A suggestion to those fretting over "priveleged" information

I have been watching the threads about how to treat certain information from JK. Here's my two cents:

1) Those posting (even in private forums) should probably try to reflect what they report as their opinion/interpretation of what JK was talking about, not couched as direct quotes.

2) Given the amount of traffic these deliberations have generated, I have to assume someone will try to penetrate them, regardless of whether for fun or not.

I think a worst case scenario would be a well meaning member of this community to inadvertantly create a "Mark Crispin Miller" saga.

Anyhow, my two cents.

which is why I have avoided these discussions very early on. The simple fact to start the debate is bad.

If something cannot be said on the web, the best thing to do is just not even to say it exists.

Anything else creates speculations that are useless and potentially used against Kerry, given the misgivings some people have shown in the past.

Post what you think can be posted and keep the rest to yourself. That is the best way to go.

.

We're adults. If something isn't to be shared, don't share it.
My hope and goal is to be able to trust what IS said, and if we act like the Kerry supporters we say we are, our integrity will speak for itself.
:patriot:

What was the Mark Crispin Miller thing again?

from an informal function as sayin he thought the election was stolen - a quote of potentially dubious accuracy that was apparently open to broad interpretation. Then a spokesperson denied the discussion, thus causing an uproar on the blogoshere.

I just saw a post on the 'Latest' list about this. If that conversation did actually take place, it was supposed to be off the record. That would mean that Miller 'broke the rules' by doing what he did.

but I think part of this new form of "problem" heavily evolves from there being very vague lines betweem blogs and journalism. Was MCM speaking as you or I on this board, or did he have a broader agenda? I think we know the answer, but the departure point between the two is unclear.

is to create controversy to promote his new book.

That stunt got him a lot of attention and publicity.

He let you in on some inside privileged private info and asked you not to say anything about it. We all care about JK here so you got to do just that. Let's all maintain his trust. I don't need to know. He told you Kerrycrats whom were there and that's good enough for me.

Remember, "Loose lips sink ships."

I think anyone who has followed all the evidence about the election know truly how JK and THK feel about the election results, but saying so in private is different than saying so in public. He knows. We know. He did the right thing.

edit: meant "Kerrycrats"

I don't want to say or do anything that hurts JK or Momma T.

anything about anything? There was a statement that Theresa didn't want anything posted except that the group was going to the Party prior to the event(And that was probably to ensure the surprise element!) but that was the only secrecy request I heard about! The debate was whether people should repeat all of what they said over drinks or if it would be a violation of confidence. I don;t believe anyone said they were "asked" not to reveal anything that was said! BUt whatever. I just wanted to clarify!

The way I understand it, you are not to reveal the following which came up:

1) The secret strategy to contest the 2004 election and become President

2) The real reason O'Neil has always hated JK

3) The date Kerry plans to announce his candidacy for 2008 in case #1 fails.

4) The secret strategy to win the 2008 nomination and election


If rumors spread about any of the above, we can then all have a good laugh.

He has what appears to me to be a pretty strong anti-Kerry agenda agenda, which none of us have. . .as example, see latest MCM HuffPo crap now posted in DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2309060

But yeah, don't post stuff on the net that you don't think should be posted. seems simple.

For gawd's sake, it's not like I now have the nuclear codes in my pocketbook or anything now. We talked about stuff we have talked about endlessly in this forum. We talked about bloggers and what we do and might do in the future. (There's a big friggin surprise. Who here didn't guess that? Who here would think that having a discussion about internet supporters with a Senator and his, ahm, internet supporters is a big surprise, cuz you have to leave now. I'm afraid we don't offer special ed or remedial classes here and you just can't keep up.)

Holy Mawtha a Gawd! We are not keeping much here in the way of secrets. We're not. Geez, Louise I mean c'mon.

You were there we weren't; you know we don't . Perhaps it really is nothing we haven't speculated already. You decide. But, if someone said to stay mum then I would . . .
Just saying . . .:)

By the way, about those nuclear codes you don't have in your pocketbook, you can go to the public library and check-out the book title "The man who solved the H-Bomb Secret" or something to that effect. I read it in college and it goes through specific detail on how to make an Atomic Bomb. His purpose was to reveal the secret, so all countries know how to do it, so all countries were on conceivable equal defense. So the secret is out. The hard part is refining the fission material and other such important matters . . .

Oh, you meant the nuclear codes that "Shrub" has in his possession. GAWD HELP US!! :nuke: