Bomarc -
1. Read the relevant post - my remarks weren't referring to you - that should be clear from the way I made that statement. "at least we can see Bomarc is here" should be seen more along the lines of being complementary, in so far as I don't have an opinion one way or the other about YOUR behaviour that I've seen, except to say that you were honest and completely open about what your purpose was - unlike others (who I refer to) who are far from honest about how they source information.
2.
There seems to be one difference in what I am doing
And I will give you credit there - there is a difference between what you and others (such as I refer to) do/are doing.
3.
It is important to raise the questions in an intelligent and informed manner to set the agenda to make things safer.
I agree completely.
4.
my reporter friend did mention PPRUNE by name
You and the moderator seem to have a disagreement on that point. All I can say is that you may be a victim of the reporter not saying it clearly? I didn't have access to that report, so I'm not in a position to take sides.
5. Personally, my comments are not just about certain elements of the press, but also other creeps using material quoted from here for their own private commercial agendas - as in the, as yet, unfounded, baseless and speculative rubbish posted earlier today.