Hello Ian,
I ran that story at the request of Spencer Fearon ( I dont know if you read it or not), but obviously the fact that I was one of the first to break it then went out the window. Therefore its only right that Spencer's wrongly attributed article then be deleted as it was of no fault to my reporting.
PhilDJay wrote:Hello Ian,
I ran that story at the request of Spencer Fearon ( I dont know if you read it or not), but obviously the fact that I was one of the first to break it then went out the window. Therefore its only right that Spencer's wrongly attributed article then be deleted as it was of no fault to my reporting.
Cheers.
I'm not really sure what you're saying...all I'm saying is that whoever did the headline today was being a bit cheeky
PhilDJay wrote:Hello Ian,
I ran that story at the request of Spencer Fearon ( I dont know if you read it or not), but obviously the fact that I was one of the first to break it then went out the window. Therefore its only right that Spencer's wrongly attributed article then be deleted as it was of no fault to my reporting.
Cheers.
I'm not really sure what you're saying...all I'm saying is that whoever did the headline today was being a bit cheeky
I just wanted to clear up that we never got it wrong, thats all.
I'm not saying you personally reported the story wrongly. But there's no point in saying 'we never got it wrong'. I read a story on the site 'confirming' that Danny Williams wasn't retiring. The story was wrong, ergo the site was wrong.
We've been wrong loads of times...I just thought it was funny that the headline gave the site the big 'un when it ran a directly contradictory story on the same day.
Not liking this "WRONG" stuff, it was Spencer Fearon who corrected me. But anyways lets move on. I've heard Butterbean was to move down to super-flyweight.