> I don't have any affiliation with ABC

I didn't say that. You've been posting it everywhere and called it a "better source" that we should all read. Calling it "your source" is a reasonable shorthand.

> How you get from that to "we don't know if they'll ever publish it again!" is beyond me.

I didn't say that either. I only pasted a direct quote from an article you urged everyone to read. How you get from that to what you're saying is beyond me.

> I only pasted a direct quote from an article you urged everyone to read.

Mea culpa, I missed the line because it was at stranded at the bottom of a bunch of blocked ads. About the only thing I can say is that "NASA" and "any details" is doing all of the heavy lifting in that sentence.

The reporter just quoted someone from the administration saying that they'll follow the law. So the reporter runs over to NASA, doesn't get an immediate or exact answer, and says "OK, I'll just make it sound like maybe they're being dodgy about following the law, then."

Its a fairly standard reporter trick, but it's sleazy nonetheless: "At press time, we've received no answer from the man about when he stopped beating his wife."

> > How you get from that to "we don't know if they'll ever publish it again!" is beyond me.

> I didn't say that either.

I now realize that this language could be misconstrued. I wasn't literally talking about "you". I meant it as "how one gets from that statement to..", and I was talking about the reporters.