For some actions, an equal (if not opposite) redaction

Avid readers and RSS subscribers will note some republishing of old posts, with some minor redactions. This will be of interest to only the tiniest percentage of our small group of readers, but in the interest of transparency, an explanation is in the continuation of this post.

This blog was started as "a diary of the evolution of our concepts; a buzz-builder; a beacon for like-minded media folk; and a way ... to communicate with our growing team." It has become a conversation among many, and something of a journal for us as we embark on our launch.

In the course of being conversational, we've sometimes made off-handed remarks about our current employers. These were by no means the point of this blog, but the type of thing you'd naturally say in a bar conversation with your buddies.  Face it: everybody grouses about their job in one way or another, no matter how great it is. In our cases, those of us with jobs have great ones -- it took something as compelling as Pegasus News to pull us away. But, as we talk to our new and growing group of friends, we've become a little bit unguarded.

I, in particular, know that many of my colleagues will be seeing this site soon. A select few already have -- something I regret, in that they may have naturally been drawn to snarky comments that were not intended to be a direct commentary. They aren't and weren't the point of this blog -- As we get closer to being a "real company," I also fear that they distract from what we're about.

We also don't want rock-throwers picking through this blog like some kind of proto-Fucked Company to try to dig up dirt on other companies. This is something we foolishly never considered until the past couple of weeks (again, because the remarks were largely parentheticals).

So, on a dozen or so posts on this site, you'll see something along the lines of:

[section redacted -- irrelevant]

We've also closed the comments on this post only, as this isn't a matter that needs further discussion in relation to our business plan.

That notation will be in all places where we think we referenced our various employers -- positive, negative or neutral. They didn't ask to be discussed here, and they're neither competitors nor potential competitors. So, there's no reason for them to have to deal with questions about things we said or didn't say.

In place of the missing lines, you can assume that we were talking about good companies, run by  smart and honorable people; companies whose strategies we might not always agree with 100% (certainly not an anomaly in the business world), but who are among those that are doing things the Right Way; people whom we respect and consider friends. We hope they'll feel the same.