It is conspirational but it addresses what imho was a wrong conclusion. There was an item in article that basically said 'this is an obscure figure, why go afte

It is conspirational but it addresses what imho was a wrong conclusion. There was an item in article that basically said 'this is an obscure figure, why go after him?' And I just wanted to point out that that reasoning is not conclusive and rather narrow: that going after a relative nobody can actually be of utility, in an oblique way, for an establishment. > You're saying that Scott was made an example of in order for the NYT to scare him and stop his writing, with the end goal of preserving their authority? I don't know, it's just a hypothesis, but this is the question you can answer for yourself: would the proverbial Scott today start an anon blog, or would he first do a liability analysis regarding his personal and professional life? In otherwords, has the social calculus of anonymous [non-estalishment] expression been altered in a significant way?