I have spoken with Dan briefly about this incident. Although I will not reveal specifics due to confidentiality issues, I can say that Dan, having read the article, did not view it as a "hit piece", but merely as a piece critical of your work.
Anyone who's read a Hamblin or Peterson FARMS review knows that what they call 'critical review' is really a lengthy ad hominem attack.
I understand. However, my point still stands. No one has read the article.
You just said Dan has read it.
It seems that, in any case, the article will not be published.
To be more precise, it won't be published in FRB as presently constituted. What is to stop them from publishing it elsewhere? Or stop them from changing a few paragraphs and publishing it anyway?
If it was, indeed, a hit piece, as apparently some of John's friends who did manage to read the article claim, then, MI did ultimately do right by John, and did not publish it.
Only after Salt Lake City put the kibosh on it. Makes me wonder why they couldn't be bothered to do the right thing until then? I mean, seriously... it is that hard to do the right thing?
What more is there really to say about this? John, it seems, has been vindicated, if, he was, indeed a victim of any wrongdoing in the first place.
IF? C,mon, Liz. IF? Are you saying he was lying? That there was no article? That he was not a target? That there was no wrongdoing? If there was no wrongdoing, then there would not need to be a GA administering a slap (and yes, that was definitely a slap. We even heard it out here in the mission field). Hamblin admits there was an article; Dan backs him up. There is no IF.