Snyder writes open letter to Washington Post regarding City Paper lawsuit

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 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-i-am-suing-washington-city-paper/2011/04/25/AFYQC1kE_story.html)

damn it, can someone please fix the title, thanks

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.

Punctuation too? Geez crackin the whip around here.

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.

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.

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)

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 (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/26/dan-snyder-defends-lawsuit-i-am-not-thin-skinned/)

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.

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

See here about how the article is not factual:
Dan Snyder defends lawsuit: “I am not thin-skinned” | ProFootballTalk (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/04/26/dan-snyder-defends-lawsuit-i-am-not-thin-skinned/)

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell)