http://theeestory.com/topics/8026?page=3 

 

Tue, 08 Mar 2011, 9:42am

Oakthicket wrote:

eestorblog wrote:

Oakthicket wrote:

I certainly found the material interesting, and I'd never seen it before.

I call BS on the reason why it wasn't originally posted here. The 'rant' was decidedly critical of Dick Weir. That's why it wasn't posted. The tale that administrators here wanted to protect the FOIA guy is pure bull. Are you so steeped in your beliefs of DW that you edit out the most damning critique I've seen from an official source?

My opinion of this site dropped a notch today. I knew the huge believer slant of folks running it, but this is the first time I've seen blatant censorship. I recall that a part of the FOIA information was censored out but I naively thought that it included swearing or some other inappropriate material. Not so. It just said things that believers didn't want to hear.

There was absolutely nothing objectionable in the censored section.

 

Well, this sounds like a serious breach of trust for you. I won't try to convince you otherwise. 
However, I would like to help you understand that you do have viable options from here forward. Consider this.

1) An egregious situation like this sometimes calls for a principled response such as refusing to make any further contributions of your time or thoughts to this website. We certainly earned it and no one would fault you if you simply disappeared from the scene.

2) On the other hand, a hidden paragraph like this may certainly indicate other paragraphs are equally hidden from view and who will police the effort here if not you? In this case, you may want to double or triple up your efforts here to keep everything honest. No one will fault you if you maintain your normal percentage of click through rates on the ads on this website which enrich my liquor cabinet fund because this is about justice.

One thing is certain. When you throw down the gauntlet like you have above, you definitely have to do SOMETHING because otherwise you appear weak...and flabby. (right?)

3) Responding in the generic waters down your resolve, therefore, you may wish to focus all your energy around the specific topic and recoil like a rattlesnake!!! Observe. If the imbalance of justice is that the world has not learned the full mind of this particular noble AFRL individual, perhaps a smooth response would be to contact him directly and tease out of him "THE REST OF THE STORY" since surely this guy has a birds eye view of everything going on. Since I caused all of this, I pledge to you 3 days of full editorial control over bariumtitante.blogspot.com to alert readers to all of the interesting material you uncover from the source in question (if you can deliver). (btw, I rarely allow guest posts on that blog--this is really big for you). Obviously, I will give you this source's full name and contact information (following protocol for govt sources). After that, I'm sure the winds of fairness and justice will put you on the front porch of truth in all it's glory and I for one am excited by your prospects for victory.

This is your moment in the sun, Oakthicket. I have no doubt you will seize the day and rise to the heights of your existence, making us all proud (and humble). So, I pledge to you my humble service to help you right this wrong.

As is your choice, contact me via this thread or if you prefer, my grand email address:eestorblog@gmail.com

 

Although you embellish the intensity of my reaction to this censorship, I see at least some serious concern about the slight to your reporting professionalism.

As I'm sure you'll agree, reporters should not be restrained in fairly and accurately delivering a story to the public.

As such, I would like to take you up on your offer to post on the Barium Nitrate site. I will even tell you what it is I will report on.

Giving due credit to Spaceballs for digging up the information, I will fairly and impartially report on this latest information from the AFRL FOIA. I will deal strictly with the content, avoiding completely any reference to the editorial actions of this site or any of the folks that run it. My reporting will be polite and professional.

This is a good chance for you. The credibility of this site will be reinforced if you allow a confirmed skeptic to report on an EEStor matter.

Here are a couple of non-anonymous tips you can follow up on:

1) spaceballs_3000 isn't the source for these documents. 
2) The person spaceballs got the email from said he was getting a copy of all my FOIAs back in Sept 2010 so why did he wait until now to post something he has presumably had for motnhs? My guess is the person is an idiot but you'll need to dig several millimeters through his site to find the truth. 
3) http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AoT_N60...

Now let's see if you can actually do anything but rant opine on this subject.