I find it hard to tell if this is a heartfelt attempt to "tell it like it is", or masterful damage control to pull his buddy's ass out of the fire. PG vouches

I find it hard to tell if this is a heartfelt attempt to "tell it like it is", or masterful damage control to pull his buddy's ass out of the fire. PG vouches for him (which counts for a lot) so maybe it's completely legit and heartfelt. If so, it does indicate a certain lapse of judgment on the author's part. Why on Earth would he think something this inflammatory would stay secret? It must be obvious to everyone involved that they have serious operational-security issues. There's no way something like this would be kept private when the members of the group couldn't even keep the existence and location of their meeting a secret from a notoriously trigger-happy (and widely read) blogger. If it isn't heartfelt, then it walks through the checklist of everything you should do for damage control when you or someone in your circle faces an accusation of collusion / conspiracy: - Loudly and vehemently disagree with the "bad group"'s philosophy; - Explain the presence of the buddy in "bad group" in terms of how he didn't want to be involved but was sucked in and unable to escape. (Don't wave this type away as "bad judgment" since it implies guilt); - Completely disavow the "bad" group; - Keep focus on how you only care about "good group"; - Repeatedly assert that you always look out for "good group" and you would never allow anything bad to happen to "good group" (Incidentally, the spelling errors were a particularly nice touch.)