(Sorry. I crafted a long response, then when I hit submit I was logged out of the system so it didn't post. I will try again.)
I agree, Ted, for the most part. (Not with Chris' statement, but with what you are saying).
As for the "framework" of the article. Let me explain again. Robert contacted me and said he wanted me to publish his response to the situation. He wanted it to go somewhere besides the BBS. I've known Robert for 20 years, I wanted to help, so I wrote it and put it on my site. (I was not paid by ANYONE to do this, so basically I put a lot of extra work and heartache on myself for free.) I came up with the questions, based on feedback that people were posting on the various forums. I posted it on our site (not in the magazine) and promoted it only on the various BBs, so as to only draw attention from those who were likely already aware of the situation. The information I reported was wrong, and as soon as I figured that out, I worked night and day to try to do what I could to "fix" it as best I could.
Chris wants to know why I haven't reported on why Robert is lying. I can't report on WHY if Robert doesn't believe he was lying. He says there was miscommunication. Honestly, even if I read through all the correspondence, I probably can't prove he was lying because I can't prove how he perceived certain information, or how OC perceived certain information. I do know that the OC was aware of the document that was posted. I believe, however, that the OC never intended for it to be more than something for the PWNA membership.
Let me clarify, I'm not saying that the OC is lying. I don't think that Boon made the comments about cancelling the FOIA request because he had something to hide. (I don't know that for sure, but that wasn't the sense I was getting.) I think they are a small department that was overwhelmed by the response they got, some which in his words were "quite heated," he was worried about the safety of his associate, and they just wanted it to go away. I mention the FOIA request cancellation now only to explain why I didn't pursue this further.
Finally, do I REALLY want to find out the truth? I think I already clarified the key elements: OC contacted the PWNA with plans for a workshop only, the BMPs were not to be changed, and the PWNA BOD was not aware of what was happening behind the scenes. Do I want to do an article on who lied to whom? Not when only a little over 100 people read any of this on our site. Most of our readers don't have a clue about any of this, and frankly don't really care. They are busy running their businesses and look to eClean for ways to do that.
As for the journalist comment, that term ("journalist") keeps getting thrown around, and frankly, I don't know that it's the correct term. I'm a writer. I minored in "writing." I realized very quickly that I did not like journalism and I got out of that department in college. I do a lot of research, I do a lot of interviews, and I write a lot of articles based on that information. But they are generally not "journalistic" in nature. I've been asked time and again to cover controversial topics, and I've said time and again I don't want to be an investigative reporter, and that is not the mission of eClean. I made an exception when I published the interview with Robert because he asked me to, and we've known each other for 20 years. And it came back to bite me.