.
Plus, the Free Press was a piece of crap well before they decided to screw with Michigan. I find it to be a paper all too worthy of some of the people that run Detroit straight into the ground day after day. I find it horribly tilted most of the time, and run by clowns (See: Drew Sharp. No respect and no excuses for a man so hateful ofa kid looking to turn his life around that he goes into a screaming fest on radio that forces them to go to commercial).
I have not read much of anything from them for a while now, but I know that the idiots haven't been fired, so it is almost certainly the same. Bottom line is that there are much better places to get your news than the Free Press, so why bother reading it?
You say Michael Rosenberg doesn't "hate" his Alma Mater, which is fair; I don't think he hates his Alma Mater either; in fact I enjoyed "War as They Knew It". This doesn't mean that he's above selling it out for his own personal gain. Put yourself in Rosenberg's position: if someone were to give you some potentially (albeit marginally) incriminating facts about your alma mater, what would you do? I personally would not start a months-long quest to have those facts brought to light.
In regards to the Free Press as a whole: I think that the vitriol towards the paper stems from the fact that the Free Press has continued to sensationalize their now-flawed story in order to justify its initial publication. The right thing to do would be to provide a balanced review of their information and sources; the prudent thing to do would be to downplay their lopsided portrayal of the situation by limiting the visibility of the story in their publications. They did neither; in fact they are still trying to make the story more than it is (see the 8 page feature on it yesterday).
As a journalist, it is Rosenberg's job to investigate a lead on anything, even if it incriminates his alma mater. Tough, but professionalism demands it. Being his alma mater, however, he DOES have an obligation to dig even deeper than he normally would to see if it can't all be explained and perhaps immediately corrected when brought to the University first. He chose to make a sensationalized, exaggerated piece and make sure it was published on the eve of opening weekend to get the most hype. A real dolphin-puncher move.
As you said though, the Freep has compeltely failed to acknowledge the problems with their story since the investigation. The original report is practically Onion worthy compared to what the investigation turned up, and they still act like they got it spot on. That says more about the paper itself than Rosenberg and the editor who let his story make to print combined, and it isn't very pretty.
Rosenberg, being a UM alum and an anti-RR columnist, (i.e. not a reporter) should have been the first - were he truly ethical - to tell his editor, "Look, I got this tip. I am a Michigan grad and have written some pretty scathing remarks about Rodriguez. I can't be seen as unbiased here. I think someone else should follow up this tip." Short of that - and to Chait's point - the editor should have said, "Rosenberg, this is not your story to write."
Of course, this is the real world, and Rosenberg and his editor are smarmy, self-promoting scumbags. So, he set about making a name for himself at his alma mater's expense.
If I were in Rosendbergs shoes, and a few disgruntled departing players tipped me off. I would have investigated out of concern for my Alma Mater, but I would have been a heck of a lot more thorough in making sure I knew more about the subject I was investigating (i.e., countable hours), and I would have balanced the article with facts about what other programs did as well.
Of course, if I had done that I would have come up with a side bar story about disgruntled departing players complaining about how hard they were expected to apply themselves. How players do put in a lot of hours, but a lot of it is vountary, and with the Byzantine NCAA guidelines, it is not really possible to tell if there were countable hour violations or not. How Chad Henne, Jake Long, players at MSU and OSU, etc. pride themselves on the extra voluntary work they do, and the NCAA itself released a statement that most student atheles put in close to double the allowable activity.
Maybe my story would have been how QC staffers were at voluntary 7 on 7s, and this appears to clearly be a viiolation.
The expose Rosenberg released was very quickly found to be full of inaccuracies and misrepresentations - but the MSM ran with it, and never circled back around on those inaccuracies and misrepresentations.
If any good comes out of this, hopefully the NCAA will clarify what constitutes coaching or not, what constitutes allowable S&C staff or not, etc. The areas of CARA, QC or non-coaching staff, and S&C staff obviously are grey enough that most programs if put under a microscope would end up with violations.
In fact - maybe the story I would have done would have across many programs and how these shady definitions are being exploited and the NCAA should tighten them up.
