Replies

Please. You're the last one who ought to be castigating others for arguing on the merits, with your thus-far imaginary claims of insider knowledge. When you contribute something objectively verifiable, original, or insightful - besides a bunch of Google suggestions and clapped-out magazine articles - then you can reasonably expect to have your claims of insiderdom better received. But so far, you've done nothing of the sort, presenting nothing that anyone here A) didn't already know, or; B) couldn't have easily found out given five minutes of looking. Nor have you even remotely "demonstrated" your background, as you rather artlessly claim, apparently under the impression that if you assert a thing loudly enough and often enough, you can get someone to believe it.

Which, come to think of it, is pretty much the sum total of your posts. You've been running around here dropping hints about how you know things the rest of us don't, but so far you've managed to avoid posting anything that even remotely resembles objectively verifiable inside knowledge, and now I'm calling bullshit. Unless you're prepared to verify that you are who you claim you are, I suggest you drop this habit of arguing from your own non-existent authority, using bombast and bluster about who you supposedly are to try knocking down anyone who questions you, and instead try coming up with something insightful and/or original. Unless and until you can do that, you can pretty much consider yourself stomped, troll.

The same could be said for yyou, "in spades" and to be generous. I think there is a reasonable consensus that I have contributed considerably here, and answered many questions, if not all substantive fact-based ones, and none of my facts or corrections have been refuted on the merits, disproven or even coherently argues. Including by yourself. COntrary to your assrtion, I have very evidently provided information no one appeared to know or be researching themselves, and everytime I have, the snipers ignore it and scramble for another rock or ditch or descend to this kind of diversion and direct or implied an hominem, which you will recall is the weakest of the 7 forms of rhetoic, if here the most practiced.

I make no "imaginary claims" (your imagining does not make it so) -- and not least I am actually in Washington and know the main players in this drama quite well. Short of outing myself, what would you like me to do to assuage your concerns in this regard: tell you Grover's license plate, detail his travel starting in the 1980's to foreign countries, tell you how many articles about him will appear in the Washington Post this week and next, tell you who will be arrested next? tell you what expert evidence will be introduced, What?!?. I could do all of this but you would find some other blinder to wear while flailing at me and the facts of the case as presented ably.

(seeing that Gaffney is "out", and his documents are available, why don't you better spend your time impressing us with your mastery of his case and your masterful rebuttal of same? That way you won't have to shake at chimeras.)

The absence of evidence my friend is not evidence of absence. I may question your points or posts, but I don't question your livilhood or bona fides, were you to assert them. In the professional world one doesn't do, or need to do that. Try arguing the facts not the bloodline or quals of the carrier.

Sorry for your frustration.