Driving liberals, dhimmis and illegal alien apologists absolutely insane since 2005...

WashPo Reporter Exposes Himself On The Internet?

By Greg L | 21 December 2007 | Virginia Politics | 25 Comments

An editor from the Washington Post called and claimed that the person in the gay personals ad shown in this post was not Tim Craig.  While I suspect that it is, I’m pulling this article on the off chance that Tim Craig actually did have a virtual look-alike in the gay community while he was living in DC.  It’s possible, after all.



The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.

BVBL is not a charity and your support is not tax-deductible.

You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.

25 Comments

  1. Batson D. Belfrey said on 21 Dec 2007 at 3:48 pm:
    Flag comment

    This is pretty bad for Tim Craig. If he were a rising hollywood star, the press that this will generate, could be career-enhancing. But, he’s a “serious” journalist. While if he isn’t closeted, a profile on a gay dating site wouldn’t be terminal, but exposing himself is scandalous. I don’t imagine that he is helping the “we are just like normal people, except we’re gay” argument much either. You know, the people who say, “We go to church, pay our bills, pay our taxes just like everyone else, so we shouldn’t be prevented from being boy scout leaders, little-league coaches, and we should be able to adopt children”. Waiving a sex-toy around, attempting to have a three-way with a stranger, (as the Borat film would indicate) and posting an amateur gay-porn self-portrait on a public gay dating site isn’t what I call “main-stream”.

    What “bombshell” will be dropped next?

    Message to the MSM: Mess with the Bull(s), you get the horns.

  2. Batson D. Belfrey said on 21 Dec 2007 at 3:50 pm:
    Flag comment

    PS. To Above: Provided of course, that this is indeed Tim Craig, and not some doppleganger. Certainly looks that way.

  3. independent thinker said on 21 Dec 2007 at 3:54 pm:
    Flag comment

    who cares Greg? Who this person sleeps with his own business! I am more interested in my own sex life than some strangers. I wonder what this bizarre interest says about you? You keep bringing up “fist shaped rubber implement” in each blog, maybe you need to do some soul searching Greg.

  4. Anonymous said on 21 Dec 2007 at 3:56 pm:
    Flag comment

    What does “100%” passive mean? What would something less than “100%” passive be?

  5. anonymoustoo said on 21 Dec 2007 at 3:57 pm:
    Flag comment

    Have you demanded that the other Craig - you know, the Senator - resign? I’d be more worried about an in denial Republican Senator open to blackmail than I would a Post reporter.

    You know, Greg, someone could post that pic of you that appeared in the Post, the pic that showed “Save Manass”, and make a stink about that. Would that disqualify you from participating in the “Save” organizations? I would hope not.

    Don’t be too bigotted. We know there are gay Republicans as well as gay Democrats. Instead of a big tent party, you guys will be hunkered down in a pup tent if more folks keep getting added to the “hate” list. Personally, I think sexual preferences are hard-wired…just as our political bent probably is. Ha.

    I’d have to say that Craig, the reporter, was culturally illiterate if he didn’t recognize Borat for the prankster he is.

  6. Timothy Watson said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:05 pm:
    Flag comment

    “But, he’s a “serious” journalist. While if he isn’t closeted, a profile on a gay dating site wouldn’t be terminal, but exposing himself is scandalous.”

    It sure hasn’t hurt Andrew Sullivan.

  7. Johnson said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:08 pm:
    Flag comment

    Regardless of sexual orientation, a nationally recognized news organization should think twice about the very public sexual antics of it’s employee. Craig certainly is stupid to fall for this. And just to have sex? He needs to get his priorities straight (no pun intended). Richmond is not D.C.

  8. Leeroy Jenkins said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:13 pm:
    Flag comment

    I still refuse to debase myself by commenting on this…..dog gone it! I did it again!

  9. anonymoustoo said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    I wouldn’t let what a few bloggers who have gotten their noses out of joint over Craig’s opinions influence me. That’s the good thing about blogs…they put the info out there sooner than the MSM but their agendas are often apparent as well. The MSM has to do a better job backing up their agenda. The bloggers can spew anything…which can be good as well as bad.

  10. Batson D. Belfrey said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Anonymoustoo,

    What does Senator Craig have to do with anything?

    Did you not see the block marked “censored”, and Greg’s description of what’s under the block?

    Are you that dumb that you think this has anything to do with Craig’s being a homosexual, and has everything to do with someone who is in the public eye, who has commented about bloggers in his columns, and now finds himself subject to scruitny due to what he does in public?

    Are you that numb that you don’t know that you loose the “my private life” argument when you put something out there on the internet, or are dumb enough to get yourself filmed doing something foolish?

    What does the picture that the post took of Greg have anything to do with this argument?

