[michigander]

the NYT represented the photo as something that was circulated, but that they did not know the source of it.

Excuse me but, you left out a little detail.
It was circulated via e-mail.
How much of your work (that you now claim is undercut) did you source from an email?

[Hon]

"the NYT represented the photo as something that was circulated, but that they did not know the source of it.
Excuse me but, you left out a little detail.
It was circulated via e-mail."

I don't quite get your point. The NY Times was probably alerted to this photo via e-mail. So what?

"How much of your work (that you now claim is undercut) did you source from an email?"

None. But that is an irrelevant question, really. The NY Times probably followed the hoax photo link back to here. And thereby the site is discredited.

What I and others have posted here is thereby discredited by association. You're trying to make this complicated. It isn't complicated. It's painfully simple.