« RSS in the VT Guardian | Main | VT Blogs: DTWOF »

Wednesday, May 25, 2005


This is what happens when you insist on anonymity — check out the first comment on Politics VT's post about a possible Rainville/Dubie rift. You'll recall this blog is written by "we are insiders and you'd never guess."

I think you're a fraud. This is a ridiculous scenario. If it doesn't pan out, you should stop calling yourself an "insider"

# posted by Anonymous : Tuesday, May 24, 2005 2:25:14 PM

May 25, 2005 at 06:18 AM in VT Blogs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Frauds?:


Anonymity is a funny thing and can cut both good and bad. We here at Vtpolitics have had to insist on being anonymous to protect our reputations, our friendships, and our livelihoods.

Plus, if we were not anonymous, folks would stop talking with us, we would know less, and therefore so would all of our reads.

We allude to this fact on our blog that we even know more but we are walking a very fine line about posting it and being made out who we are. If only a hand full of people know information, then it is posted, it is not hard to track down the source. (which is part of the inherit problem with Cathy’s earlier criticisms about us not being “insider” enough)

As for anonymously posted comments like the one calling us a fraud, well, that is the beauty of open blogs; anyone can say anything they want.

Finally, we’ll get some things wrong, some people may change their minds, or even situations can change. We will blog what we know to be true at the moment.


Posted by: VTpolitics | May 25, 2005 10:18:45 AM

More dirt! More dirt!

Posted by: NTodd | May 25, 2005 11:01:15 AM

I make this point not to be snarky but to ask a serious question: What sort of jobs do you think these guys (I'm assuming they're men from the icon image) hold that make them "insiders?" Whatever their jos, communication skills can't be a very high priority judging from the level of writing/editing in their posts & comments. There are some pretty basic grammar and syntax errors throughout the writing--to such a degree that I think it limits the level of politics at which they could potentially work. It's not that they're unclear--I understand what they're saying--it's just that you can tell when someone has advanced communication skills and when someone doesn't. These guys don't.

Posted by: Bill Simmon | May 25, 2005 5:57:56 PM

I was thinking maybe they're secretaries in one or more of the offices. I think there's more than one of them, and at least one of them is a woman. Maybe they're a couple?

Like Bill, I noticed their grammatical clumsiness...I wonder if it's part of an elaborate disguise?

I wonder if they work in the cloak room? Or the cafeteria? Maybe the baliff? Sergeant at arms? I dunno. I tend to think they're not directly involved with the legislative process, and are actually merely privvy to conversations, and no one thinks they're listening. I overhear lots of things. Maybe they do, too.

Butlers, maybe? Do they have butlers in the legislature?

Posted by: cresmer | May 25, 2005 6:10:17 PM

Yeah, I wondered about that myself, but I had to think if they're really concerned about concealing their ID, they should try to change their writing style. Either that, or they work in the statehouse cafeteria.

Posted by: NTodd | May 25, 2005 8:41:23 PM

The guessing game you folks are playing is really pretty entertaining to watch. It is very, very funny to hear someone mention the cafeteria because we have a blog about what we know from a recent visit to the capital cafeteria. We have just been waiting for the right timing to post it. (sneak preview for all of the 802 folks)

As for the syntax, grammar, and level of communication we exhibit, we can only say that we are very, very, busy individuals and write extremely fast without much regard for such things. In addition, we do not spend anytime editing, revising or re-writing anything.

We just wouldn’t read too much into our writing skill levels and how that equates to what we do or what we know. It is our experience that politico’s in general are not the best writers in the world so we don’t worry too much about it.

On a similar subject, what do folks here think about PoliticsVT and their identity and anonymity? Cathy’s questions and our blog seems to have prompted a pre-buttal about why they use pen names, blind quotes, and blind sources.

What is fascinating to me is their pursuit and presentation as a “real” or legitimate news source. Sure, they post a lot of other peoples “real” news. But there own writings are all commentary and doesn’t pass journalist muster. Their double and triple checked sources are certainly no better than the sources that we have or even Frayne or Allen or a dozen others who can pick up the phone and call around.

Plus their write-up about Tarrant was like a commercial, too glowing. And finally, their sources are going to have 8 Democrats running for congress at this rate. Everyone says they are very interested in running, thinking about it, or has a supporter who will tell people they are going to run. It is part of the game! But in the end they won’t.

Take a look; tell us what you think of their anonymity and legitimate news presentation?

Posted by: VTpolitics | May 26, 2005 12:12:16 AM

Your post is spiteful. I wonder what your motivations are for bringing in politicsvt for your little game.

personally, i think your blog is nothing compared to politicsvt although it does contain some humerous parts.

please stay positive. lets change the subject.

Posted by: ILoveVT | May 26, 2005 8:09:11 PM

Hey, they approached me.

Posted by: cresmer | May 26, 2005 9:13:47 PM

It looks like that PoliticsVT is legit. The guy who runs Politics1 -- where I get all my nationwide political news just gave them his support and endorsement.

If this guy thinks they are doing a good job, then I think so too, even though I thought this before he endorsed them.

Posted by: MilitaryLefty345 | May 26, 2005 11:42:27 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.