On top of everything else, they have never even tried to correct the inaccuracies from the original article. They never mentioned except maybe obliquely, that they were wildly wrong with the facts about the number of hours practiced and the lack of context in terms of CARA and others. It wouldn't even be that hard for Rosenberg to write an apology column saying he didn't fully understand countable hours, he didn't talk to the right people, and on and on, making him seem like the victim of good intentions and a little ignorance. If he did write that in his usual self-serving way, 80% of the M fanbase would forgive him, I think. Still, he and Snyder and everyone else continue to think and act like they were right all along, which is why I am even more angry at the Freep now than ever..
I enjoyed his columns. He's got a good sense of humor. I really enjoyed his book about Bo and Woody that shall remain unnamed. But I won't click. He's dead to me.
I mean, come on, he's not going to APOLOGIZE. The Freep's circled their wagons around him. And Brandon and the University have circled its wagons around Rich.
I like that we're on much higher ground.
I see that some of my friends and fellow Michigan alumni would like to see you supplied with a better answer to your questions about Michigan and the NCAA since the August 2009 Detroit Free Press story. Here's a modest attempt by me to satisfy you in that regard:
1. How did the Free Press story begin? We don't know. Rosenberg hasn't said. It is pretty safe to presume that the Freep's "one month investigation" (the Freep's own description) began when somebody leaked the July '09 CARA Audit Memo. The memo noted that CARA forms were missing. There was no suspicion of any NCAA violations at the time, as stated in the memo. But Rosenberg saw a target of opportunity. Without any CARA form backup, why not ask some guys -- the kind of guys who might, uh, talk, about how much supervised practice time they spent?
2. How did Rosenberg work the story? One way, only. He talked to the players he wanted to talk to. Nothing else. And he kept those players anonymous. The anonymity part is uniquely offensive, because not only did Rosenberg not have any basis for granting them anonymity (he originally claimed it was their fear of retaliation from coaches, and now says he was mistaken to have written it that way), Rosenberg probably broke the Freep's own rules on anonymous sources, which attempted to limit the use of anonymous sources, and would only grant the anonymity when sources demanded it. Toney Clemons said he talked to Rosenberg, and that he never asked for anonymity. Rosenberg's answer? "How do you know Clemons was one of my sources?"
3. The Freshmen - Stokes and Hawthorn. This was a scandal all by itself. Snyder (I believe) approached Stokes and Hawthorn on media day, and asked the two freshmen how hard they had worked that spring. They happily told Snyder. Their quotes were then shoehorned into the Freep's predetermined thesis; Rodriguez and Barwis were working the guys too hard. It was an outrage. The players' parents were outraged at the misuse of their kids' quotes, which had NOTHING to do with CARA activities. The players went to Rodriguez, fearful that they had hurt the team. This was the absolute low point for Rodriguez. The moment he, quite rightfully, was close to tears, over the abominable abuse of his two freshman. And let's get this straight, Matt -- the one real, true, confirmable instance of 'player abuse' in all of this was in fact the abuse, by Mark Snyder and Mike Rosenberg, of the two Freshman in their August 30 story.
4. What Rosenberg and Snyder never did. They never aksed anybody of any consequence in the Compliance Services Office about what CARA meant, how it was applied, how the forms were distrubuted, used, and collected. What was the nature of the problem outlined in the July Audit Memo, and what had already been done to correct it, before Rosenberg started this story. This might not have been the most immoral or despicable of all of Rosenberg's multitude of sins, but it was clearly the worst and most inexcusable journalistic decision.
5. The Friday warning. I've already mentioned this one. Not the worst sin in this case, but the one that shows the thuggery behind Rosenberg's methods. Snyder and Rosenberg (aka Paulie Walnuts and Bobby Bacala) show up at Bruce Madej's office on Friday August 28, and inform the Athletic Depsrtment about the story that was set for publication on Sunday. They wanted a "response," that day or the next morning. I am not sure if they said anything about a signature or somebody's brains being on the contract. I actually think that was from Godfather Part 1.
