Skip to main content

Betsy Mason reply to fax!

Image
By scooby
Anonymous said:

I sent the fax to Betsy Mason, and here's her reply.
-----

I would like to write about this, but until I can talk to someone, even if it is off the record, that is behind this letter, I hesitate to take it seriously. If you know anyone involved, please encourage them to contact me and assure them I will respect their privacy if need be.

Betsy

bmason@bayareanewsgroup.com

----

I'd suggest those behind the fax get in touch with her.

She added today 4/23:

Yes, I absolutely can be trusted. I have no interest in getting anybody fired or in any kind of trouble. I've been able to convince editors in the past to let me use anonymous sources when there is a legitimate reason. Nobody will argue with me that pending layoffs aren't a legitimate reason. My story about the declining morale at the lab a few months back had anonymous sources, and that was because they feared for their jobs.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"I hesitate to take it seriously"

Couldn't agree more
4/23/2008 7:50 AM
Anonymous said…
The threat of losing your job deters many from opening up to the press. Can she be trusted?
4/23/2008 11:52 AM
Anonymous said…
Yes, I absolutely can be trusted. I have no interest in getting anybody fired or in any kind of trouble. I've been able to convince editors in the past to let me use anonymous sources when there is a legitimate reason. Nobody will argue with me that pending layoffs aren't a legitimate reason. My story about the declining morale at the lab a few months back had anonymous sources, and that was because they feared for their jobs.
4/23/2008 6:12 PM
Anonymous said…
All that really needs to be done is for people to e-mail you directly. They can get a gmail address where you do not have to give your name or any information to get an account, just NEVER us that user name or e-mail account for anything other than communicating with a person of choice and never ever post any information you don't want traced.
4/23/2008 8:01 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

By scooby
Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...
155 comments
Read more

Trump is to gut the labs.

By scooby
The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.
124 comments
Read more

tcp1 looking good

By scooby
I just received my annual TCP-1 letter from LLNS and a summary of the LLNS Pension Plan. Looked in pretty good shape in 2013. About 35% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 134.92%). This was a decrease from 2012 where it was 51% overfunded (funding target attainment percentage = 151.59%). They did note that the 2012 change in the law on how liabilities are calculated using interest rates improved the plan's position. Without the change the funding target attainment percentages would have been 118% (2012) and 105% (2013). 2013 assets = $2,057,866,902 2013 liabilities = $1,525,162,784 vs 2012 assets = $1,844,924,947 2012 liabilities = $1,217,043,150 It was also noted that a slightly different calculation method ("fair market value") designed to show a clearer picture of the plan' status as December 31, 2013 had; Assets = $2,403,098,433 Liabilities = $2,068,984,256 Funding ratio = 116.15% Its a closed plan with 3,781 participants. Of that number, 3,151 wer...
105 comments
Read more