The people at GCHQ do take Cryptome seriously: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org&#x2F;wp-uploads&#x2F;sites&#x2F;1&#x2F;2015&#x2F;09&#x2F;cryptome.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;prod01-cdn07.cdn.firstlook.org&#x2F;wp-uploads&#x2F;sites&#x2F;1&#x2F;20...</a> (KARMA POLICE)<p>The writing could be one (or many) of many things: Leveling, acting, craziness, fooling, making an obscure point, fnords, trolling, an in-joke, a nod to author identification or woolly self-aggrandizing media reporting, being brash and adversarial for the hell of it, attention whoring, readership selection etc.<p>I don&#x27;t think it is supposed to make sense, except maybe for a select few of insiders. We had Cryptome vs. Wikileaks, Cryptome vs. Appelbaum and now Cryptome vs. Snowden. Something-something about letting the leaks do the talking, not the money and spin doctors.