dagblog - Comments for "What's in a name?"

Ok. Sorry if my comment came

William K. Wolfrum — Sat, 14 May 2011 13:51:46 +0000

In reply to Actually I caught that story

Ok. Sorry if my comment came off as rude.

hahahahahahahahaOh that

Richard Day — Sat, 14 May 2011 03:32:34 +0000

In reply to I'm all for anonymous

hahahahahahahaha

Oh that Clinton movie. Always kills me.

Who wrote this?

Anonymous.

Actually I caught that story

CVille Dem — Fri, 13 May 2011 01:38:25 +0000

In reply to I'm going to guess you didn't

Actually I caught that story earlier over at Mother Jones. It didn't strike me the way it did you; I guess it is because Ii have admired David Corn for so long. Yes, it is gossip, but that is how these things get aired at the beginning, anyway I believe the details; it really isn't anything new. Made me feel sorry (again) for the second wife.

I'm all for anonymous

William K. Wolfrum — Thu, 12 May 2011 21:28:58 +0000

In reply to I think that

I'm all for anonymous writers, actually. They just have a much higher bar when it comes to trust.

I think that

Richard Day — Thu, 12 May 2011 19:34:26 +0000

In reply to What's in a name?

I think that reporters/journalists/pundits/liars use anonymous sources for their own self aggrandisement.

I am important. I know people who are so famous/powerful/rich that I cannot even let you know who they are.

However, I do recall that Sir Gwain & the Green Knight was written by a guy who called himself Anonymous.

So being anonymous cannot be all that bad!

I think Corn's story is OK

Flavius — Thu, 12 May 2011 11:59:42 +0000

In reply to What's in a name?

I think Corn's story is OK ..

There are two issues : the relevancy of the story and the identity of the story teller.

As to relevancy ,I agree with Cville.

As to the source we have no need to know the identity of the story teller. He's not news. We do need to know we have some basis for deciding how reliable he is.. Corn provides that by saying that he's known him for a long time.Readers can make their own judgement as to whether that's sufficient.

I'm going to guess you didn't

William K. Wolfrum — Thu, 12 May 2011 04:53:09 +0000

In reply to Newt Gingrich's stuff is NOT

I'm going to guess you didn't follow the link to David Corn's story.

Newt Gingrich's stuff is NOT

CVille Dem — Thu, 12 May 2011 01:08:22 +0000

In reply to What's in a name?

Newt Gingrich's stuff is NOT hearsay. Who cares if we've already heard it? He just announced his candidacy for President of the Party of Family Values today.

Newt's background is known, and is factual. What is your point? That because we all talk about it, it must be rumor? Sometimes facts are facts, and Newt's "family values, or lack thereof" are documented.

Hearsay? Ask his first two wives if you want to get some lively HEARSAY! That is not what the point of this article was, but I would consider their statements FIRST PERSON rather than hearsay.