[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 3, 10:07*am, ScottW2 wrote:
On Jul 2, 6:06*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"





wrote:
On Jul 2, 7:50*pm, Clyde Slick wrote:

On Jul 2, 5:52*pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:

"Weymouth said the paper had planned a series of dinners with
participation from the newsroom “but with parameters such that we did
not in any way compromise our integrity.

Charging for access "IS": compromising your integrity

Not in the context of sponsoring an event. If that's the case then
sponsoring dinners and things at national political conventions should
be illegal.

Those are typical billed as fundraisers, not pay for access.
(I know, subtle difference but that's politics).

My flyer from the White House says it costs $250,000 to meet with the
VP. What does yours say? LoL.

WP: "Sponsor". Flyer: "Pay for access".

So far your only defense in this case is the featured guests are

I do not have to defend a thing, dum-dum. I'm not involved with it.

unwitting pawns not knowing the true reason for their attendance
which is absurd.

"Sponsor".

Um, 2pid? Do you suppose just for an instant that somebody printed a
flyer that wasn't vetted? I mean, do you *really* believe the WP would
print a flyer saying "politicians for sale"?

Duh.

What happens when the unwitting guests fail to appear?

Um, 2pid? The party was cancelled.

It's just a dinner party, I'm sure simple regrets will do. *LoL.

LoL. What an imbecile.