I seemed pretty sure because the article seemed pretty sure. But you knew that. I've no inclination to google for photos of the Gannon-in-undies and Gannon-in-pressroom pics to compare, but you could if it's crucial to your case to show that I'm leaping to conclusions based on an MSM article. I doubt you'll find I'm leaping to conclusions about something so simply demonstrable, which is why I have some faith in the article.
As to your accusation I personally attacked you--how's that? I just said if you don't think an undie picture of yourself is exposure beyond what ought to be on the web, gosh, shouldn't be such a big deal to you to post a few. That's no personal attack, it's you putting your money where your mouth is.
Sure of this?
The bloggers also have linked to a since-withdrawn America Online photo of a man who appears to be Gannon, posing in his underwear, with a screen name bearing the initials "JDG."
Let's see if I have this straight; BLOGS are saying it was him, so Howie Kurtz is right?
Are you new to this?
Kindly point to where I said anything close to that.