This makes a gentlemanly issue-centered discussion essentially impossible. Exactly! Just look at your argument: the low level employee didn't think he was bre

This makes a gentlemanly issue-centered discussion essentially impossible. Exactly! Just look at your argument: the low level employee didn't think he was breaking the rules with his queries, and his direct manager stopped the activity when she found out You are trying to frame the harassment of hundreds of groups, and this over years, as the acts of some rogue low level employee. And something that was fixed as soon as the supervisor noticed it. If someone is trying to spin a story here it is you my friend - independent of how "meta" and "inspiring" you feel your arguments are. I'll leave the rest as it is. It seems pointless to argue the case when you consider everything This makes a gentlemanly issue-centered discussion essentially impossible. Exactly! Just look at your argument: the low level employee didn't think he was breaking the rules with his queries, and his direct manager stopped the activity when she found out You are trying to frame the harassment of hundreds of groups, and this over years, as the acts of some rogue low level employee. And something that was fixed as soon as the supervisor noticed it. If someone is trying to spin a story here it is you my friend - independent of how "meta" and "inspiring" you feel your arguments are. I'll leave the rest as it is because implying a "bad faith" argument can be claimed for any irresponsible actions of a public official - except for, maybe Nixon. For any other high level action there is always a chain of minions involved whom you can ultimately frame as "gone rogue". Ideally, as you did in the case, trying to make it a failue of the "system" therefore even avoiding any personal responsibility what so ever.