Snyder writes open letter to Washington Post regarding City Paper lawsuit

[mlmdub130]

in the spirit of mattys new thread thread this morning


dan snyder wrote an open letter to the post giving his reasoning why he is going forward with suing the city paper...

Why I am suing Washington City Paper - The Washington Post

[mlmdub130]

damn it, can someone please fix the title, thanks

[MTK]

I should have specified the importance of quality thread titles too. These threads get sent out via Facebook and Twitter, so let's remember when you're creating content for the site, let's dot our I's and cross our T's.

[mlmdub130]

Punctuation too? Geez crackin the whip around here.

[Chico23231]

I can repsect that coming from Snyder. Enough is Enough. Im just glad he realized that statement himself and fired Vinny when he did and step back from helping run this organization into the ground after 10 years.

Have no problem with the lawsuit and think/hopes he wins.

[MTK]

As I said in the other thread it's good to hear his side, and let's be honest that City Paper article was not 100% factual so he does have valid points.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

As I said in the other thread it's good to hear his side, and let's be honest that City Paper article was not 100% factual so he does have valid points.

Such as? I keep hearing about how this isn't 100% factual, and have YET to hear or see one thing from anybody to refute otherwise. (including Dan Snyder)

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

Such as? I keep hearing about how this isn't 100% factual, and have YET to hear or see one thing from anybody to refute otherwise. (including Dan Snyder)

See here about how the article is not factual:
Dan Snyder defends lawsuit: “I am not thin-skinned” | ProFootballTalk

I understand Snyder's not wanting to be called a forger. I understand his point about how a simple apology would do. These are points on Snyder's side.

I still think he is being a bit thin-skinned about this - he still could have let the whole thing go - but his position is somewhat understandable.

[saden1]

What a dumb fck. If I am WaPo I wouldn't publish his stupid letter on the count of his asinine actions towards them.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

See here about how the article is not factual:
Dan Snyder defends lawsuit: “I am not thin-skinned” | ProFootballTalk

I understand Snyder's not wanting to be called a forger. I understand his point about how a simple apology would do. These are points on Snyder's side.

I still think he is being a bit thin-skinned about this - he still could have let the whole thing go - but his position is somewhat understandable.

We aren't debating about fact, we are debating context. I think the sentence

That’s the Dan Snyder who got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications

This isn't meant to be taken literally that Dan Snyder is the guy actually forging names. It's meant to be taken that Dan Snyder was in charge of a company that was found guilty of forging names, and had to know the practices were going on.

McKenna even mentions as much later on in the article.

Slamming: The illegal practice of switching a customer’s telephone service without authorization. Florida authorities fined Snyder’s pre-Redskins outfit, Snyder Communications, $3.1 million in 2001 after investigators uncovered more slamming in its offices than you’d find stagefront at a Limp Bizkit show.

Context is everything. As noted by the Jerry Falwell vs Hustler case.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[MTK]

Context is open for interpretation, that's the problem.

[Longtimefan]

Originally Posted by mlmdub130

in the spirit of mattys new thread thread this morning


dan snyder wrote an open letter to the post giving his reasoning why he is going forward with suing the city paper...

Why I am suing Washington City Paper - The Washington Post

Upon reading this article late last night I added the link and quote to an already existing thread that could be considered recent. Since the subject matter detailed basically what we already know, the need for a new thread escaped me. What we didn't know was that the lawsuit was refiled in the Washington courts.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by Lotus

I still think he is being a bit thin-skinned about this - he still could have let the whole thing go - but his position is somewhat understandable.

One more thing. I think the biggest irony in all this is he's claiming they are lying and has done exactly the same thing he's accusing them of.

Dan Snyder Lawsuit - Update from the Publisher - Washington City Paper

Snyder’s litigators, and ours, are about to spend significant time and money battling over a series of legal complaints that, in our view, don’t represent what our story actually said or implied. The story didn’t actually say the things Snyder has claimed it does—like call him a criminal, or a user of illegal military chemicals, or mock his wife’s battle against breast cancer. It did none of those things.

Snyder has outright lied about what the story said, and I've heard this with my own ears on the Lavar and Dukes show. He claimed they were mocking his wife's battle against breast cancer, but the TV interview the article talked about had to do with Play 60. Nothing cancer related, but yet this asshole had the nerve to play the "cancer card" to gain sympathy. Guy is a first class asshat, and that'll never change. Then he had the audacity to throw his PR guy under the bus and claim it was all his idea. If it was indeed his idea, then this guy is clueless about the PR industry.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

We aren't debating about fact, we are debating context. I think the sentence

This isn't meant to be taken literally that Dan Snyder is the guy actually forging names. It's meant to be taken that Dan Snyder was in charge of a company that was found guilty of forging names, and had to know the practices were going on.

McKenna even mentions as much later on in the article.



Context is everything. As noted by the Jerry Falwell vs Hustler case.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You missed the point about context. The line read:
That’s the Dan Snyder who got caught forging names as a telemarketer with Snyder Communications

That is different from a more factually correct claim:
That’s the Dan Snyder whose company got caught forging names

Notice that if I say:
Obama leads a country which has dog fighting

it is different than if I say:
Obama fights dogs in his country

Yes, context is everything, and on this point the newspaper is in the wrong because of poor wording.

[Son Of Man]

No hiding it here, I am a Snyder supporter. Hope he wins the suit. Sometimes you have to use your power to lay the smack down.