I'm indisposed.  Julia and several others had been contacted and could provide information.  As far as myself being available, well I'm not.  

I kept the information vague on this board out of respect for those involved.  If I'm going to be posting warnings up here, I am also taking risks at being a target for doing so.  

I'm amazed at how indiscreet some can be.  

-- Modified on 2/21/2003 12:57:52 AM

Try to look at it another way.......like comparing it to the terrorist threats.....  It would be like Jon Ashcroft telling us "hey Americans, stock up on duct tape and plastic to be safe" without telling us WHY we need to do that.  The reason is because terrorists are likely to attack with bio chemicals, but he was trying to be discreet so the terrorist wouldn't know he was preparing the U.S.  Big problem with that is, unless he tells us why we have to stockpile duct tape and plastic, people are going to panic, trying to come up with their own story as to why he said it, they aren't going to be prepared, and the point of keeping people safe will be lost.  I for one, thank the other people who told us more about what was going on because without it, I'd still be in the dark because you told some people but did not tell everyone requesting information.  My opinion is people who posted details still used discretion, and it sounds to me that they were just as concerned for the girl involved. (I don't remember reading any names.)   How would you feel if someone said to you "Hey, there's a warning out there, but I can't tell you what it says."?  It's like, why even bring it up then?  The thing is, you can't cry wolf and then expect people not to ask for details...... By not supplying at least basic information, you might be placed in the same category as the boy crying wolf for attention and not taken seriously.

AW, Since I posted the first followup, I assume this is directed at me?  When I got up Tuesday there was already "mayhem" underway.  As you know I was kind of "close to the fire" and thought that a factual but discreet post from someone who really knew what had happened would be better than the rumors and speculation that were sure to follow.  The name, agency, and location were left out.  I hope there's no feeling on your part that I was being "indiscreet" because that was not my intention.

Just for the record...  While I think the comment about not being discreet may be aimed my way, I should still point out that I think AW did EXACTLY the right thing on Monday night.

I think it's highly appropriate to say "something's up, be careful" and not elaborate further while the situation is still evolving.  You never know who's reading what, and you simply can't say anything that makes life worse for the provider while she's still at the mercy of the system.  I was careful not post my follow up until the "victim" was on the plane.

My point is that there are times when sounding the alarm with no supporting details is appropriate.  In other words, you don't reveal the location of a covert operation while you still have soldiers on the ground.

I can't legally (ongoing investigation) and morally post details publicy for the sake of those involved.

I'm sorry that this caused stress.  I assumed that those I'd already informed of the situation would help get details out discreetly.  

Next time, I think it's best we handle this back-channel.

My Sincere Apologies
AW

Some days I could go for a little handling of someone's discreet back-channel...

doh!