Comments on: Five Questions About the Edwards Scandal, Now That It’s No Longer “Alleged”

By: Simon Scowl

Simon Scowl — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:44:54 +0000

So much for the big Internet Archive conspiracy theory. Someone contacted them and requested that their content be removed, and they complied, according to their TOS.

Uh, okay. Who? And why? By the way: Good choice!

By: Lindsay Beyerstein

Lindsay Beyerstein — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:26:27 +0000

Uh, Fortunate Son, the Internet Archive's mission statement and group picture has been moved off the front page and into the About IA section. As for their terms of use, they say they'll remove stuff if the author or publisher contacts them and requests that it be expunged from the collection after the fact:

While we collect publicly available Internet documents, sometimes authors and publishers express a desire for their documents not to be included in the Collections (by tagging a file for robot exclusion or by contacting us or the original crawler group). If the author or publisher of some part of the Archive does not want his or her work in our Collections, then we may remove that portion of the Collections without notice.

So much for the big Internet Archive conspiracy theory. Someone contacted them and requested that their content be removed, and they complied, according to their TOS.

By: Rihanna

Rihanna — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 05:27:24 +0000

I feel sorry for Elizabeth Edwards. This is the last thing she needs. This whole Edwards scandal will probably make the media dig up McCain’s affair with Cindy McCain and ask why McCain left his first wife. Washington is a sad place.

~*~*~*~*~*~

By: bc

bc — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:45:17 +0000

What’s the Mel Gibson movie where the brave protagonist is taken by force to the decaying civilization’s Inca city where he sees first hand the abject corruption and rot in the highest levels of Incan government. Half the people he sees at the top of the ruling class are barking mad, and the other half are pure evil hypocrites. So, with that in mind, is John Edwards barking mad, or is he an evil Hypocrite?

By: Simon Scowl

Simon Scowl — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:10:24 +0000

Remind me why we care, exactly?

If you don’t, that’s perfectly fine. Although it does raise the question of why you’re taking the time to comment.

By: Franja

Franja — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:06:27 +0000

Why do we care, exactly? Because it’s a great story. It’s got everything: sex, money, secret rendezvous, mysteriously disappearing websites and videos, corrupt politicians, a fatherless child, kooky new age mumbo jumbo. If Edwards were from Florida instead of North Carolina, this would be like a Carl Hiassen novel, unfolding in real life. Just imagine the scene as Edwards was cowering in the men’s room of the Beverly Hilton, National Enquirer reporters pounding on the door. You just KNOW that as bad as things looked for him, at some point during the ordeal he caught a glimpse of himself in the bathroom mirror and reflexively pulled out his pocket comb… Don’t worry laura, we know there’s an election coming up, and we’ll keep abreast of the real issues too. But please let us enjoy this juicy scandal while it lasts.

By: Reille Hunter Lets John Ewards skate on Baby Daddy question … Rules out Paternity Test … Who is the “Reiile” Daddy? | Scared Monkeys

Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:05:07 +0000

[...] Five Questions About the Edwards Scandal, Now That It’s No Longer “Alleged” Share This [...]

By: Fortunate Son

Fortunate Son — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:10:55 +0000

Rielle Hunter is pronounced “RILEY” Hunter.

http://www.newsobserver.com/100/story/1169932.html

By: laura

laura — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:10:53 +0000

Remind me why we care, exactly? So the guy’s as slimy as McCain. Are we supposed to be surprised? Why aren’t we worrying more about the people who are actually in or running for office? You know John Edwards will never serve in an administration or Congress again.

By: TexEd

TexEd — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:07:44 +0000

I wonder if this also means that some of the soon-to-be-unemployed media lefties will take Larry Sinclair’s claims about Hussein a little more seriously!