"Like straw men, anonymous sources need to be carefully examined not only in themselves, but also against what purpose they serve. Signorile's straw men serve the purpose to discredit Andrew Sullivan. "

Since you apparently suffer short-term memory loss, as well as multiple screen name pesonality disorder, I'll repeat:

Signorile's sources are not anonymous. They are confidential. Sun's repeated effort to conflate "anonymous" and "confidential," despite explanations of the difference (and citations of historic cases), demonstrates, as I said, that he is guilty of exactly what he's accusing Signorile:

Veiling a political agenda to discredit someone through a deliberate distortion of the facts.

Now set your barcalounger in an upright position, Sunnyboy, send the peekapoo outside to shit under the plastic birdbath and concentrate real hard on this. Try moving your lips along with mine: Confidential sources are not anonymous sources. Under usual rules of professional ethics, the reporter has to be willing to verify his sources to the editor. There is NO reason to think anything is different in this case. Got it?

Good boy! Now go read some more stuff on freerepulic.com you can rewrite to post here.