Comments on: Nothing to Hide http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/ west coast cap peelers Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:48:15 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: JimC http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/comment-page-1/#comment-58913 JimC Fri, 20 Jul 2007 19:05:35 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/#comment-58913 Whoever those two are, you'd better get hooked on phonics, stat! Whoever those two are, you’d better get hooked on phonics, stat!

]]> By: sac http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/comment-page-1/#comment-58912 sac Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:02:54 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/#comment-58912 Somebody call my name? Damn, if I could only read, I'd be able to find out. But anyway, I agree with all of the above except #13. Somebody call my name? Damn, if I could only read, I’d be able to find out.

But anyway, I agree with all of the above except #13.

]]> By: sarabeth http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/comment-page-1/#comment-58911 sarabeth Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:29:12 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/#comment-58911 <blockquote>never said it didn’t.</blockquote> i know. that was just for those who sometimes have trouble following along at home (and both of you know who you are!)

never said it didn’t.

i know. that was just for those who sometimes have trouble following along at home (and both of you know who you are!)

]]> By: sarabeth http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/comment-page-1/#comment-58908 sarabeth Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:20:51 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/#comment-58908 I do think <em>WaPo</em> should have said: "The official spoke on the condition of anonymity. He tried to claim he’s not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, but obviously he is. So it boils down to: he refused to be identified because he works in the Bush White House, and they're all arrogant little shits." I do think WaPo should have said: “The official spoke on the condition of anonymity. He tried to claim he’s not authorized to discuss the issue publicly, but obviously he is. So it boils down to: he refused to be identified because he works in the Bush White House, and they’re all arrogant little shits.”

]]> By: matt http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/comment-page-1/#comment-58907 matt Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:14:03 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/#comment-58907 <blockquote>my criticism still stands.</blockquote> never said it didn't.

my criticism still stands.

never said it didn’t.

]]> By: sarabeth http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/comment-page-1/#comment-58906 sarabeth Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:12:42 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/#comment-58906 After reading about the <em>NYT</em> policy, and assuming the <em>WaPo</em> policy is similar, my criticism still stands. This source has the authority to decide "when and how to disclose the stance", but he's allowed to get away with saying he's "not authorized to discuss the issue publicly"? That <em>is</em> pure bullshit. After reading about the NYT policy, and assuming the WaPo policy is similar, my criticism still stands.

This source has the authority to decide “when and how to disclose the stance”, but he’s allowed to get away with saying he’s “not authorized to discuss the issue publicly”? That is pure bullshit.

]]> By: matt http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/comment-page-1/#comment-58905 matt Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:01:19 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/#comment-58905 ok, looks like you are safe on the method man technicality <blockquote>It's court adjourned, for the bad seed from bad sperm Herb got my wig fried like a bad perm, what the blood clot, we smoke pot, and blow spots You wanna think twice, I think not</blockquote> ok, looks like you are safe on the method man technicality

It’s court adjourned, for the bad seed from bad sperm
Herb got my wig fried like a bad perm, what the blood
clot, we smoke pot, and blow spots
You wanna think twice, I think not

]]> By: matt http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/comment-page-1/#comment-58904 matt Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:58:14 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/#comment-58904 <blockquote>what’s their policy now on un-named officials?</blockquote> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/opinion/30publiceditor.html?ex=1311912000&en=c1145c270fcb20c3&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss" target=_blank rel="nofollow">kind of explained here</a> <blockquote>nullus for a solitary act of seeding?</blockquote> killa cam is always watching

what’s their policy now on un-named officials?

kind of explained here

nullus for a solitary act of seeding?

killa cam is always watching

]]> By: sarabeth http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/comment-page-1/#comment-58903 sarabeth Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:56:20 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/#comment-58903 nullus for a solitary act of seeding? nullus for a solitary act of seeding?

]]> By: sarabeth http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/comment-page-1/#comment-58902 sarabeth Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:52:17 +0000 http://www.1115.org/2007/07/20/nothing-to-hide/#comment-58902 what's their policy now on un-named officials? what’s their policy now on un-named officials?

]]>