You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #77: I thought the early assumption was that DM *was* an [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Tansy_Gold Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-25-07 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #59
77. I thought the early assumption was that DM *was* an
insider and therefore was trying to leak information?????

Look, I'm no logician, but it seems to me we've got a couple of possibilities:

1. DM is an insider trying to get specific, factual, time-sensitive information out of wherever it is he/she is inside.

Is DM actually trying to get information out? It doesn't appear so, because there's no information there. Leads and teases, but no real info.

If DM wanted to leak specific, factual, time-sensitive information to the Dems/opposition, would she/he have just started scatter-shooting data on the blogs, or would she/he have contacted someone directly? Seems to me she/he would have initiated some kind of direct or semi-direct (through an intermediary) contact rather than take risks the information wouldn't get out or would reach the wrong hands/ears/eyes.

Would DM want to run any risks of giving the WH a heads-up on this? I don't think so. Not if the information is specific, factual, and time-sensitive.

This leads me to believe DM is NOT an insider trying to leak specific, factual, time-sensitive information.

But there are still two aspects of that, and if both are not simultaneously true, it's possible that one or the other could still be true: DM is indeed an insider but has no specific information to leak, or DM is not an insider but does have specific information to leak.

2. DM is not an insider, but does have specific, factual, time-sensitive information to leak.

If DM isn't an insider, why the need for hiding her/his identity? Why go through all the techrobatics, all the teasing, all the blogging and posting and so on? Why not just take the information where it needs to go? Even if it comes out on the blogs, it's not going to mean anything.

3. DM is an insider, but doesn't have specific, factual, time-sensitive information to leak.

Now, this one has real possibilities that fit the facts -- those facts being simply the blog posts.

If DM is an insider who only suspects certain things are going on or have happened but doesn't know how to verify her/his suspicions, DM _might_ post clues on a public blog as a way of getting help to verify the suspicion. DM might even post on well-known public left-leaning blogs/boards because she/he believes that's were the most diligent follow-up will be generated.

_But_ in order to achieve any success at this, DM would have to monitor the resultant discussions to find out if her/his seeds sprout. This could be risky. And too much interaction with DM's _audience_ might also be risky.

While I would pretty much rule out #1 and #2, I'd give #3 at least a chance of being the actual case -- but it only supposes a potential discovery, not a specific leak. In other words, maybe even DM doesn't know what the answer is.

4. DM is not an insider but, like many of us outsiders, has certain suspicions and is looking for confirmation.

Though she/he may couch her/his posts in a style that _suggests_ insider information, DM may in fact have no more information than is readily available on the internet. For example, the "discovery" of connections between the DC law firm -- Sibley?? -- and the DoJ appointments and Ralston's attorney: such connections are hardly mysterious or secretive, and given the booooosh administration's long history of cronyism, it's not surprising, either, that there would be more than one connection between the administration and a "loyal" law firm.

Nor should it be really surprising that various WH offices, cabinet departments, etc. are engaged in editing wikis. Why wouldn't they? The temptation has to be enormous: wikipedia is a commonly-consulted source of general information about zillions of subjects, so wouldn't it make sense for the administration's minions to update areas that concern them? Okay, so _we_ consider their updates/edits as disinformation, but even so, is _that_ surprising? No, it's not.

If #3 is possible, #4 is more probable, at least in what passes for logic in Tansy Gold's mixed-up little head. But what good does it do to reach a conclusion about DM's status, if not her/his identity?

Well, to me, it suggests an entirely different strategy than what has been going on in these threads.

Instead of trying to figure out what DM is saying or trying to say, you might want to figure out what questions DM is trying to answer. In other words, turn this into a game of Jeopardy!, where the objective is not to come up with the answer but discern the question.

If the question provokes the possibility of an answer being dangerous -- and by that I mean it's specific, factual, and time-sensitive AND poses a threat to the life or liberty of an individual or to the administration -- it might be wise to take any further discussion to a more secure location.


Personally, I think #4 is the most likely case, and I also think it's highly likely that DM, insider or outsider, has cloaked her/his theory or theories in a rhetoric that makes them seem more substantive than they are. I still believe there's no there there. . . . . .but I won't rule out the possibility of someone else finding something. However, I don't believe the present strategy will ever prove productive.


Tansy Gold, who has been wrong before and will be wrong again, without a doubt




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC