The difference between “plausible” and “credible”
I said I find the tale “plausible” because it fits with some things we know about John McCain and what we might believe his state of mind to be in the fall of 2000.
However, I could sit here right now and spin out 1,000 “plausible” fictions about any of the candidates, i.e., fictions that do not conflict with what we know about them and which seem to create some “plausible” story that in reality “we” know to be fiction because I just concocted them, here, tonight. A plausible story only becomes “credible” when there is some actual basis in evidence such as reliable witnesses, documentary or audio-visual substantiation, etc.
Arianna Puffington adds nothing at all to the credibility of any story — it’s just as though I made it up right here and told you it was a fabrication. She has zero credibility with any respectable person.
The fact that Hot Air chooses to repeat the story only says to me that they want to see if they can stir things up, obtain some new info or witnesses, etc. However, they have not yet added the slightest substantiation to the story.
If you want to pursue Arianna’s fantasies feel free of course, it’s your right as a free American...... but in the absence of any substantiating evidence I don’t think the story will merit any respect.
... and the fact that you could actually proffer such an outlandishly absurd-on-its-very-face accusation, re: Hot Air -- whose devotion to all things McCain actually qualifies as nakedly and unapologetically servile, for pity's sake! -- only tells me (and anyone else familiar with their work) that you simply haven't Clue One as to the genuine nature of just whom, precisely, you are accusing, or their stance on the candidates.
If and when you make yourself more familiar with said track record... then, naturally, your opinion will change.
If you want to pursue Arianna’s fantasies
Ah. Now you're simply making things up, for (one presumes) the sheer, simple pleasure of banging your fingertips repeatedly against the keys. Good for you, then! ;)
I am "pursuing" no one's fantasy, thank you kindly all the same. I posted a news story from a right-wing site long recognized as being a thoroughly credible one; and posed a pair of theoretical questions based thereupon, beginning with the the blatantly obvious qualifier: "Assuming that the core accusation at the heart of this story is true." This, you have repeatedly (and inexplicably) opted to ignore, for reasons which are, thankfully, neither my care nor my concern.
Again: CALM. DOWN. ;)