There's no way to know for sure, of course. And I freely admit to being in the minority on many of my opinions. And the "mainstream" fan may never stop getting info from those two sources. But I suspect, or rather, hope, that the ratio continues to swing towards the Internet and more intelligent baseball analysis.

There are key differences between what you wrote and Klapisch's column, and it has nothing to do with his being a member of the BBWAA and nothing to do with your being attacked by the other media (though I will observe that the Chicago radio media has treated you quite favorably).

In his column, Klapisch simply (a) observes that Pedro has yet to throw off a mound; (b) observes that he has chronic pain in his foot; (c) observes there is no timetable for his return; and (d) talks at length about how valuable Pedro is and how important it is that he is healthy.

Your notes differed in a few key respects. First and foremost, unlike Pedro's case, both the Cubs and Prior himself have vigorously denied that he's having any shoulder problems whatsoever. They may be obfuscating the truth, but the point is that when it comes to the issue of "is Prior having shoulder problems," it's their word against yours (or your source's). That's not true for Klapisch; Pedro himself admits he's in pain.

Second, and just as importantly, when you claim that "Prior is having shoulder problems," you claim to be relying on a source for your information. This takes your column beyond the realm of simply being one columnist's speculation; citing a source (a) implies that you have a contact with inside knowledge and (b) attempts to give your statement some air of credibility and legitimacy beyond just speculation that anyone with a keyboard and an internet connection can make (to borrow from Paul Sullivan).

To add insult to injury (pun intended), you then write "I don't say that my favorite Cub is hurt; I say there's a report." This is a cop-out and you should know it. When you mention you have a source -- a reliable source -- saying Prior has a shoulder problem, you are vouching for the credibility of the source and the claim he/she is making. If you didn't believe it, you should have said so (or not written about the issue at all). You can't now choose to duck behind it and pass it off as simply a "report." To do so is not only leaving your source hanging out to dry, but it makes you little more than a rumormonger, not an alleged journalist.

At the end of the day, Will, you and your source may be right -- Prior may be hurt and the Cubs may be continuing to deny and cover up the truth. Still, there are huge differences to what you did -- going out on a limb based on a "reliable source" -- and what Klapisch did.

You should seriously consider these points in the future; your credibility depends on it.

The fact that Will likes Prior and is a Cubs fan is irrelevant, except to the extent that Will should know that injury reports about Prior and/or Wood are going to get a lot of attention. Prior's achilles injury/elbow injury of 2004 was a major, major drama that no Cubs fan wants to live through again (the starts and stops pissed everyone off and probably cost the Cubs a playoff appearance in what was the most disappointing season of my Cubs memory). Will's tying of this latest report to the source that brought him the news of the 2004 injury (which, as Will now states, was not true) made it worse.

The problem is that Will's mistakes bring on a lot of schadenfreude. His "all-fired asshole" personality rubs people the wrong way, and when he is shown to be wrong on something, that's when "your editor" shows up. Will's interview with Teddy Greenstein will brighten some people's day.

Oh yeah, Your Editor. He seems to have been disappeared.