    You know who Borat is because of the movie, or maybe the Ali G. show. If your interaction with him was prior to the publicity surrounding either of these, how would you know he is really a comedian? Did you know? From the look of the film, it doesn’t appear that Mr. Craig was the least bit concerned about discretion, and lacks situational awareness.

  11. anonymoustoo said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:23 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bats, so if this only has to do with some bloggers being miffed with Craig’s opinion, why use his sexual orientation? Why not address his opinions? These posts are an attempt to smear him for his sexual orientation. If that’s the case, smear the other Craig as well. At least be effing consistent.

    I’ve known about Borat for a couple years at least…because my husband told me about his juvenile sense of humor.

  12. Rob Smalls (Inspiration of the BVBL 40K Post) said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:28 pm:
    Flag comment

    Again with this tripe. This is a serious waste of 1’s and 0’s. Who cares if Craig is openly gay, or if we was in a movie that made him a laughingstock? While an online profile with male nudity that a child can get to is very problematic indeed, your post indicates that it’s somehow particularly problematic for a journalist:

    “…even if that choice can irreparably harm this reporter’s ability to get stories for his employer, the Washington Post.”

    Even if that is the case, and Craig can’t live up to his responsibilities per his contract agreement with the Post, they’ll either fire him, transfer him or pay him for substandard work. It’s their call. Again, if it becomes an affliction to his reportage, that’s a story. This isn’t. This is conjecture at best.

    “Exposing yourself online on a website that anyone, including children, can access is absolutely incompatible with the duties of a political reporter for the Washington Post, or so one would assume.”

    Exposing yourself online in a fashion accessible to children should be incompatible to anyone’s sense of decency and even the loosest set of morals. That said, I seriously doubt a child is going to go through the trouble of setting up any sort of account when a simple unfiltered image search on any major engine will reveal the “goods”. Hell, pick any suggestive phrase with “dot com” as a suffix and you’ll likely be awash in a sea of T&A before the page is done loading.

    If you don’t want your kids to see Tim Craig’s schwanz (or any others for that matter), regulate their computer consumption like responsible parents should.

  13. Krusty said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:40 pm:
    Flag comment

    Is Black Velvet Bruce Li now into serious gay bashing? This is highly, HIGHLY, disturbing.

  14. Batson D. Belfrey said on 21 Dec 2007 at 4:52 pm:
    Flag comment

    Oh I give up.

    To Anonymoustoo and Krusty:

    Greg isn’t “Gay Bashing”. Greg is “stupid WaPo reporter who likes to pick fights with bloggers and is dumb enough to do so after getting filmed in a movie acting perverted and has an x-rated picture of himself on a dating website” bashing. The “gay” part of this does not apply. It would be just as damaging had this same photo been posted on a straight website, and if he were filmed wagging a sex toy at Pamela Anderson.

  15. Peter Danlyn said on 21 Dec 2007 at 5:06 pm:
    Flag comment

    Lighten up everyone.
    This looks like a good place to interject a few lines from my favorite Christmas song, from an otherwise reverent country music songwriting Hall of Famer:

    “Rumors eminating from the North to all the poles,
    Outside they’re speculating, who’s designing Santa’s clothes,
    He’s the newest name at Christmas,
    and soon the world will know,
    That Rudolf’s nose, is not the only reindeer appendage that glows,

    He’s Stefan, the alternative lifestyle reindeer,
    and heaven help Santa should he call him queer,
    standing tall, against a wall of prejudice and fear,
    he’s Stefan, the alternative lifestyle reindeer.”

    It’s a great Christmas message, and I can’t wait to see this culturally relevant float in the next Christmas Parade!

  16. Dolph said on 21 Dec 2007 at 5:09 pm:
    Flag comment

    What am I missing? Didn’t Senator Craig attempt to pick up an undercover cop in a public restroom? That’s pretty public in my book. Elected officials should be under closer scrutiny than a reporter of a newspaper, especially if an elected official is known for speaking out against gay issues. Perhaps he was undercover….ho ho ho.

    Sarcasm button off

  17. Batson D. Belfrey said on 21 Dec 2007 at 5:14 pm:
    Flag comment

    Dolph,

    I am not saying that Senator Larry Craig isn’t fair game for what he did. He is. I think he should have resigned immediately. This Craig has nothing to do with that.

    What I am saying is this guy is going to pay the price for picking fights with bloggers, when he’s seen fit to put his dirty little secrets out on the street. I don’t care if he’s gay, straight, bi or transgendered. Really doesn’t matter. He brought a knife to a gunfight, and now he will have to pay the price.

  18. anonymoustoo said on 21 Dec 2007 at 5:18 pm:
    Flag comment

    Bats, not gay bashing? Yeah. Sure.

