[papertyger]

if the posting is unreliable gossip, then it's better to not provide a link to it. A more direct route to remove the post would be to contact Admin Mods here; and failing that, to pretend FR doesn't exist.

What Hewitt doesn't get is having it come from MFH MAKES it plausible for those of us with some FR-milage.

[Strategerist]

If the same posting had been made by someone that had only been on FR for a week, the mods would have pulled it in about .000000000000000001 nanoseconds.

However I share the uncomfortability with it being second-hand information rather than a direct eyewitness report.

[dinasour]

What Hewitt doesn't get is having it come from MFH MAKES it plausible for those of us with some FR-milage.

Bingo. This is no different than hearing 100 times a day from the MSM that "Sources say".

It depends on the credibility of the reporter. What Brit Hume's sources say carries a lot more weight with me than Dan Rather's.

I don't want Hugh Hewitt or anyone else as the "gatekeeper" what is fit to be news. We come here to get away from that. And we debate the story and look for corroboration, and the story stands or not on its merits.

This is what we are doing today, and what we will continue to do. I don't mind the detractors, they have valid points. I do mind people who think we shouldn't be allowed to discuss it, which was Hewitt's original point, namely the thread should be pulled.