The article said that "The bloggers also have linked to a since-withdrawn America Online photo of a man who appears to be Gannon, posing in his underwear, with a screen name bearing the initials 'JDG.'"
I said "if you have something to hide, going in front of the public is the last place you should be. Mr. Gannon found out the hard way." Call me crazy, but I think photos of yourself in boxers or briefs qualify as something to hide. If you disagree, maybe you have some you'd like to share with the group.
My only familiarity with him is the article. If you inferred otherwise, my apologies for stimulating your imagination.
Well, you sure seemed pretty sure that photo WAS of him. What proof do you have for that accusation?
If you disagree, maybe you have some you'd like to share with the group
So you can't repond without a personal attack?