Replies

You wrote:

"Wow! You mean all we have to do is forge some historic documents, get some media hound to buy into their authenticity, let some scandal develop, and then the mainstream media will quote our FREEPINGS at length in articles from coast to coast? Where do we sign up?"

[Full rack of Sarcasm Torpedoes ARMED. FIRE!]
What if I have a grainy wrinkled fax of a Photoshop
picture of RatherStupid(TM) giving a Lewinski
to a llama?

And then claim all of the tin-foil hobos I
interviewed ("what's the frequency, Kenneth")
authenticated the picture?

And then--oops--other people are able to
recreate the picture on Photoshop, but I claim
that the photo could have been taken with
the (notoriously authenticatable--just ask UFO nuts)
Polaroid?

And I don't have the originals?

And I won't name my source?

And then impugn the motives of those questioning
these faxes, saying I won't succumb to pressure from
well-financed partisans?

And then--gasp--it turns out that every person
I asked about the story who disagreed, I didn't
use? Or that I lied to them about what they
were verifying? Mis-describing the pictures over
the phone, pretending they were eyewitness notes
instead of a fax of a Photoshop document?

And then--shudder--it turns out that those I DID
quote from, back off from their claims, except for
one 86 year old woman who used to be Rather's
typist tell me she heard other journalists
saying he sucked Donkey D*cks? And she still
says my photo is fake, because I used a Llama,
and not a Donkey, in the picture? But she
knows "these kind of thoughts went around" the
newsroom, and did I know that he was a knee-jerk
liberal, too?

And after all this comes out, I then bleat that
since RatherLazy(TM) is not answering the charges
it only makes them more likely to be true?

Will, say, PETA buy into it? No? Aren't they interested
in ANIMAL RIGHTS?

How close-minded are YOU, anyway?

THE ABOVE IS A FAIRLY 'ACCURATE' 'coroboration' of
the rigorous logic and analysis of RatherDumb(TM) and CBS.