Who is PJO? Who is Jackson Thomas? Who is Hardleftrudder ?

Please – that argument is petty and hypocritical.

While I would prefer everyone be named - they aren't. Maybe TJ has a good reason? Maybe he works for the CG, has a family and doesn’t want to risk the repercussions? Who knows? But let me tell you who should get the benefit of the doubt here. People who get involved, doing righteous things who do risk something for the greater good. Not cowards who play Monday morning quarterback who sit on the sidelines, in safety and anonymity, risking nothing while they wrongfully condemn and shoot the messengers who jeopardize their careers, twisted morality and misplaced loyalty. PJO – are you on high enough ground to make the point you made? You have risked what to take on what greater good?

Going after TJ for selective and very precise actions etc may be warranted but going after him relative to his overall accomplishments and intent relative to the civil rights issues is petty, hypocritical and unethical.

This site’s not being able to separate the message, the endeavor or the accomplishment from the messenger and posting about the issue and accomplishment itself, not the man who drove it, is petty as well.

You are correct this is not my blog.

I chose to post under Open Discussion - which should be permitted.

CG Blog may very well have a wider focus. But the rule doesn't excuse the exception. The issue and the hearing seemed to be at least significant enough to mention. I think it wasn't on purpose and the reasoning behind that is probably not sound, is possibly suspect and is certainly disappointing.

You are correct I did not follow the civil rights issue closely. My subject was not that issue but how someone who championed the right cause had been treated. Maturity, professionalism and a high ethical standard mandate one acknowledges the good even when those who do good are not on your Christmas card list. Quite often I have acknowledged good points made by people who routinely shoot at me. It's the right thing to do. (Like I am doing here) The message can and should be separate from the messenger. TJ did the right thing overall and that right thing helped the CG and the country. In spite of personal feelings some may have for him and even in spite of some of his tactics some find questionable - his intent, pursuit and the relevant accomplishments should be recognized and applauded. Additionally vilifying him in this area was unfair, inaccurate, in bad taste and disrespectful. A more mature, accurate, proportionate and fair response would have been to acknowledge the good while also calling out what you believe to be the bad. Taking the high road is often difficult - that's why it's the high road.

Is this an Open Forum or not?

Also - I completely understand this site not covering the civil rights hearings as much as the other site. But to not cover it at all is wrong and says something. Something that shines a negative light on this site. (There wasn't even a simple mention with a link). Additionally people used this site to go after TJ and others. So why would it not be fair, given the actual facts of the matter, to suggest that TJ was mostly right, did a good thing overall and is owed some sort of an apology from those who went WAY too far and slighted him, his actions and his motivations? I am not defending everything he did. Having said that there seems to be no sense of honor and fair play here on this issue. It's simple. Stop the Open Discussions and/or any messenger shooting of any kind or let people respond. I think this site is heading towards a slippery slope and taking sides where it should not. in not even mentioning the civil rights news and clamping down on me you are choosing sides - by commission and ommission. (Up to this point I thought this site did a pretty good job of playing it fair. As I stated before I defend, to a point, some of the messenger shooting etc. But choosing who can do it AT ALL and who can't is choosing sides.)

I said overwhelmingly not completely and I am correct. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and pick away at others who risk something to try to improve things. I'm pretty sure there has never been any whistleblower who did things perfectly. While those who snipe, shoot and condemn from the sidelines can master the art to perfection - as it takes no courage and nothing is risked. Thomas Jackson's actions, as a whole, were justified and played a major role in helping to shine a light on a problem not being adequately addressed.

The RAND report and the hearings overwhelmingly supported TJ's cause and actions. They noted 10 years of serious lapses and issues. There would have been no study and no hearing without him. There would have been no new positions to fill, no changes, no admitting there was anyhting wrong, no nothing had he not done what he did.

Jackson Thomas. . . .The litany of people with "anonymous in their name". . .All of those who said there were no civil rights issues, that Thomas Jackson was wrong and his site is a joke etc.. Where are you???????????

Where are the posts and apologies relative to the Civil Rights issue/hearings? The committee referred to the bloggers in a positive light – with not a single comment that they had done something wrong. Thomas Jackson is owed an apology from some on this site. And the fact that none have been forthcoming and there has been no major posts about it demonstrate a significant ethical, moral and intellectual lapse not to mention the acute hypocrisy. It’s a shame that the Kool Aid drinkers and messenger shooters don’t have the courage to apologize and admit when they are wrong. It is also a shame the authors of this site did not make a point of highlighting this and the outcome off the issue itself and the hearing. Those that I am referring to had barely any credible ground to stand on before (and that includes Deepwater) – now they have none.

I don't agree with it but the Art Bell comment is a good one.

Of course they care. They have responded to my posts or press statements on maybe a dozen occasions. What you should wonder about is why they do – why they feel the need to respond so often.

Thanks
I do understand the point about relevancy. The CG posted the information I posted here this month. As such the information is new. As a matter of fact I rarely post something purely as a complete repost without something new. The CG posted that data on their blog and I am responding. Maybe someone should tell them to stop doing that?