efraker:

The only thing you seem to be saying is that we shouldn't speculate or practice skepticism.

Who said anything of the sort? I know I certainly didn't. If you truly went back and read over my posts, you would have seen my direct statement that the problem is that (at the time), there was no actual story. OK...Edwards was in a hotel visiting an ex-staffer very late at night and then ducked reporters...

...and? That's it? That's all you got? That's not a story. That's barely beyond the level of a rumor. Like I said in a response directly to you:

Here's a thought: Hold up until you have some actual evidence. You know, do the work of investigative journalism. Hint: It cannot be done via Google. Instead, you have to step away from the computer and talk to people who are directly involved (no, your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate isn't a source) and actually find out what is going on first.

Until then, there is no story.

Does that sound like I'm trying to squelch speculation or skepticism? Or does it sound like I'm trying to encourage you to actually get some heft to support your speculations and skepticism?

Any fool can have an opinion. Trouble is, it's the opinion of a fool.

efraker:

There is no such thing as excessive free inquiry.

Indeed.

There is such a thing as "jumping the gun," though. The story that was put out was, so far as we know, wrong. There is still no evidence that Edwards is the father of the baby. Instead, the mother denies it and another man has come forward to claim paternity.

How much more respect would the Enquirer have had if it had simply held up, done some actual investigative work, and published the real story that Edwards had had an affair?