[Tacis]

Well, fine. But, the obvious question is, "Were you lying then or are you lying now?"

Why should we believe that what you've written above is truthful? How do we know what you said wasn't the result of extortion, threats, a bribe, or a promise of future goodies for retracting the first story. Claiming you were conned is a very small price to pay and from the comments, looks like it has increased your standing.

But, who is the guy? He had maintained a positive and useful cover for 20 years. You used him before but never had to contact him to check a fact or ask for a lead? And, why/how would he have identified you 20 years ago as a person he could con 20 years hence? Has any money, either way, ever changed hands? And, if you, why not several of your coequals?

I'm sorry, the story is too neat, too glib. There is more to it than has been written here.

[Dog]

Agreed.........there is something screwy with this story. A source of 20 years suddenly gets exposed and only now is found to have feed a reporter bad info for 20 long years.

I'm not buying it..

[CanisRex]

"Were you lying then or are you lying now?"

Those same bells are going off in my head... Sounds a little too neat, I agree. It's like one of those kiddy scratch and sniff books; his retraction looks good at first blush, but scratch it and it smells like a red herring.

I want to believe Doug, but color me skeptical.

[MJemison]

. . more to it than has been written here. . .

Yes, and why are your other contacts who you claim knew him not being identified?