Well, as I said above, it would be a half-way gesture, more than absolute proof and it would not be entirely satisfactory at all. But, as a half-way gesture, I guess it’s better than nothing.
You said — “Cooperate ... meaning breaking the confidence of anonymous ?”
It simply means that “text” can’t be read, without him supplying it. Headers can’t be seen without him supplying it. Basically “cooperate” means that nothing can be supplied unless he supplies it. That’s about the only meaning of “cooperate”.
.
You said — “Tell me, just how would he prove it without allowing anonymous to be revealed ?”
Well, we’re back to the half-way measures that I was talking about. That’s about what it amounts to. But, that is better than nothing at all. And as how you don’t reveal the “anonymous student” — it’s also like I said up above, you drop the originating IP number and the originating e-mail address. Everything else remains intact.
BUT, we’re once again back to my own premise (mentioned up above) is that when someone “leaks” something out to the press but doesn’t want any “accountability” this is how you do it. You put it out as a leak (and this is akin to a leak, because the source is anonymous) — and then you drop it.
It gets picked up by major MSM news sources, it *becomes* news and it’s *documented* and that’s the end of it. You now have it in the “record” for posterity and you can use it as *reference* material (i.e., someone says, “It was in the New York Times and Fox News”, which is then the “proof” that someone can say that they have).
And since that is all that was meant to be accomplished — there is no incentive to ever bring it up again or prove it or anything like that. That’s because the original “leak” served its purpose and now there are millions of people running around saying — “This was in the New York Times, so it’s obviously true!” That’s all that was desired to be accomplished, nothing more.
In that light — being a “leaker” one then *drops it* and never mentions it again — or you risk “blowing up” your original story with more questions. More questions can only raise unanswerable issues...
So, my prediction is that you’ll never hear from this professor again, on this story. And you’ll never hear anything from any such “anonymous student”. There’s no need for it at this point in time. Goal accomplished....
Regards,
Star Traveler
“You said — “Cooperate ... meaning breaking the confidence of anonymous ?”
It simply means that “text” can’t be read, without him supplying it. Headers can’t be seen without him supplying it. Basically “cooperate” means that nothing can be supplied unless he supplies it. That’s about the only meaning of “cooperate”
Exactly Gutless - He won’t break trust and supply you with what you want to identify anonymous. There have been other clues and ideas to identify this person to verify the story, yet you ( gutless ) have allready attacked the truthfullness of anyone who may come forward or be indentified as “A”
You (gutless) are exactly the kind of people why anonymous wants to remain anonymous.