6. The August 30 story. "Journalistic malpractice" is what Jon Chait called it. It detailed not just some CARA inaccuracies. It alleged a wild set of facts that, if true, would have entailed a wholsale violation of NCAA practice rules the likes of which have never been seen. Nearly double the allowable supervised hours. Eight unallowable hours on Sundays. Punishment workouts. It was all untrue. All of those "player allegations" have been shown to be untrue, based on the investigations of the NCAA and Michigan. Yes, the NCAA found some irregularities. Michigan's brilliant counsel, Gene Marsh and his partner Bill King have detailed those in painstaking mind-numbing detail. You should read their report. I have. But as they correctly point out in the very first section, the media reports of this case (fill in: The Detroit Free Press) were "exaggerated if not flatly incorrect."
7. The Free Press digs in. After August 30, the Free Press dug in. It printed press-release responses by the University and Athletic Department which were of course blandly uninformative because the University had immediately launched an internal investigation. The Free Press did a story on a Rodriguez press conference (the tearful outrage over the treatment of his freshmen) and one on the nasty reaction for which MGoBlog was, proudly ground-zero. The Free Press never once did a re-examination of its story. It never once published a significant op-ed opposing the allegations. Worst in my own mind (others might have their own views) was the smarmy, sanctimonious column one week later, in which Freep Publisher Paul Anger claimed that Snyder and Rosenberg were "doing their jobs... and well." And he launched into a diatribe about how the NCAA rules were there to protect student-athletes. And that the Free Press, being the paragon of media fairness that it is, "would continue to report all sides."
8. The detailed blogosphere response. Our host here at MGoBlog "Fisked" the Freep story. Matt, you need to know what "fisking" is. Go look it up. Search is your friend here. Look up Brian Cook's writing in this topic. Brian and (in a much lesser capacity) I appeared on Mitch Albom's WJR program the next week. And tried to explain to Mitch, better than Mitch ever "explained Mateen Cleeves", why the Freep story was so fucked up. Mitch Albom asked Brian what his job was. So much for Mitch, the Freep's superstar columnist. Matt, if you are interested in this subject -- and in all seriousness, I owe you this much -- you should read Brian's many, many writings on the Rosenberg jihad. It is better than what I can do for you.
9. The NCAA investigation. Not much to say, other than, again, "Read it." Read the Notice of Allegations. It is: a) a model of impenetrable NCAA-speak, and; b) a severe departure from all of the junk that the Freep's anonymous-source "current and former players" were quoted as saying. And how the hell would anybody ever know if they were even quoted accurately? They're anonymous! The NCAA found some shit. It was wholly different from, and ten orders of magnitude less severe than, what the Freep had alleged.
10. The Responses. There are two responses. The University carefully answered the charges against the Athletic Department in relation to the CARA hours compilations, and agreed not to fight the Notice of Allegations (which were entirely different from what the Freep had alleged. The University also carefully explained how there had been some bad communication with respect to defining the "Quality Control" and "Coaching" roles of some staff members. Neither of these allegations were addressed to Rich Rodriguez at all. After 70+ pages from the University, and 60+ pages of explanation from Rodriguez, both parties denied anotther allegation, that Rodriguez had failed to encourage an "atmosphere of compliance." And that is where we were on Tuesday.
11. Tuesday, May 24. What a day. The Responses are issued. The Free Press issues triumphal healdlines; Michigan Admits to Major Violations. Without once mentioning the University's Response's blowback against the Free Press; that the Free Press' original reporting had been "exaggerated if not flatly incorrect." And remember that claim is not an anguished defense by Michigan. It is, in the first instance, simply a reflection of the nature of the NCAA's own Notice of Allegations. You see, Matt, even the NCAA no longer accepts the Free Press allegations as accurate. If it ever did.
One last thing, Matt. FUCK the Free Press.
On one hand your writing is one-sided enough (and in this case deservedly so) to be FREEP writer but on the other you put way too much thought into this response.
there wouldn't have been so many typos.
I hope MGoMatt gets the general idea.
are an idiot
That was an excellent, well-written summary of the events. Well done.
In my mind, as a journalist, the most egregious thing was the blatant manipulation of the freshmen quotes. Matt does not understand how truly fucked up that single act was in the scheme of things.
Again, good job. I was so angry after reading the OP that I wanted to climb through my computer screen and smack Matt upside the head.
you should promote this to a diary. f***ing epic.
The only thing here that I am not as sure about is 1) the CARA memo leak.
