Clarkston Kent wrote:
I've read this entire thread and contributed occasionally and I too am skeptical of Clarkston Kent, for many of the same reasons dd listed below. I don't think CK and Kip are one and the same but I do think many of your posts are odd, CK. I think my skepticism is predicated more than anything on the anonymity and the constant requests for patience. Were you a reputable or established writer working on a legitimate piece for publication I would expect you to identify yourself and include a request for information or solid leads to help your story. I don't expect you to be able to name the intended place of publication necessarily, but unless what you're working on is less than what many of us are expecting, the anonymity and delays are red flags.
You were writing while I posted above you; I'm not the writer. As it's turned out, I've served as a main source for the story. We don't need leads - other than from anybody that knows Kip well. That's lacking. You can raise all the red flags you want - this story isn't predicated (nice use of term by you) on your timeline.
Why did you not clarify that you are scott h and had initially said you were the writer? That seems like a suspicious oversight.