From: "Gary Britt" 


"Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
news:42b84dd0{at}w3.nls.net...
> Gary Britt wrote:
> > "Adam"  wrote in message
> > news:42b82c3a$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> >
> >>Gary Britt wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Nope. Computers leave traces & can make multiple copies
& can be broken
> >>into.
> >
> >
>
> The reporter had as great a need as the person. The person (or an agent
> of the person) would have been there to ensure that once the
> transcription had been done the copy was destroyed & not photocopied or
> kept. Any such copy would allow a trail back to the person. He had no
> reason to trust the journo to do anything other than the typing & then
> to go back to his paper.

1.  You assume facts that are not known.  You are assuming that how you
think it was done is how it was actually done.  The reporter in question
doesn't claim this James Bond routine was used.

2.  More importantly, if we assume your described scenario is correct, that
explains the need for a copy to be used, but it does NOT explain: 1.  Why
not just make a photocopy, why retype the thing; and 2.  EVEN IF IT NEEDED
TO BE RETYPED AND NOT PHOTOCOPIED YOU GIVE NO RATIONAL OR EVEN ATTEMPTED
EXPLANATION FOR WHY IT NEEDED TO BE RETYPED ON AN OLD TYPEWRITER AND THEN
AGED AND OTHERWISE MADE TO LOOK LIKE A NOT RETYPED COPY!!!!!!!

The only purpose to be served by FAKING its appearance and age, was to FOOL
people about what it was they were seeing.  If the reporter on this must
engage in FAKERY to try and get readers to believe the document was NOT a
re-typed version of a claimed document, then the entire story and the
content of the memo itself comes into question.  The REPORTER deliberately
created a FAKE document and represented it to be something other than a
piece of paper typed up by his secretary.  That's called FRAUD and FAKERY.

You still aren't dealing with the questions.  You just dance around them.

Gary

>
> Nah you're simply ignorant & without the capacity for thought.
>

Name calling is not an answer.  I'll take that to mean you are unable to
answer why the REPORTER needed to use an OLD TYPEWRITER.  The only answer
you've given would apply to why the LEAKER would need to use an old
typewriter.  Here's a clue for you.  The leaker and the reporter are NOT
THE SAME FRIGGIN PEOPLE AND DON'T HAVE THE SAME SECURITY NEEDS.

>
> > When you FAKE up a
> > document with an old typewriter to try and give it the FAKE APPEARANCE
of
> > authenticity,  ITS A FAKE.  It wasn't presented as a retyped on my
> > secretary's computer document.  It was presented as a copy of the real
> > thing.  Instead it was a FAKED up document to try and look like a real
> > document.   When the reporter's entire operation begins with and is in
> > support of a LIE.  That LIE being the document is a COPY and not
something
> > HIS SECRETARY TYPED UP, then there is no further credibility regarding
the
> > reporters anonymous source that said the FAKED up doco *looked* like a
real
> > doc.  That's like saying well the local bartender said my PHONY ID
looked
> > like the real thing.
> >
>
> No it's not like that.
>
> >
> > So the questions you continue to and have wholly failed to address
remain:
> >
> > "Adam talks about transcription, but has never once addressed why not
use
> > the
> > desktop computer to do the transcription;  Has never addressed why the
need
> > to run down to the basement get an old typewriter to type it up;  Never
> > addressed why they went to the trouble to age the transcription typed on
> > that old typewriter; Never addressed why this faked up document was then
> > presented to a single anonymous source to authenticate it by
saying "it
> > looked like a real document";  Never addressed why all the FAKERY
regarding
> > the doc's appearance was used to FOOL some anonymous person into saying
it
> > *looked* like a real document;  Never addressed why the *faked* up
document
> > was presented to the world as a *real* document.   The FAKERY made it
> > impossible to authenticate the doc."
> >
> >
>
> It is easy to authenticate the content.
>

Back to FAKE but accurate routine.  Dan Rather would be proud.

Gary

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5