While I agree in the belief that Rosenberg was tipped off on the CARA memo (the timing is too coincidental), I am sure they would have had "internal document obtained" as exhibit a in the original story.
I think it more likely they were tipped to "sniff here", but not the subsance of the CARA memo itself. I also think one of the disgruntled departures that summer may have reached out first complaining about being asked to leave because he was not fulfilling his academic and conditioning obligations (cough, cough, Wermers), causing Rosenberg to start sniffing, which lead to the tip.
In which Rory, upon graduating from college with a Journalism degree, receives offers from several media outlets. Upon hearing the name of one of them Rory's grandmother (Emily) says. "The Detroit Free Press? That's a very reputable newspaper."
Of course, that was before Rosenberg and Snyder and August 29. I'm sure Emily woke up that morning horrified to see just how wrong she was.
I saw that episode on ABC Family not too long after football season. I had to refrain from throwing my remote.
There'll be no lube for you. The Freep is a terrible paper, and its not just Rosenberg. Drew Sharp is also employed there. It seems a lot of the info Rosenberg received was from disgruntled former players who never bought into the system.
Mitch Albom also writes for them. And I don't know if its just me, but when he tries to write about sports, I find the information on the back of a cereal box more useful.
In separate interviews, five players gave almost identical accounts of how the program is run, and a sixth player confirmed most of the descriptions.
What is hilarious, is that 2 of those nearly 6 players were Freshman that claimed Rosenberg was dishonest with how he interviewed them and used their responses. So we are really down to 3 players with a 4th player that gave similar evidence.
When interviewed on the Huge Show, Rosenberg "could not remember" how many of them were currently on the team and how many had transferred. He said that he couldn't even guess. That is BS and makes me believe that he got 3-4 angry transfers to complain but knew he needed someone on the team, which is why he pounced on the 2 unsuspecting Freshman and needed to lie to them to make his article look more legit.
It's simple why we're anti-freep, because they're anti-UofM. Why would an in-State newspaper bash college football's greatest program for doing what every other major program in the country does? If you think for one second that teams like Florida, Ohio State, and USC don't exceed practice time then you're the retard in the room with the lowest I.Q. Why do we hate Freep? Because their intentions are obvious, the total destruction of our Wolverine Nation.
While I completely agree with the above stated, we should strive to be better and not do things because everyone else does. That is all can't wait for Sept.
Or at least for damned sure make certain you ar doing what the other programs do, within the letter of the NCAA CARA regulations. You know: keeping CARA logs, posting QC staff job descriptions, not observing 7 on 7 drills, having warm ups lead by players with no coaches or staffers overseeing them, etc.
The DFP has consistently shown a severe lack of journalistic integrity.
(There are many repeated evidences of this.) I am only speaking of its sports reporting, but the incredible lack of quality in this regard implies a systemic problem. Over time and with much critique, both professional and casual, they have neglected to make an effort to show fairness and responsibility in their reporting. From any news outlet media, we should expect and demand more.
This alone is enough reason not to support them. However, not supporting something is passive, easy and quiet. In this case, I do prefer a boycott becase for me, this boils down to intent.
With careful aggression, staff reporters at the DFP have tried to undermine our current head football coach and his system. I'm sure there are many reasons why, perpaps even some justified ones. However, even if their jihad was actually meant to better the University and not just an attempt at self promotion, it is still obscene.They may feel like they are helping restore the "soiled" name of Michigan but their nearsighted agenda has cost too much. For in so doing, they have recklessly gambled with the history, reputation and honor that Michigan represents.
He is just clearly trying to troll since he posts these bs topics and then doesn't even stand by his claims.
Come back for your neg-bang I say!
... it's the whole tempest in a teapot thing. At the end of the day, what REAL harm was done by protocols that arguably many programs across the country mirror?
Plus, consider the source(s). Disgruntled players looking to get even? You betcha.
As far as I'm concerned the complainants (and their parents) are pathetic and feel an inflated sense of entitlement. The opportunity to receive a FREE education from a top-tier university in exchange for playing a game they love should be enough to keep them humble and their mouths shut.
Major violations? What a joke.
Have you watched the news recently? This doesn't just happen to Michigan Football, this is what journalism is. I don't know the last time I've seen ANY news story that didn't take things out of context, or get some of the facts wrong.
I think we have established that the 'everyone does it, so it is okay' excuse doesn't hold any water by now.
By your logic, you shouldn't have any issues with the so-called infractions then, right?
"How was Rosenberg supposed to determine what was true and what was not?"
By doing his job? Isn't that what journalism is? Determining what is true and what is not? By learning what countable and non-countable hours are, for example?
The reality is that the Free Press found only one clear problem -- Alex Herron's presence at 7-on-7 drills. But that wasn't enough for the full-blown expose they wanted, so they made things up about stuff they didn't understand, like what football staff were doing in the weight room and how workout and practice time is accounted for. The result was a wildly distorted picture of what was actually going on. There is no excuse for that in journalism.
Misopogon has recently addressed what this was all about in a comment worthy of the front page. Read it.
I am also a non-boycotter. Boycotting just isn't in me. To say that the Free Press is completely anti-UM is short sighted and simple minded. They just had a good feature about the softball team today.
I think the biggest issue to be upset about that article is the whole countable vs. non-countable thing. The actual time spent that they confirmed with five to six players was probably correct. They made a huge mistake (or conscious omission if you're of the conspiracy bent) when they didn't know about or learn enough about the difference in countable and non-countable hours. If they had done a thorough job there, they would have unearthed the actual overages (on average 20 minutes) and this would have been a much smaller issue. If they had done their job thoroughly there, they might have ended up doing UM a service by unearthing their porous compliance issues (Labadie / Draper) without all of the collateral damage.
The unwillingness to acknowledge that mistake and how that made the original article so far off in accuracy is where the real ire should be directed, in my opinion.
Saying "they went over 20 minutes" isn't exactly sexy, news worthy, and would not generate money for the paper.
If you dont' think that they sexed it up I don't know what to tell you. There are 2 options and neither are pretty. Either:
A: They are just plain stupid
B: They are lazy
C: The writers who wrote it are in fact in the conspiracy to oust RR and thus should not be covering UM Football
In any of those cases these "journalists" shouldn't be "reporting" this type of stuff because it's jsut completely wrong.
Well KilgoreTrout, I think you said it...it's the follow up.
The original piece was terribly biased. Maybe they just go caught up in the excitement of writing a hard hitting big-story piece. Some people can't remain objective.
But since then, they have not only refused to acknowledge huge problems with the story but have continued to report as though the inaccuracies were true! AND they have failed to report things that demonstrate just how improper the original story was.
That is simply outrageous and while I don't boycott anything I don't read the freep either. It's just not worth my time, they're doing this intentionally now and nothing they write can be treated at face value. Between the Detroit News, the Daily, annarbor.com, mgoblog, rivals, scout, and various smaller players there is plenty of UM news available. Reading the freep is a waste of my time. No wonder their circulation is down...they're a bunch of amateurs and they create a poor product.
"How was Rosenberg supposed to determine what was true and what was not?"
IT'S HIS MOTHERFUCKING JOB.
The fact that you apparently don't understand that, and don't expect a well-paid journalist to have that as his constant, primary goal, is Exhibit A illustrating the abysmal state of journalism today.
I'm making an exception here.
Seriously? Come on!
And also, please note the general tenor of the original piece was VERY MUCH aimed squarely at Rich Rodriguez and Mike Barwis. There was no (none reported) presentation that it was an Athletic Department issue or shortcoming...it was almost 100% Rod and Barwis.
BG? Oh right because they had an agenda and because that didn't fit their story to interview unbiased people that weren't freshmen...
Widespread abuse of NCAA regulations is a much bigger story and they were stalking M players at the Media Days in Chicago....it isn't like there were no other players to talk to right?
If the Free Press were to acknowledge that the investigation got parts of the story right while other issues were wholly wrong say, after the NCAA hearing and ruling, would that be enough? Would it take an apology proportional to the initial reports?
I want to be clear, I am not fully expecting this to happen in the least, because as has been pointed out time and again, the Free Press has too much at stake to acknowledge they were wrong, but as someone who has fought off the urge repeatedly in the last two days to send an email to the Free Press with the Jon Chait link* and a request for an explanation, solely because I didn't think it would do me any good, I want to know if anyone else thinks that an acknowledgment of wrong-doing (not even an apology) would be a start?