  19. anonymoustoo said on 21 Dec 2007 at 5:21 pm:
    Flag comment

    Furthermore, Bats, are you coming to the defense of Feder or Brynne? Ha ha. I effing doubt it.

  20. Batson D. Belfrey said on 21 Dec 2007 at 5:39 pm:
    Flag comment

    anonymoustoo,

    Must be difficult to function with such a limited amount of mental capacity. Brin lock up on you from time to time? Your logic stream seems a bit circular. Must be hard to pee by yourself.

    What do Judy Feder and Leslie Byrne have to do with anything? Why in the world would I need to defend them? Debating you is like listening to a two year old tell a joke. “An then the funny man, no, wait, the funny man with the wiggly rubbery thing…he had no hair and he was funny…he was wth the funny man with the moustache, but the other funny man was bald. And then he wasn’t there, but then he was…”

    I see that Greg has pulled the post. Probably wise until it can be determined if it is indeed Tim Craig.

  21. es_la_ley said on 21 Dec 2007 at 5:46 pm:
    Flag comment

    “Lighten up everyone.”

    NO! Just let them go. I just made popcorn and there’s nothing on TV.

    :)

  22. Jonathan Mark said on 21 Dec 2007 at 7:17 pm:
    Flag comment

    Since Borat was a movie about a fictional character who doesn’t actually exist, what if Tim Craig was just an actor in the movie, like Pamela Anderson was, or the participants in Kazakhstan’s famous annual “Running of the Jew” event?

    Would complaining that Craig was acting perverted in a movie be like complaining that Anthony Hopkins ate people in a movie?

    Also, I am not convinced that it even was Craig in Borat. Could it not have been Mount Vernon Supervisor Gerry Hyland? He has one of the most impressive chrome domes that I have ever seen, big and round. It really shines in the light. I think he waxes it.

  23. Blog Insider said on 21 Dec 2007 at 7:31 pm:
    Flag comment

    Jonathan,

    Please stick to what you know: Fasil Gill, down to what brand of underwear he buys. This story is like an onion and will be peeled back accordingly. Supposition and theory won’t do anything.

  24. Batson D. Belfrey said on 21 Dec 2007 at 8:07 pm:
    Flag comment

    Ha Ha Anonymoustoo, I can laugh about my typo too, but you never answered my question, what do Feder and Byrne have to do with anything? In this debate, “effing” nothing.

  25. Michael said on 27 Dec 2007 at 9:41 pm:
    Flag comment

    I understand the Christian issues with people who are gay. I am not gay and for a very long time felt very uncomfortable around gay people. This was a result of my upbringing in a Christian community.

    One thing I have learned about Christians, and religious “individuals” in general, that is an “individual” problem not a “group” problem, is that many religious people of all faiths are very quick to hate and fear all others not of their faith or religion or who do not practice their individual group doctrine.

    Historically they have even killed people for these differences in spite of thou shall not kill doctrines.

    Individuals who follow religious doctrines, and who advocate control over things they don’t like, shield their anger and hatred in a shroud of religious piety.

    Another thing I have learned is that science quite often corrects false beliefs that are held by religious groups and religious “individuals” who prosecute other individuals in historically cruel ways, once sufficient facts and measurable truths are brought to light in the face of doctrinal man-made ignorance. In these cases the religious doctrine is changed to match the reality of the times, but the men of religious doctrine creation find new ways to re-cast the reason for the original false doctrinal belief, so it no longer remains false, but still beyond the reach of current measurable facts, allowing it to exist in the realm between unknowable truth and fantasy.

    The most recent of these issues was the discovery and measurement of singularities (black holes), and the religious doctrinal acceptance of the fact that the Earth is not the center of the universe, and that GOD must exist in reality, but not a real reality as previously advocated, but a spiritual reality as now postulated, to counter perceptions in society that God is not measurable in any reality thus far discovered, so we must not study the other side of singularities, because that is where God must live. My personal belief is that God does exist as an entity composed of real physical components capable of massive intellectual information transfer across long distances and in an “analogy” is probably a lot more like light and photons than a 6 foot high human being.

    My point in this comment is what in the world will “individual” religious people find to hate and abhorr in the name of their doctrine when science proves that sexual orientation is a “mistake” at the very early stages of cellular DNA instructions to brain cell differentiation and sexual organ differentiation made by different stem cells that can’t agree on what to signal the body to do.

    When you finally understand the science of cell differentiation from stem cells to specialized cells, you will finally understand why some people know they are gay at a very early age, and some people (like me) know they are not gay.

    Have some sympathy for those who are dealt the wrong differentiation signals, and politely tell them you are not gay if they seem to take an abnormal interest in you.

    Your sexual life should be a private life, regardless of your religious orientation, don’t you agree?

Comments are closed.


Views: 2609