Note from Jim, Dona, Jess, Ava and Ty

We don't think it's a coincidence. We don't think it's a coincidence that C.I. says on Saturday morning to think about January 2004, wait, let's go to that entry:

On Plamegate, to make up for these morning entries, I'll note this question needs to be asked: Where did Miller find the notes re: earlier conversation with Scoots? January 2004 may hold part of the answer. (It's a puzzle, like a jumble. Put on your thinking caps.)

C.I. heard rumors about that awhile back and had shared them with Ava who'd passed them on to Dona who passed them on to Jim. Then on Friday morning, C.I. heard more rumors including that the report on Miller (as opposed to the one she wrote) might address the issue of the notes.
We knew about it, Jim, Dona and Ava.

We think it's interesting that someone who's never thought to explore the emergence of new notes suddenly (later that day, much later) has an article that suddenly is interested in those notes. C.I. says it could be synchronicity. C.I. says maybe some people at The Times spoke to ____.

Maybe. But this makes for the third time ____ has suddenly "found" a lead after it's gone up at The Common Ills.

We think that's defying the odds. Especially since _____ hasn't had the leads that C.I. has had.
C.I.'s coverage of the Miller matter at The Times is echoed in the paper today. If you followed The Common Ills you really had no surprises. In the entry Rebecca did (based on and credited to a conversation she had with C.I.) about how the paper could argue for Miller, it was even noted that Abramson might not want to be a part of the fight for Miller. It's no surprise to community members that Abramson publicly states she wishes the whole thing had never happened.

While ____ tried to figure out The Times strategy, it was up there at The Common Ills. Remedial posts when people would write, "She had the release!" So our point is that ____ doesn't seem to have a strong line to the paper.

How strong was C.I.'s? Remember when Scoots was named by Miller? Check out Ava's post at The Common Ills that day where she links to Rudith Miller (the day the press was reporting on Scoots being the source). Why? Well who's named as a Miller source (the only one named) in that Judith Miller parody? Scoots.

That's what Ty's referring to in the news review when he says, "I just got that." to C.I.'s comments about "to slam and slam freely." That's the section right before Scoots gets mentioned. (Rudith Miller was written on Januaray 9, 2004.) Again, ___'s information line to the paper appears nowhere as strong as C.I.'s so forgive us for being skeptical when suddenly ____ is all over where-did-the-notes-come-from! hours after C.I. has already posted on it.

____ is a jerk prone to fighting with others. If ___ wants to identify their own self by e-mailing us we'll print the e-mail. (Or the parts of it we find most humorous.)

Otherwise ___ gets no mention here or at any other community site. We were all in agreement on that. We believe ____ took from The Common Ills without giving credit. Not one, not twice, but three times that we know of. We're not going to help advance ____'s name.

_____ could uncover proof that Bully Boy was an alien and we wouldn't link to or mention ____.

We will, however, offer ____ a tip now that the Miller story may be reaching a climax. Ava and C.I. know all about the high profile firing that no one wants to talk about but prefers to act as if it was work related when in fact it was the by product of "a lost weekend." C.I. toyed with writing about that but in the end decided not to. Ava and C.I. addressed it here in roundtables but would both pull it before posting. (Over Jim's strenuous objections.) But if ____ needs a scoop ____ can look into the real reason for the firing, as opposed to the press reason, and ____ can start by speaking to guests and employees of the hotel the fired stayed at the weekend of the big no-no.

-- Jim, Dona, Jess, Ava and Ty