I am distinctly less interested in engaging with you than with Glenn about what Glenn thinks Keith thinks is the interrelation between the various things Keith has said.

Back atcha. My bad if I left you with the impression that I wanted to mind-read Glenn.

May I ask why you are so interested in my curiosity?

Conversation. The thread is pretty dead except for people trying to "gotcha" Glenn about supposed inconsistencies about the anonymous sources issue.

Your question just seems to be a reach. I don't know how big your ego has to be to say two completely contradictory things and not see it. It's fine, no big deal, but I wanted to be sure I understood your point.

What's the issue?

That was my question, what's the issue.

I was curious where you were coming from and engaging you about that. Your last response to me seemed to indicate that you were annoyed that I was asking and that all you wanted was a response from Glenn.

I'm still curious why you think it's questionable that Olbermann might think his letter to Glenn and his on-air performance as consistent. I get that you're asking Glenn his opinion on that, but I'm still interested in the thinking behind your question.

I made it clear that I wasn't trying to speak for Glenn. He wasn't around, and I was talking to you. This is a comments section, and Glenn's email is ggreenwald@salon.com.

Hope Glenn's response answered your question.

My guess is that Olbermann left it vague precisely so there could be room for a little doubt about just the question you raie. But it's just that: a guess.

Glenn has more information and would be in a better position to guess intelligently. At the end of the day, though, the only person who will ever know what Olbermann meant is Olbermann himself.

whether he believes it is Olbermann's view that Olbermann's statement about Glenn's reporting implies that Olbermann's previous statements about the episode were lies/untrue

I'll - obviously - let Glenn speak for himself. I guess I'm curious why you think there's any question there.

I mean, do you think Keith just didn't read Glenn's piece, or thinks there's some way he can simultaneously say two contradictory things at once?

I find myself again asking: what's the statement behind the question?

It's a simple question: what should Olbermann have done?

The "it's a simple question" canard is kind of annoying. For one thing, your interlocutors may not agree with your premises, and so your "simple question" could be anything but. (cf. "when did you stop beating your wife?")

That being said, my answer would be that he not lie. He could have said that he is facing pressure to back down, or he could have said that he agreed with the agreement. Or he could have said nothing. The moral quandaries faced by millionaires are not terribly interesting to me. Certainly, though, no one forced him to lie.

May I now ask what the statement behind your question was?

However, I did not realize that you were playing that particular game again.

That's exactly why I have nothing more to say to you, because you ignore what I write.

If you feel you must continue to be fixated on me, of course I have no power to forbid you. I said that wished you no ill will in my last message to you, and it's more sort of saddening than anything else that you feel the need to constantly attack me. It's petty, and ill-befits one who claims to advocate peaceful coexistence.

I'll leave you the last word.

You'll notice that I haven't directly addressed you since I told you I wouldn't, both on this comments section and on your personal blog. I'd appreciate it if you'd cease sniping at me, knowing that I won't respond.

It's creepy, and cowardly besides.

you insist on saying 'he is lying' rather than 'he nuanced his position'

Olbermann:

Mr. Stelter asked me at least twice last week if there was such a deal, and I told him on and off the record there was not, and I told him I rather obviously would have to be a party to such a deal, and I told him that not only wasn't I, but I had not even been asked to be by my bosses.

Greenwald:

That is the reason that O'Reilly's name has not passed Olbermann's lips since June 1 -- because GE, petrified of further reporting by Fox of its corporate activities, has barred Olbermann from doing so.

Olbermann:

I honor Mr. Greenwald's insight into the coverage of GE/NewsCorp talks, and have found nothing materially factually inaccurate about it.

Where is the "nuance?" He lied, and admitted that he did so.

As has been repeatedly stated, Olbermann's behavior in this is not the issue: GE's and News Corp's is. No one is talking about firing Olbermann, or waterboarding him, or giving money to Rush Limbaugh. People just want to say, on a dinky comments section on one of a million web sites, that a lie is a lie.

Why is this so threatening?

Unfortunately, what "is" boils down to is rather:

5) Keith lies about it on-air

6) acknowledges publically to GG that he lied

7) peeps get mad at GG

I can kind of understand feeling loyal to KO... but I always hold my friends to account, much closer than I do my enemies. It's called integrity.

...just remove the skin of a toy balloon.

Perhaps I misunderstand. You don't accept the so-called "short form," yet would accept the validity of a "long form?"

If I am correct... why do you trust the source of one and not the other?