I’m speaking of mine from this morning, of course. It’s gotten attention. It’s being interchangeably cheered and jeered. It’s apparently a self-serving act on my part because I’ve never done anything of substance and I desperately want my name out there. Or so it was relayed to me from some forum I avoid.

Whatever. Still, it should probably come as no surprise WVU People were terribly troubled and aggressively angry about what was written and perpetuated over the weekend. Some of WVU huddled and gave serious thought to a formal and perhaps litigious response. Time passed and temperatures cooled, I suppose, and the actual decision was to take no action apart from once again rolling eyes and trying to correct some “facts” with facts.

Look, I’ll admit right away people are going to have issues with this story. The first thing I anticipate is people saying you have to choose to believe the sources within the story. Gotcha. It’s 100 percent relevant. It’s the word of one set of sources against the word of another set of sources, right? Maybe I’m getting played or maybe I’m playing along. I know people will think that.

I will take mine today. And tomorrow. And six Fridays from now. And, by the way, so would you.

People will also think this is me vs. him. It’s not. I’ve said this before here, but I really have no issue with him and I’ve always gotten along with him — and I understand that may all change today. But this wasn’t about that. This was about trying to get something right on my beat and,  in a way, make things easier on us on this beat. The media isn’t going to win a popularity contest and when people can hold something against the media, oftentimes those people do. That’s not a good work environment.

So let me address that media v. media idea and the again relevant point one set of sources are to be believed over another. I propose this to you: Step back and remove all your perceptions and stereotypes for or against me or for or against him and publications and WVU and any other involved party here.

Deep breath. Shake your head. Crack your knuckles.

Isn’t this a story about WVU’s reaction to Dana Holgorsen’s casino incident (not banning him from public appearances, investigating “incidents” and yet not watching the Cross Lanes tape, not accepting what it believes is a smear and, alas, not doing something about that even though the university nearly did in order to combat “blatant inaccuracies.”)?

No one came to me and asked me to do something about this. Someone tried that once and it did not end well. Instead, I believe this was and still is a fluid story. I knew a few things were wrong and suspected others were, as well — ie, Mr. Holgorsen staying over in Huntington after a football game in 2008 when the team always charters back to campus after the game. And the University of Houston took time to verify that and say who did stay behind with Patrick Edwards. The whole thing was like that.

Things happened, we can agree on that. Things may not have happened at the level they are perceived to have happened, though, and that’s a significant difference. As best as I can tell — and I started working this particular story back in March — there was a party at Wheeling Island. It was large and boisterous. Mr. Holgorsen was there. And that’s about it. Did something — dangerous word — happen? Probably — also a dangerous word. But there were no police or even casino security required to handle  it.

Perhaps Mr. Holgorsen like to have a good time at the bar at his hotel. If I’m at a hotel and there’s a bar, I like to have fun … as long as Dave Hickman is to my right and consuming the the largest dessert on the menu. But having fun and being loud or rowdy or whatever is different than being banned, especially if you live there.

Some have asked me today — and if you sent me an email, I’ll reply … eventually — why I didn’t refute the Pete Dye episode. I’ll ask you in return: What Pete Dye episode? It caught me off guard when I read it. It caught others off guard when I read it. People couldn’t even tell me that was an “outright lie” or “absolutely not true” because they just didn’t know.

On and on it went until the biggest issues arose. WVU’s athletic department and administration was and remains livid about the assertion President Jim Clements created a split with athletic director Oliver Luck. Strong words were used to contest that and that was WVU’s main motivation for a recourse. WVU said last week Luck was not called back to campus from the Big East Conference meetings by Clements. It was previously planned, they said, so Luck could attend a rifle team fundraiser Wednesday night. Luck’s itinerary and a receipt for his plane ticket were offered as proof.

And yet that theory was floated out there again days later and used to support a very strong allegation Clements threatened Luck’s job. Does anyone think Clements ordered flowers and chocolates for Luck when the first story broke? I’m sure there was a furrowing of the brow, if for no other reason than the obvious. But Luck also isn’t a babysitter for a 39-year-old man — not quite 40! — and was more or less relying on better judgment from Holgorsen and those he was with in Cross Lanes. So where do you think the anger was placed? The larger issue there is the unanswered one because you have to wonder who would be offering that information as fact.

The other part of the reaction to my story will be people who are furious the lazy media with nothing better to do continues to make this a story. Those people will never understand, but will keep themselves comfortable with theories the media is out to get them and “we,” as they refer to themselves, would be better off if the media just let it go. Now that I can understand. I just disagree and perhaps soon you will see why.