Yes, I did read your post. But I reckon a generator or FMC failure is more critical to ETOPS operation than, in this case, the failure of one of three independent systems, which is what LJ60 was seemingly trying to portray.
Sure, and some of this stuff is, to me anyway, somewhat non-intuitive. In the 'old days' you could always say you made a decision in the interest of safety and the chief pilot would back you up. Now, it is not so simple it seems.
I had a colleague initially hammered by the company for dumping fuel and diverting with a C HYD failure prior to a crossing. 'Why did you do that, you don't need the center system until you configure for landing?' they said. The FAA POI (Principal Operations Inspector) reviewed the incident and said it was the right decision, suddenly the company joined in commending the captain's wise actions.
I get my claim about 120 minute ETOPS dispatch with an IDG inop from the FAA MMEL 24-00-1 here:
FSIMS Document Viewer
Of course, the MEL is for dispatch, not enroute guidance but like I said, you are legal to go in this circumstance.
In my mind, the crew made the right decision; they had time in their hands to work out the failure and heading home they had also the choice of talking to their own staff. As some others had said, much better than having to do the same thing at an outlying station with much less support.
I sure can't fault that reasoning but with the FAA at least, you have to be very careful about mentioning economic or even logistic considerations when justifying a divert/continue decision from my observation.