shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
I fear I must disregard whatever it is you just said, anonymous stranger!
I find it easy to disregard everything Bob says.
I fear I must disregard whatever it is you just said, anonymous stranger!
I'd never even see it if you morons didn't keep quoting him!I find it easy to disregard everything Bob says.
I'd never even see it if you morons didn't keep quoting him!
Signed, Bob.
(There are a lot of us Bobs.)
Anonymous carries a lot less incredulity than Qanon.Anonymous carries as much credibility as Qanon.
Why would you accept the claims of someone who refuses to provide all the evidence to evaluate? Would you accept a claim in a physics journal that said it omitted information to prevent you from verifying it?
This isn't a science journal with peer reviews, Bob. It's the experiences of a senior WH official as verified by the NYT.
Show of hands, does anyone think it likely that the reporters and editors at the New York Times, don't know who the senior Trump Administration staff are or that they'd publish a letter from someone without confirming the author's identity as one of them?
Even the paper's executive editor, Dean Baquet, doesn't know. That is how closely guarded the Times is being about protecting the writer's anonymity.
"That is the strength of the firewall" between the paper's news and editorial departments, Patrick Healy, the paper's politics editor, told CNN's Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday.
I wouldn't accept a physics claim with hidden evidence. I'm not going to relax that standard for an editorial claim (by an editorial board. Not even by reporters)
Probably the biggest reason to not use a relaxed standard is the incredibly low stakes of these claims. Your acceptance of these claims likely has very little impact on your future actions.
Generally, it is. Unlike, say, Fox.
Show of hands, does anyone think it likely that the reporters and editors at the New York Times, don't know who the senior Trump Administration staff are or that they'd publish a letter from someone without confirming the author's identity as one of them?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/reader-center/anonymous-op-ed-trump.htmlThe Op-Ed article was submitted to Times opinion editors last week through an intermediary, Mr. Dao said. “It was clear early on that the writer wanted anonymity, but we didn’t grant anything until we read it and we were confident that they were who they said they were,” he said.
"The reporters and editors" would include over 1,000 people. It's a safe bet that most of them do NOT know who it is. But it's a certainty that the editor who decided to print it and whoever brought it to him DO know. Beyond that, they would do whatever they could to protect their source.
The Times itself says:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/reader-center/anonymous-op-ed-trump.html
No, but at the same time, I doubt only one reporter and/or editor made the decision.
I'd never even see it if you morons didn't keep quoting him!
Signed, Bob.
(There are a lot of us Bobs.)
It seems every Tom, Dick, and Harry are named Bob.
Anonymous carries as much credibility as Qanon.
This is why I rarely make claims of fact.
George Conway just tweeted:
"I had an amazing conversation this morning with ... Anonymous.
Anonymous is a true patriot.
We'll all be hearing a lot more from this person very, very soon."
https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1321481912049979392
What a tease
IMO as reliable as the Hunter Biden laptop - unless anonymous throws off the cloak of anonymity.
Yes. I naively understood the tease to be that Anonymous will go public very soon, meaning today. If not, what's the point.
Even if (s)he goes public, unless it's a very big name, it won't have much effect.
Kellyanne ?![]()
Yes. I naively understood the tease to be that Anonymous will go public very soon, meaning today. If not, what's the point.
Even if (s)he goes public, unless it's a very big name, it won't have much effect.
He himself said anonymous assertions are unacceptable. Since we don't know who Bob actually is we must therefore disregard everything he says.
lolPerhaps this was the October surprise Barr was working on.....
Washington Post reports Anonymous will reveal identity today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elec...live-updates/#link-PVDQEY746NB7HIFA4RXR5IL3TY
It's Miles Taylor. He already came out against Trump in August, so this changes ... nothing.
He was formerly a Trump administration appointee who served in the United States Department of Homeland Security from 2017 to 2019, including as Chief of Staff to former Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Acting Secretary Chad Wolf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_Taylor_(security_expert)?wprov=sfla1
This article theorizes that Anonymous is Elaine Chao:
https://www.leoweekly.com/2020/10/m...onymous-senior-trump-administration-official/