Replies

If you think that then that speaks for itself. If you want long rambling and difficult to follow and understand then you should read that Gaynor piece. I never finished it was so long.

Here’s a couple of really good ones,

“fact, Mike Volpe is jealous”

You think it’s a fact when one person says someone else is jealous even though they’ve never met. No, that’s an opinion.

More than that, Anita Moncrief is not a whistle blower in the sense that you should identify her as such. Real whistle blowers blow the whistle while working for the corrupt organization. The example in the piece is Pat McDonough. He blew the whistle on Chicago’s Hired Truck Scandal. He still works for the city. That’s pretty uncomfortable now almost five years later. Moncrief didn’t blow the whistle on anything until she lost her pay check.

That’s important because that totally changes perception of her. Her motivations are vital to determining her credibility. That’s why it’s so important to disclose everything. If you describe someone as a whistleblower, then the assumption is that they blew the whistle while working for the organization. That’s not what happened. Whistle blowers risk their livlihood to blow the whistle. That’s what McDonough did. Moncrief was already fired when she blew the whistle. That doesn’t mean she’s not telling the truth but you have to disclose it. It’s not your job to determine what the audience should know. They should know everything. Malkin decides to disclose somethings everytime, her being a whistle blower, those things that make Moncrief look bad she discloses almost never. Now, what kind of a picture do you think the audience will draw when you emphasize someone is a whistle blower and marginalize their theft and fraud? It’s not your job to paint the picture you want, but as it is.

All right, I’ve had enough of this debate. You all can go ahead with your attacks without me.