Disclaiming Once the Damage is Done, then Reversing the Message

Two points to make today, and for once I've included links to Sinclair's blog (for citation purposes only). (links removed. Please Google)

1. For posterity's sake, I'd like to note that Sinclair added an official caveat to his Wordpress site today:

DISCLAIMER
"I do not necessarily subscribe to any of the opinions of the posters on my blog -- the posters are uniquely responsible for their own messages." I am the only person with Administrative Privileges on this Blog except in emergency situations.

Sinclair also claims that all "articles, original photos, comments, and other material on [the] site is [sic] the sole property of Larry Sinclair." In fact, he repeats that "all comments submitted to this blog become the sole property of Larry Sinclair" (of course, thanks to that pesky fair use doctrine, I can cite such material for critical purposes). But the point is that he's claiming and disclaiming the material simultaneously; I suppose I simply don't understand why he'd want to claim "ownership" of certain comments (see below)

My guess as to the disclaimer's appearance? Someone finally told him that the racist, overly sexual, and plain old whacky comments were not only getting out of hand, but that they did more damage to Sinclair than anything he might say. This includes the comments I noted here. Rather than moderate his blog for inflammatory content (except, of course, the less-than-positive commentary directed at him), he dissociates himself from the commentary it contains. Well enough. The problem in, for the past several months, his silence over such commentary implies endorsement of messages left.


In recent weeks, Sinclair seems to have made an effort to "soften" the tone of his blog; no surprise (you might review Politico's briefly-described reaction to the site). I assume that he's finally realized that people who have the power to make real decisions--decisions beyond determining how great a donation a loaf of nut bread deserves--might also take a look at his blog and associate him with its content. You'd assume that, seeking publicity from the MSM and all, he'd have paid attention to this slight point earlier.

2. For once he doesn't bother to use qualifiers such as "alleged," "purported" or "possible association" in tying Obama to murder:

1. Larry Sinclair Says:
   Sunday, July 6, 2008 at 8:51 pm

   [snip]

   The issues here are Barack Obama being a crack smoker, having being killed to protect his political dreams and his use of internet warriors and US Attorneys and Senators connections to silenced anyone who attempts to expose the truth about him.

First he adds a disclaimer as evidence of his good sense, then he reverses that inclination towards sensibility by repeating his accusations in purely confrontational language.

You have to admit--that latter post makes him look just a mite kooky. Between the drugs, the murder, and the vast cabal of politicians and lawyers out to cover everything up--well, not even Clancy could invent a plot this inane. But that fits Sinclair's tale precisely. Consider: from its genesis in a motel room, where Sinclair filmed his first YouTube video, to his press conference and subsequent arrest on valid warrants out of Delaware, to today's complaints aimed at the Obama campaign, which continues to ignore him (justifiably so), and a secret society of elites that has dedicated itself to masking Sinclair's story.

No. Not even Clancy could pull that off--successfully, at any rate.


UPDATE: An Anonymous comment posted at 1:30:

No one has told me to do anything. I have always stated the only comments that I will be responsible for are the ones that I actually make.

It is interesting that you claim all these types of comments but fail to mention how you and your sister bloggers have made far worse than anything I have found on my blog.

Not to mention the admissions of out right illegal activity that you and your sister bloggers have acknowledge you have and continue to engage in.

Have a nice day.

To Anonymous: You suggest that m, p, & g s is responsible for the actions of people unaffiliated with this blog. Please provide details to support your claims; more importantly, please cite evidence of illegal activity on this site. Unless you can supply supporting material, your allegations are baseless. I encourage you to cease and desist in asserting such claims.
Thank you.