horsinabout said:
I think this might be worth a reply, I’ll have a go and do my best.
Firstly, the three points made here regarding Kimmage draws an assumption that Kimmage 'wants to become an insider'.
Sorry, have to stop you right there. It draws no such assumption. The three points make a comparison on known facts. The original suggestion, by Hog, was that someone writing from the inside is not as motivated to get the truth as someone outside.
To which I raised the obvious point, if being on the inside is so toxic to finding and set out truth, why did Kimmage go inside Garmin, and try and go inside Sky?
It's not a comment, at that stage, on Kimmage. It's a comment on Hog's completely compromised logic. Sniper then put forward a series of assertions that basically boiled down to Walsh was bought off, Kimmage is not. No evidence, no argument, simple assertion based on nothing.
At this stage Benotti decided to read implications that simply weren't in the text.
Firstly the suggestion that I was spinning, quite apart from being an unacceptable personal attack, was nonsense. Benotti tried to draw some distinction between Kimmage being invited to imbed, and wanting to imbed, hanging the whole argument on what might, kindly, be described as an idiosyncratic reading of the word "attempt" - most of us simply take it to mean "tried to", "made an effort to"...but Benotti wants to read something entirely more sinister, despite the fact that it's utterly irrelevant, since the only issue that matters is that Kimmage wanted to imbed, which is undisputed - whether of his own initiative, or by invitation makes absolutely no difference - he wanted to do it, and was annoyed when the agreement broke down. And that is important because, going back to the original Hog nonsense, if imbedding compromises your integrity or desire to tell the truth, why was Kimmage willing to be so compromised?
The only sensible answer is that's it's not compromising in that way at all, and that the suggestion that Walsh was compromised is post ex facto rationalisation to justify an inherent prejudice against the fact that he didn't write what Hog wanted him to.
Once you start introducing unevidenced nonsense about puppetmasters, you simply throw your lot in wholesale with Hog. In all gentleness, that' not a good position to be in in this discussion.