Replies

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.

...and none of my facts or corrections have been refuted on the merits, disproven or even coherently argues.

See my earlier post on crackpot logic. The problem has never been the facts.

COntrary to your assrtion, I have very evidently provided information no one appeared to know or be researching themselves...

Contrary to what you're posting here, I never said that. Instead I said that you haven't posted anything that wasn't already known, or easily discoverable. Whether anyone was actually discovering it is neither here nor there - the fact is that posting stuff that's readily available to anyone who bothers looking does not support claims of special knowledge. I realize you don't like that fact, but it's a fact.

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?

Surprise me. Unless and until you can verify that what you're saying is reliable, there's absolutely no reason for anyone to rely on any of it. Too bad for you, but it's just waaayyy too easy to pretend to be something you're not, and so I want some evidence that you are what you say you are. Remember - "on the internet, nobody knows you're a dog".

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.

Then you're a trusting, naive fool. I don't make such claims, because I am content to let my posts speak for themselves. I question your bona fides because you're the one trying to use them to get yourself a line of credit in this joint. Sorry, no credit available - if you don't like your background being questioned, quit trying to skate on it. If you don't want it being discussed, don't bring it up.

In the professional world one doesn't do, or need to do that.

Yeah, but here, sadly, we do. Since you're new here, you don't know this, but the reason you are being poked as hard as you are is that fraudsters have come in here in the past who were every bit as full of "insider knowledge" and correctly-formed jargon as you are, and who were very convincing... but who turned out to be total frauds. One of them even turned out to have 17 convictions for fraud and embezzlement.

As the cartoon says, "On the Internet, no one can tell you're a dog." And no one can tell you're not. So -- you're gonna get poked. This is how we make sure we're not getting BS'd. We have been burned by people who weren't what they said they were.