If you have any questions about this please let me know.

That’s libelous, Tom. Prove what you’ve said – or retract it.

Doesn’t NASAWatch regularly use anonymous sources? Why is it acceptable for _you_ to attack people on your website and claim that this information is from people too “cowardly” to use their own names, but it is _not_ okay for anyone to attack you without using their own name? In fact, you did not state who, exactly, told you that Ms. Garver was “spreading false rumors” around Washington. So your hypocrisy is evident.

But I can actually answer the question as to why people would be reluctant to use their own name when attacking you–after reading your blog for the past year, by your own admission you have accepted a free trip on the NASA Administrator’s airplane and gone drinking with him in bars. It is also clear that he has used you to attack some of the people he does not like. So if someone from NASA criticizes you, they may fear that you will give their name to NASA leadership and they may face retribution. In fact, on several occasions in the past, when someone using a NASA e-mail account has criticized you, you have publicly aired their name in order to get them in trouble. And yet if someone with a NASA e-mail account tells you something that you like, you will list them as “someone@nasa.gov.”

So by your own actions it is obvious that you will seek to get people fired or reprimanded at NASA if you do not like what they say.

Not one peep – publicly at least.

Posted by Keith Cowing at October 23, 2004 03:34 PM

Not one peep – publicly at least.

Posted by Keith Cowing at October 22, 2004 10:54 PM

Get a name.

So, are you the anonymous “aerospace professional” or the anonymous no name poster? Its so hard to tell you two apart.

You must be the only person who doesn’t realize that who you quote is a direct reflection of what you think is true — and that’s easy to know because you make it very clear what you think is true. But how do you know it’s true if you never think you’re wrong? That’s what editors and fact-checkers are for — to be sure you aren’t just using quotes as records of truth unless the truth they refer to is, in fact, true. And you never know that. And it’s obvious to everyone that you don’t.