-
Website
http://blog.reddit.com/ -
Original page
http://blog.reddit.com/2009/10/fare-thee-well-reddit.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
- self serve advertising on reddit is now open for business!
- we added a safe for work option
- We've updated (and hopefully improved) the messaging interface.
- You're busy, so TL;DR is a daily update reporting on the best of the entire reddit network
- /r/python hits 10k subscribers! (so we rolled you this revision...)
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
This blog is technically being hosted on a google product, right? So, hopefully I can freely say the following:
Fuck you, Conde Nast. Fuck you in all of your face holes with giant squids and narwhals with AIDS.
Conde Nast, I'm here to read you your sins. You've ruined Wired. You turned Wired into a lame fashion fishwrap. Worse, you helped Wired ruin Mondo 2000. You engaged in censorship on reddit, and are currently doing a fine job of ruining reddit, too. Everything you touch turns to shit - and yet you wonder why you're bleeding money like a well perforated hemophiliac. It's because you suck. You move too slow and you don't get the internet and you never will.
I can see some marketing jackass printing this comment out and discussing it in a focus group in breathless tones about how much passion your products generate in your consumers. Go fuck yourself in a cactus patch full of killer bees.
Here's the really terrifying thing: We don't need or want you. We don't want your "products". We don't want your lame dead tree magazines. We don't want your user-focused marketing. We don't want your meddling. We can self publish and interact just fine without you. We don't want you. You suck and you fail. Your rightful place is in the landfill of history. Good riddance.
Just the same, good luck, spez and kn0thing. I can't imagine how productive my life might have been had I never heard of you.
*king and queen?
P.S. Were you the guys who ran into me in Las Vegas that one time when I was wearing my XKCD "sudo make me a sandwich" shirt?
You asked me if I read reddit. I said "What's reddit?"
Good times. ;)
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
Adam (abourne and Monday vball)
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
Guess it's time to retire the DrunkIt pins.
Reddit is turning into a huge shitpile and making reddit.com/r/notashitpile doesn't change a damn thing.
I've been a proud redditor for something like a year now,
and I'm still learning new ways people use reddit.
This creation of yours, is truly unique and amazing, largely because of the community that surrounds it and lives within reddit, but you guys definitely deserve a large portion of the credit.
This site has contributed and will continue to contribute to humanity in many many ways, and you should be proud of it!
Godspeed to you both!
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
From: Kevin Scheid, Col. Larry Fenner, and Gordon Lederman
Date: October 2, 2003
RE: Executive Branch Minders’ Intimidation of Witnesses
During the course of Team 2’s and other teams’ interviews, we have observed three trends concerning the Executive Branch’s representatives (“minders”) at those interviews.
First, agencies lack a common understanding of the minders’ purpose in our interviews. Agencies’ perspectives include (1) minders as agency representatives, ensuring that Commission staff abide by the agreement between the Executive Branch and the Commission on the substantive scope of the Commission’s inquiry. (2) minders as participants in the interviews, answering questions directed at witnesses; (3) minders as agency monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staff’s lines of inquiry and witnesses’ verbatim responses.(4) minders as counselors, for witnesses to consult during interviews; and (5) minders as records of action-items generated during interviews, such as transmitting documents offered by witnesses to Commission staff. We suggest that Dan Levin give the agencies a common understanding of the purpose of minders’ presence at interviews.
Second, minders have on occasion answered questions directed to witnesses. Critical to our investigation is determining not just how the Intelligence Community is supposed to function pursuant to its policies and procedures but also how the Intelligence Community functions in actuality. When we have asked witnesses about certain roles and responsibilities within the Intelligence Community, minders have prompted witnesses’ responses by referencing formal polices and procedures. As a result, witnesses have not responded to our questions and have deprived us from understanding the Intelligence Community’s actual functioning and witnesses view of their roles and responsibilities.
Third, Minders have positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions. Minders generally have sat next to witnesses at the table and across from Commission staff, conveying to witnesses that minders are participants in interviews and are of equal status to witnesses. Moreover, minders take verbatim notes of witnesses statements, which we believe conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution. We believe that the net effect of minders’ conduct, whether intentionally or not, is to intimidate witnesses and to interfere with witnesses providing full and candid responses. Moreover, the minders’ verbatim note taking facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commissions lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly.
We request that you raise the subject of minders’ conduct with the Executive Branch in order to prevent minders from imposing themselves in these ways in the future. Perhaps the attached statement of principles might help define minders roles and conduct. We look forward to your assistance. Thank you.
I have been libelled seriously by a redditor. I have been trying to get in contact w/ reddit admins for many days now. "send a message" via reddit has gotten no response. Please email me. I realy wish I could just talk w/ you guys but I am going to have to escalate this into the court system if I am unable to contact anyone.
By creating Reddit, you have created one of the most truly valuable web sites in the US. I can't speak for the rest of the world.
For those who are staying on with Reddit, I would like to say this. I do worry about blog teams trying to offset the balance. My local Congressman has a blog team his campaign manager setup. What they did and still do is use http://google.com/alerts to see where ever his name shows up and then they go to the sites they believe matter the most and pound them with comments in his favor.
Kind of like what the Air Force is doing http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/01/usaf-blog...
I wonder if there would be a way to display a map of where your users are located who give a submission a thumbs up or thumbs down. Red dots could be thumbs down, and green dots could be thumbs up. Maybe a Google mashup could be used to take the load off your servers. Google Analytic can tell what city a hit is coming from and will even list military bases. Interesting patterns might turn up on articles. Just a thought.