Quote:
Originally Posted by HRBAKER
Assume for a minute that these all have to do with Mr. Nash (I have NO idea but it has been speculated above), I don't think anybody ever tried to impute to him any sort of noble intentions; does it necessarily make everything he says/uncovers/prints false? Or rather does it require a greater deal of scrutiny due to the origin? Or should it be discounted altogether?
|
I love the haulsofshame website and am glad that he is doing the work that he is, but I think that Nash's history in this hobby does make his assertions subject to a greater deal of scrutiny. When Richard posted in the thread about the Yankees ball that he had spoken to a number of individuals who didn't like the ball, I believed him because he has a stellar reputation and doesn't appear driven by an agenda. I am much less prone to believe much of what is said by the anonymous "experts" quoted by Nash. He has an agenda and it is skewing his journalism. I happily read what he writes with that in mind.