What's the difference?

1. "Someone hacked our emails and released information that we don't deny."

2 "A source, speaking anonymously because they did not have permission or authority to release the information, said...."

 

timing.


timing is everything.

 

Involuntary access to information you don't want others to see

There's a traitor in your midst

 

Somebody's traitor is another's whistle blower....

 

Speaking of blower...

 

In the other thread, you wanted 'it' kissed.

At least you keep on subject.

(...)

You must like your hamburger buns un-toasted.....

 

I like my hamburger buns non-existent.

 

Ah yes, Gluten Free burgers....

Pretty much kills the experience.



Mindewe, GF substitute with thick slices of tomatoes and plenty of relish & mayonnaise...

 

Gawd damn man, stop waving the white flag.

Beef. Bacon. Avocado. Tomato. Onion. Jalapeño. Double slices of cheese.

Mayo? Fuh, wuh?

 

A hacked email can be read, there's something there in print. An anonymous spoken quote could be totally made up with no way to prove it. That's the big diffenrce to me.

 

There is something interesting about the argument of whistle blower vs. traitor .... these days it probably comes down to party affiliation.

 

Probably?

More like certainly