Kind of fluffy, isn't it? Not much there I didn't know already. I admit, it's well written. I kind of knew this piece would be softcore. I knew after the first reporter contacted me:

FROM: R********@aol.com
TO: blogslut@blogslut.com

My name's Richard Gooding, and I'm a reporter for Vanity Fair magazine, working a story on Jeff Gannon.

I'm looking for some off-the-record help - some people I could contact who might know about Gannon.

Either email me or call me on my cell: xxx-xxx-xxxx.

Thanks very much.

I Googled Mr Gooding via his email address. Turns out he has a very interesting reputation.

I was hesitant when I spoke with Gooding on the phone. I knew he once wrote for Star Magazine. I thought all our research for propagannon was supposed to be secret. Gooding told me it was propagannon that gave him my name. He wanted to know what I knew about Guckert and the escort sites/services. Since my cover had already been blown, I told him what I wanted him to know.

Then David Margolik emailed me:

"FROM: M********@aol.com
TO: blogslut@blogslut.com

Blogslut,

I'm mentioning you in the piece I'm writing about Gannon (I think my colleague Richard Gooding's been in touch with you), having gotten your user name from Brian and Susan. I don't need your real name, but can I get an occupation and location, i.e. 'a computer programmer from Roanoke.' Many thanks!

Best,
David Margolick Vanity Fair"

I checked out Margolick before I called him. I don't trust anybody that emails me from an aol addy. At least he has VF articles in print. His phone number matched up with his bio as well. I told Margolick the same basic stuff I told Gooding. Margolick actually joined propagannon and as far as I know is still a member.

Just when I was about to forget the whole thing I got an email from a third VF writer:

"FROM: C*******************@condenast.com
TO: blogslut@blogslut.com

Good afternoon:

I'm doing some fact checking on a piece written for our June issue of Vanity Fair, on Jeff Gannon. The author has provided substantial details on the Propagannon effort to uncover information about Mr. Gannon/Guckert, and I wanted to send some info your way, in order to confirm its accuracy. When you have a chance, if you could respond to the following questions, that would be great. Also, please feel free to reach me at xxx-xxx-xxxx if you have questions.

1. Is your on-line ID "blogslut"? Is that the proper style of the name?

2. Are you a writer for the Internet porn industry?

3. Is it accurate to say that you are from Texas?

4. Was your primary role in Propagannon's efforts the investigation of escort sites?

5. At any time, did you find yourself feeling a bit sorry for Mr. Gannon?

6. Is it more accurate to say that Mr. Gannon has proven to be just a freelance zealot, not the linchpin of a larger conspiracy; or, is he a thread in a larger sweater, to paraphrase SusanG clumsily? Or is it something else?

That's all the questions I have for now. Thank you very much for helping me out with this.

Regards,
Christopher Hickman"

Hickman was the only writer I trusted because his email address emanated from Conde Nast. He was nice and really did just want to check facts. I told him I never knew it took so many writers to publish a piece for VF.

As I stated, the Vanity Fair article is well written but doesn't reveal anything new except for the bit about Guckert's church and his references to a greater secrecy.

Pity too. I gave them a damned good tip.