<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>SB Nation User Blog:  long time listener</title>
    <link>http://www.sbnation.com/users/long%20time%20listener</link>
    <description>Posts made by long time listener on SB Nation</description>
    <item>
      <title>Robers &amp; credibility</title>
      <link>http://www.pinstripealley.com/2009/5/3/863757/robers-credibility</link>
      <author>long time listener</author>
      <pubDate>Sun, 03 May 2009 23:34:51 -0000</pubDate>
      <description type="html">


&lt;p&gt;I haven't read Roberts's book (obviously, since it's not out), but I'm watching her on the MLB Network with Bob Costas.&amp;nbsp; Roberts is resting a lot on her personal credibility as a journalist.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The problem with that is her poor work on the Duke lacrosse case. She wrote a lot of things that turned out to be flat-out wrong.&amp;nbsp; See, for example, the following link:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2008/03/selena-roberts-still-misleading.html&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(For those who don't know, KC Johnson, who runs Durham in Wonderland, was writing about inconsistencies and problems in the Duke case before the case fell apart.)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I'd love for someone to ask her how she can rest on her credibility when she was so wrong in the Duke case. Is she just following a media storm and piling on someone who has fallen out of favor - like she did in the Duke case?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I'll add that I don't trust Rodriguez in all this either. He's obviously lied about this in the past, and God knows if he's telling the truth now. But a lot of the accusations in her book seems to be based on (1) the idea that Alex got much bigger in high school; and (2) a lot of anonymous sources. Shouldn't we have more before we condemn a man? Shouldn't we have had more in the Duke case? Is anyone going to ask Roberts about this?&lt;/p&gt;

  
  


      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>here's why I'm confident</title>
      <link>http://www.bigblueview.com/2009/1/9/715612/here-s-why-i-m-confident</link>
      <author>long time listener</author>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 20:14:27 -0000</pubDate>
      <description type="html">


&lt;p&gt;We have not lost a game we needed to win since December 2007 (Week 15 v. the Redskins).&amp;nbsp; Every single time since them, when the Giants have needed to win at least as much as the other team, they have won.&amp;nbsp; Our five losses since then:&lt;/p&gt;

  &lt;p&gt;Patriots, Week 17, 2007: We needed to play well to gain confidence, but the Pats needed the win to finish 16-0.&amp;nbsp; We needed the game as much as they did a few weeks later, and we all remember the outcome.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Browns, Week 6: We were 4-0, but the Browns were 1-3 and needed a win to salvage their season (which went to hell anyway).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Eagles, Week 14: After a long winning streak, we had the division more or less sewn up.&amp;nbsp; The Eagles were fighting for their lives.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Cowboys, Week 15: We had the division clinched, but the Cowboys needed a win to stay in the wildcard race.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Vikings, Week 17: Giants had 1st seed clinched and only really played the first half; Vikings were almost in do-or-die mode.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Other than that, every time the Giants have needed a win, they've gotten it done. That includes all of last year's playoffs, the Super Bowl against an 18-0 team, and every game this year - which includes two of the four teams left in the AFC, and all three of the other remaining NFC games.&amp;nbsp; They've needed a few breaks to get some of those wins, but they've also made virtually every play they had to make.&lt;/p&gt;
  


      </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