* - I was less successful in fighting off the urge to ding ESPN's Ivan Maisel and the NYT's Pete Thamel for tweeting or retweeting that Michigan was being "childish" for "leaking" the response and granting interviews to two of the Freep's competitiors before they went public. I have not heard back from either, I don't expect to either, but it's maddening the lengths to which so many in the journalistic community will go to portray their colleagues as the victim even when the colleagues are in the wrong. Then again, I suppose this is a professional courtesy that exists in all professions on some level. I'd also like to thank Section 1 for his outstanding outlines of the timelines of what/why/and how the Free Press was wrong in this.
I would require a full investigation and accounting of what exactly transpired, plus a 70+ page statement from them as to their role in the entire mess.
I worked as a reporter for 17 years, my last job being at a large, national newspaper. I can tell you the Freep story fell short of standards at all of the places I worked.
Upfront stories at the big paper where I worked were heavily edited. Sometimes this drove us reporters nuts, but it made the story much, much better 99.99% of the time, so we accepted it. There was one editor in particular who oversaw ethics in the reporting process. The Freep story never would have seen the light of day in the form it was published if any editor worth his or her salt read it.
First, it was a rule that any "target" of a story must be told upfront what the story was going to say, and be given adequate time to refute every single assertion. More than one potentially great story was killed because the reporter decided to ambush the target.
I can also tell you that this editor would have skinned alive any reporter who used quotes from people who were not apprised of what the story was going to say and how those quotes would be used.
So there's two major ethical demerits right there.
Outside of ethics, many questions also would have been asked by editors about countable hours, the CARA reporting process and examples from other places (a story that did not run until well after the first one.) The story was full of holes.
This was a shoddy hit piece. Did the reporters have something? Yes, they did. Was their story accurate (NOT the same thing as truthful)? No. Not in the least. They could have done the story the right way and still would have had a big impact. Obviously, there was a problem to be uncovered. But they overstepped, big-time.
There's a scene in "All The President's Men" when Woodward and Bernstein turn in a story to editor Ben Bradlee early on in the Watergate investigation. They think it's a front-pager, a breaking development. He looks it over, glares at them and says, "You don't have it, do you?" He takes out a pen, slashes away at the copy and says, "Put in inside someplace. Get some harder information next time."
They didn't have it. The reporting and editing processes fell short of standards. As a journalist, it pains me to see things like that.
If you have multiple bad experiences at a certain restaurant, you will eventually stop going there altogether or at least avoid it as much as possible.
The Freep is no different than a bad restaurant that continually serves poop on a plate. All of the reasons and examples of this poop have been laid out in this thread by the other posters. It should be fairly apparent why somone would not enjoy Freep poop and choose not to partake in it. However, for some reason, some people will never see it as poop and that is choice/dillusion.
Enjoy your poop. I'm moving on to better and less poopy things.
It's always nice to see a good analogy.
Seriously, I have no problem with those who buy the freep because we all have freedom of choice, but the only times I have clicked on them since the hatchet job came out have been when I linked to stories that either didn't have a freep warning or I didn't see the freep warning. I beileve that has happened maybe four times.
I used to give them around ten clicks a day, so just from one fan like me, they lose 3650 clicks a year. If you multiply that by the amount of serious UM fans out there, they are losing a lot of clicks. I hope they either fire Rosenpuke, Shyster, and the editor who enabled their behavior, or go out of business. There is no middle ground for me at this point.
Besides, boycotting gives me more time that I don't spend reading the freep.
don't back you up.
Look up a report from ~April 26/27. The fr**p circulation fell 12% for Sunday editions and ~13% for weekday, in six months (SIX MONTHS) ended March 2010.
And internets aren't their salvation, either...combined News/fr**p hits are around 25,000 per day...seemingly only double what Brian gets here at mgoblog...
Wave that banner proudly...soon you'll be the only one.
MgoMatt one question...If you actually read the paper I will not mention why would you feel the need to express that in this forum?
Please, share this screed with Paul Anger at the fr**p. His email addy has been posted on this site plenty of times.