To: coffee260
it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it Somebody please 'splain to me why anyone would give a tape to a FREAKIN' NEWSPAPER and then not want it released or even QUOTED FROM?
Huh?
11 posted on
10/29/2008 8:31:59 AM PDT by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: Izzy Dunne
“why anyone would give a tape to a FREAKIN’ NEWSPAPER and then not want it released or even QUOTED FROM?”
That’s Bogus. No one would do that.
53 posted on
10/29/2008 8:48:46 AM PDT by
rlferny
To: Izzy Dunne
Somebody please 'splain to me why anyone would give a tape to a FREAKIN' NEWSPAPER and then not want it released or even QUOTED FROM? *shrug* You mean you don't entrust your secrets to the village gossip?
104 posted on
10/29/2008 9:19:09 AM PDT by
null and void
(Socialism doesn't work because of people./People don't work because of socialism...)
To: Izzy Dunne
Just for background or some similar purpose.
It happens pretty frequently, but that doesn’t make not releasing it right.
154 posted on
10/29/2008 11:08:14 AM PDT by
rwfromkansas
("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
To: Izzy Dunne
It is curious to give a tape to a newspaper under conditions of anonymity but if this source was at the banquet, somebody could put a serious hurt on them. This person for all intents and purposes is an infidel now.
We would say whistleblower.
184 posted on
10/29/2008 2:11:10 PM PDT by
floriduh voter
(Would YOU have PLO or DOMESTIC TERRORISTS babysit your kids?OBAMA DID.)
To: Izzy Dunne
LAT already wrote a story about the dinner (but probably didn’t tell the whole story), so now they can say the tape is protected under confidentiality (shield law) rules. That’s the only thing I can figure.
224 posted on
10/30/2008 12:41:05 AM PDT by
smokingfrog
( God doesn't wear a wristwatch.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson